Case 2:01-cv-00245 Document 1 Filed 06/27/2001 Page 1 of 6

V.S. OI!'TRiCT COURT

NORTHER;"; mSTRrcrOFTExAS

I FILED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT-

FOR

THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT AMARILLO DIVISION

OF

TEXAS

~ 2 7 2001 ________.____~j)

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY}

COMMISSION,

}

}

Plaintiff,

}

}

v.

}

}

}

RON CLARK FORD, INC. ,

}

}

}

}

Defendant.

}

CL;;.P.':<,U.S'i)!RiCTCOt:r--~

fl.-;
CIVIL ACIION NO.

-

- .... ~-. - - - -••. ~ _ _ ---J

2-1)lCV-0245J
COMPLAINT

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

-----------------------------}

NATURE OF THE ACTION This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of sex and to provide appropriate relief to William M. Blount, Joe M. Charles, John D. Crawford and aggrieved individuals Richard Epps, Dusty Harrison and Ulises Herrera, and other similarly situated individuals, who were subjected to a sexually hostile work environment, sex-based discrimination, retaliation, and/or constructive discharge. c
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
-
1. JurisdictionofthisCourt is invokedpursuantto28 U.S.c. §§451, 1331, 1337,1343, and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Section 706(t)(1) and (3) ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C § 2000e-5(t)(1) and (3), and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991,42 U,S.C. Sec. 1981a.
2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were and are now being committed

Case 2:01-cv-00245 Document 1 Filed 06/27/2001 Page 2 of 6
within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Amarillo Division.
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "Commission"), is an agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Section 706(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.c. § 2000e-5(a). 4. At all relevant times, Defendant, Ron Clark Ford, Inc. has continuously been and is now doing business in the State of Texas and has continuously had at least fifteen employees. 5. At all relevant times, Defendant Ron Clark Ford, Inc. has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce under Section 701 (b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-(b), (g) and (h).
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 6. More than thirty days prior to the institution ofthis lawsuit, William M. Blount, John D. Crawford and Joe M. Charles filed charges with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, by the Defendant Ron Clark Ford, Inc. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled. 7. During the employment ofWilliam M. Blount, John D. Crawford, Joe M. Charles and the aggrieved individuals, the Defendant has engaged in unlawful employment practices in violation of Section 703(a)(I) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(I) and Section 704(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a) by subjecting William M. Blount, John D. Crawford, Joe M. Charles and the aggrieved individuals to a sexually hostile work environment, discriminating against them on
Page -2-

Case 2:01-cv-00245 Document 1 Filed 06/27/2001 Page 3 of 6
account oftheir sex, retaliating against them, and/or constructively discharging them. Specifically, Ron Clark Ford, Inc. subjected these aggrieved individuals to a sexually hostile work atmosphere in they were constantly and repeatedly subjected to sexually explicit remarks, sexually aggressive advances and a work atmosphere which was permeated with lewd and sexually offensive behavior. This conduct was so severe as to cause William M. Blount, John D. Crawford, Joe M. Charles and the aggrieved individuals great humiliation and emotional distress, resulting in a material alteration ofthe terms and conditions oftheir employment. This conduct also resulted in the retaliation and/or constructive discharge of two or more of the aggrieved individuals.
8. The result of the foregoing practices has been to deprive William M. Blount, John D. Crawford, Joe M. Charles and the aggrieved individuals ofequal employment opportunities because of their sex.
9. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 7 above were intentional.
10. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 7 above were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights ofWilliam M. Blount, John D. Crawford, Joe M. Charles and the aggrieved individuals.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining the Defendant Ron Clark Ford, Inc., its officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in any employment practice which discriminates on the basis of sex, or which facilitates, condones or encourages sexual harassment.
Page -3-

Case 2:01-cv-00245 Document 1 Filed 06/27/2001 Page 4 of 6
B. Order the Defendant to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities and a non-hostile work environment for all employees, including males, and which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices.
C. Order the Defendant to make whole William M. Blount, John D. Crawford, Joe M. Charles and the aggrieved individuals by providing appropriate back pay with prejudgment interest in amounts to be determined at trial, front pay, pecuniary losses, compensatory damages including out-of-pocket expenses, and other affirmative reliefnecessary to eradicate the effects ofits unlawful employment practices, including but not limited to rightful place reinstatement under terms and conditions which will permit Mr. Blount, Mr. Crawford, Mr. Charles and the aggrieved individuals to work notwithstanding the severe psychological injury which they have suffered.
D. Order the Defendant to make William M. Blount, John D. Crawford, Joe M. Charles and the aggrieved individuals whole by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described in paragraph 7 above, including but not limited to out of pocket medical expenses and job hunting expenses.
E. Order the Defendant to make William M. Blount, John D. Crawford, Joe M. Charles and the aggrieved individuals whole by providing compensation for past and future nonpecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described in paragraph 7 above, including but not limited to, pain and suffering, humiliation, embarrassment, emotional distress, anxiety, and loss of enjoyment of life, in amounts to be determined at trial.
F. Order the Defendant to pay William M. Blount, John D. Crawford, Joe M. Charles and the aggrieved individuals punitive or exemplary damages for its intentional, malicious conduct
Page -4-

Case 2:01-cv-00245 Document 1 Filed 06/27/2001 Page 5 of 6
or reckless indifference described and referenced in paragraph 7 above, in an amount to be determined at trial.
G. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public interest.
H. Award the Commission its costs in this action.
JURY TRIAL DEMAND The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its Complaint.
Respectfully submitted, GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel
Regional Attorney Oklahoma Bar No. 011782 SUZANNE M. ANDERSON Supervisory Trial Attorney Texas Bar No. 14009470
Page -5-

Case 2:01-cv-00245 Document 1 Filed 06/27/2001 Page 6 of 6 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Dallas District Office 207 South Houston, 3rd Floor Dallas, Texas 75202 (214) 655-3328 (214) 655-3331 FAX
Page -6-

 APR-1B-02 1C1,a4s5e 2F:R0O1M-c,Uv-S00D2I4S5TRICDTocCuLmEReKnt 36 FiledI0D4,B/1181/I264070227638Page 1 of 5 PAGE 2/6

IN mE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR TIIE NORTIffiRN DISTRlCT OF TEXAS

AMA.Rll.LO DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )

: : .,'.. i1t.,; 1 ..... .y<>•••

_

""

,..

.~, _ _ _ 'J'"' _ _ _ ~. _ _ _ -~
jUI:·H.:O~;t:~T

: ~:\).l~I·HF.RN {ltSTRlCfOF-rEXf\S

.

FILED

1

CO~SSION) et aI.)
Plaintiffs! IntefVenors.

)

)

i

)

)

APR18~ ~ t l !

)

v.

)

)

RON CLARK FORD, INC.,

)

) Civil Action No.

Defendant.

) 2:01-CV-24S-C

ORDER
On this day the Court considered Plaintiffs' and Intervenors' Motion for Partial Summary
me Judgment filed March IS) 2002. Defendant did not a Response to Plaintiffs' and Intervenors'
Motion. After considering all relevant arguments and evidence, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' and Intervenors' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.
I. BACKGR.OUND On June 27, 2001. the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed this action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of sex and to provide reliefto William M. Blount, Joe M. Charles. John D. Crawford. and aggrieved individuals Richard Epps. Dusty Harrison~ and mises Herrera, who were subjected to a sex.ually hostile work environment, sex-based discrimination, retaliation, and/or constructive discharge. The complaint alleges that Defendant subjected the aggrieved individuals to a

APR-18-02 1C1,a4s5e 2F:R0O1M-c,Uv-S00D2I4S5TRICDTocCuLmEReKnt 36 Filed1004,/81086/42702072639Page 2 of 5 PAGE 3/6

sexually hostile work atmosphere in that they were constantly and repeatedly subjected to

sexually explicit remarks, sexually aggressive advances) and a worle atmosphere which was filled

with lewd and sexually offensive behavior. On October 17,2001) William Blount, Joe Charles,

and John Crawford filed a Motion to Intervene. On October 19. 2001> this Court granted the

Motion to Intervene.

IL STANDARD

Summary judgment is appropriate only if"the pleadings, depositions, answers to

interrogatories. and admissions on file) together with the affidavits, if any," when viewed in the

light most favorable to the non-moving party, <Cshow that there is no genuine issue as to any

material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter oflaw." Anderson v_

Liberty Lobby, Inc., 471 U.S. 242,247 (1986) (internal quotations omitted)- A dispute about a

material fact is «genuine'" if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for

the non-moving party_ ld. at 248_ In making its detennination, the court must draw all justifiable

inferences in favor of the non-moving party. Id. at 255. Once the moving party has initially

shown "'that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party>s case)" Celoter

Corp. v. Catreu, 477 U.S- 317, 325 (1986), the non-movant must come fOIWard, after adequate

time for discovery, with significant probative evidence showing a triable issue of fact. FED. R.

CN. P. 56(e); State Fa1'1tl Life Ins. Co. v. Guttennan, 896 F_2d 116, 118 (5th Cir. 1990).

Conclusory allegations and denials. speculation, improbable inferences, unsubstantiated

assertions. and legalistiC argumentation are not adequate substitutes for specific facts showing

that the.re is a genuine issue for trial. Douglass v. United Servs_ Auto_ Ass'n. 79 F.3d 1415. 1428

(5th Cit. 19%) (en bane); SEC 'Y. Recile, 10 F.3d 1093. 1097 (5th eiL 1993). To defeat a

2

APR-1B-02 1C1,a4s5e 2F:R0O1M-c,Uv-S00D2I4S5TRICDTocCuLmEReKnt 36 Filed1004,B/1086/24070227639Page 3 of 5 PAGE 4/6
properly supported motion for summary judgment, the non-movant must present mOTe than a
mere scintilla of evidence. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 251. Rather> the non-movant must present sufficient evidence upon which ajury could reasonably find in the non-movant's favor. Id.
Rule 56(e), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, requires the party against whom the motion is made to ('set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Absent such a
showing. a properly supported motion for summary judgment should be granted. See Eversley v.
MBank Dallas, 843 F .2d 172. 173-74 (5th Cir. 1988); Resolution Trost Corp. v. StarkEy. 41 F3d 1018, 1022-23 (5th Cir. 1995). However, the mere fact that no opposition is fued does not excuse the moving party from meeting its burden on the summary judgment motion. Anchorage Assocs. v. Virgin Island Bd. a/Tax Rev., 992 F.2d 168, 175 (3d Cir. 1990). If no factual showing is made in opposition to a motion for summary judgment, the district court is not required to search the record sua sponte for some genuine issue of material fact It may rely entirely on the
evidence designated by the moving party showing no such triable issue. Guarino v. Brookfield
Township Trustees, 980 F.2d 399. 403 (6th Cir. 1992). III.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiffs and Intervenors urge this Court to grant their Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on several of the Affirmative Defenses asserted in Defendant>s Original Answer to Original Complaint in Intervention. Plaintiffs and Intervenors first urge this Court that they are entitled to partial summaxy judgment on Defendant·s claim that all conditions precedent had not been completed prior to the filing of this lawsuit Plaintiffs and Intervenors assert that all conditions precedent to ftling a lawsuit under Title VII have been completed.
3

APR-18-02 1C1a,4s6e 2F:R0O1M-c,Uv-S00D2I4S5TRICDTocCuLmEReKnt 36 Filed1004,/81086/24070227639Page 4 of 5 PAGE 5/6
The conditions precedent to filing a suit under Title VII are as follows: 1) filing with the Commission a timely charge of discrixnination; 2) notice ofthe charge served upon the Respondent; 3) an investigation of the charge; 4) a determination by the Commission that reasonable cause exists to believe that the charge is true; 5) an attempt by the EEOC to eliminate the unlavvful employment practices by conciliation; and 6) inability by the Commission to secure from the Respondant a conciliation agreement acceptable to the EEOC. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e5(eXl), (£)(1) (1994). After reviewing the evidence presented to the Coun, the Court is satisfied that all conditions precedent to filing a suit under Title VII have been satisfied. Plaintiffs' and IntervenoIs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on this issue is GRANTED.
Plaintiffs and Intervenors also seek partial summary judgment on Defendant's affirmative defense of statute of limitations. In Defendant's Original Answer to Original Complaint in Intervention, Defendant stated that "Defendant invokes the applicable statute of limitations." EEOC enforcement actions, such as this action, are not subject to state statute ofIimitations. Occidental Life Ins. Y. EEOC, 432 U.S. 355, 36& (1977). Additional1y, after reviewing the evidence before the Court, Plaintiffs and Intervenors met all the applicable time limitations contained within 42 U.S.C. § 2000e. Plaintiffs' and InteIvenors) Motion for Partial SummaI)' Judgment on this issue is GRANTED.
Defendant also asserted the affixmative defense oflaches. Plaintiffs and Intervenors seek partial summary judgment on this defense. Defendant is entitled to the affinnative defense of laches only if the EEOC unreasonably delayed filing suit after conciliation was completed. National Ass 'n o/Government Employees v. City Public Service Board ofSan AntoniO, 40 F.3d 698, 108 (5th eiL 1994). The evidence before the Court establishes that conciliation efforts in
4

APR-18-02 1C1a,4s8e 2F:R0O1M-c,vU-S00D2I4S5TRICDTocCuLmEReKnt 36 Filed 1004,/81088/24070227839Page 5 of 5 PAGE 8/8

this case failed on April 18, 2001, and suit was filed on June 27, 2001. The Coun finds that no

unreasonable delay resulted. Plaintiffs' and Intervenors' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment

on this issue is GRANTED.

Plaintiffs' and Intervenors' final argument for partial summary judgment is based upon

Defendant's affinnative defense ninvok[mg] the exclusive remedy provisions of the Texas Labor

Code." Plaintiffs and Intervenors claim that the exclusivity provisions of state labor laws do not

preclude federal remedies. See Adams Fruit Co. v. Barrett, 494 U.S. 638,647 (1990).

According to case authority from the Fifth Circuit, negligent causes of action are preempted by

the Texas Workers' Compensation Act. Tex. Lab. Code Ann. §408.001 (Vernon 1996 & Supp.

2001). The Act provides the exclusive remedy for injuries sustained by the employee in the

course ofms employment as a result of the employer's negligence. See Wardv. Bechtel Corp.,
102 F.3d 199,203-04 (5th eir. 1997). In this suit, Plaintiffs) and Intervenors' claims are not

based on the Defendant's alleged negligence. Accordingly, recovery is not foreclosed by the

Texas Workers' Compensation Act. Plaintiffs' and Intervenors' Motion for Partial Summary

Judgment on this issue is GRANTED.

IV. CONCLUSION

rtf For the reasons previously discussed, Plaintiffs' and Intervenors' Motion for Summary

Judgment is GRANTED. All

not expressly

£ SO ORDERED this

day of April. 0....

5

 OCT-24-02 1C2a,s4e92:F0R1O-Mcv,U-0S02D4I5STRIDCoTcuCmLEeRnKt 61
")IS

Filed 1100/,2840/82407022783P9age 1 of 14
~27

PAGE

2/15

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRIcr COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AMARILLO DIVISION ---:U::".S.~D""':'rs~TRl=cr=-C-O--U--R--T--""

EQUAL EMPLOYME~""T OPPORTUNITY

)

NORTHERN DISTIUCf OF TEXAS
FILED

COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

WILLIAM BLOUNT, JOE CHARLES,

)

JOHN eRAWFORD

)

OCT 24 200l
~ o.s- DI$"~::f
By __--~--~~~__

)

Intervenor Plaintiff,

)

)

)

CASE NO. 2--01CV-0245-C

)

RON CLARK FORD, INC.,

)

)

Defendant.

)

)

CONSENT DECREE
THIS CONSENT DECREE is made and entered into by and among the Plain~ Equal
...
Employment Opportunity Commission (~EOCj, the Defendant, Ron Clark Ford., Inc. ("Ron

Clark Ford''}, and the Intervenors, William Blount, Joe Charles and John Crawford

("IntervenolS"), in the United States District Court for the Northem District of Texas, Amarillo

(~EOC Division, with regard Ithe EEOC's Complaint filed on JlDle 27, 2001

Complain!"), in

Civil Action No. 2-01 ' -245-C, and Intervenor's Complaint filed October 19,2001 These

Compwp.ts were based upon Charge of Discrimination Numbers 31 OAOO73S, 31OA08180 and

310AOIOOO filed by William Blount, Joe Charles and John Crawfoni, respectively, against Ron

Clark Ford, Inc.

TIle above-referenced Complaints allege that Ron Clark Ford, Inc. engaged in unlawful

employment practices at its Amarillo, Texas vehicle dealership. in violation of Section 703(aX1)
of Title vn ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964. as amended ("Title Vlli. 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e-

.., ' ""

OCT-24-02 12,50 FROM,US DISTRICT CLERK
Case 2:01-cv-00245 Document 61

Filed 1100/2,840/28040722783P9age 2 of 14

PAGE

3/15

wFam 2(aXI), by subjecting

Blount. Joe Charles, John Crawford and Aggrieved Individuals

Dusty Harrison, Ulices Herrera and Richard Epps to a sexually hostile working environment.

The Complaints alleged that this sexually hostile working environment was created by the

conduct ofthe Ace Meason, Brad Cook and Chris Buttram, which included lewd comments and

kpmg the illegal touching and

oftheir genitals and buttocks resulting in their constructive

discharge. In addition to alleging Title VB violations, the Intervenors also asserted various state

law clWiD.s, including intentional infliction of emotional distress and assault. Ron elarl< Ford,

Inc. filed its Answer to the EEOC Complaint and the Complaint ofthe Intervenors, denying the

allegations contained in each Complaint.

EEOC. Ron Clark Ford, Inc., Intervenors and the Aggrieved Individuals agree to

compromise the differeJilces embodied in the Complaints, and intend that the tenns and

conditions ofthe compromise be set forth in this Cons'ent Decree ("Consent Decree").

NOW. 1HEREjORE' in consideration ofthe mutual promises and agreements set forth

he~ the suffiCiencytwhich is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows, the Court

finds appropriate. and fore, it is ORDERED, ADmDGED AND DECREED that:

1.

colsent This

Decree resolves all issues raised in EEOC Charge Nos. 310A00735.

31OA08180 and 3IOAOlOOO. lbis Decree further resolves all issues in the Complaints filed by

the EEOC) the Interv1fS and the Aggrieved Individuals in this civil action. This Consent

Decree does not resolve the pending state court action filed by Donald Mooney. The EEOC, the

Intervenors and the AJneved Individuals waive fw1her claims and/or litigation on all issues

raised in the above-reflrenced charges and Complaints. The EEOC does not waive processing

lharges charges other than the

of discrimination specifically referenced above.

2. The J e s agree that this Consent Decree does not constitute an admission by

OCT-24-02 1C2a,5se0 2F:R0O1-Mc,vU-S00D24IS5TRICDTocCuLmEeRnKt 61 Filed 1100,/82046/24070227639Page 3 of 14 PAGE 4/15

Ron Clark Foro, Inc. of any violation ofTitle Vn, or any other state law claims including

intentional infliction of emotional distress or assault.

3. Ron Clark Ford, Inc. agrees that it shall conduct all employment practices at its

Amarillo, Texas faciliJ in a manner which does not subject any employee to discrimination

under Title VIT.

Scope of Consent Decree

4. The I o n ofthis Consent Decree shall be three (3) years from the date of entry of the Consent Decree. During that time, this Court shall retain jurisdiction over this matter and the Parties for purposes ofenforcing compliance with the Consent Decree, including such orders

as may be required to efectuate its purposes.

I.

General P~iqns

5. Ron Clarlc Ford, Inc.and its officers~ agents, management, including supervisory

employees on any level, i.e. closers, successors and assigns, and all those in active concert or

participation with them, or any ofthem, agree to refrain from: (i) discriminating against any

employee on the basis of sex; (ii) engaging in or being a party to any action, policy or practice

that is intended to or is known to them to have the effect of harassing or intimidating any
i, employee on the basis of gender; and/or (iii) creating, facilitating or pennitting the existence of a
work. environment at Amarillo, Texas facility that are hostile to its employees.

6. Ron Cl1k Ford. Inc. and its office~ agents, management, including supervisory

employees on any levetl i.e. closers, successors and assigns, and all those in active concert or

participation with theJ or any ofthem, agree to refrain from engaging in, impleinenting or

tliCY pennitting any action.

or pIlICIice with the purpose ofretaliatiog against any cwrent or

fanner employee ofRon Clark Ford, Inc. at its Amarillo, Texas facility because he or she

OCT-24-02 1C2a,5se0 2F:R0O1-Mc,vU-S00D24IS5TRICDTocCuLmEeRKnt 61 Filed 1100,/82046/24070227639Page 4 of 14 PAGE 5/15

opposed any practice ofsex discrimination, sexual harassment or sex-based harassment made

unlawful under Title VII; filed a Charge of Discrimination alleging any such practice; testified Or

~ parlicipated in any

in any investigation (",eluding, without limitation, any iutmIal

undertak1 investigation

by Ron Clark Ford, Inc.), proceeding, or hearing in connection with this

case and/or relating to any claim of sex discrimination, sexual harassment or sex-based

i~ed harasSIIlent; was

as a possible witness in this action; asserted any rights under this

so~t ConsenfDecree; or

and/or received any monetary and/or non-monetary reliefin

accordance with this Consent Decree.

Non-Monetary Relief

7. Ron Clarlc Ford,. Inc. affirms the following "Statement ofZero--Tolerance Policy
I
and Equality Objectives":

Ron Clark Fo~ Inc. is firmly committed to developing and maintaining a zero-
tolerance policy concerning sexuallwassment, sex-based harassment and
retaliation against individuals who report harassment in the company's workplace; to swiftly and ~y responding to any acts of sexual or sex-based ha:rassment or
retaliation of ~ch the company becomes aware; to implementing a disciplinary system that is deSigned to strongly deter future acts of sexual or sex-based
I
harassment or retaliation; and to actively monitoring its workplace in order to endure tolerancei respect and dignity for all people.

Specific Non-Monetary Relief

8. In order to effectuate the objectives embodied in Ron Clark Ford, Inc.'s Statement

ofZero-Tolerance Policy and Equality Objectives and this Consent Decree, Ron Clark Ford, Inc.

shall make Whatever±.fiC modifications are necessary to its existing poliCies. procedures and

practices in order to

that the following policies. procedures and practices at its Amarillo.

Texas facility are imPllented. Further, the parties agree that this Consent Decree will be

administered in a Ill3IW.er consistent with federal labor and employment discrimination laws.

OCT-24-02 1C2a,5s0e 2F:R0O1M-c,vU-S00D2I4S5TRICDTocCuLmEReKnt 61

ID,B0S4727S39
Filed 10/24/2002 Page 5 of 14

PAGE

S/15

(a) Sexu.aJ Hlment Policy,

cllFor~ Ron

Inc. agrees that it shall :revise its sexual hatassment policy, as

necessary. in oJer to: (i) provide examples to supplement the definitions ofsexual

Lx-based batassment and

harassment; (ii) include strong non-retaliation language with

examples to suJlement the definition ofretaliation, and provide for substantial and

progressive diSCliFneJfor incidents ofretaliation; (iii) provide that complaints of sexual

~~-harassment. sex

harassment andlor retaliation will be accepted by Ron Clark: Ford>

Inc. in writing arid orally; (iv) provide a timetable for reporting harassment, for

commencing an Lvestigation after a complaint is made or received and for remedial

action to be takel upon conclusion of an investigation; and (v) indicate that, promptly

For~ upon the concIJion of its investigation of a complaint. Ron Clark

Inc_ will

~ invesligati.x: communicate to complaining party the resu1ts ofthe

and the remediaJ

actions taken or proposed, if any.

(b) Complaint Jroeedurts.

I
Ron Clark. Ford, Inc. agrees that it shall: (i) revise its complaint procedure as

OIdi necessary in to ensure that it is designed to encourage employees to rome forward

lut with complaints

violation of its sexual harassment policy. As part ofthis policy,

Ron Clark Ford, Inc. agrees that it shall provide its employees with convenient,

confidential and reliable mechanisms for reporting incidents of sexual harassmen~ sex-

based harassment and retaliation. Ron Clark Fo~ Inc. agrees that it shall designate at

emPIO~ least two

ftom the department charged with investigating such issues as

persons who mat be contacted, and their names. responsibilities> work locations and

telephone nwnJs shall be routinely and continuously posted. Also as part of its

OCT-24-02 1C2a,s5e1 2F:0R1O-Mcv,U-0S02D4IS5TRIDCoTcuCmLEeRnKt 61

10,8064727638
Filed 10/24/2002 Page 6 of 14

PAGE

7/15

procedure, Ron ~lark Fo~ Inc. agrees that it take seriously anonymous complaints

received and invLgate any anonymous complaint in a manner consistent with its newly

established poli .

(ii) Ron I lark For~ Inc. agrees that it shall revise its policies as necessary to

enable complai$g parties to be interviewed by Ron elarlc Fo~ Inc. about their

complaints in suih a manner that permits the complaining party, at such party's election,
-~ remain inCoJicuous to all ofthe employees in such party's work area. Ron Clark

agrees\that Ford, Inc.

its complaint procedure shall not impose upon individuals seeking

to make a comPlb alleging sexual harassment, sex-based harassment and/or retaliation

any requirements that are more burdensome than are imposed upon individuals who make

other complaints ofcomparable gravity.

park (iii) Ron

Fo~ Inc. agrees that it shall revise its complaint handling and

disciplinary proclIures at its Amarillo, Texas facility as necessary to ensure that all

complaints of sexual harassment. sex-based harassment and/or retaliation are investigated

and addressed P£rmpt]y. Specifically, Ron Clark Ford, Inc. agrees that it shall make best

efforts to investi ate all complaints of sexual harassment, sex-based harassment and/or

retaliation promJtly and to complete in\Testigations within three (3) weeks. Ron Clark:

~er Ford, Inc. will

make best efforts to prepare its written findings ofthe results of

each investigatioh and the remedial actions proposed or taken, if any. within seven (7)

days after comPlltion ofthe investigation, and shall thereupon promptly communicate to

the complaining r l the results ofthe investigation and the remedial actions taken or proposed, ifany.

(iv) Ron Clark Fo~ Inc. agrees that it shall make best efforts to ensure that

OCT-24-02 1C2a,s5e1 2F:0R1O-Mcv,U-0S02D4IS5TRIDCTocuCLmEeRnKt 61 Filed 1100/,2840/62407022763P9 age 7 of 14 PAGE 8/15

appropriate remedial action is taken to resolve complaints and to avoid the occurrence of

further incidents of sexual harassment, sex-based harassment and/or retaliation, up to an

including tennination. Ron Clark Ford. Inc. specifically agrees that its complaint

procedure shall include the power, in Ron Clark Ford, Inc.'s sole discretion, to order;
F during the pendency ofthe investigation, the immediate transfer OfpefSOIlS accused of
having violated Clark FOld, !no.'s sexual haIassment policy or ofpersons who claim

to have bee~ viC'-, .0f.SUCh viOI~O~, as well as the power to order th~ permanent

transfer, senous dIscIpline or termmation ofemployees found to have Vlolated such

llpoj policy. and,

the request oithe complaining party, the permanent transfer of any

~ compIaining who is found to have been the victim of. violation ofRon Clark FOld,

Inc,'s sexual hacissruent policy.

(c) Policies Desi ed to Promote Su rvisor/Closer Ac:eOllutabili •
I
(i) Ron Clark Ford, Inc. agrees that it shall impose substantial discipline-up to
I . " and m· e1uding 1ertmna110n, suspensI·O"n Wt h I out payor d em" ooon-upon any supervl.sor,
manager, assI-stanIt manager Or person W'I tanh y super·YlSOry authoonty. 'mIoe ding C1osers -

who engages in sexual harassment or sex-based harassment or permits any such conduct

to occur in his or her work: area or among employees under his or her supervision, or who

retaliates against any person who complains or participates in any investigation 01'

proceeding concerning any such conduct Ron Clark Ford. Inc. shall communicate this
iJ policy to all of supetVisors and managers"

I

.

(ii) Ron Olark Ford, Inc. agrees that it shall continue to advise all managers and

SUpervisorslcloseL oftheir duty to actively monitor their work areas to ensure employees'

compliance with the company's sexual harassment policy, and to report any incidents

OCT-24-02 1C2a,s5e1 2F:0R1O-Mcv,U-0S02D4IS5TRIDCTocuCLmEeRnKt 61 Filed 1ID0/,2840/62407022763P9 age 8 of 14 PAGE 9/15

II'_fIt?! 'II" ',"jljl'i"""~ ttl' 1I1·"jllt'!I"~11'tj'IJ'~tl'<ftI

t,

jI

,,..~",~.lIbll~"". ., r

'i~ ~ 'l'I"ltlmMljlt:il,~jl'~'tt'lil. lH, l'Ii~' Iii '~t~~'''I~I' '1,.MII,11 11, .

.

'andlor complaints ofsexual harassment, sex-based harassment andlor retaliation ofwhich

they become aJre to the persons charged with handling such complaints.

~arli: (iii) Ron

Fon!, fuc_ agrees that it will revise its cunent supervisor/closer

appraisal process to include performance evaluations for the handling of equal

employment opportunity issues as an element in sUperVisor/closer appraisals.

(iv) Ron Clark Ford, Inc. agxees that it shall include "commitment to equal

employment opportunity" as a criterion for qualification for supervisory positions.

(d) Sexual Harassment Training
I
(i) Ron [lark Ford, Inc. agrees that it shall provide mandatory annual sexual

harassment training to all employees, supervisory and non-supervisory; to provide

mandatoxy sexJ harassment training to all new employees during employee orientation;

r ~ to provide mau.lory sexual harassment training to all senior management officials; to
provide training all persons charged ""th the handling of complaints of

h1 harassmen~ sex-based harassment and/or retaliation related thereto. The ttaining shall be

at least two

in dmation and shaII be conducted by eXperienced sexual hmassment

educators to edultate employees about the problems of sexual harassment in the

workplace and Je techniques for investigating and stopping sexual harassment.

Lg (ii) The

shall infonn employees ofthe complaint procedure for those

I

individuals who believe they have been sexually harassed or otherwise experienced sex-

~on. based

Further, the training sbaIl advise all employees, including

supervisors/closers and managers, of the consequences of violating Title VII and ofthe

importance Ofwlrking in an environment free of sexual harassment.
lL (iii) No than 10 days before the annual training is conducted, Ron Clark Ford,

OCT-24-02 1C2a,s5e2 2F:0R1O-Mcv,U-0S02D4IS5TRIDCTocuCmLEeRnKt 61 Filed 1100/,2840/62407022763P8 age 9 of 14 PAGE 10/15

,.,1 ~

gil I-M ""'! InC. agrees to

written notice to the EEOC as to the date and location ofthe training"

the name ofthe person providing the training and the substance of the training.
I
(iv) Ron Clark Ford, Inc. agrees that it shall require a senior management official

alllXual to introduce

harassment training to communicate Ron Clark Ford, Inc.'s

iL commitment to Statement ofZero-Tolerance Policy and Equality Objectives.

_ ...~~

Reporting Regub'ebleo!s
rear . For each the Consent Decree is in effect, Ron Clark Ford" Inc.~s ~t shall

maintain a log of all complaints of sexual harassment, containing the name ofthe complainant,

L , the name ofthe alleged

the date ofthe complaint and the name ofthe person assigned to

comPlalnl investigate the

and the final report and/or discip1inaIy response regmding the

complaint. Ron Clark Ford, Inc. shall provide EEOC with a copy ofthe log, two times per year,

I

r

on the 15th day ofJanuary and the 15th day ofJuly, during the term ofthe Consent Decree

Postine & Notice Requirements

12. Within two (2) weeks after entry of this Consent Decr~ Ron Clark Ford, Inc.

shall post a notice (attacb.ed to this Consent Decree as Exhibit "A") in prominent and

conspicuous locations throughout its Amarillo, Texas facility. This notice shall inform employees

that sexual haIassmen±-based harassment andlor discrimination and retaliation will not be
tolerated and that the violation thereof will subject the employee found to have violated the

company's sexual harassLent policy to those disciplinary consequences specified within the

policy.

13. The notice shall also inform employees where to report violations ofRon Clark

h~ent Ford, Inc.'s sexual

policy, the name ofthe designated company official to whom they

should report said vioJns, along with the address and telephone nwnber ofthe Dallas District

OCT-24-02 C12a,s5e22:F0R1O-cMv,U-0S02D4I5STRIDCoTcuCmLEeRnKt 61 Filed 1I0D/2,B40/26040?22?63P8age 10 of 14 PAGE 11/15

Office ofthe EEOC. The notice shall remain posted for the duration ofthis Consent Decree. In

the event that the persol and/or departments to whom individuals should make complaints

alleging sexual harassmLt. sex-based harassment and/or retaliation change dming the term of

the Consent Decree such that the information contained in the notice is no longer accurate, Ron

Clark. Ford, Inc. shall immediately prepare and post a revised notice that contains the correct
I
infonnation. Ron Clark Ford, Inc. shall promptly thereafter forward a copy ofthe revised notice

to the EEOC.

14. Ron Clark Ford, Inc., agrees to distribute the Notice attached hereto as Exhibit

~ithin "A" to each employee.

30 days ofthe date ofthe entry ofthis Consent Decree) a copy of

Exhibit"A" will be enc1ised in an envelope containing each employee's paycheck. Also

envel0t enclosed in each

will be a notice stating the following: Ron Chili< Ford, Inc. is

committed to providing a workplace free of discrimination of any kind. Please read the enclosed

notice and keep a copy fLyOUt records.n New employees will be given a copy of the notice,

~ Exhibit "A." within

days ofthe date oftheir hire. This procedure will remain in effect

during the pendency ort Consent Decree.

15. Ron ClarK Ford, Inc. agrees to post a copy ofthe notice, as described in

paragraphs 12-13. above, within fourteen (14) days after entry oftbis Consent Decree. Ron

Clark Ford, Inc. will thereafter report to the EEOC that it has complied with this requirement

within fourteen (14) days after posting the notice.

Monetary Rellef

16. Ron Clark Ford, Inc. agrees to payor cause to be paid the gross amount of

$140.000.00 to resolve at claims for damages to William Blount, loe Charles, 101m Crawford.

Dusty Harrison. illires Herrem and Richard Epps. in and for compensatory damages, inclusive of

OCT-24-02
I

C1a2s.5e22:F0R1O-cMv.-U0S02D4I5STRDICoTcuCmLEeRnKt 61

Filed 1100/2.840/26040722763P8age 11 of 14 PAGE

12/15

_NlI4deflt"'jh."lfJt~'''' Hfl' 1'~"IM.~r"tt'i~l~' 't~"\1

'" ';1:'.,,\_ If''

II

I ,.. U~L ... f'II.~'t\II'~.., qll.ftftlf~,'·'~.,.,"'·I~1i-!.llJ11~' ..I' ........ "

costs and attorney fees. Within ten (10) days of the entry of this Consent Decree. EEOC will

infonn Ron Clark Ford, Inc. to whom and in what amount to issue the checks. Within ten (10)

days ofthis notification, Ron Clark Ford, Inc. will issue or cause to be issued the checks and mail

them to the attention ofMual Employment Opportunity Commission, 207 S. Houston. Third
I
Floor, Dallas, Texas 75202, Attenntion William C. Backhaus. Checks .made payable to William

Blount, Joe Charles and John Crawford shall also be made payable to their attorneys.

17. IfRon Clark Ford, Inc. fuils to tender payment or otherwise fails to timely comply

with the terms OfPJhs 16 above, shall:

a. Pay interest at the rate calculated pursuant to 26 U.S.C. Section 6621(b) on

arl.y untimely 01 unpaid amounts; and

b.

~ any additional costs incurred by the EEOC caused by the non-

compliance or delay ofthe defendant
1 18. Neither the EEOC, Intervenors, Aggrieved Individuals nor Ron Clark Ford, Inc.

shall contest the validity ofthis Consent Decree nor the jurisdiction ofthe federal district court to

enforce this Consent Decree and its terms or the right of any party to the Consent Decree to bring

an enforcement action Jon breach of any tenn ofthis Consent Decree by any such party.

I
Nothing in. this Consent Decree shall be construed to preclude the EEOC from enforcing this

1enl Consent Decree in 1he

that Ron Clade Ford, Inc. fiIiIs to ped'oxm the promises and

representations contained herein. The EEOC shall be authorized to seek compliance with the

Consent Decree through civil action in the United States District Court. The EEOC also reserves

the right to seek conteml1't sanctions fOT Don~payment and non-rompliance with this Consent

Decree.

19. 1be parties to this Consent Decree agree to bear their own costs associated with

OCT-24-02 1C2a,s5e3 2F:0R1O-Mc,vU-0S 0D24IS5TRICDTocCuLmEeRnKt 61

I D, 80847276.,_

PAGE

Filed 10/24/2002 Page 12 of 14

13/15

the litigation ofthe above-referenced Complaint and the administration ofthis Consent Decree.

Other General Provisions

20. Neuu-allob Reference: Ron Clark Ford. Inc. agrees to provide a neutral letter of

I
reference for William Blount, Joe Charles, Jolm Crawford, Dusty Harrison, illices Herrera and

t. Richard Epps, include Je dates ofhis employment, the last position held and the last salary or

commission s1ruCtnre

Said letreIs ofreference shall be delivered to William C. Baclcbaus

COrtained ________ ~ the_E~address

herein within t~n (10) day of the ~tty oithis ConsentD~._____________________ _

I . , p 21. Personnel File Expuncemellt: Ron Clark Ford, Inc. agrees to remove from all
personnel files of William Blount, Joe Charles, John Crawford, Dusty H.ariison, Ulices Herrera

and Richard Epps all docmnents. entries and references relating to: the facts and circumstances

which led to the filing ofthe charges ofdiscrimination; the charges themselves; and the
I .
complaint filed by the EEOC, Intervenors and Aggrieved Individuals in federal court based upon

charges.

22. Compntation of Time Periods: In computing any period oftime prescribed or

allowed by this Consent Decree, unless otherwise stated, such computation shall be made

consistent with the Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure.

kxcept 23. Notices:

as othexwise provided for in this Consent Decree. all notification,

reports and communiJons to the parties required Wlder this Consent Decree shall be made in
I
writing and.~ be 1cient ifhand~eliVered or sent by ~~lass mail to the following
peIrons: WIlham C. B khaus, Sr. Trial Attorney, Dallas DlSlnct Office for the U.S. E.E.O.C.,

207 S. Houston Street, . d Floor, Dallas, Texas 75202.

24. Int

: This Consent Decree constitutes the entire agreement between Ron

Clarl< Ford, Inc., Intervehors.. Aggrieved Individuals and EEOC hereto with respect to the matters

OCT-24-02 1C2a,s5e3 2F:0R1O-Mcv,U-0S 0D24IS5TRICDTocCuLmEeRnKt 61

I D, 8084 72'/boJ_

PACE 14/15

Filed 10/24/2002 Page 13 of 14

herein and it supersedes all negotiations, representations, comments, contracts and writings prior

to the date ofthis Decree.

SO ORDERED.lnJUDGED AND DECREE

Yof October, 2002.

OCT-24-02 1C2a,s5e3 2F:0R1O-Mcv,U-0S 0D24IS5TRICDTocCuLmEeRnKt 61 Filed 1ID0/,2840/624070227639Page 14 of 14 PAGE 15/15

APPROVED AS TO FIDRM AND SUBSTANCE:

Respectfully Submitted!
ON BEHALF OF TIlE EEOC:
ROBERT A. CANINO Regional Attorney
NOr Oldahoma State Bar 011782
SUZANNE M. AND~ON
Supervisory Trial Attorrley I
Texas Bar No. 14009470

CKIIAUS

Sr. Trial Attorney

I

Texas Bar No. 0l49385@

.

I

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTIJNITY

COMMISSION

I

207 S. Houston Street, 3{d floor

Dallas, Texas 75202

(214) 655-3328

(214) 655-3331 (telefax)

ON BEHALF OF TIlE INTERVENORS:
MARK. WILSON
Texas BarNo. 21704450
SMITH, WILSON & DUNCAN, P.C.
1111 West 18th Street Am.ariIlo, Texas 79105 (806) 372-6878
(806) 374-1053 fax
•
•'" ON B.L.d.JI.C............ F THE DEFENDANf

R. LYNN FIELDER Texas BarNo. 06971100 FISK & FIELDER, P.C. 271 0 StemmoDS Freeway
400 Tower North
Dcillas, Texas 75207-2117
(214) 638-3744
(214) 638-5105

 District Version 2.5 - Docket Report

Page 1 of 8

CLOSED, CUMMINGS, JURY
U.S. District Court Northern District of Texas (Amarillo) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:01-cv-00245

EEOC v. Ron Clark Ford Inc Assigned to: Judge Sam R Cummings Demand: $0 Cause: 42:1981 Sex Discrimination Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
V. Intervenor Plaintiff

Date Filed: 06/27/2001 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff
represented by William C Backhaus Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Dallas District Office 207 S Houston 3rd Floor Dallas, TX 75202 214/253-2742 Fax: 214/253-2749 FAX Email: william.backhaus@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert A Canino, Jr Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Dallas District Office 207 S Houston 3rd Floor Dallas, TX 75202 214/253-2750 Email: robert.canino@eeoc.gov
Suzanne M Anderson Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Dallas District Office 207 S Houston 3rd Floor Dallas, TX 75202 214/253-2740 Fax: 214/253-2749 FAX Email: suzanne.anderson@eeoc.gov

https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?200236688525029-L_923_0-1

7/7/2006

District Version 2.5 - Docket Report William Blount
Intervenor Plaintiff Joe Charles Intervenor Plaintiff John nmi Crawford V. Defendant Ron Clark Ford Inc
Interested Party Scicron Technologies LLC

Page 2 of 8
represented by Mark Alan Wilson Smith Wilson & Duncan 1111 W Eighteenth St PO Box 15525 Amarillo, TX 79105-5525 806/372-6878 Fax: 806/374-1053 FAX Email: mel@swdattorneys.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Mark Alan Wilson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Mark Alan Wilson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by R Lynn Fielder Fisk & Fielder Stemmons North Tower 2710 N Stemmons Frwy Suite 400 Dallas, TX 75207 214/638-3744 Email: lfielder@fiskfielder.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Vance Ivy Packard Hood Bednarz Johnson & Ivy 500 S Taylor Suite 900 LB 223 Amarillo, TX 79101-2445 806/374-3300 Fax: 806/374-3381 FAX Email: vance@packardlawfirm.com TERMINATED: 12/26/2001
represented by Charles Aubrey Mallard

https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?200236688525029-L_923_0-1

7/7/2006

District Version 2.5 - Docket Report

Page 3 of 8

formerly known as SC Technologies
Intervenor Defendant Ron Clark Ford Inc

Underwood Law Firm PO Box 9158 Amarillo, TX 79105-9158 806/379-0313 Fax: 806/379-0312 FAX Email: cam@uwlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Vance Ivy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/26/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
R Lynn Fielder (See above for address)

Date Filed 06/27/2001 06/27/2001 06/27/2001 06/29/2001 07/03/2001
07/10/2001
07/12/2001
07/23/2001
07/25/2001

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT filed; (6) (djs) (Entered: 06/27/2001)

1 DEMAND for jury trial by plaintiff EEOC (djs) (Entered: 06/27/2001)

2 SUMMONS(ES) issued for defendant Ron Clark Ford Inc (1) (djs) (Entered: 06/27/2001)

3 CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS by EEOC (2) (plh) (Entered: 06/29/2001)

4 ORDER - I hereby recuse in the above entitled and numbered cause. ( Signed by Judge Mary L. Robinson ) Copies to counsel: 7/3/01 Page(s) 1 (plh) (Entered: 07/03/2001)

5 COURT REQUEST FOR RECUSAL. Case reassigned to Judge Sam R. Cummings ( signed by Judge Mary Lou Robinson) (1) (plh) (Entered: 07/10/2001)

6 ORDER OF RECUSAL - Ordered that this case be, and the same hereby is assigned to the docket of the Honorable Sam R. Cummings, US Dist Judge and should reflect the following case number 2:01-cv-245-C. ( signed by Chief Judge Buchmeyer) Copies to counsel: 7/11/01 Page(s): 1 (plh) (Entered: 07/12/2001)

7 U N F I L E D (per Order 7/25/01) ANSWER to Complaint by defendant Ron Clark Ford Inc (Attorney Vance Edward Ivy) (4) (nod) (jeh) Modified on 07/25/2001 (Entered: 07/23/2001)

8 ORDER unfiling [7-1] answer by defendant Ron Clark Ford Inc due to the following deficiency: The document requires a separately signed certificate of interested persons. Copies to counsel: 7/25/01 (signed by

https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?200236688525029-L_923_0-1

7/7/2006

District Version 2.5 - Docket Report

Page 4 of 8

07/25/2001 07/25/2001 07/27/2001
08/06/2001 08/10/2001 10/15/2001 10/15/2001 10/16/2001 10/17/2001 10/17/2001 10/18/2001
10/19/2001 11/01/2001

Judge Sam R Cummings ) Page(s) 1 (jeh) (Entered: 07/25/2001)
9 ANSWER to Complaint by defendant Ron Clark Ford Inc (4) (jeh) (Entered: 07/25/2001)
10 CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS by defendant Ron Clark Ford Inc (2) (jeh) (Entered: 07/25/2001)
11 ORDER setting Joining of Parties on 3:00 10/15/01; Amending of Pleadings on 3:00 10/15/01; Discovery cutoff 3:00 5/15/02; Deadline for filing of all pretrial motions, including motions for summary judgment, must be filed with supporting briefs, 3:00 3/15/02; Pretrial materials, designation of experts, due on 3:00 1/15/02; Parties are not required to make initial disclosures under Rule 26(a)(1), FRCP; ( Signed by Judge Sam R. Cummings ) Copies to counsel: 7/27/01 Page(s): 2 (jeh) (Entered: 07/27/2001)
12 RETURN OF SERVICE executed as to Ron Clark Ford Inc 7/5/01 Answer due on 7/25/01 for Ron Clark Ford Inc (2) (plh) (Entered: 08/06/2001)
13 NOTICE of attorney appearance for Ron Clark Ford Inc by Lynn Fielder (3) (plh) Modified on 08/13/2001 (Entered: 08/10/2001)
14 MOTION by Ron Clark Ford Inc for leave to amend [9-1] original answer (10) (plh) (Entered: 10/15/2001)
15 BRIEF by Ron Clark Ford Inc in support of [14-1] motion for leave to amend [9-1] original answer (6) (plh) (Entered: 10/15/2001)
16 ORDER denying [14-1] motion for leave to amend [9-1] original answer. Denied for failing to comply with LR 7.1(a) and (b). ( Signed by Judge Sam R. Cummings ) Copies to counsel: 10/17/01 Page(s) 1 (plh) (Entered: 10/17/2001)
17 MOTION by William Blount, Joe Charles, John nmi Crawford to intervene by William Blount, Joe Charles, John nmi Crawford (11) (plh) (Entered: 10/17/2001)
18 BRIEF by William Blount, Joe Charles, John nmi Crawford in support of [17-1] motion to intervene by William Blount, Joe Charles, John nmi Crawford (3) (plh) (Entered: 10/17/2001)
19 ORDER granting [17-1] motion to intervene by William Blount, Joe Charles, John nmi Crawford. Movants are directed to file with the Clerk Exhibit "A" attached to the motion and serve a file marked copy of such Original Complaint in Intervention on Counsel of Record within 15 days of the date of entry of this Order. ( Signed by Judge Sam R. Cummings ) Copies to counsel: 10/18/01 Page(s) 1 (plh) (Entered: 10/18/2001)
20 Intervenor's COMPLAINT by William Blount, Joe Charles and John Crawford against Ron Clark Ford Inc (7) (plh) (Entered: 10/19/2001)
21 MOTION by Ron Clark Ford Inc to reconsider motion for leave to file

https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?200236688525029-L_923_0-1

7/7/2006

District Version 2.5 - Docket Report

Page 5 of 8

11/02/2001 11/02/2001 11/19/2001 12/20/2001 12/26/2001
01/14/2002 03/12/2002 03/12/2002 03/15/2002 03/15/2002 03/15/2002 03/15/2002 03/19/2002
03/29/2002 04/18/2002

amended original answer (9) (plh) (Entered: 11/01/2001)
22 ORDER granting [21-1] motion to reconsider motion for leave to file amended original answer ( Signed by Judge Sam R. Cummings ) Copies to counsel: 11/2/01 Page(s) 2 (plh) (Entered: 11/02/2001)
23 FIRST AMENDED ANSWER to Complaint by Ron Clark Ford Inc : amends [9-1] answer (5) (plh) (Entered: 11/02/2001)
24 ORIGINAL ANSWER by Ron Clark Ford Inc to [20-1] intervenor complaint (8) (plh) (Entered: 11/19/2001)
25 MOTION by Ron Clark Ford Inc for Vance Edward Ivy to withdraw as attorney (4) (plh) (Entered: 12/20/2001)
26 ORDER GRANTING WITHDRAWAL OF COUNSEL granting [25-1] motion for Vance Edward Ivy to withdraw as attorney (Terminated attorney Vance Edward Ivy for Ron Clark Ford Inc) (Signed by Judge Sam R. Cummings ) Copies to counsel: 12/26/01 Page(s) 2 (djs) (Entered: 12/26/2001)
27 Designation of Experts by Ron Clark Ford Inc (3) (plh) (Entered: 01/14/2002)
28 MOTION by Ron Clark Ford Inc to compel (5) (plh) (Entered: 03/12/2002)
29 BRIEF by Ron Clark Ford Inc in support of [28-1] motion to compel (91) (plh) (Entered: 03/12/2002)
30 AGREED MOTION to extend time of the discovery deadline by defendant, plaintiff, intervenor-plaintiff, intervenor-defendant (3) (djs) Modified on 03/18/2002 (Entered: 03/15/2002)
31 MOTION by plaintiff, intervenor-plaintiffs for partial summary judgment (6) (djs) Modified on 03/18/2002 (Entered: 03/15/2002)
32 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff, intervenor-plaintiffs in support of [31-1] motion for partial summary judgment (10) (djs) Modified on 03/18/2002 (Entered: 03/15/2002)
33 APPENDIX by plaintiff, intervenor-plaintiff in support of [31-1] motion for partial summary judgment (66) (djs) Modified on 03/18/2002 (Entered: 03/15/2002)
34 ORDER granting [30-1] joint motion to extend time of the discovery deadline resetting scheduling order deadlines: Discovery deadline on 6/15/02 ( Signed by Judge Sam R. Cummings ) Copies to counsel: 3/19/02 Page(s) 1 (plh) (Entered: 03/19/2002)
35 RESPONSE (BRIEF IN RESPONSE OF ITS RESPONSE IN OPPOSTION) by EEOC to [28-1] motion to compel (19) (plh) (Entered: 03/29/2002)
36 ORDER granting [31-1] motion for partial summary judgment. Afer

https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?200236688525029-L_923_0-1

7/7/2006

District Version 2.5 - Docket Report

Page 6 of 8

04/18/2002
04/25/2002 04/30/2002 04/30/2002 05/06/2002 05/06/2002 05/06/2002 05/06/2002 05/29/2002

reviewing the evidence presented to the Court, the Court is satisfied that all conditions precedent to filing a suit under Title VII have been satisfied. Pltf's and Intevenor's Motion for Partial S/J on this issue is granted. Additionally after reviewing the evidence before the Court, Pltfs and Intervenors met all the applicable time limitations contained within 42 USC Section 2000e. Pltf's and Intervenor's Motion for Partial S/J is granted. The evidence before the Court establishes that conciliation efforts in this case failed on 4/18/02 and suit was filed on 6/27/01. The court finds that no unreasonable delay resulted. Pltfs' and Intervenors' Motion for Partial S/J on this issue is granted. In this suit, Pltfs' and Intervenors' claims are not based on the Dft's alleged negligence. Accordingly, recovery is not foreclosed by the Texas Workers Compensation Act. Pltfs' and Intervenors' Motion for Partial S/J on this issue is granted. All relief not expressly granted is denied. ( Signed by Judge Sam R. Cummings ) Copies to counsel: 4/18/02 Page(s) 5 (plh) (Entered: 04/18/2002)
37 ORDER granting [28-1] motion to compel. The Court Orders that Pltf shall provide to Dft copies of all documents responsive to Request for Production No. 11. These documents shall be delivered by 3:00 pm on Thursday, May 9, 2002, to Dft's counsel. ( Signed by Judge Sam R. Cummings ) Copies to counsel: 4/18/02 Page(s) 1 (plh) (Entered: 04/18/2002)
38 RETURN OF SERVICE executed 4/23/02 as to Richard Epps for taking of deposition on 4/26/02 at 1:30 (2) (plh) (Entered: 04/25/2002)
39 RETURN OF SERVICE executed 4/29/02 as to subpoena for Brad Cook for taking of deposition on 5/9/02 at 9:00 (2) (plh) (Entered: 04/30/2002)
40 RETURN OF SERVICE executed 4/29/02 as to subpoena issued to Ace Meason for taking of deposition on 5/1/02 at 9:00 (2) (plh) (Entered: 04/30/2002)
41 RETURN OF SERVICE executed 5/1/02 as to subpoena issued to Chris Buttram for deposition to be taken on 5/9/02 at 2:30 pm (2) (plh) (Entered: 05/06/2002)
42 RETURN OF SERVICE executed 5/1/02 as to subpoena issued to Aaron Babbitt for deposition to be taken on 5/10/02 at 9:00 am (2) (plh) (Entered: 05/06/2002)
43 RETURN OF SERVICE executed 5/2/02 as to subpoena issued to Dee Alonzo for deposition to be taken on 5/8/02 at 9:00 am (2) (plh) (Entered: 05/06/2002)
44 RETURN OF SERVICE executed 5/3/02 as to subpoena issued to Randy Clark for deposition on 5/7/02 at 9:00 am (2) (plh) (Entered: 05/06/2002)
45 RETURN OF SERVICE executed 5/28/02 as to subpoena issued to Mike Case for taking of deposition on 5/31/02 at 9:30 am (2) (plh) (Entered: 05/29/2002)

https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?200236688525029-L_923_0-1

7/7/2006

District Version 2.5 - Docket Report

Page 7 of 8

05/29/2002 05/29/2002 06/04/2002 06/06/2002 06/07/2002 06/13/2002 06/21/2002
08/13/2002
10/04/2002 10/04/2002 10/07/2002

46 RETURN OF SERVICE executed 5/28/02 as to subpoena issued to Phillip Vaughn for taking of deposition on 6/3/02 at 9:30 am (2) (plh) (Entered: 05/29/2002)
47 RETURN OF SERVICE executed 5/29/02 as to subpoena issued to Rick Owens for taking of deposition on 5/31/02 at 1:00 pm (2) (plh) (Entered: 05/29/2002)
48 MOTION with brief in support by EEOC to quash , for protective order , and for expedited hearing (137) (Bound Separately) (plh) (Entered: 06/04/2002)
49 ORDER Response to motion reset to 9:00 6/14/02 for [48-1] motion to quash, reset to 9:00 6/14/02 for [48-2] motion for protective order No reply will be considered. (Signed by Judge Sam R. Cummings ) Copies to counsel: 6/6/02 Page(s) 1 (jeh) (Entered: 06/06/2002)
50 RESPONSE by interested party Scicron Technologies in opposition to notice of intention to take deposition by written question (11) (djs) (Entered: 06/07/2002)
51 RESPONSE AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT by Ron Clark Ford Inc to [48-1] motion to quash, [48-2] motion for protective order (110) (plh) (Entered: 06/13/2002)
52 ORDER denying [48-1] motion to quash, denying [48-2] motion for protective order, denying [48-3] motion for expedited hearing. The deadline to produce all records shall be extended to 7/22/02 (Signed by Judge Sam R. Cummings) Copies to counsel: 6/21/02 Page(s) 2 (djs) (Entered: 06/21/2002)
53 PRETRIAL NOTICE AND ORDER setting Jury trial for 9:00 11/18/02 At least 30 days before the scheduled date for trial each counsel shall file with the Clerk and serve on opposing counsel proposed jury instructions and issues in the jury cases, and proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, any trial briefs that counsel may desire to present to the Court, deposition summaries and the proposed pretrial order. Each party shall provide to the other parties the information described under Rule 26(a)(3) FRCP. Such disclosures shall be made at least 30 days before scheduled date for trial. ( Signed by Judge Sam R. Cummings ) Copies to counsel: 8/13/02 Page(s) 3 (plh) (Entered: 08/13/2002)
54 MOTION by defendant Ron Clark Ford Inc to compel production of subpoena pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(c)(2)(b) (11) (jeh) (Entered: 10/04/2002)
55 MEMORANDUM by defendant Ron Clark Ford Inc in support of [54-1] motion to compel production of subpoena pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(c) (2)(b) (68) (jeh) (Entered: 10/04/2002)
56 ORDER Response to motion reset to 9:00 10/17/02 for [54-1] motion to compel production of subpoena pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(c)(2)(b) No reply will be considered. (Signed by Judge Sam R. Cummings) Copies to

https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?200236688525029-L_923_0-1

7/7/2006

District Version 2.5 - Docket Report

Page 8 of 8

10/08/2002 10/09/2002 10/10/2002 10/18/2002
10/24/2002 10/24/2002

counsel: 10/8/02 Page(s) 1 (jeh) (Entered: 10/08/2002)
57 RESPONSE by interested party Scicron Technologies to [54-1] motion to compel production of subpoena pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(c)(2)(b) (6) (jeh) (Entered: 10/08/2002)
58 JOINT MOTION TO EXTEND PRETRIAL DEADLINE to extend time in the Pretrial Notice and Order entered 8/13/02 by defendant Ron Clark Ford Inc, plaintiff EEOC, intervenor-plaintiff William Blount, intervenor-plaintiff Joe Charles, intervenor-plaintiff John nmi Crawford, intervenor-defendant Ron Clark Ford Inc (3) (jeh) (Entered: 10/09/2002)
59 ORDER TO EXTEND PRETRIAL DEADLINE granting [58-1] joint motion to extend time in the Pretrial Notice and Order entered 8/13/02 ( Signed by Judge Sam R. Cummings ) Copies to counsel: 10/10/02 Page (s) 1 (jeh) (Entered: 10/10/2002)
60 ORDER - The parties have indicated to the Court that they have settled this case. Accordingly, this case is administratively closed without prejudice to its being reopened to enter an order of dismissal or to enter other orders if the settlement is not consummated. Counsel are to file the papers necessary to dismiss this action on or before 30 days from the date of this order. (Signed by Judge Sam R. Cummings ) Copies to counsel: 10/18/02 Page(s) 1 (jeh) (Entered: 10/18/2002)
61 CONSENT DECREE ORDER (see order for specifics) ( Signed by Judge Sam R. Cummings ) Copies to counsel: 10/24/02 Page(s) 14 (jeh) (Entered: 10/24/2002)
Case closed (jeh) (Entered: 10/24/2002)

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt

PACER Login: Description: Billable Pages:

07/07/2006 09:17:01

hs0328

Client Code:

Docket Report Search Criteria:

5

Cost:

peters 2:01-cv-00245 0.40

https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?200236688525029-L_923_0-1

7/7/2006

 TEXAS CAR DEALERSHIP TO PAY $140,000 TO SETTLE SAME-...

http://www.eeoc.gov/press/10-28-02.html

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE October 28, 2002

CONTACT: BILL BACKHAUS Senior Trial Attorney (214) 655-3328
ROBERT CANINO Regional Attorney (214) 655-3333 TTY: (214) 655-3363

TEXAS CAR DEALERSHIP TO PAY $140,000 TO SETTLE SAME-SEX HARASSMENT SUIT BY EEOC

Male Employees Subjected to Groping and Lewd Sex-Based Remarks by Male Managers
DALLAS - The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) today announced that Ron Clark Ford, Inc. has agreed to pay six former male employees $140,000 to settle a same-sex harassment lawsuit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In addition to the monetary relief for former employees William Blount, Joe Charles, John Crawford, Dusty Harrison, Ulices Herrera and Richard Epps, the Consent Decree settling the case, signed by Federal District Court Judge Sam Cummings, requires Ron Clark Ford to provide training to prevent sexual harassment and post an anti-discrimination notice at the Amarillo, Texas-based dealership.
The EEOC's lawsuit (Civil Action No. 2-01CV-0245-C) was based on charges of discrimination filed by three of the men with the the federal Agency's Dallas District Office. The men said they and others were subjected to a sexually hostile work environment and different treatment because of their gender by male managers - which resulted in their constructive discharge. Blount, Charles and Crawford were also represented by private attorney Mark Wilson of Smith, Wilson & Duncan, P.C. in Amarillo.
Evidence gathered during the Commission's investigation showed that the men were subjected to lewd, inappropriate comments of a sexual nature and had their genitals and buttocks grabbed against their will by males managers. The dealership argued that the sexual conduct was "harmless horseplay" - a position that was contradicted by the evidence uncovered in the EEOC's investigation. The Commission filed suit after finding that discrimination took place and exhausting its conciliation efforts to reach a voluntary pre-litigation settlement.
"An employer should never assume that it can hide behind a gender-based double standard 'horseplay' defense," said Robert A. Canino, Regional Attorney of the Dallas District Office of the EEOC. "To do so is to trivialize what can be offensive and degrading conduct toward employees who don't find it amusing. The law doesn't provide a safe harbor when men sexually grope other men instead of groping women. Moreover, there is no free pass for employers who fail to prevent or correct such offenses on the stereotypical premise that 'boys will be boys'."
Pursuant to the terms of the Consent Decree, Ron Clark Ford, Inc. has agreed to establish a "Zero Tolerance" sexual harassment policy that requires supervisors to prevent and correct sexual harassment. Specifically, the policy requires that supervisors take seriously all complaints of sexual harassment made by male or female employees at the dealership.
"During the litigation, EEOC learned that Ron Clark Ford management either laughed at or ignored what was going on at the dealership, " said Bill Backhaus, Senior Trial Attorney of the Agency's Dallas office. "EEOC expects that the new Zero Tolerance policy and anti-harassment training should improve management's ability to properly respond to complaints of sexual harassment in the workplace."
Sexual harassment charges filed by men nationally with the EEOC have shown a steady rate of increase over the years from 10% of all sexual harassment filings in Fiscal Year 1994 to nearly 14% of all such filings in FY 2001. In 1998, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the EEOC's longstanding position that same-sex harassment of men is a violation of Title VII.
In addition to enforcing Title VII, the EEOC enforces the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, which protects workers age 40 and older from discrimination based on age; the Equal Pay Act of 1963; the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which prohibits employment discrimination against people with disabilities in the federal sector; Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits employment discrimination against people with disabilities in the private sector and state and local governments; prohibitions against discrimination affecting individuals with disabilities in the federal government; and sections of the Civil Rights Act of 1991. Further information about the Commission is available on the agency's Web site at www.eeoc.gov.

This page was last modified on November 1, 2002.

Return to Home Page

1 of 1

5/21/2007 4:43 PM


The Dallas District Office of the EEOC brought this suit against Ron Clark Ford, Inc., in June of 2001, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.  The suit alleged sexual harassment and retaliated against in violation of Title VII.  In October of 2001 three of the complainants intervened in the suit.  There was a partial motion for summary judgment filed by the EEOC and the intervenors.  The partial summary judgment regarded the affirmative defenses asserted by the defendant, namely, the statute of limitations, the absence of conditions precedent to an EEOC suit, laches, and the Texas Labor Code.  The court granted the partial summary judgment motion.  A month before the trial was scheduled, the parties reached a settlement and a consent decree was issued on October 24th, 2002.

The consent decree contained both injunctive relief and monetary relief.  The injunctions specifically directed Ron Clark Ford to revamp their anti-discrimination and complaint policies, as well as train all employees.  With regard to the specific complainants Ron Clark Ford was required to expunge their records and provide neutral references.  In addition Ron Clark Ford was required to pay the sum of $140,000 to the six complainants in amounts to be determined by the EEOC.  The consent decree expired by its own terms after 36 months.  

