Brody, Judge Anita B.

English

DigitalCommons@ILR

Cornell University ILR School 
DigitalCommons@ILR 
Consent Decrees Labor and Employment Law Program 
11-7-2011 
EEOC v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation, a/k/a Amtrak 
Judge Anita B. Brody 
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/condec 
Thank you for downloading this resource, provided by the ILR School's Labor and Employment 
Law Program. Please help support our student research fellowship program with a gift to the 
Legal Repositories! 
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Labor and Employment Law Program at 
DigitalCommons@ILR. It has been accepted for inclusion in Consent Decrees by an authorized administrator of 
DigitalCommons@ILR. For more information, please contact catherwood-dig@cornell.edu. 
If you have a disability and are having trouble accessing information on this website or need materials in an 
alternate format, contact web-accessibility@cornell.edu for assistance. 
EEOC v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation, a/k/a Amtrak 
Keywords 
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, National Railroad Passenger Corporation, a/k/a Amtrak, 
2:11-cv-00692-AB, Consent Decree, Disparate Treatment, Retaliation, Assignment, Compensation, 
Subjective Decision Making, Sex, Female, Transportation, Employment Law, Title VII 
This article is available at DigitalCommons@ILR: https://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/condec/389 
Case 2:11-cv-00692-AB Document 11 Filed 11/09/11 Page 1 of 7
Case 2:11-cv-00692-AB Document 10 Filed 10/28/11 Page 1 of 7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY 
COMMISSION, )
)
)
)
Civil Action No. 11-00692
Plaintiff,
Judge Anita B. Brody
v.
NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER 
CORPORATION, a/k/a Amtrak,
)
)
)
)
Defendant.
CONSENT DECREE
This action was instituted by Plaintiff, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity 
Commission (the "EEOC" or the "Commission"), against Defendant, National Railroad 
Passenger Corporation, a/k/a Amtrak (“Defendant” or “Amtrak”). The Commission alleges 
violations o f Sections 703(a)(1) and 704(a) of Title VII o f the Civil Rights Act o f 1964 
(“Title VII”), as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2(a)(l) and 2000e-3(a), and Section 15(a)(3) 
of the Equal Pay Act (the “EPA”), as incorporated into the Fair Labor Standards Act,
29 U.S.C. § 215(a)(3). The complaint alleges that while Sheila Davidson was a Human 
Resources Regional Director, Defendant engaged in a longstanding pattern of discrimination 
against her in violation of Title VII by suppressing her pay while giving her a greater 
workload than it gave to her two male counterparts, also Human Resources Regional 
Directors. The complaint further alleges that Amtrak subjected Sheila Davidson to adverse 
employment actions because she filed a charge of discrimination with the Commission. 
Amtrak denies all allegations against it.
1
Case 2:11-cv-00692-AB Document 11 Filed 11/09/11 Page 2 of 7
Case 2:11-cv-00692-AB Document 10 Filed 10/28/11 Page 2 of 7
The Commission and Defendant desire to resolve this action without the time and 
expense of continued litigation, and they desire to formulate a plan to be embodied in a 
Decree which will promote and effectuate the purposes of Title VII and the EPA.
The Court has examined this Decree and finds that it is reasonable and just and in 
accordance with the Federal Rules o f Civil Procedure, Title VII and the EPA. Therefore, 
upon due consideration o f the record herein and being fully advised in the premises, it is 
hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED:
1. This Decree resolves all issues and claims alleged in the Complaint filed by 
the Commission in this action, which emanated from the Charge o f Discrimination filed by 
Sheila Davidson.
2. This Decree shall be in effect for a period of two years from the date it is 
entered by the Court.
3. Defendant, its officers, agents, servants, employees, successors, assigns, and
all persons acting or claiming to act on its behalf, shall not violate Title VII with regard to the
terms and conditions o f employment o f its female employees, including with regard to
workload and pay. Discrimination with regard to pay and other terms and conditions of
employment violates Title VII, which sets forth that:
It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer —
(1) . . .  to discriminate against any individual with respect to 
his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of 
employment, because of such individual’s ... sex . . . .
42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(l). Retaliation violates both Title VII and the EPA, which set forth,
respectively that:
2
Case 2:11-cv-00692-AB Document 11 Filed 11/09/11 Page 3 of 7
Case 2:11 -cv-00692-AB Document 10 Filed 10/28/11 Page 3 of 7
It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate 
against any o f his employees . . . because [the employee] has opposed any 
practice made an unlawful employment practice by [Title VI I ] . . . .
42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a).
[I]t shall be unlawful for any person . . .  to discharge or in any other manner 
discriminate against any employee because such employee has filed any 
complaint or instituted or caused to be instituted any proceeding . .  . related to 
[the EPA] . . . .
29 U.S.C. § 2 15(a)(3).
4. Effective September 1, 2011, Sheila Davidson’s annual salary will be 
increased prospectively from $99,934.00 to $116,439.00.
5. Within thirty (30) days after the entry of this Decree, Defendant will:
(a) pay to Sheila Davidson $114,096.57, minus appropriate withholdings and 
deductions, which represents back pay and interest. Defendant will issue an IRS Form W-2 
for this amount for the 2011 tax year.
(b) pay to Sheila Davidson retroactive contributions to her 401(k) in the amount 
of $7,386.62;
(c) pay to Sheila Davidson $50,000 in compensatory damages. Defendant will 
issue an IRS Form 1099 for this amount for the 2011 tax year;
(d) pay to Sheila Davidson $1,000 for private counsel fees. Defendant will issue 
an IRS Form 1099 for this amount for the 2011 tax year; and
(e) Defendant agrees to notify both the Amtrak Retirement Income Plan and the 
Railroad Retirement Board of the back pay award. Because neither the Amtrak Retirement 
Income Plan nor the Railroad Retirement Board are parties to this Consent Decree, 
Defendant makes no representations or promises as to how either the Amtrak Retirement
3
Case 2:110 2-AB Document 11 Filed 11/09/11 Page 4 of 7
-cv-00692-AR n
B Document io  c-,
0 F,led 10/28/11 Pa
/ n  p a g e 4 o f 7
Deftnda“  rep—  * a , ,t " "  C0"SWff ,WS inftn"• * *  “ tber6. '"ProvKle the info “ er'
'east (4) 4oura ‘y  (60) after «“  <™y o f  th,;
ri°n (o those entities. 
SDeC«u. D e f e n d a n t ,
“  ComPw atio„ & R for Senior
Manager ( *  Bene®», Senior n ­
g r» Compensati0n • ector° f  Human
training will feaB ^  Vice President o
*“ .ted -  Title V„  d * ^  ftdWa' anP'^iscrimination , m“
a n d t t e ^ ^ ^ i  ” '“E n d i n g  bu t„ ot
W  “ d " *  « * * « .  o f  emp]o ”S " * » * * «  ^ n a t i o n  0„
Commission
s “ ^ l  o f  record ,t e
oofflpletion, Defendant
ion. Within
will
Provide c e r t i f i e s
seven (7)
to
» 1  locations o f  S“Ch ,ra™% has been „ro„ d a
"  ^  -  *  identities o f  ,„e « . ^  ^  < * ^
w ittin  ten ,eS° thGtramees S tra in ers .
7.
Im®edia tely,inanphce
Defendant’s six 
Angeles, Cal; ft 
headi
( i ° } days after the entry o f tins
employees
S ""■ere notices ,0 “ ^ “ t » «  post
Human Resources BdJ  CUS'°man,y 1“re< « «  -ttbfa
°mia, Philadel m s on Massachusetts Chi
'" ,a* J Pina, Pennsylvania Was, „  , ^  “ »< *  ^
sfongto„D C ja„d
- — o . n e d f o c  — — ^
quarters) die Notice attached her
shall be
signed by a responsible
for the l i fe o f  the Cn
-nagem en , offic,a| Wlth ^  ^  and sba„ be
* fa c e d ,mamed Sh• “ aired, or otherwise mad SIl™M the Node,
^  oop.es o f me “ ^ d ab le , Defendant wi
30 hays ofapp;
es
“ S are posted in ,he sam “ “ “  »■* „ew,
s attorney o f reC0rd
4
a copy of the signed Notice attached hereto and written certification that the Notice 
referenced herein has been posted and a statement of the locations and dates o f posting.
This Decree shall fully and finally resolve all claims and allegations which are raised 
by the EEOC in its Complaint in Civil Action No. 11-0692 (E.D. Pa.).
Subject to these provisions and this Court’s jurisdiction to enforce the provisions of 
this Consent Decree, it is further
ORDERED that this case shall be and hereby is dismissed with prejudice, with the 
Commission and Defendant each bearing their own costs, expenses, and fees.
SO ORDERED
Case 2:11-cv-00692-AB Document 11 Filed 11/09/11 Page 5 of 7
Case 2:11 -cv-00692-AB Document 10 Filed 10/28/11 Page 5 of 7
The undersigned counsel o f record in the above-captioned action hereby consent, on 
behalf of their respective clients, to the entry of the foregoing Consent Decree.
ANITA B. BRODY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
FOR DEFENDANT: FOR PLAINTIFF:
Catherine S. Ryan 
Reed Smith, LLP 
Reed Smith Centre 
225 Fifth Avenue
Debra M. Lawrence 
Regional Attorney
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
5
Case 2:11-cv-00692-AB Document 11
Case 2:11-cv-00692-AB Document 10
Filed 11/09/11 
Filed 10/28/11
Page 6 of 7 
Page 6 of 7
___________ /s/_________
Maria Luisa Morocco 
Supervisory Trial Attorney
_________ /s/ ____________
Philip M. Kovnat
Trial Attorney
Philadelphia District Office
801 Market Street, Penthouse Suite 1300
Philadelphia, PA 19107
(215) 440-2814 (Phone)
(215) 440-2606 (Fax)
6
Case 2:11-cv-00692-AB Document 11 Filed 11/09/11 Page 7 of 7
Case 2:11 -cv-00692-AB Document 10 Filed 10/28/11 Page 7 of 7
U .S . E Q U A L
E M PLO Y M EN T
O PPO R TU N ITY
C O M M ISSIO N
POSTED PURSUANT TO FEDERAL COURT ORDER
This Notice is posted pursuant to a federal court 
order voluntarily resolving a sex discrimination 
lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment 
Opportunity Commission (EEOC), an agency of 
the federal government, against National 
Railroad Passenger Corporation, a/k/a Amtrak.
In that lawsuit, called EEOC v. Nat’l Railroad 
Passenger Corp.. Case No. 1 l-CV-0692 (U.S. 
District Court for the Eastern District of 
Pennsylvania), EEOC alleged that Amtrak 
violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 
(Title VII) and the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA). 
The lawsuit charged that Amtrak violated Title 
VII by suppressing the wages of a female 
employee, despite her greater workload, and that 
when a male counterpart assumed her duties, he 
received a salary increase. Under Section 703(a) 
of Title VII, it is unlawful for an employer "to 
discriminate against any individual with respect 
to his compensation, terms, conditions, or 
privileges of employment, because of such 
individual’s ... sex.”
Date Posted:
By:______________________________
National Railroad Passenger Corp.
The lawsuit also charged that Amtrak violated 
Title VII by taking adverse employment actions 
against the aforementioned female employee 
after she filed a charge of discrimination. Under 
Section 704(a) of Title VII, it is unlawful 
employment practice for an employer “to 
discriminate against any of his employees ... 
because he has opposed any practice made an 
unlawful employment practice by [Title VII], or 
because he has made a charge, testified, assisted, 
or participated in any manner in an investigation, 
proceeding, or hearing under this [Title VII]."
For the same reason, the lawsuit charged that 
Amtrak violated the EPA, which makes it 
“unlawful for any person . . .  to discharge or in 
any other manner discriminate against any 
employee because such employee has filed any 
complaint or instituted or caused to be instituted 
any proceeding . . . related to [the EPA],
Amtrak denied the allegations in the Complaint.
Amtrak WILL NOT engage in any acts or 
practices made unlawful by the above sections.
A copy of this Notice will be posted in a 
conspicuous place within Amtrak’s regional 
human resources office where employee notices 
are ordinarily placed for a period of two years 
from the date below and will be replaced if it 
becomes defaced, marred, or otherwise made 
unreadable.
7


EEOC v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation, a/k/a Amtrak

https://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1418&amp;context=condec

EEOC v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation, a/k/a Amtrak

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

DigitalCommons@ILR