Search Henry's

Perhaps this is the coda to the story of Henry’s Boys — perhaps not.

Readers no doubt recall Henry’s Turkey — the poster bird for the abuse of intellectually disabled employees.  We wrote about the legal case on behalf of these disabled employees many times — as recently as last week (see below).

Dan Barry in today’s New York Times reports that four of Henry’s Boys, including the fellow who he spotlighted in the Times last week (and we reported about), were removed from their spare and primitive bunkhouse by social services, “and their treatment is now being investigated by various local, state and federal agencies.”bunkhouse : Oregon - August 1, 2012: An old, weatherbeaten building that served as the main bunkhouse for an old cinnabar mine that is slowly decaying in the Ochoco Mountains in Central Oregon.

Link:  http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/20/us/4-men-in-bunkhouse-in-south-carolina-are-put-in-care-of-social-services.html

The Legal Case Against Henry’s

To recap (hopefully for the last time), on May 3, 2013 we reported about the $240,000,000 jury verdict against Henry’s Turkey Service (later reduced) where:  ”Intellectually disabled workers at Henry’s Turkey Service in Iowa were paid only $65 dollars per month eviscerating turkeys on an assembly line, we posted last September.

In an ADA case brought by the EEOC, an expert witness said that the company exploited the workers because they had intellectual disabilities, and simply did not know better.  She stated that the employer’s conduct “including acts of deliberate misrepresentation” about wages and expenditures, deprived the workers of “economic independence and self-sufficiency.” The company “took advantage of the workers … knowing that they would not likely be discovered because the workers were disabled.”

The NYT’s Description Of The Conditions At Henry’s

Last week’s piece by Dan Barry highlighted one of “Henry’s boys,” who, when he was 18:

“was selected to live and learn basic skills at a ranch in Texas’ Hill Country. The operation, Henry’s Turkey Service, trained Mr. Jones and dozens of other young men like him — including his brother — in the artificial insemination of turkeys: namely, to catch and milk the toms, and rush the semen to the henhouse.

The men became proficient in this dirty job, and a demand developed for their services. Gradually, the company dispatched crews to work at turkey plants in Iowa, Missouri, Illinois and South Carolina, moving employees around like chess pawns to meet the needs of clients.

Most of the operations eventually closed, leaving only a bunkhouse in Atalissa, Iowa, where Carl Wayne Jones wound up, and one here in Newberry [South Carolina], where Leon Jones landed.

The owners of Henry’s Turkey Service maintained that they had taken in men whom no one else wanted. They paid them a subminimum wage under a federal law — one they abused — that permits lower wages for people with disabilities, based on productivity. They deducted most of the men’s earnings to cover room, board and other expenses. And they allowed their Atalissa bunkhouse to descend into squalor, neglect and abuse.”

Link:  http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/07/us/separated-from-brother-left-to-toil-far-from-home.html?module=Search&mabReward=relbias%3Ar

 

Today’s Wall Street Journal “Review” has an interesting lead article by Joanne Lipman entitled:  “Women at Work: A Guide for Men: Even the most well-intentioned male managers can be clueless when dealing with women in the workplace.” 

She says that men could use a career guide about women — she provides an eight point guide — because men “are often clueless about the myriad ways in which they misread women in the workplace every day. Not intentionally. But wow. They misunderstand us, they unwittingly belittle us, they do something that they think is nice that instead just makes us mad. And those are the good ones.”

Link:  http://www.wsj.com/articles/women-at-work-a-guide-for-men-1418418595

A recent article in the New York Times was entitled “When Women’s Goals Hit A Wall,” by Claire Cain Miller.  She reports on a new study of Harvard Business School alumni which found that “women in business overwhelmingly want high-achieving careers even after they start families. The problem is mismatched expectations between what they hope to achieve in their careers and family lives and what actually happens, both at work and at home.”

career path : Hand and stairs Progress isolated on white background

The study found that “among those working full time, men were significantly more likely than women to have direct profit-and-loss and personnel management responsibility. Fifty-seven percent of men were in senior management positions, compared with 41 percent of women, and fewer women than men said they were satisfied with their careers.”

Link:  http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/30/upshot/even-among-harvard-graduates-women-fall-short-of-their-work-expectations.html?module=Search&mabReward=relbias%3Ar

Finally, you may remember the sad case of Henry’s Turkey – an EEOC disability lawsuit filed against Henry’s Turkey Service for abusing intellectually disabled men for years.  We wrote about it a number of times. 

On May 3, 2013 we reported about the $240,000,000 jury verdict (later reduced):  “Intellectually disabled workers at Henry’s Turkey Service in Iowa were paid only $65 dollars per month eviscerating turkeys on an assembly line, we posted last September.  

In an ADA case brought by the EEOC, an expert witness said that the company exploited the workers because they had intellectual disabilities, and simply did not know better.  She stated that the employer’s conduct “including acts of deliberate misrepresentation” about wages and expenditures, deprived the workers of “economic independence and self-sufficiency.” The company “took advantage of the workers … knowing that they would not likely be discovered because the workers were disabled.”  

The New York Times just did a poignant piece spotlighting one of “Henry’s boys,” who, when he 18:

“was selected to live and learn basic skills at a ranch in Texas’ Hill Country. The operation, Henry’s Turkey Service, trained Mr. Jones and dozens of other young men like him — including his brother — in the artificial insemination of turkeys: namely, to catch and milk the toms, and rush the semen to the henhouse.

The men became proficient in this dirty job, and a demand developed for their services. Gradually, the company dispatched crews to work at turkey plants in Iowa, Missouri, Illinois and South Carolina, moving employees around like chess pawns to meet the needs of clients.

Most of the operations eventually closed, leaving only a bunkhouse in Atalissa, Iowa, where Carl Wayne Jones wound up, and one here in Newberry, where Leon Jones landed.

The owners of Henry’s Turkey Service maintained that they had taken in men whom no one else wanted. They paid them a subminimum wage under a federal law — one they abused — that permits lower wages for people with disabilities, based on productivity. They deducted most of the men’s earnings to cover room, board and other expenses. And they allowed their Atalissa bunkhouse to descend into squalor, neglect and abuse.”

It’s a sad, sad story, made personal.

Link:  http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/07/us/separated-from-brother-left-to-toil-far-from-home.html?module=Search&mabReward=relbias%3Ar

 

 

 

The New York Times just published a lengthy “front page center” piece by Dan Barry on the case of the intellectually disabled workers at Henry’s Turkey Service, the subject of the largest damage award in the history of the EEOC — $240,000,000 in a jury verdict.  It’s titled “the ‘Boys’ In The Bunkhouse,” and is a heartbreaking story of “servitude, abuse and redemption in a tiny Iowa farm town,” as it is subtitled by the NYT.14246779_s

A social worker who became the caretaker of many of these men in 2009 said that “It was like I just gave birth to 21 men.”

The case was also the subject of our post of May 3, 2013 in which we wrote:

“Intellectually disabled workers at Henry’s Turkey Service in Iowa were paid only $65 dollars per month eviscerating turkeys on an assembly line, we posted last September.  In an ADA case brought by the EEOC, an expert witness said that the company exploited the workers because they had intellectual disabilities, and simply did not know better.  She stated that the employer’s conduct “including acts of deliberate misrepresentation” about wages and expenditures, deprived the workers of “economic independence and self-sufficiency.” The company ‘took advantage of the workers … knowing that they would not likely be discovered because the workers were disabled.’

In addition to the discriminatory pay practices, the EEOC claimed that the disabled workers were abused verbally and physically, had their freedom unnecessarily restricted, were subject to harsh punishments, required to live collectively in substandard living conditions, and received inadequate health care.”

In a later post we noted that the award was reduced by the Court:

“it’s an early Thanksgiving for Henry – the EEOC just filed court papers in which it conceded that under the ADA the verdict must be reduced to $1.6 million. The ADA has a cap on damages: it limits compensatory and punitive damages to $50,000 if the company employs between 14 and 101 for 20 or more weeks during a calendar year.”

A jury recently slammed Henry’s Turkey Service for $240,000,000 — the largest verdict in EEOC history, for exploiting intellectually disabled workers by, among other things, paying them only $65 dollars per month eviscerating turkeys on an assembly line. In an ADA case brought by the EEOC, an expert witness had testified that the company "took advantage of the workers … knowing that they would not likely be discovered because the workers were disabled."

However, it’s an early Thanksgiving for Henry – the EEOC just filed court papers in which it conceded that under the ADA the verdict must be reduced to $1.6 million. The ADA has a cap on damages: it limits compensatory and punitive damages to $50,000 if the company employs between 14 and 101 for 20 or more weeks during a calendar year.  

 

We have written before about the US EEOC targeting employers who are alleged to have harassed and/or discriminated against “the most vulnerable” workers, such as farm and non-English speaking workers, intellectually disabled workers (remember Henry’s Turkey?), teens, and female workers located in remote areas.  In short, places where there are low status jobs and a signifuicant powere differential.

We also spotlighted a judgment in favor of Thai farmworkers in Hawaii.

EEOC Chair Jacqueline Berrien said last October that “In its Strategic Enforcement Plan, the EEOC made it a priority to protect workers who are the most vulnerable.”   On October 8, 2013 we wrote:

“Last year we noted a number of cases brought by the EEOC against employers relating to harassment of farmworkers — the most vulnerable workers, according to the EEOC’s strategic enforcement plan. We quoted the EEOC general counsel in relation to the settlement of an ‘appalling’ sexual harassment suit: ‘It is one of the EEOC’s national priorities to combat discrimination against vulnerable workers, and we hope that this settlement sends a message to other employers that they need to be vigilant to prevent sexual harassment and other abuse.  See also our post of November 20, 2013. 

20350757_sAn interesting case from Canada just came to our attention involving just such a scenario.

A group of 55 African tree planters in a camp in British Columbia were awarded $600,000 for “injury to their dignity and self-respect” after they told the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal that “they were subjected to extreme racial harassment and other discrimination, were forced to live in deplorable conditions and eat rancid food.”

The camp itself was closed two years ago by the government when the employees complained that they had not eaten in two days.

Counsel for the workers stated:  “I think this is the first case that we’re aware of in B.C. history where the human rights tribunal has done such a thorough analysis of anti-black racism.  And the prevalence of that racism in the everydayness of it for people who have to endure it all the time.”

 

Last year we discussed a number of cases brought by the EEOC against employers relating to harassment of farmworkers — the most vulnerable workers, according to the EEOC’s strategic enforcement plan.   We quoted the EEOC general counsel in relation to the settlement of an “appalling” sexual harassment suit: “It is one of the EEOC’s national priorities to combat discrimination against vulnerable workers, and we hope that this settlement sends a message to other employers that they need to be vigilant to prevent sexual harassment and other abuse.

We noted especially the case of Henry’s Turkey Service —  where intellectually disabled workers were paid only $65 dollars per month eviscerating turkeys on an assembly line, and were exploited by being “abused verbally and physically, had their freedom unnecessarily restricted, were subject to harsh punishments, required to live collectively in substandard living conditions, and received inadequate health care.”  A jury awarded the workers $240,000,000!

The EEOC has repeatedly said that “Protecting vulnerable workers from disparate pay, harassment, and other discriminatory policies is one of the priorities identified in the EEOC’s Strategic Enforcement Plan (SEP).”

6745093_sThe EEOC just announced that a Colorado moving and storage company which it sued on behalf of Hispanic warehouse workers has agreed to pay what is the largest national origin employment discrimination settlement ever by the EEOC in Utah — $450,000.

The EEOC had alleged a hostile work environment – that warehouse managers called the Hispanic workers racist names and slurs “such as ‘(expletive deleted) Mexicans, ‘(expletive deleted) you, mojado’ [wetback].”   After some employees complained, the company retaliated with firings and reducing work hours.  Additionally, the company imposed a “restrictive language policy” upon all employees which “had a disparate impact against Hispanics and Asians/Pacific Islanders.”

In settling this case, EEOC Chair Jacqueline Berrien reiterated — again — that “In its Strategic Enforcement Plan, the EEOC made it a priority to protect workers who are the most vulnerable.”

 

Intellectually disabled workers at Henry’s Turkey Service in Iowa were paid only $65 dollars per month eviscerating turkeys on an assembly line, we posted last September.  In an ADA case brought by the EEOC, an expert witness said that the company exploited the workers because they had intellectual disabilities, and simply did not know better.  She stated that the employer’s conduct "including acts of deliberate misrepresentation" about wages and expenditures, deprived the workers of "economic independence and self-sufficiency." The company "took advantage of the workers … knowing that they would not likely be discovered because the workers were disabled."

In addition to the discriminatory pay practices, the EEOC claimed that the disabled workers were abused verbally and physically, had their freedom unnecessarily restricted, were subject to harsh punishments, required to live collectively in substandard living conditions, and received inadequate health care.

The EEOC has frequently said, “Protecting vulnerable workers from disparate pay, harassment, and other discriminatory policies is one of the priorities identified in the EEOC’s Strategic Enforcement Plan (SEP).

Last year the court found that the workers, some of whom had performed the work for over 25 years, were the victims of wage discrimination, and ordered the company to pay them lawful wages totaling $1.3 million.

The court left for trial issues of hostile workplace, and the jury has now slammed Henry’s for $240,000,000 based upon disability-based harassment and discrimination — the largest verdict in EEOC history. 

The EEOC was exultant. "These men suffered isolation and exploitation for many years, while their employer cruelly consumed the fruits of their labor," said one EEOC lawyer. Another said that "This historic verdict marks one of the EEOC’s finest moments in its ongoing efforts to combat employment discrimination, especially discrimination against vulnerable and historically underserved populations.”

 

Workers for Henry’s Turkey Service were paid only $65 dollars per month to work eviscerating turkeys on an assembly line. According to the EEOC, they were lawfully entitled to be paid the average Iowa minimum wage of $11-12 per hour. Seems like a clear-cut wage claim – so why is the EEOC involved?

In a case brought by the EEOC under the ADA, an expert witness told the court that the company exploited the workers because they had intellectual disabilities, and simply did not know better. She stated that the employer’s conduct "including acts of deliberate misrepresentation" about wages and expenditures, deprived the workers of "economic independence and self-sufficiency." The company "took advantage of the workers … knowing that they would not likely be discovered because the workers were disabled."
 

In addition to the discriminatory pay practices, the EEOC claimed that the disabled workers were abused verbally and physically, had their freedom unnecessarily restricted, were subject to harsh punishments, required to live collectively in substandard living conditions, and received inadequate health care.
 

In its defense, the company contended that it should be credited with wages for providing a 100-year-old former schoolhouse known as "the bunkhouse" as living quarters, but the evidence showed that the the "bunkhouse" was closed down by fire marshals as unsafe, its heating was inadequate, it was bug and rodent-infested, and the broken roof poured water inside.
 

The court found that the workers, some of whom had performed the work for over 25 years, were the victims of wage discrimination, and ordered the company to pay them lawful wages totaling $1.3 million. The court left for trial the issues concerning the hostile workplace.
 

An EEOC attorney stated that the case “reflects the sad reality that we still have a ways to go to ensure that employment of persons with disabilities does not require them to sacrifice their true earning capacity or their human dignity."