The federal government demanded a California moving company pay $15 million for not employing enough workers over the age of 40 following an investigation that began during the Obama administration and now threatens to destroy the family-owned business.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission tried to silence Meathead Movers owner Aaron Steed with a gag order, prohibiting media interviews and social media posts, after Mr. Steed publicized the government’s unusual probe of his business.
The origins of the EEOC’s investigation are a mystery.
Mr. Steed has no idea whether a former employee or applicant complained about his recruiting and hiring practices. He’s not complying with what he said was a cease-and-desist order from the commission to stop speaking about the case.
“I still don’t specifically know what we’ve done wrong or what exactly it is that’s discriminatory about our company,” Mr. Steed told The Washington Times. The commission won’t say what prompted it to launch the probe of Meathead Movers, which Mr. Steed said began with a phone call or letter from the commission back in 2015.
“We’ve asked that question several times, and they simply have not answered. They don’t feel that they need to share information and facts with us,” he said.
Mr. Steed’s business is the largest independent moving company in California and employs more than 300 people who earn an average wage of $18 per hour. It also performs community services, such as offering free moves to victims of domestic violence. The company donated nine truckloads of furniture to victims of the recent Los Angeles fires.
But the company is in jeopardy of going bankrupt under the weight of a hefty penalty demanded by the EEOC to settle its lawsuit. The commission filed a suit against the San Luis Obispo company in late 2023 after the company refused to pay $15 million as settlement, and later reportedly rejected a $5 million payment.
Mr. Steed said he would happily agree to the EEOC’s nonmonetary demands, such as providing additional training, to come to some kind of agreement and close the case.
But the government wants the money.
“They insisted on an eight-figure settlement, an amount they knew would bankrupt my company,” Mr. Steed said. “Despite having forensic accountants explain to them that we cannot afford what they are demanding, they completely disregarded it. And I simply can’t agree to go out of business, which is what they were trying to do.”
Mr. Steed said he hires workers based on ability, not age, but said the type of work — moving furniture — attracts younger applicants. Some of the administrative positions in his company are held by workers over the age of 40, he said.
“We have had and we do have movers over the age of 40 working for us, but it’s few and far between because most of the people who want a moving job tend to be younger, especially since we have the hardest work standard in the industry,” Mr. Steed said.
The company requires workers to be able to lift 150 pounds and carry, push and pull heavy objects. Movers are also required to jog to and from the moving truck when not carrying a heavy object.
“It’s part of what makes us different, and it’s something that we’ve been doing ever since I started the company in high school,” Mr. Steed said. And we have a lot of administrative positions and a lot of people who are over the age of 40. We truly don’t care how old you are. It’s all about, can you do the job or not. Period.”
The EEOC’s investigation is a rare self-initiated probe, meaning the commission launched it independently. The commission mostly investigates complaints filed by individuals who believe they have suffered from workplace discrimination.
According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, Meathead Movers “failed to recruit and hire applicants over 40 into moving, packing and customer service positions.”
The commission charged the company with a pattern of recruiting young college students and intentionally excluding older workers, regardless of their ability to do the job.
The EEOC complaint cited as evidence of discriminatory practices the company’s website and past social media postings because they described the Meathead workforce as “student athlete movers” and “strong, clean-cut athletes.”
The company, according to the EEOC, asked workers to recruit at gyms and college campuses, effectively excluding older, qualified workers. The EEOC also cited job applications that asked applicants about their class schedules.
The website hiring page currently shows young people in training for the job, running around a moving box obstacle course. The current website posts an anti-discrimination notice that the company is “committed to the principles of equal employment” and is “complying with all federal, state, and local laws providing equal employment opportunities, and all other employment laws and regulation.” A hiring page photo shows young-looking male workers, but one has graying hair.
Los Angeles EEOC District Director Christine Park-Gonzalez said in a statement announcing the lawsuit against the company that “incorrect and unfair assumptions” that a person can’t perform a job due to their age, or that customers prefer younger movers, violate the age discrimination in employment act.
The act prohibits discrimination in the hiring, firing and compensation of employees 40 years old or older because of their age.
EEOC spokesman Brandalyn Bickner said the commission does not comment on litigation. But he said other than civil money penalties for sign-posting violations, the EEOC does not have the power to impose fines.
The Goldwater Institute, a conservative public policy institute, is weighing a lawsuit against the EEOC to compel the commission to produce documents explaining what prompted its investigation into Meathead Movers. The EEOC denied the institute’s public information request to hand over information and documents related to the genesis of the case.
Jon Riches, the Goldwater Institute’s vice president for litigation, said the public information request asked basic questions “so we could educate the public and try and inform the public about why the federal government is doing this.” But the EEOC said it is exempt from disclosing the information.
“Not only are they trying to shut this company down on what seems to be a kind of preposterous basis, but now they are refusing to tell the public why they are doing it,” he said.
This year, the EEOC targeted several companies with lawsuits and financial settlements related to alleged age discrimination, but so far none seek the kind of massive payout the federal government is demanding from Meathead Movers.
The EEOC forced a Minneapolis construction staffing company in January to pay $300,000 for refusing to hire or recruit women, Black people and workers 40 years and older. Earlier this month, a small movie theater chain in the southwest agreed to pay $250,000 for allegedly forcing a 73-year-old theater manager to retire and refusing to pay his health insurance because he qualified for Medicare.
The EEOC in January sued General Motors and the United Auto Workers for paying fewer benefits to employees aged 66 and older who miss work due to sickness or injury because they qualified for Social Security.
