EEOC v. DCP Midstream L.P.

Daniel Mayo (plaintiff) and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the commission) (plaintiff) sued DCP Midstream L.P. (Midstream) (defendant) in federal district court for violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. A jury found that Midstream had engaged in illegal retaliation by terminating Mayo for making a racial-discrimination complaint. Mayo and the commission moved for injunctive relief and submitted a proposal with 10 specific requests: (1) an injunction prohibiting Midstream from engaging in unlawful retaliation; (2) a reporting requirement that Midstream communicate the names and identifying information of employees engaging in activity protected under Title VII; (3) an order requiring Midstream issue a letter to inform employees of the retaliation verdict within seven days; (4) an order that Midstream post a notice of the verdict at its worksites within seven days; (5) an order requiring that Midstream place a copy of the judgment in the supervisors’ employment files; (6) an order requiring supervisors participate in a four-hour Title VII training; (7) an order that Midstream provide prospective employers limited information on Mayo’s employment and state that providing limited information is company policy; (8) an order authorizing the commission to monitor Midstream’s compliance with the injunction; (9) an order binding Midstream’s successors to the injunction; and (10) that the injunction last for five years. The court considered the request. The court also considered that only one supervisor had left Midstream and Midstream had not received any retaliation complaints in the three years since Mayo’s termination.