Shareholders settle lawsuit to increase company’s safety
December 1, 2009 by Fred HosierPosted in: Fatality, In this week's e-newsletter, Latest News & Views, Lawsuits, What do you think?, cost of safety, lockout/tagout, new court decision
Following a worker’s death and millions in OSHA fines, some shareholders filed a lawsuit against Cintas Corp. alleging the board has failed to ensure the company complied with safety regulations. Now the company has settled the lawsuit.
The shareholders don’t get any money from the settlement, but they did get this: Cintas has promised a work environment that promotes safety and compliance with laws.
Specifically, Cintas has agreed to:
- provide regular written safety reports to the board of directors
- have a safety officer attend shareholder meetings, and
- implement a 24-hour hotline so workers can report safety and other suspected violations.
The shareholders stated that among their reasons for filing the lawsuit was the March 6, 2007 death of Cintas employee Eleazar Torres-Gomez at its Oklahoma City plant. Torres-Gomez fell onto an unguarded conveyor and was dragged into a 300° industrial dryer. He was already dead from burns when another employee found him 20 minutes later.
Cintas agreed to pay an almost $3 million OSHA fine in that and five other cases. OSHA had originally cited Cintas with 43 willful violations, many involving failure to guard machines and to lock out hazardous energy while employees were maintaining equipment. OSHA downgraded the severity of the willful violations in the settlement. Two Democrats in Congress called the settlement a last-minute pardon of Cintas under President Bush’s administration.
“From our perspective, the claims had no merit,” said Gerry Utter, a lawyer representing some of the company’s directors in the suit. “When one person dies, it doesn’t mean anybody did anything wrong,” Utter told the Cincinnati Enquirer.
What do you think about the lawsuit and the settlement? Let us know in the Comments Box below.
SafetyNewsAlert.com delivers the latest Safety news once a week to the inboxes of over 270,000 Safety professionals.
Click here to sign up and start your FREE subscription to SafetyNewsAlert!
Tags: Cintas, lock out, shareholder lawsuit, unguarded machines, worker's death
Loading ...
December 1st, 2009 at 5:14 pm
I was researching laundry service/uniform providers, and discovered a Forbes article (Dirty Laundry, Dec 11, 2006 http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2006/1211/120.html) that makes me think that Cintas Corp’s approach to safety is probably par for the course of their business practices in general.
“The most frequent criticism of Cintas-from former customers, salespeople and drivers-is that the company nickel-and-dimes everyone to death. In the 2002 case settled in Alabama, Cintas was accused of overcharging 480,000 customers $5 to $7 a week in environmental fees. Penny-ante stuff on an epic scale, amounting to an alleged $175 million a year. Today the company has 700,000 customers.
Former Cintas salesmen say they were trained to push unnecessary and excessive amounts of products and services and given financial incentives to persuade customers to sign a five-year contract for, typically, $25 to $100 a week. Onetime drivers say they were pressed to tack on extra services when they delivered fresh uniforms and supplies each week, and to raise prices incrementally until the customer caught on. When clients try to end their contracts early, Cintas calls their attention to the binding-arbitration clause dictated in the contract.”
December 3rd, 2009 at 5:10 pm
I can assure you that 99% of anything you read negative about Cintas is embellished to say the least. This company has been under attack for years from labor unions because they will not agree to “card check” neutrality and give up the workers’ rights to a federally supervised, secret ballot election. This “corporate campaign” is a malicious attack that is not about worker safety; it’s a bully tactic with an ultimate goal of generating revenue for a union. Even a normally legitimate publication like Forbes can be led down this path if baited with enough lies.
Nancy, take the time to read the letters to the editor concerning this article for a more well informed decision. The “journalists” who wrote that piece obviously only talked to “ex” employees.
December 4th, 2009 at 1:30 pm
Moot point anyway. The local branch had poor followup-never provided a quote, let alone the information we required about their ability to handle our particular biohazard.
December 7th, 2009 at 9:47 am
Sounds to me like they didn’t want the business. You mention that they would have been exposed to a biohazard. Perhaps Cintas was too concerned with worker safety to handle your biohazard!
December 7th, 2009 at 12:36 pm
They’d have more risk many other places than ours-it’s an EPA cert they needed to supply.
December 8th, 2009 at 7:57 am
The Gov”t needs to quit negotiating down fines. Sock it to them. As to the sales push, its not uncommon. Get an account with Safety Kleen and you will have the same thing happen. They will gladly change out a half full barrel and charge full price for it. Even when you try to say “I will call when I need a pick up” they still show up. Its the common game. Heck the other day our “on call” fuel delivery guy showed up, overfilled our tank, made a mess the charged us a delivery fee when no one called in for a delivery. Large companies have the staff and cash to have excellent safety programs.
December 10th, 2009 at 12:22 pm
Lawrence, I can see your nobel cause to stand up for your company, but it was the Shareholders who filed the lawsuit. OSHA imposed the fines (rightly so) because of Safety violations. Cintas was guilty of improper machine guarding, that took part in causing a DEATH, reguardless to what ever else they a guilty of. Nancy just happens to be pointing those out. If Cintas was not guilty of any wrong doing, why didn’t dispute the finds?