Those who are monitoring the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) lawsuit alleging sex discrimination against Safelite AutoGlass will have to wait a few more days to receive an update on the proceedings. While Safelite originally had until mid-November to file a response to the complaint, the parties agreed to give the largest auto glass repair and replacement business in the U.S. another month to file its documentation with the court.
The EEOC alleges that Safelite AutoGlass violated federal law by refusing to hire a qualified applicant because she is a woman. According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, a woman applied for an auto glass technician trainee position at a Safelite AutoGlass location in Austin, Texas. During the interview, the applicant informed the store manager she had two years of experience as a repair technician, which required her to lift and move heavy objects. Despite this information, the store manager expressed concern about the female applicant’s ability to lift heavy weight.
The store manager reportedly suggested a lower-paying position would be a better fit because it involved lifting less weight. According to the EEOC, the applicant did not receive a written job offer or hear from Safelite after the interview. Safelite hired two male technician trainees within one week of the female applicant’s job interview who, the complaint says, were no better qualified than the female applicant.
EEOC alleges that the conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on sex. The EEOC filed suit after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. The lawsuit seeks back pay, compensatory and punitive damages, as well as appropriate injunctive relief to prevent similar such discriminatory practices in the future.
Safelite originally had until November 14 to file a response to the complaint. According to court documents filed by both the defendant and plaintiff, the parties have agreed to give Safelite a 30-day extension. One reason for that extension is that the parties are exploring options for “early resolution.”
“In support of this agreed extension, the parties state that they are exploring early resolution of this matter, and this extension is in the interest of judicial efficiency and to avoid unnecessary expenditure or resources,” the document reads.