Texas woman claims sexual harassment against CRST

A Texas woman filed an amended federal lawsuit earlier this week, claiming she was sexually harassed and retaliated against while working for CRST Van Expedited, the Cedar Rapids trucking company that just settled a sexual harassment suit last year.

The Texas woman claims the sexual harassment occurred in and around the state of Pennsylvania, Iowa and Oklahoma, according to the suit. The suit claims the woman, a trainee truck driver, was sexually harassed by two supervisors, Peter Garrett and Kenney Cooper between Aug. 16, and September 8, 2011. As part of employee training, new drivers are required to drive with trainers for 28 days.

According to the lawsuit, Garrett told the woman trainee numerous stories about sexual encounters and scenarios he had with other women, called her disparaging names referring to her race and other inappropriate comments. She complained to her fleet managers and supervisors Aug. 29, 2011. She also asked to speak with an operations manager but was denied and she never received a response from human resources.

The woman was reassigned Sept. 1, 2001 to Cooper and he 'repeatedly” sexually harassed her, according to the suit. The woman reported the harassment Sept. 6, to her fleet manager and supervisor and to the human resources director.

According to the suit, the woman then asked to be reassigned to another driver and even after Cooper admitted to the sexual harassment, her supervisor didn't reassign her.

A written complaint was filed Sept. 8 with CRST human resources and the woman was sent home the next day and removed from the training program, according to the suit. The woman on Oct. 27, 2001 then received a letter from CRST stating she owed about $4,000 for expenses because she failed to fulfill her eight month driving contract. CRST claimed the woman resigned from the company.

CRST then filed a counterclaim against the woman Jan. 31, 2014, claiming she breached her driver employment contract, according to a suit. The suit contends CRST's counterclaim was in retaliation for her filing the lawsuit. Other driver trainees who left employment before the end of their probationary period haven't be requested to pay back money to CRST.

Kevin Visser, CRST's attorney, said Thursday the woman's suit was amended this week because she added back in the retailation claim, which CRST initially moved to dismiss and then she dropped it from the original suit. Visser declined to comment on the merits of the suit.

The Texas woman asks the court for damages regarding mental and emotional distress and humiliation, lost wages, and for punitive damages to punish the company and deter others. She also asks for attorney's fees and other costs in this action.

The Texas woman received her administrative release or right-to-sue from the Iowa Civil Rights Commission and her release from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is pending.

A Missouri woman who was a driver trainee in May 2007, also has a pending lawsuit that was filed in March, claiming discrimination - being subjected to 'offensive and threatening conduct,” while at the company from a lead driver. She claimed her work environment was hostile and abusive.

A judge last month denied a motion for a stay and an interlocutory appeal.

According to this suit, a lead driver talked about her appearance and made inappropriate comments about her body, according to the suit. On one occasion in April 2007, the man told her the company wouldn't pay for two hotel rooms when they broke down and they would have to share a room. She ended up sleeping the truck that night. The next day, he quit the company.

She then was assigned to another lead driver on May 13, 2007, who also sexually harassed her, making inappropriate comments about her body and talking about having sex with her. Last year, CRST settled a previous sexual harassment lawsuit for $50,000 with the EEOC for one woman, which started out as a class action suit filed in 2007 involving up to 270 women. The women claimed they were harassed by male instructors or drivers.

A federal judge granted a summary judgment in the suit in 2012 and a federal appeals court also ruled the EEOC erred by filing the lawsuit before it identified every affected worker, investigated their claims and sought informal settlements.