Ford settles race claim for $1.6 million
Ford Motor Co, along with a national union, have agreed to pay $1.6 million and provide other remedial relief to settle a class action discrimination lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), on behalf of 700 African Americans, alleging that a written apprenticeship test discriminated against black workers.
The EEOC had charged that a written test used by Ford to determine the eligibility of hourly employees for a skilled trades apprenticeship program had a disproportionately negative impact on African Americans and it could not be shown to be job-related and consistent with business necessity. The National United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW) was also a defendant in the case because the test was used to select apprentices in the Ford-UAW Joint Apprenticeship Program and the lawsuit settlement affects people covered by the union agreement.
The settlement includes $1.6 million for the 700 African Americans nationwide who have taken the test since January 1, 1997, and who were not placed on the Ford apprentice list at the former Visteon facilities and the development, by a jointly selected expert, of a new selection method for the apprenticeship program together with detailed reporting and monitoring provisions.
This suit is a successor case to the EEOC’s earlier suit against Ford and UAW which was settled for $8.5 million in 2005 and covers additional people disadvantaged by the test in question who were not covered in that settlement.
The settlement, of over $10m in all, should act as a useful reminder to UK employers to check that apparently neutral selection tests do not indirectly place specific groups, e.g. race, nationality, religion, age, etc., at a particular disadvantage. If they do then the tests can only remain lawful if it can be shown that the practice is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
This provides summary information and comment on the subject areas covered. Where employment tribunal and appellate court cases are reported, the information does not set out all of the facts, the legal arguments presented and the judgments made in every aspect of the case. Employment law is subject to constant change either by statute or by interpretation by the courts. While every care has been taken in compiling this information, we cannot be held responsible for any errors or omissions. Specialist legal advice must be taken on any legal issues that may arise before embarking upon any formal course of action.
