Since 2003, three employees of Scully Distribution Services Inc., now known as SDS Fontana Holdings Inc., a California-based transportation company, filed an administrative complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The employees, who included one manager and two truck drivers, claimed that a hostile work environment existed at Scully in which employees of East Indian, Latino and African-American decent, and/or perceived Muslims experienced widespread discrimination and harassment. The manager in question claimed that he was unlawfully retaliated against when he sought to address and end discrimination in the workplace. After conducting an investigation, the EEOC determined that there was evidence that a class of employees at Scully were subjected to employment discrimination and attempted to settle the matter through conciliation. However, when initial settlement attempts allegedly proved to be unsuccessful, the EEOC filed a class action suit in federal court. Specifically, the EEOC sued Scully Distribution Services Inc., as well as Ryder System Inc., a successor entity by virtue of its 2011 purchase of Scully. It alleged class-based discrimination under causes of action for harassment, discrimination, and retaliation based on race, national origin and perceived religion in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC contended that management officials at Scully often made racial slurs to East Indian truck drivers who were mistaken to be Muslim, as well as racial slurs directed at Latinos and African Americans. It also contended that the employees were subjected to disparate treatment, in that they were given undesirable assignments and provided less favorable working conditions than their Caucasian counterparts. The EEOC further contended that the subject manager was retaliated against for standing up for the drivers, as he was terminated from his employment. Scully contended that it did not engage any form of harassment, discrimination or retaliation. It also contended that the EEOC had failed to properly engage in conciliation efforts prior to filing suit., The EEOC, on behalf of the class members, sought recovery of all allowable damages, including compensatory damages, punitive damages and, where appropriate, back pay. It also sought injunctive relief to ensure the unlawful practices are not repeated. Defense counsel contended that none of the charging parties or class members suffered any damages.