Upon execution of this document, however, the parties are obligated to use their best efforts within 30 days thereof 1 to document and execute such a final, definitive, binding settlement agreement, and 2 to submit it to the Court for preliminary approval under Fed. Upon execution of this document, as a condition of this agreement in principle, 1 the plaintiffs agree to withdraw their pending motion for a default judgment against Texaco without prejudice, and 2 the parties agree simultaneously to request that a the hearing on that motion, presently scheduled for November 22,and all discovery related thereto, and b Texaco's additional class certification motion scheduled for December 6,respectively, be adjourned without date pending the parties' submission of a final, definitive, binding settlement agreement to the Court for preliminary approval. In the event such settlement agreement is not submitted within 30 days of execution of this document, or that such settlement agreement is disapproved by the Court, either preliminarily or finally, the parties agree to use their best efforts to reschedule the adjourned hearing, related discovery, and the submission of the additional class certification brief in a manner that the reasonably accommodate the litigation interests of both the plaintiffs and Texaco. Solely for purposes of settlement, the parties agree to stipulate to certification of a class consisting of all African-Americans employed in a salaried position in the United States by Texaco or its subsidiaries at any time from March 23, through and including November 15,
Texaco - Management Research Paper Roberts v. Texaco covers many of the items we have gone over in class. A suit was filed on March 23, by Bari-Ellen Roberts and four other African-American Texaco employees on behalf of more than Texaco employees.
Roberts worked for Texaco as their Senior Financial Analyst from to The basis of their suit was that Texaco had been practicing hiring and promotion practices based off race and not qualifications.
Roberts was called uppity and a smart-mouth little colored girl. For three years the case worked its way throught the judicial system until it finally made a breakthrough.
On November 3,the New York Times reported that they had evidence of several upper level employees at Texaco being recorded on audio tape using repeated racial slurs and using demeaning terms to describe African-Americans. They had also been told that this evidence was ordered to be destroyed by Texaco.
Immediately the EEOC launched a probe to determine what pieces of evidence the company had that would corroborate the claim. While Texaco had settled in for the long haul in this legal battle, it came to a quick conclusion.
After the tapes were uncovered, Texaco started looking to settle the case as quick as possible. The public relations issues that would arise the longer the case drew out could seriously hurt the company more than was already done.
The suit was declared moot on January 27, The settlement included the following: The point of contention was discrimination because of race. Once this came out, the EEOC filed their claim on behalf of the plaintiffs. These audio tapes were very explicit in the terms they used to describe the executives feelings toward minorities.
Texaco hired a retired U. Attorney to investigate the tapes to find out how damaging they were before they agreed to a settlement.
The attorneys investigation is extremely interesting to read as he tries to spin certain parts of the tapes as non damaging. At one point in the tapes, an executives refers to black jellybeans and how they always end up at the bottom of the bag.
The attorney advises that this comment was not racially motivated but none of the conversation prior was about candy.
After seeing his report was when Texaco decided to settle, knowing that the evidence was much too damaging for their company to overcome in a lawsuit.
The employment environment since this case has been drastically changed at Texaco. The task force that was put in place as part of the settlement had authority for five years to determine the policies that needed to be put in place to meet the objectives of the agreement.
This task force met for two days a week and was composed of seven people; three appointed by Texaco, three appointed by the plaintiffs, and one independent who served as a chairperson.
Even though the settlement was agreed to, this task force seemed to use mediation to arrive at policies both sides could live with. I think this made for a much less hostile environment when putting the policies in effect. Within the first six months, Texaco was charged with implementing a diversity and training program for the entire company as well as a mentoring program.CONFIDENTIAL FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES ONLY AGREEMENT IN PRINCIPLE TO SETTLE This document constitutes an agreement in principle, effective November 15, , between defendant Texaco, Inc.
("Texaco") and the named plaintiffs, both individually and in their capacities as class representatives, and their counsel, in Roberts, et al v.
the reader of her book, Roberts vs. Texaco. Her parents, Herman Roberts and Emma McElhaney Her parents, Herman Roberts and Emma McElhaney had begun a slow upward climb into middle-class security in Cincinnati when she was born August.
 A copy of the publishing agreement and of the January 22, agreement between Texaco and Ms. Roberts respecting the terms of her separation from Texaco's employ were furnished to the Special Master, at his request, following the April 30 conference. MEMORANDUM by Texaco Incorporated in support of  motion for an order pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b) of the FRCP, dismissing the Title VII claims alleged on behalf of a putative class, and remanding to the Equil Employment Opportunity Commission the individual Title VII claims of plaintiffs Bari-Ellen Roberts and Sil Chambers on the.
CPR Institute for Dispute Resolution & Fordham University School of Law NEGOTIATING ENDURING CORPORATE CHANGE A Case Study on the Task Force on Equality and Fairness In Roberts v.
Roberts v. Texaco, Inc. United States District Court for the Southern District of New York March 21, , Decided ; March 21, , Filed 94 Civ.