Share This Page

Former Steeler reaches agreement with The Meadows over racial discrimination lawsuit

| Thursday, Feb. 13, 2014, 12:39 p.m.

A former Pittsburgh Steelers linebacker has settled his federal racial discrimination lawsuit against The Meadows Racetrack and Casino in Washington County.

Lawyers for Michael L. Merriweather, 53, of Stockton, Calif., and the Meadows filed a motion Wednesday to dismiss the lawsuit. The motion doesn't provide any details.

Emily Town, a lawyer for Merriweather, and Tom Meinert, spokesman for The Meadows, declined to discuss the agreement.

“The matter has been resolved, and we can't discuss it further,” they said in a joint statement.

The Meadows never filed an answer in court to Merriweather's claims, and Meinert declined further comment Thursday.

Merriweather, who is black, claimed that after the company hired him as director of sports marketing in April 2011 that other executives, all of whom are white, excluded him from meetings and undermined his commissions. The company fired him in January 2012 instead of disciplining the employees who were harassing him, the lawsuit said.

The outside linebacker played for the Steelers from 1982 to 1988. During that time, he went to the Pro Bowl three times and was the team's Most Valuable Player in 1987.

Brian Bowling is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-325-4301 or bbowling@tribweb.com.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.