newsworthy
FOR THE SECOND TIME IN LESS THAN A DECADE,
long-haul truckload carrier CRST International Inc. is
battling allegations that it has ignored systemic problems
of sexual harassment and assault against female drivers at
its CRST Expedited unit. And as it did the last time, the
$1.5 billion parent firm said it would mount a vigorous
defense against what it calls scurrilous attempts to damage
its reputation.
The latest salvo was fired on May 18, when three female
drivers—one of whom still drives for CRST Expedited—
The 74-page complaint seeks
class-action status on behalf of
more than 100 female drivers at the unit. It also seeks an
injunction against the company, as well as front and back
pay and unspecified punitive damages. Women account
for about 15 percent of the unit’s approximately 4,000
drivers, according to the parent company. All of the unit’s
drivers operate in two-person teams, a system designed to
minimize vehicle downtime in order to meet time-sensitive
delivery requirements.
The complaint contains extraordinarily graphic and
disturbing content. The women claim they were routinely ogled and propositioned for sex by male trainers, who
would threaten the women with physical harm if they
refused. There were incidents in the complaint of women
drivers being kicked out of their trucks and abandoned in
remote locations after refusing to have sex. The women
would have to get home or find lodging at their own
expense, according to the complaint.
Trainers at Cedar Rapids, Iowa-based CRST are autho-
rized to pass or fail trainees after 28 days of on-road driving
instruction; male trainers have threatened to fail women
if their advances were rebuffed, thus potentially denying
them jobs at the company, according to the complaint.
Under CRST policy, a new driver must stay with the
company for at least eight months upon completion of
training or reimburse the company for the training costs,
which can run into the thousands of dollars. If a woman is
sexually assaulted during that period, she can endure it for
the sake of keeping her job, report it, or quit and risk being
sued for the training costs, the complaint alleged. “When
women sue CRST due to sexual harassment, CRST is
known to counterclaim to recover
the cost of training,” according to
the complaint.
Male drivers accused of harassment or assault are not subject
to disciplinary action beyond
being banned from driving with a
woman for six months, according
to the complaint.
Cathy Sellars, one of the plaintiffs, reported being harassed by
Lydell Wilkerson, a male trainer who may have been assigned
to train Sellars, according to the
complaint. Sellars called Karen Carlson, CRST’s human
resources manager, to inform her of Wilkerson’s conduct,
the complaint alleges. Carlson told Sellars she would investigate the situation but never replied to her, according to
the complaint. When Sellars followed up, Carlson told
her “not to worry about it” and that the matter “was none
of her business,” according to the complaint. Sellars still
drives for the unit.
VIGOROUS DEFENSE PLANNED
In a statement issued May 21, CRST said it would “fully and
vigorously” defend itself against the allegations and that it
would prevail as it did in 2007, when it defeated a lawsuit
filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(EEOC) alleging that the company had tolerated actions of
sexual discrimination against female drivers at the unit for
the prior eight years.
At the time, Federal District Court Judge Linda R. Reade
found that there was no merit to 85 of the 154 claims
brought by the EEOC on behalf of female driv- p. 16
CRST unit sued over charges of
condoning harassment of women drivers
