When government doesn't follow the rules

Is a Cedar Rapids-based trucking company wrongly accused of violating federal laws prohibiting sexual harassment in the workplace? Or, as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission claims, did CRST Van Expedited's response to complaints from dozens of female driver trainees fall woefully short of legal requirements?

We may never know for sure. Government attorneys botched legal procedures, U.S. District Judge Linda Reade ruled last week in dismissing the EEOC's lawsuit. That's troubling because this case is potentially far reaching and deserves a clear resolution.

The matter is rooted in the practice of male and female drivers sharing the same truck cab on long hauls, as federal law allows. Monica Starke of Texas told the EEOC in September 2005 that two of her male trainers sexually harassed her while she was being trained as a new truck driver for CRST. Two years later, the EEOC filed a class-action lawsuit that originally represented more than 250 former CRST employees. More than 100 complaints were rejected because depositions weren't taken on time.

As of May, that left about 140 female drivers for whom Reade acknowledged evidence they had encountered “physical, mental and/or emotional abuse at the hands of their male co-drivers and lead drivers.” But in the same ruling that month, the judge also rejected EEOC's claim that CRST had a “pattern or practice” of tolerating sexual harassment.

By last week's dismissal, the plaintiff list had shrunk to 67. The judge wrote that their claims of sexual harassment were “potentially meritorious” but now may never be resolved.

Why?

Because, Reade wrote, EEOC attorneys didn't properly investigate complaints, determine reasonable cause regarding the allegations or make attempts to reconcile with the company before filing the suit - as required by Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

CRST has insisted it does not tolerate sexual harassment of employees, conducts investigations of complaints promptly and disciplines employees as justified. Is the dismissal a victory for the company, which employs 2,700 female drivers, an industry-leading 15 percent of all its drivers?

Not really. Accusations that cloud the company's reputation haven't been cleared. The primary issue - whether CRST responded appropriately to complaints and worked to prevent harassment - remains unsettled in court. Meanwhile, drivers from other companies claim harassment is an industrywide issue that warrants more attention.

Four cases related to the lawsuit are still alive because a local attorney, Jeff Tronvold, followed legal procedures. Only when those are resolved can the EEOC appeal.

Who knows how long that might be. If only the EEOC had followed the rules.