Cintas manufactures and supplies worker uniforms and supplies, restroom supplies and promotional products. It operates 351 facilities in the U.S. and Canada.
EEOC Determination: Reasonable Cause Exists that Cintas Has Discriminated Against Women
On April 7, 2000, plaintiff Mirna Serrano filed a charge with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or "EEOC" alleging that Cintas discriminated against her on the basis of her sex in refusing to hire her as an SSR. Ms. Serrano charged that "[t]here are no female Drivers" at the locations where she applied, and that she was turned down despite numerous applications.
On July 3, 2002, the EEOC issued its Determination, finding that "there is reasonable cause to believe that the Charging Party's allegations are true... there is reasonable cause to believe that the Respondent has discriminated against females as a class by failing to hire them as Route Sales Drivers/Service Sales Representatives in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended."
Plaintiffs’ Class Action Allegations: Cintas Discriminates Against Women in the Hiring of SSR Positions
Plaintiffs are female applicants for SSR positions who sought such employment on or after June 12, 1999. The lawsuit is pending in federal court in the Eastern District of Michigan. The proposed class currently consists of women who applied for SSR jobs in the State of Michigan. Plaintiffs have sought to amend the class to include applicants nationwide. The Court has heard argument on the proposed broadening of the class, and and the decision is pending.
The complaint alleges that Cintas discriminates against female applicants in the following ways:
Cintas follows a nationwide
practice of delegating broad subjective discretion to its managers at its
locations nationwide, allowing them to determine the standards they will or
will not follow in hiring applicants for SSR positions.
Cintas' location managers
and officials who are involved in hiring and exercising broad, subjective
discretion are predominantly male, and the SSR position is a non-traditional
job for women. Under the design of this system, gender stereotyping was foreseeable
and did in fact occur.
Cintas' managers at locations failed to hire, and continue to fail to hire, female applicants with qualifications for SSR positions equal to, or better than, the qualifications of male applicants whom they hired for such positions.
Class Expanded
On September 6, 2005, United States Magistrate Judge Donald Scheer granted Plaintiffs' motion to amend and ruled that the class of plaintiffs for whom relief is sought may be expanded to include female applicants nationwide. Pursuant to this ruling the proposed class now consists of affected women nationwide who applied for SSR jobs on or after June 12, 1999. Read the order.
Relief Sought
The lawsuit seeks to halt the alleged discriminatory policies and practices, and award monetary relief to class members.
Contact Us
Our legal team is interested in learning of experiences of females who might be a part of the class or who witnessed acts of discrimination. This includes anyone who applied for positions at Cintas and believe they were discriminated against because of gender. Please click here to contact Lieff Cabraser. All information will be held confidential.
About Lieff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
Founded
in 1972, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP is a fifty-plus attorney
law firm with offices in San Francisco, California, New York, New York and Nashville, Tennessee. We represent plaintiffs in federal and state courts
across America in employment discrimination cases. Our lawyers have been at
the forefront of innovative and significant lawsuits advancing the rights of
employees nationwide.
