IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT PIERCE DIVISION

UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

02-14139

Plaintiff,
EMERGENCY MEDICINE ASSOCIATES, INC., and INDIAN RIVER MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, INC.,

CIVIL ACTION NO.
AGISTRATE I .
COMPLAINT JURY TRIAL DEMAND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF SOUGHT

Defendants.

NATURE OF THE ACTION This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of the Rights Act of 1991 to correct unlawful employment practices on the bases of sex and retahatmn, and to provide appropriate relief to Gloria Farina, and other similarly situated individuals. Defendants violated Title VII by subjecting Gloria Farina and other similarly situated individuals to unwelcome sexual and sex based harassment which created a hostile environment. In addition, Dr. Farina was temainated based on her sex and in retaliation for protesting the harassment.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 451, 1331, 1337, and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Section 706(t)(1) and (3) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3) ("Title VII") and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991,42 U.S.C. § 1981A.

2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed within the

jurisdiction of the United States District Court for Southern District of Florida, Fort Pierce Division.

PARTIES

3. Plaintiff, the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the

"Commission"), is the agency of the United States of America charged with the administration,

interpretation and enforcement of Title VII, and is expressly authorized to bring this action by

Section 706(f)(1) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1).

4. At all relevant times, Defendant Employer I, Emergency Medicine Associates, Inc.

("EMA"), has continuously been a Florida Corporation doing business in the state of Florida and the

City of Vero Beach and has continuously had at least fifteen employees.

5.

At all relevant times, Defendant Employer II, Indian River Memorial Hospital

(’~IRMH"), has continuously been a Florida Corporation doing business in the state of Florida and

the City of Veto Beach and has continuously had at least fifteen employees.

6. At all relevant times, Defendants EMA and IRMH constituted a single employer and

have continuously been doing business in the State of Florida and the City of Vero Beach, and have

continuously had at least 15 employees.

7. At all relevant times, Defendant EMA has continuously been an employer engaged

in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701(b), (g) and (h) of Title VII,

42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(b), (g) and (h).

8. At all relevant times, Defendant IRMH has continuously been an employer engaged

in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701 (b), (g) and (h) of Title VII,

42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(b), (g) and (h).

9. At all relevant times, Defendants EMA and IRMH have continuously been a single

employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701 (b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(b), (g) and (h).

STATEMENT OF CLAIMS

10. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Gloria Farina filed a

charge with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by Defendant Employers. All

conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled.

11. Since at least October of 1995, Defendants engaged in unlawful employment

practices at its Vero Beach, Florida facility, in violation of Section 703(a)(1) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C.

§ 2000e-2(a)(1). Defendants subjected Gloria Farina, and other similarly situated individuals to unwelcome sexual and sex based harassment which was sufficiently severe and pervasive to affect

the terms and conditions of their employment and create a hostile and abusive work environment.

12.

Since at least October of 1997, Defendants engaged in unlawful employment

practices at its Vero Beach, Florida facility, in violation of Section 703(a)(1) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C.

§ 2000e-2(a)(l). Defendants failed to promote Gloria Farina to partner on the basis of sex, female.

13. On or about October 14, 1999, Defendants terminated Dr. Farina’s employment,

effective January 31,2000, on the basis of sex, female, in violation of Section 703(a)(1) of Title VII,

42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). 14. In the alternative, when Dr. Farina protested the activities complained of in

paragraphs 11 and 12, Defendants retaliated against her by terminating her employment on or about

October 14, 1999, effective January 31, 2000, in violation of § 704(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §

2000e-3(a). 15,

The effect of the practice(s) complained of in paragraphs 11, 12, 13 and 14 above

has been to deprive Gloria Farina, and other similarly situated individuals of equal employment

opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees on the basis of their sex, female.
16. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs 11, 12, 13 and 14 above were intentional.
17. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs 11, 12, 13 and 14 above were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Gloria Farina, and other similarly situated individuals.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendants their officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in sexual and sex based harassment, discriminatory promotion and termination practices based on sex, and any employment practice which discriminates on the basis of sex and retaliation. B. Order Defendants to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for women, and which eradicate the effects of their past and present unlawful employment practices. C. Order Defendants to make whole Gloria Farina, and other similarly situated individuals, by providing appropriate backpay with prejudgment interest, in amounts to be determined at trial, and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of their unlawful employment practices, including reinstatement, promotion and~or frontpay. D. Order Defendants to make whole Gloria Farina and other similarly situated individuals, by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described in paragraphs 11, 12, 13 and 14 above, including, but not

limited to, job search and medical expenses, in amounts to be determined at trial.

E. Order Defendants to make whole Gloria Farina and other similarly situated

individuals by providing compensation for past and future nonpecuniary losses resulting from the

unlawful practices described in paragraphs 1 l, 12, 13 and 14 above, including, but not limited to,

emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, and humiliation, in amounts to be determined at trial.

F. Order Defendants to pay Gloria Farina and other similarly situated individuals,

punitive damages for their malicious and reckless conduct described in paragraphs 11, 12, 13 and

14 above, in amounts to be determined at trial.

Go

Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public

interest.

H. Award the Commission its costs of this action. JURY TRIAL DEMAND

The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its complaint.

Respectfully Submitted,

NICHOLAS M.. INZEO Acting Deputy General Counsel

GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel

DELNER FRANKLIN-THOMAS Regional Attorney

MICHAEL J. FARREIcL Sul~er~]s, ory Tri~l A~tomey]

Senior Trial Attorney Florida Bar No. 0988626
5

UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUN/TY COMMISSION
Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower Two Biscayne Blvd. Miami, Florida 33131 Telephone: (305) 530-6003

J($R44e~v. 12/96)

CIVIL COVER SHEET

The JS-44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as r~quired by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required ~,r the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON THE REVERSE OF THE FORM.)

I. (a) PLAINTIFFS U.S. Equal Dnployment Opportunit~Cowniss_ion

DEFENDANTS Emergency Medicine Associates, Inc.
and Indian River Men~rial ~bspital, Inc.

(b) COUNTY OF nESlDENOE OF FIRST LISTED PLAINTIFF
9 d X~PT : U SI~P LA~r~ F F~...A $9

COUNTY OF RESIDENCE OF FIRST LISTED DEFENDANT Indigen River
(IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION C~ THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED

c,e, ely P IN C) ATTORNEYS (FIRM NAME ADDRESS AND 1ELEPHONE NUMBER)

One Biscayne Tower, Suite 270 "

E

T~ £_ Risca~vne Blvd., Miami, FL 33131

ATTOEINEYS (,F _K4qQW~)

Helen A. Paladeno, Esq.

Ted L. Shinkle, Esq.

6~?~N Westshore Blvd.,

1800 W. Hibiscus Blvd.,__3o"

Suite 200

Melbourne, FL 32901 Tampa,

EL 33609-1117

(d) CIRCLE COUNTY WHERE ACTION AROSE: bADE. MONROE. BROWARD PALM BEACH, MARTIN, ST LUCIE, ~~ OKEECHOBEE HIGHLANDS

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION IP~CE AN × ~N ONE Box ONLVl

]~ t U.S. Government Plaintiff

[] ~ Federal Question (US Government Not a Party)

IP~CE III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES

AN ’X" IN ONE BOX FOR PLAINTIFF

(For Diversity Cases Only)

AND ONE BOX FOP, DEFENDANT)

PTF DEF

P/F DEF

Citizen of This State

[] ~ [] t Incorporated or Principal Place [] 4 [] 4

of Business In This State

rn 2 U.S. Government

[] 4 Diversity

Citizen of Another State

[] 2

Defendant

(Indicate Citizenship of Parties

J~GISTP, ATE JUDGE,in Item III)

Citizen or Subject of

[] 3

LYNCH

Foreign Country

IV. ORIGIN

(PLACE AN "X" IN ONE BOX ONLY)

Transferred from

~ 1 Original

[] 2 Removed from

[] 3 Remanded from [] 4 Reinstated or

[] s another district

Proceeding

State Court

Appellate Court

Reopened

(specify)

Incorporated and Principal Place [] s

[] 5

of Business In Another State

Foreign Nation

,- os []6

[] s Multidistrict Litigation

V. NATURE OF SUIT (PLACEAN "X"IN ONE BOX ONLY)

A CONTRACT

A TORTS

FORFEITURE/PENALTYI A BANKRUPTCY , A OTI’~

[~ 1~0 Marine [] 130 MIIle~ ACl [] 140 Negotiable Instrumem [] 150 Racoven] of (X, erpaymenr
E] 151 Medicare ACt IF, 152 Recovery of Defau!ted
[] 190 Olne, Conlracl
A REAL PROPERTY
[~ 210 Land Cendernnal~on BE] 220 Foreclosure
~ 230 Rent Lease & Ejech’nenl F_] 240 TOtS tO Land [] ~’45 Tort Product Liability [] 2~0 All Other Real Proeerty

PERSONAL INJURY

PERSONAL INJURY

B[] 610 Agriculture

[] 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 [] 400 S1at8 ~eapl~l

[] 310 Airplane

[] 362 mersonal Injury

BE] 620 Other Food & Drug

[] 110 Antl~tl~

[] 315 Airplane Product Liabiliry
[] 320 Assault Ubel & Slander

Mad Malprachce ~ 365 Personal Injury
Product Liability ~ 368 Asbestos Personal

B[] 625 Drug Related Se=zure [] 423 withdrawal

of Property 21 USC 881

28 USC 157

BE:] 6SO Liquol Laws 8[] li40 R R & Truck

A PROPER~ RIG.S

[] 430 Ban~s..ana B~ ~0 Com~rce/l~R~/etc
~ 470 Rackel~r ]~nceo ano

[] 3:30 Federal Employers Liability
[] 340 Manna [] 345 Maune Producr

Iniury Product L~ability B[] 650 Airline Rags

B[] 660 Occupational

PERSONAL PROPERTY

Safety/Health

[] 370 Olner Fraud

B[] 690 C~her

~ 820 Copyright~ ~ 8~0 Patent ~ 840 Trademark

Co~upt Organlz~ions
~ ~10 Sele~ive Se~ce ~ 850
Exchange

Dability [] 3S0 Motor Vehicle

[] 371 TrJth in Lending ~ 380 Other Personal

A LABOR

B SOCIAL SECURITYI

~ ~75 Customer Challenge
~z usc 3~10

[] 3=~5 Motor Vehicle

ProPerly Damage

Product Liability

[] 385 Property Damage

[] 360 Other Personal Irjury

Product Liability

[] 710 Fair Labor Standards ~ 861 ~IA ~l~gEff;

Act

’ ~ 862 Black Lung ¢923~

~ ~91 Agricultural ~ 892 Economic S1~bfl~abon Act
~ 893 En~ronmenta~ Mailers

A CIVIL RIGHTS
[] 441 Voting [~442 Employmenl [] 443 Hous~ng~
Accommodations [] 444 Wellare [] 440 Other Civil Rights

[] 720 Labor’Mgml Relahons ~ 863 ~IWC,’DI~ ~40~g:,~ ~ ~ 894 Energy AIIoCahon Act

PRISONER PETITIONS

~ 864 S~I~ T=tie KVI

~ 695 Freedom of

B [] 510 Motions to Vacate Sertence
HABEAS CORPUS;

L~ 730 Labor Mgml Reporling ~ 865 RSI ’4O5~gH & Disclosure Act

[] 740 Radway Labol Act

~~ SUIT

}

Informahon A~

L J ~00 Appea} of Fee Delerm~nalio~ Under Equal Access to Justice

BC- 530 General

S~ ~ ~0 Constitutionality

A[] 535 Death Penally B [] 540 Mandamus & Other BBr[~] 5~50PCriisvoilnRiCghotnsdition

[] 790 Other Labor Litigation A~ 870 T~es (U S Plaintiff /

A[] 791 Empl Rat inc Security Act

or Defendam}
A~ 8~1 IRS T~lrd Pa~y 26 USC 7609

~ /

Stale ~atut~
~ 8~ ~r ~aluto~ AGio~ AORB

Vl. CAUSE OF ACTION

is an action ICITE THE U S CIVIL STATUTE UNDER WHICH YOU ARE FILING AND WRITE BRIEF STATEMENT OF CAUSE This

under

DO NOT O,TE JUR,SD,CT,ONA, STATUTES U~LESS D,VERS,~I Title VII of the Civil Rig.ht.s Act of. 19.64,. and

Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, to correct unlawful employment prac~zces on r/qe Daszs

L~T~nd retaliation and to provide appropriate relief to Gloria Farina, M.D. and via __days eslimated (for both sides to try entire case) sind_larly siL--uated individuals ¯

VII. REQUESTED IN CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT:.

[] UNDER F.R.C.R 23

DEMAND $

CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:

JURY DEMAND: ;~:Y~S

[] NO

VIII.RELATED CASE(S) (See instructions):

IF ANY

JUDGE

DATE

SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD

DOCKET NUMBER

;/’ /O’a
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY

Rachel Shonfield, Esq.

RECEIPT #

AMOUNT.

APPLYING rFP

JUDGE

MAC JUDGE

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FT. PIERCE DIVISION

UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

Plaintiff, GLORIA FARINA, M.D.,

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 02-14139 CIV-PAINE -.7

Intervenor-Plaintiff

Vo
EMERGENCY MEDICINE ASSOCIATES, INC., and INDIAN RIVER MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, INC.,
Defendants,

INTERVENOR-PLAINTIFF GLORIA FARINA, M.D.’S VERIFIED COMPLAINT Intervenor-Plaintiff, GLORIA FARINA, M.D., by and through her undersigned counsel,
hereby sues Defendants, EMERGENCY MEDICINE ASSOCIATES, INC., ("EMA") and INDIAN RIVER MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, INC., ("IRMH") and alleges the following:
INTRODUCTION 1. This action involves claims of discrimination and harassment based on sex and pregnancy, and retaliation pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §2000e, et seq., as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. 1981a, and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, and pursuant to the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, Florida Statutes § 760.01, et seq., and is brought by Intervenor-Plaintiff, GLORIA FARINA, M.D., ("DR. FARINA").

JURISDICTION, VENUE AND PARTIES 2. This action arises, in part, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000, et seq., as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991 and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act ("Title VII"). This Court has original jurisdiction to grant relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332(a)(1) and 1343 (3) and (4). This Court is vested with jurisdiction to order an injunction, front pay, back pay or any other equitable relief as may be proper, and compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 a and 2000e-5(g). This action also arises under the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, Florida Statutes § 760.01, et seq.(the "FCRA"). This Court has jurisdiction over all state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 133 ! and § 1367. The state claims herein are for damages in excess of $75,000.00 and are therefore within the jurisdiction of this Court. 3. Venue is proper in the Ft. Pierce Division of the Southern Division of Florida pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 139 l(a) and (c) because Defendants’ principal place of business is located in Vero Beach, Florida, and because the unlawful employment practices giving rise to this action were committed within this judicial district. 4. Plaintiff, UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION ("EEOC"), made a finding of sex discrimination, sexual harassment and retaliation against EMA & IRMH, and filed suit in its own right on behalf of DR. FARINA, giving her the right to intervene as a plaintiff. DR. FARINA brings her claims herein as an intervening plaintiff. A copy of the EEOC’s Letter of Determination is attached to this Complaint as Intervenor’s EXHIBIT
Page-2-

5. Intervenor-Plaintiff, DR. FARINA, is an individual who resides in Indian River

County, Florida, during the time of her employment with EMA & IRMH. DR. FARINA was

employed by EMA & IRMH as a hospital emergency room physician. She is female and was

pregnant, and is therefore protected from discrimination in employment under the Florida Act and

Title VII.

6. Defendant, EMA, is a Florida corporation. At all times material, EMA was and is

engaged in providing emergency room medical services with IRMH. EMA is an "employer" as

defined by 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b) and Fla. Stat. §760.02(7) because it employs 15 or more employees

for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar

year. 7.

Defendant, IRMH, is a Florida corporation. At all times material, IRMH was and is

operating a hospital in Veto Beach, Florida. IRMH is an "employer" as defined by 42 U.S.C. §

2000e(b) and Fla. Star. §760.02(7) because it employs 15 or more employees for each working day

in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar

8. Defendants, EMA & IRMH constitute a single employer, and arej ointly and severally

liable for the acts complained of herein.

COMPLIANCE WITH PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS

9. DR. FARINA timely filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") and the Florida Commission on Human Relations ("FCHR")

alleging sex and pregnancy discrimination and retaliation. This action is filed within four (4) years

of the unlawful acts complained of herein. Plaintiff has satisfied any and all administrative

requirements precedent to the filing of this action pursuant to §760.11.

Page -3-

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 10. DR. FARINA was employed by EMA & IRMH as an emergency room physician at the Hospital from October 1995 until January 31,2000. DR. FARINA was the first female to work as an emergency room doctor with EMA at IRMH. 11. EMA & IRMH created a discriminatory and demeaning work environment for female employees. DR. FARINA was routinely subjected to sexual discrimination and harassment by several of her supervisors and co-workers. 12. EMA 8: IRMH refused to promote DR. FARINA to partner during her employment, solely because of her gender. Males with less tenure and experience were consistently made partners. 12. The hostile and sexually-harassing conduct to which DR. FARINA was subjected during her employment with EMA & IRMH included, but was not limited to, the following:
(i) using graphic sexual language and gestures, (ii) telling sexually explicit jokes to DR. FARINA and other female staff, (iii) engaging in inappropriate sexual relationships with female staff members, (iv) routinely making explicit comments about their sexual experiences, and (v) openly discussing the female hospital staffmembers and patients with whom
they would like to engage in sexual relations; 13. The inappropriate sexual language and innuendo, sexually explicit jokes, and vulgar behavior included, but is not limited to, the following:
Page -4-

(i) On one occasion, Dr. Brad Damiani announced that he "finds it a turn on to see two beautiful women having sex." He went on to ask other male employees whether they also found it to be erotic.
(ii) On another occasion, while DR. FARINA was treating a female patient, Dr. Damiani approached DR. FARINA and noted that the patient "must have implants because her breasts are very perky." A nurse cautioned that the patient was only eighteen (18) years old. Dr. Damiani replied "still, I’d like to find out." Moments later, Dr. Damiani asked why the patient was in the emergency room. DR. FARINA advised that she had abdominal pain, and Dr. Damiani asked if it was pelvic inflammatory disease. When DR. FARINA answered affirmatively, Dr. Damiani remarked "someone already got to her," referring to sexual intercourse.
(iii) On a different occasion, another attractive female patient was in the emergency room shrieking from pain. Dr. Damiani commented that "she should be screaming, but not from pain," referring again to sexual intercourse with the patient.
(iv) Dr. Damiani described his bachelor party in graphic detail in front of DR. FAR/NA and other emergency room staff. He stated that strippers removed his pants and he sat completely exposed. Dr. Damiani then graphically explained that "two strippers had their boobs on either side of me while another had her crotch in my face."
Page -5-

On one occasion, Dr. Damiani was looking at a swimsuit model magazine, and commented to DR. FARINA and others: "you talk about chest pain, look at this," referring to the model’s large breasts. Dr. Bob Butler remarked that he "would like to be the sand on that model."
(vi) On another occasion, Dr. Damiani announced to DR. FARINA and other
emergency room staff that he "never wears a condom." (vii) On one occasion, Dr. Damiani had some shaving cream on his face and ears.
When it was pointed out to him, he asked DR. FARINA if she would "lick it off’ for him. (viii) Dr. Damiani showed DR. FARINA a Victoria’s Secret lingerie catalog that he kept at the office, and told her that when he is talking to a patient and gets upset or annoyed, he tells the patient to "wait a minute" and looks at the women in the catalog wearing lingerie. He stated that then he can smile again and continue talking with the patient. Dr. Damiani noted that the photographs "showed lots of cleavage." (ix) DR. FARINA witnessed Dr. Damiani inappropriately touching female hospital employees in the emergency room.
(x) On another occasion, Dr. Damiani stated that "he wasn’t the one found
having sex with a woman in the employee parking lot,"and that it was instead a male nurse. Dr. Damiani added that perhaps the sexual intercourse was not with a woman but "with a dog."
Page -6-

(xi) Other male employees also regularly subjected DR. FARINA to inappropriate language and jokes. The male employees often talked about women with whom they would, or would not like to have sexual relations. For example, Dr. Butler commented that he would ’really like to do it" with a female pulmonologist and a female radiologist at the hospital.
(xii) Dr. Dudley Teel told DR. FARINA that Dr. Damiani did not like her because "he couldn’t get in her pants."
14. DR. FARINA was also treated differently than the male doctors in the terms and conditions of her employment because of her sex and pregnancy. For example:
(i) DR. FARINA was routinely subjected to inappropriate questions and comments by the male doctors about whether she was going to have children or continue working. The male doctors would questions her as to why she did not "just get pregnant and stay home" because she was "married to another doctor."
(ii) DR. FARINA was often told that "she didn’t need more shifts because her husband is a doctor."
(iii) On one occasion, DR. FARINA overheard Dr. Damiani asking a female surgeon, Dr. Heidi Gorsutch why she returned to work and stating that he "thought for sure after you had your second child you would just close your practice and stay home."
(iv) A witness overheard Dr. Damiani and Dr. Bob Butler refer to DR. FARINA’s pregnancy in July 1999 and state "now what are we going to do with her." Page -7-

(v) The male doctors regularly asked female employees whether they were planning to have any children. They would also routinely ask the females "if they would permanently stop working if they became pregnant."
(vi) The male doctors would regularly ask DR. FARINA, who was 41 years old at the time, if she was pregnant yet, and would make statements such as "older parents have a higher incidence of mentally retarded and anacephalic children."
15. On March 9, 1999, DR. FARINA was reviewing her lipid profile with Dr. Rechter. Dr. Damiani interrupted and asked DR. FARINA if she was pregnant. DR. FARINA stated that she was not, yet Dr. Damiani continued badgering her, asking "are you sure?"
16. On March 2, 1999, Dr. Damiani asked DR. FARINA "when are you going to have another baby?"
17. On March 27, 1999, Dr. Butler again asked DR. FARINA if she was pregnant. 18. On June 4, 1999, DR. FARINA was speaking to a male nurse about how he j uggles caring for two children since his wife also works. Dr. Damiani overheard the conversation and demanded to know if DR. FARINA was pregnant. 18. In July 1999, DR. FARINA had a pregnancy test done at the hospital, which was positive. DR. FARINA told no one about her pregnancy except for her husband. 19. Within days, on July 26, 1999, a hospital employee asked DR. FARINA if she was pregnant. DR. FARINA did not respond. The employee then related a conversation that she had with Dr. Damiani wherein Dr. Damiani stated that DR. FARINA might not be able to make it to a morning meeting because she was pregnant. Later that day, several employees confronted DR.
Page -8-

FARINA demanding that she confirm her pregnancy. They repeatedly asked her if she "was sure she wasn’t pregnant because Dr. Damiani seemed pretty convinced" that she was.
20. DR. FARINA also learned that Dr. Damiani and Dr. Butler had altered the ER’s computer screen saver to display DR. FARINA’s due date and announce that DR. FARINA was pregnant to the emergency room staff. DR. FARINA complained about the invasion into her privacy and explained that she believed that she was being mistreated. However, DR. FARINA was told that EMA didn’t know what had happened, "and didn’t care."
21. Due to the stress she was experiencing at work, on July 28, 1999, DR. FARINA began severely hemorrhaging, and was faced with a threatened abortion. She left work early to visit her obstetrician, who ordered strict bed rest. Later that evening, Dr. Damiani phoned DR. FARINA’s residence and demanded to speak with her. DR. FARINA’s husband would not allow Dr. Damiani to speak with her due to her deteriorating condition. Dr. Damiani was enraged and began cursing, yelling "everything Gloria is saying about me viewing her records and disclosing her positive pregnancy test is bull-shit!"
22. DR. FARINA only missed half a shift of work. Thereafter, she had two days of scheduled time off and returned to work with her doctor’s consent and warning to be careful. When she returned to work, DR. FARINA spoke with Dr. Teel about the events surrounding the invasion into her privacy, the disclosure of her confidential medical information, and Dr. Damiani’ s harassing telephone call. Dr. Teel told DR. FARINA it was irrelevant that she was suffering from a threatened miscarriage when Dr. Damiani telephoned. Instead, he indicated that she "deserved" to have Dr. Damiani call "because he was angry and couldn’t wait." Dr. Teel added that DR. FARINA "had no business leaving the ER," although her obstetrician had placed DR. FARINA on immediate bed rest.
Page -9-

Dr. Teel indicated that "everyone has problems," and that DR. FARINA "just needed to deal with hers and not let it show out there" in the ER.
23. In retaliation for her objections to, and complaints about, the sexually harassing and hostile working environment in the emergency room, male physicians ofEMA & IRMH procured the termination of DR. FARINA’s written contract by intentionally and unjustifiably telling EMA & IRMH that they could not work with DR. FARINA solely because she routinely objected to their sexually harassing and discriminatory conduct in the workplace, and telling EMA & IRMH that DR. FARINA was not seeing the necessary volume of patients despite knowing the falsity of their statements.
24. On October 14, 1999, DR. FARINA was told that she was being terminated. She was told that some of the male doctors did not think she was able to pull her weight "right now." She was told that she was a "good doctor," but she was not a good doctor "right now". DR. FARINA asked what had changed from before to "right now" besides her pregnant condition, but she did not receive an answer.
25. DR. FARINA’s last day of work with EMA & IRMH was January 31, 2000. 26. All conditions precedent to filing this action have been performed, have occurred or have been waived. 27. DR. FARINA has engaged the services of legal counsel and is obligated to pay legal counsel their fees incurred in the prosecution of her claims.
COUNT I VIOLATION OF TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964~ AS AMENDED -
SEX DISCRIMINATION 28. DR. FARINA repeats and realleges the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 27.
Page - 10-

29. EMA & IRMH violated § 703(a) of Title VII by intentionally discriminating against DR. FARINA on the basis of sex. EMA & IRMH intentionally discriminated and interfered with the terms and conditions of DR. FARINA’s employment under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1).
30. DR. FARINA was discriminated against on the basis of her sex, female, in that she was subjected to different terms and conditions of employment than male employees as detailed in the paragraphs in the general allegations section of this complaint.
31. DR. FARINA had all the qualifications needed to and did, in fact, adequately and effectively perform all of the duties of her position.
32. Neither a legitimate non-discriminatory reason nor a bona fide occupational qualification exists to justify EMA & IRMH’s intentional disparate treatment of DR. FARINA.
33. The actions ofEMA & IRMH and/or its agents, were willful, wanton, intentional and with malice or with reckless indifference to DR. FARINA’s federally protected rights, entitling DR. FARINA to damages in the form of compensatory and punitive damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981(a) and 2000(e)-5(g) to punish EMA & IRMH for these actions and to deter EMA & IRMH, and others, from such actions in the future.
34. The actions of EMA & IRMH make reinstatement ineffective as a make whole remedy, entitling DR. FARINA to front pay in lieu of reinstatement.
35. As a direct, natural, proximate and foreseeable result ofEMA & IRMH’ s actions, DR. FARINA has suffered past and future pecuniary losses, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of dignity and other nonpecuniary losses and intangible injuries.
Page-ll-

DEMAND FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Intervenor-Plaintiff, GLORIA FARINA, M.D., demands judgment against Defendants, EMERGENCY MEDICINE ASSOCIATES, INC. & INDIAN RIVER MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, INC., jointly and severally, for back pay, front pay in lieu of reinstatement, compensatory damages, punitive damages, prejudgment interest, attomeys’ fees, costs of this action and such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.
COUNT II VIOLATION OF TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964, AS AMENDED -
SEXUAL HARASSMENT 36. DR. FARINA repeats and realleges the allegations in paragraphs i through 27. 37. The discrimination and harassment to which DR. FARINA was subjected was based upon her sex/gender, female. 38. EMA & IRMH violated Title VII by intentionally discriminating against DR. FARINA on the basis of her sex as more specifically alleged in the General Allegations section of this Complaint. EMA & IRMH intentionally discriminated and interfered with the terms and conditions of DR. FARINA’s employment under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). 39. There was no legitimate non-discriminatory reason to justi~ EMA & IRMH’s intentional disparate treatment of DR. FARINA, and male employees at the Hospital were not subjected to the same sexual harassment and sexually offensive and humiliating conduct. 40. The offensive, threatening, intimidating and humiliating verbal and unwelcome physical conduct of agents, employees, managers, partners, supervisors and/or corporate executives was sufficiently severe and pervasive and created a hostile and offensive work environment and negatively affected DR. FARINA’s physical and psychological well being.
Page - 12-

41. The conduct of EMA & IRMH by and through its agents, employees, managers, partners, supervisors and/or corporate executives, and EMA & IRMH’s failure to take prompt remedial action to prevent continued discrimination and harassment of DR. FARINA, deprived DR. FARINA of her statutory rights under 42 U.S.C. § 2000, et seq.
42. The actions of EMA & IRMH and/or its agents, employees, managers, partners, supervisors and/or corporate executives were willful, wanton, intentional and performed with malice or with reckless indifference to DR. FARINA’s legally protected rights, entitling DR. FARINA to compensatory and punitive damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 a and 2000e-5(g) to punish EMA & IRMH for these actions and to deter EMA & IRMH, and others, from taking such actions in the future.
43. The actions of EMA & IRMH make reinstatement ineffective as a make whole remedy, entitling DR. FARINA to front pay in lieu of reinstatement.
44. As a direct, proximate and foreseeable result of the actions ofEMA & IRMH, DR. FARINA has suffered past and future pecuniary losses, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience and mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of dignity, emotional distress, humiliation and other nonpecuniary losses and intangible injuries.
DEMAND FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Intervenor-Plaintiff, GLORIA FARINA, M.D., demands judgment against Defendants, EMERGENCY MEDICINE ASSOCIATES, INC. & INDIAN RIVER MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, INC., jointly and severally, for back pay, front pay in lieu of reinstatement, compensatory damages, punitive damages, prejudgment interest, attorneys’ fees, costs of this action and such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.
Page - 13-

COUNT III VIOLATION OF TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964, AS AMENDED -
RETALIATION 45. DR. FARINA repeats and realleges the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 27. 46. EMA & IRMH violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, by retaliating against DR. FARINA for complaining about the discriminatory work environment to which she was subjected, which is considered an unlawful employment practice under Title VII. 47. The actions ofEMA & IRMH and/or its agents were willful, wanton, intentional and with malice or with reckless indifference to DR. FARINA’ s federally protected rights, entitling DR. FARINA to damages in the form of compensatory and punitive damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C.A. § § 1981 a and 2000(e)-5(g) to punish EMA & IRMH for these actions and to deter EMA & IRMH, and others, from such actions in the future. 48. The actions of EMA & IRMH make reinstatement ineffective as a make whole remedy, entitling DR. FARINA to front pay in lieu of reinstatement. 49. As a direct, proximate and foreseeable result of EMA & IRMH’s actions, DR. FARINA has suffered past and future pecuniary losses, emotional pain and suffering, inconvenience and mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of dignity, emotional distress, humiliation and other non-pecuniary losses and intangible injuries.
DEMAND FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Intervenor-Plaintiff, GLORIA FARINA, M.D., demands judgment against Defendants, EMERGENCY MEDICINE ASSOCIATES, INC. & INDIAN RIVER MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, INC., jointly and severally, for back pay, front pay in lieu of reinstatement,
Page - 14-

compensatory damages, punitive damages, prejudgment interest, attorneys’ fees, costs of this action and such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.
COUNT IV VIOLATION OF TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964, AS AMENDED
BY THE PREGNANCY DISCRIMINATION ACT 50. DR. FARINA repeats and realleges the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 27. 51. EMA & IRMH violated 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1) by intentionally discriminating against DR. FARINA on the basis of sex. EMA & IRMH intentionally discriminated and interfered with the terms and conditions of DR. FARINA’s employment based on her status as a pregnant female employee. Said status is protected from discrimination under 42 U.S.C. 2000e(k) and 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(a)(l). 52. DR. FARINA possessed all of the required qualifications and did, in fact, adequately and effectively perform all of the duties of her position. 53. Neither a legitimate non-discriminatory reason nor a bona fide occupational qualification exists to justify EMA & IRMH’s intentional disparate treatment of DR. FARINA. 54. DR. FARINA was treated differently because of or on the basis of her pregnancy. 55. The actions ofEMA & IRMH and/or its agents were willful, wanton, imentional and with malice or with reckless indifference to DR. FARINA’s federally protected rights, entitling DR. FARINA to damages in the form of compensatory and punitive damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 1981 (a) and 2000(e)-5(g) to punish EMA & IRMH for these actions and to deter EMA & IRMH, and others, from such actions in the future.
Page-15-

56. The actions of EMA & IRMH make reinstatement ineffective as a make whole remedy, entitling DR. FARINA to front pay in lieu of reinstatement.
57. As a direct, natural, proximate and foreseeable result ofEMA & IRMH’ s actions, DR. FARINA has suffered past and future pecuniary losses, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of dignity and other non pecuniary losses and intangible injuries.
DEMAND FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Intervenor-Plaintiff, GLORIA FARINA, M.D., demands judgment against Defendants, EMERGENCY MEDICINE ASSOCIATES, INC. & INDIAN RIVER MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, INC., jointly and severally, for back pay, front pay in lieu of reinstatement, compensatory damages, punitive damages, prejudgment interest, attorneys’ fees, costs of this action and such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.
COUNT V VIOLATION OF THE FLORIDA CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1992
SEX DISCRIMINATION 58. DR. FARINA repeats and reallcges the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 27. 59. EMA & IRMH violated §760.10(1)(a), Florida Statutes, by intentionally discriminating against DR. FARINA on the basis of sex. EMA & IRMH intentionally discriminated against and interfered with the terms and conditions of DR. FARINA’s employment under §760.10(1)(a). 60. DR. FARINA was discriminated against on the basis of her sex, female, in that she was subjected to different terms and conditions of employment than male employees, as detailed in the paragraphs in the general allegations section of this complaint.
Page - 16-

61. DR. FARINA had all the qualifications needed to and did, in fact, adequately and effectively perform all of the duties of her position.
62. Neither a legitimate non-discriminatory reason nor a bona fide occupational qualification exists to justify EMA & IRMH’s intentional disparate treatment of DR. FARINA.
63. The actions ofEMA & IRMH and/or its agents, were willful, wanton, intentional and with malice or with reckless indifference to DR. FARINA’s protected civil rights, entitling DR. FARINA to damages in the form of compensatory and punitive damages pursuant to §760.11 (5) to punish EMA & IRMH for these actions and to deter EMA & IRMH, and others, from such actions in the future.
64. The actions of EMA & IRMH make reinstatement ineffective as a make whole remedy, entitling DR. FARINA to front pay in lieu of reinstatement.
65. As a direct, natural, proximate and foreseeable result of EMA & IRMH’s actions, DR. FARINA has suffered past and future pecuniary losses, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of dignity and other nonpecuniary losses and intangible injuries.
DEMAND FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Intervenor-Plaintift; GLORIA FARINA, M.D., demands judgment against Defendants, EMERGENCY MEDICINE ASSOCIATES, INC. & INDIAN RIVER MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, INC., jointly and severally, for back pay, front pay in lieu of reinstatement, compensatory damages, punitive damages, prejudgment interest, attorneys’ fees, costs of this action and such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.
COUNT VI Page - 17-

VIOLATION OF THE FLORIDA CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1992 SEXUAL HARASSMENT
66. DR. FARINA repeats and realleges the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 27. 67. The discrimination and harassment to which DR. FARINA was subjected was based upon her sex/gender, female. 68. EMA & IRMH, violated Fla. Stat. § 760, et seq., by intentionally discriminating against DR. FARINA and subjecting her to different terms and conditions of employment on the basis of her sex as more specifically alleged in the General Allegations section of this Complaint. 69. The offensive, threatening, intimidating and humiliating verbal and unwelcome physical conduct of EMA & IRMH’s agents, employees, managers, supervisors and/or corporate executives was sufficiently severe and pervasive and created a hostile and offensive work environment and negatively affected DR. FARINA’s physical and psychological well being. 70. The conduct of EMA & IRMH, by and through its agents, employees, managers, partners, supervisors and/or corporate executives, and EMA & IRMH’s failure to take prompt remedial action to prevent continued sexual harassment of DR. FARINA deprived DR. FARINA of her statutory rights under the FCRA. 71. There was no legitimate non-discriminatory reason to justify EMA & IRMH’s intentional disparate treatment of DR. FARINA, and male employees at the Hospital were not subjected to the same sexual harassment and sexually offensive and humiliating verbal and physical conduct. 72. The actions of EMA & IRMH and/or its agents, employees managers, supervisors and/or corporate executives were willful, wanton, intentional and were performed with malice or
Page - 18-

with reckless indifference to DR. FARINA’s legally protected rights, entitling DR. FARINA to damages in the form of compensatory and punitive damages pursuant to Florida Statutes § 760.11 (5) to punish EMA & IRMH for its actions and to deter it, and others, from taking such actions in the future.
73. The actions of EMA & IRMH make reinstatement ineffective as a make whole remedy, entitling DR. FARINA to front pay in lieu of reinstatement.
74. As a direct, proximate and foreseeable result of EMA & IRMH’s actions, DR. FARINA has suffered past and future pecuniary losses, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience and mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of dignity, emotional distress, humiliation and other nonpecuniary losses and intangible injuries.
DEMAND FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Intervenor-Plaintiff, GLORIA FARINA, M.D., demands judgment against Defendants, EMERGENCY MEDICINE ASSOCIATES, INC. & INDIAN RIVER MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, INC., jointly and severally, for back pay, front pay in lieu of reinstatement, compensatory damages, punitive damages, prejudgment interest, attorneys’ fees, costs of this action and such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.
COUNT VII VIOLATION OF THE FLORIDA CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1992
RETALIATION 75. DR. FARINA repeats and realleges the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 27. 76. EMA & IRMH violated Florida Statutes §760.10(7) by retaliating against DR. FARINA for complaining about the discrimination to which she was subjected, said discrimination being considered an unlawful employment practice under Florida Statutes §760.10(1).
Page - 19-

77. The actions of EMA & IR_MH and/or its agents were willful, wanton, intentional and with malice or with reckless indifference to DR. FARINA’ s protected rights, entitling DR. FARINA to damages in the form of compensatory and punitive damages pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 760.11 to punish EMA & IRMH for these actions and to deter EMA & IRMH, and others, from such actions in the future.
78. The actions of EMA & IRMH make reinstatement ineffective as a make whole remedy, entitling DR. FARINA to front pay in lieu of reinstatement.
79. As a direct, proximate and foreseeable result of EMA & IRMH’s actions, DR. FARINA has suffered past and future pecuniary losses, emotional pain and suffering, inconvenience and mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of dignity, emotional distress, humiliation and other non-pecuniary losses and intangible injuries.
DEMAND FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Intervenor-Plaintiff, GLORIA FARINA, M.D., demands judgment against Defendants, EMERGENCY MEDICINE ASSOCIATES, INC. & INDIAN RIVER MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, INC., jointly and severally, for back pay, front pay in lieu of reinstatement, compensatory damages, punitive damages, prejudgment interest, attorneys’ fees, costs of this action and such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.
COUNT VII VIOLATION OF THE FLORIDA CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1992
DISCRIMINATION BASED ON PREGNANCY 80. DR. FARINA repeats and realleges the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 27.
81. EMA & IRMH violated Florida Statutes § 760.10 by intentionally discriminating against DR. FARINA on the basis of sex. EMA & IRMH intentionally discriminated and interfered
Page -20-

with the terms and conditions of DR. FARINA’s employment based on her status as a pregnant female employee.
82. DR. FARINA possessed all of the required qualifications and did, in fact, adequately and effectively perform all of the duties of her position.
83. Neither a legitimate non-discriminatory reason nor a bona fide occupational qualification exists to justify EMA & IRMH’s intentional disparate treatment of DR. FARINA.
84. DR. FARINA was treated different because of or on the basis of her pregnancy. 85. The actions ofEMA & IRMH and/or its agents were willful, wanton, intentional and with malice or with reckless indifference to DR. FAR1NA’s statutorily protected rights, entitling DR. FARINA to damages in the form of compensatory and punitive damages pursuant to § 760.11 to punish EMA & IRMH for these actions and to deter EMA & IRMH, and others, from such actions in the future. 86. The actions of EMA & IRMH make reinstatement ineffective as a make whole remedy, entitling DR. FARINA to front pay in lieu of reinstatement. 87. As a direct, natural, proximate and foreseeable result ofEMA & IRMH’s actions, DR. FARINA has suffered past and future pecuniary losses, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of dignity and other non pecuniary losses and intangible injuries.
DEMAND FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Intervenor-Plaintiff, GLORIA FARINA, M.D., demands judgment against Defendants, EMERGENCY MEDICINE ASSOCIATES, INC. & INDIAN RIVER MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, INC., jointly and severally, for back pay, front pay in lieu of reinstatement,
Page -21-

compensatory damages, punitive damages, prejudgment interest, attorneys’ fees, costs of this action and such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Intervenor-Plaintiff, GLORIA FARINA, M.D., demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable in each count of the Complaint. DATED this ]r7 day of May 2002
Respectfully submitted,
S. Schwartz, Esquire ,2 Jeffrey Feulner, Esquire Florida Bar No.: 149063 JILL S. SCHWARTZ & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 180 Park Avenue North, Suite 200 Winter Park, Florida 32789 Telephone: (407) 647-8911 Facsimile: (407) 628-4994 Attorneys for Intervenor-Plaintiff
Page -22-

VERIFICATION Personally appeared before the undersigned, GLORIA FARINA, M.D. who, being first duly sworn, deposes and says that the allegations of this Verified Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial are true and correct to the best of her knowledge, information and belief.

GLORIA FARINA, M.D. STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ~ day of May, 2002, by GLORIA FARINA, M.D., who is personally known to me or who did take an oath.
,.,~,~ ~,= c s~=-
E~f~ ~ 22, 2003
NOTARY PUBLIC, STATE OF FLORIDA

DATED this ~,~__ day of

Name of Officer
JILL S. SCHWARTZ & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 180 Park Avenue North, Suite 200 Winter Park, FL 32789 (407) 647-891~///~~"~ B Y: Jeffrey ~u~er, Esq/~uire
FL B~CN, fl. 149063
Co,for Intervenor-Plaintiff

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Miami District Office
2 Suum
TDD (305) 53~5~1
EEOC Charge No. 150A03139

Gl,:,na Fan.a, M.D. 3300 Windsor Boulevard Veto Beach, FL 32963

Charging Pa~y

1ndi an Rt’~er Memarial Hospital, 1000 36 5ureet Veto Beach, FL 32960
and
Emergency Medicine Associates, I.t"~. I000 36 Su-eet Ver.o Beach, FL 32960

Responden~ Responden~

LETTEt~ OF D_ETEI~MINATION
I issue the .~bllowing determination on the merits of this charge.
Rest:.onden~ is an employer wi~in Be meaning of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (Title VII) of 19&~, as amended., and timeliness, deferral and all other requirements for coverage have been
Ch~’gmg Party alleged that ~he was discriminated against in wolation of Title VII in tha~ she ome: female employees were ~,~bjecr.cd to sexuaI harassment~ r.hat she was harassed when it became kmown that she was pre~rtant, that she ~a$ denied a promottan, that ~he complained ahoy: these matters to ao avail, and that she was d~scharged because of her ~ex (female~ ~.,ad retaha~ion for protesting employment practices s~e beli=ved were illegal.
I have determined that the evtdencc obtained during ~e investigation es~ahhshes that there reasonable cause ~o believe that violations of the statute have occurred.

Intervenor’s EXHIBIT "A"

EEOC Charge No. 150A03139 Page 2 of~_
Upon finding that there is reasm~ to believe hhat viotatlens have occurred, the Comnussion an :mp~s m ~]~e & all¢g¢d ~law~l p~dccs by info~al methods ofconc,hafion. Th~r~bre, ~e Co~is~ion no~ invites ~he p~ies ~o j om w~h i~ ~ reac~g a ] u~ re~oiu~m~ of ~.~ ma~er. ~e co~den~iati~ provisi~n~ of Secno~ 706 ~d 709 of Title V~I ~d the Co~ission Reg~afions apply ro info~ation obtained d~mg conciliation.
ifL~e R.espondem declines to discuss setfiemen~ or when, for any o~er reason, a se~tlemen~ accep~ble ~o ~e office Director is net ob~ned, ~he D~c~or will info~ ~he p~aes ~d advise ~e.~ of ~e co~ ~orcemem al~a~ives available m agg~iewd per~o~ ~d ~e Co~ssion. A Co~ssion represemanve w~lt c~n~ each p~ m ~e n~ ~e m be$in conciliahon.
On Beha~fof~e Ce~~

Enclos~: lnviraaon ~o Conciliate
CC: C_h~in~ Parw R~resenmtive
Jilt S. Schwartz, Esq. Jill S. Schwartz & Associates, P.A. t 8(3 Park Avenue North, Su.i~e 200 Wimer Park, FL 32789-740I
Respopden.~ Represema, t]ve
Terry R. Swarzz, Esq. Sotmebora Rur~er Cooney Klingensmmh & Eyier PA P.O. Box 02448~ Wes~ Pa~ Beach, FL 33402-4486

~ Dis~ Dkec~or

Lc~er of Determination £~i.OC Charge No. I50A03139 Pa~e 3_ of 3_
Helen A. Pallade_no, Esq. Haynesworrh Baldwin 1ohnson & Greave~ LLC 600 N. Wesrshor¢ B~ulevazd S~i~e 200 Tampa, FL 33609-1117

 Case 2:02-cv-14139-JCP Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/18/2002 Page 1 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 02-14139-CIV-PAINE/LYNCH

UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,
v.
EMERGENCY MEDICINE ASSOCIATES, INC. and INDIAN RIVER MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, INC.,

~ILtD oy_ ___,£:ce: D.C.
ocr 16 2002
CLARENCE MADDOX I": I ER,; U.S. DIST CT
S. D. OF FLA: '

Defendants.
---------------------------------·'

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON DEFENDANT INDIAN RIVER MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, INC.'S MOTION TO DISMISS [D. E. #6] AND EMA'S MOTION TO DISMISS OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [D.E. #8]

THIS CAUSE having come on to be heard upon the aforementioned motions and

this Court having reviewed the motions, the responses, the replies and having reviewed

other pertinent portions of the record, this Court recommends to the District Court as

follows:

1. Both Defendants seek dismissal of this case based upon the argument that there

is no subject matter jurisdiction for the Plaintiff to proceed against either Defendant. The

Plaintiff's theory appears to be that the Defendants constitute a single employer under Title

VII.

2. The Defendants attack this and cite to various differences between the

management, conduct and general makeup of their businesses as being separate from

each other. The Defendants argue that they are not single employers. Based upon that

Case 2:02-cv-14139-JCP Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/18/2002 Page 2 of 6
separation, and the argument by Indian River Memorial Hospital that it did not employ Dr. Farina, Defendants suggest that there is no subject matter jurisdiction sufficient to allow this case to proceed.
3. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals clearly set forth the standard of review in cases such as this in Scarfo v. Ginsberg, 175 F.3d 957 (11th Cir. 1999). There can be two attacks under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 12 for dismissal. One is a facial attack and the second is a factual attack. The facial attacks are the types of motions the Court normally sees suggesting that under Rule 12 there is no subject matter jurisdiction or that the plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action. The Court looks within the four corners of the complaint to determine if a proper cause of action is alleged and if a particular defendant has sufficiently been put on notice as to what to defend against.
4. The second type of attack is a factual attack on subject matter jurisdiction. This challenges the existence of subject matter irrespective of the pleadings. The reviewing court may go outside the pleadings and consider items such as depositions, affidavits, testimony or other submissions of the parties to determine whether or not subject matter jurisdiction exists under the facts of a particular case. The Eleventh Circuit made it clear in Scarfo that this is a threshold jurisdictional issue under Title VII cases such as this and it is for the court to decide and not for the jury. See also Judge Moore's opinion in Baydar v. Renaissance Cruises, Inc., 36 F.Supp.2d 916 (S.D. Fla. 1999).
5. The Defendants ask this Court to look outside the four corners of the complaint to make a factual finding concerning lack of subject matter jurisdiction. This is akin to what this Court would do in reviewing a motion for summary judgment. This Court points out
2

Case 2:02-cv-14139-JCP Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/18/2002 Page 3 of 6
that EMA's motion is worded in the alternative for dismissal or summary judgment. Normally, such motions on summary judgment are reviewed after conclusion of discovery and the parties have been given every opportunity to present affidavits, depositions or other matters in support or in opposition to such a motion.
6. The Plaintiff challenges the factual and evidentiary claims made by the Defendants in respect to the single employer issue. Alternatively, the Plaintiff correctly points out that the motions should be denied without prejudice to permit discovery to be concluded before the Court makes a ruling on a factual based motion. This Court believes that the Plaintiff's position is not only well founded, but supported by case law involving similar cases before this Court and the Middle District of Florida.
7. In Lombardi v. Lady of America Franchise Corporation, 2002 WL 459717 (S.D. Fla. 2002}, Judge Ferguson reviewed a renewed motion to dismiss in a similar Title VII case. The motion sought dismissal for improper aggregation of six named defendant corporations. While the Lombardi decision goes on to analyze and rule upon the motion to dismiss, it is clear from Judge Ferguson's opinion that that was done after discovery had been completed. In fact, Judge Ferguson refers to the fact that defendants had previously filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction within four months of the complaint being filed. The Lombardi case was brought in August of 2000 and the motion to dismiss was filed in December of 2000. Judge Ferguson denied the defendants' initial motion to dismiss without prejudice to be renewed after the conclusion of discovery. The Lombardi decision cited by this Court refers to that fact and Judge Ferguson then reviews the renewed motion alleging lack of subject matter jurisdiction after the conclusion of
3

Case 2:02-cv-14139-JCP Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/18/2002 Page 4 of 6
discovery. 8. In Scelta v. Delicatessen Support Services. Inc., 1999 WL 1053121 (M.D. Fla.
1999}, Chief Judge Kovachevich reviewed a similar motion to dismiss challenging subject matter jurisdiction under the Scarfo standard of review. Chief Judge Kovachevich correctly determined that it was a factual challenge based upon a threshold jurisdictional argument. Chief Judge Kovachevich stated that the Eleventh Circuit has made it clear that where subject matter jurisdiction is being challenged, the plaintiff must be given the opportunity to discover facts that would tend to support the existence of jurisdiction. See Majda-Pour v. Georgiana Community Hospital, Inc., 724 F.2d 901 (11th Cir. 1984). To dismiss such a claim early on without allowing the plaintiff an opportunity to benefit from reasonable discovery was found by the Eleventh Circuit to be an abuse of discretion.
9. Chief Judge Kovachevich went on to note that in her case discovery had not been completed. The plaintiff had not been given a sufficient opportunity to discover all facts and present them to the court in order for the court to make a factual determination upon the entire record. She denied the renewed motion to dismiss.
10. In the case before this Court, the Complaint was filed on May 1, 2002. The Motion to Dismiss by Indian River Memorial Hospital was filed a little over two months later, on July 3, 2002. EMA's Motion to Dismiss was filed on July 9, 2002. While the Defendants may argue that the facts are the facts and nothing is going to change that, these motions were filed within approximately two months after the complaint was filed.
11 . This Court has not seen any order by the District Court which gives a discovery cutoff date. Certainly, discovery is ongoing at this time and all of the facts may or may not
4

Case 2:02-cv-14139-JCP Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/18/2002 Page 5 of 6
be before the Court. 12. This Court believes that it is premature to rule upon a motion to dismiss or a
motion for summary judgment which asks the District Court to make factual determinations while discovery is still ongoing.
13. This Court believes that under the standards set by the Eleventh Circuit to dismiss such an action while discovery is ongoing pursuant to these motions filed by the Defendants would be a gross abuse of discretion and would constitute reversible error.
ACCORDINGLY, this Court recommends to the District Court that Defendant Indian
River Memorial Hospital, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss [D. E. #6] and Defendant EMA's Motion to Dismiss or for Summary Judgment [D.E. #8] be DENIED without prejudice to be raised
again after discovery has been concluded should the facts so warrant the filing of a renewed motion.
The parties shall have ten (1 0) days from the date of this Report and Recommendation within which to file objections, if any, with the Honorable James C. Paine, United States District Judge assigned to this matter.
DONE AND SUBMITTED this / &r/1- day of October, 2002, at Fort Pierce,
Northern Division of the Southern District of Florida.

Copies furnished: Han. James C. Paine

CH, JR. ES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
5

Case 2:02-cv-14139-JCP Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/18/2002 Page 6 of 6
Rachel H. Shonfield, Esq. EEOC District Office One Biscayne Tower Suite 2700 Two Biscayne Blvd. Miami, FL 33131 Grant D. Petersen, Esq. 600 North Westshore Boulevard Suite 200 Tampa, FL 33609 Jill S. Schwartz, Esq. Jeffrey Feulner, Esq. 180 Park Avenue North Suite 200 Winter Park, FL 32789 Ted L. Shinkle, Esq. P. 0. Box 1870 Melbourne, FL 32902-1870
6

 Case 2:02-cv-14139-JCP Document 27 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/18/2002 Page 1 of 6
FILED by f;t/ D.C.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 02-14139-CIV-PAINE!LYNCH
UNTIED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COi\.1MISSION,
Plaintiff,
GLORIA FARINA, M.D.,

'B DEC 2002
CLARENCE MADDOX CLERK U.S. DIST. CT. S.D. OF FlA. • W.P.B.

FILED by £

D.C.

DEC 18 2002
CLARENCE MADDOX CLERK U.s. DIST. CT. S.D. OF FlA•• W.P.B.

Intervenor-Plaintiff,

vs.

EMERGENCY MEDICINE ASSOCIATES, INC.,

and

INDIAN RIVER MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, INC.,

Defendants.
----------------------------~/
ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON DEFENDANT INDIAN RIVER MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, INC.'S MOTION TO DISMISS (DE# 6) AND DEFENDANT EMERGENCY MEDICINE ASSOCIATES,
INC.'S, MOTION TO DISMISS, OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DE# 8)

This matter is before the court upon the Report and Recommendation (DE# 21) on Defendant

Indian River Memorial Hospital, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss (DE# 6) and Emergency Medicine

Associates Inc.'s ("EMA") Motion to Dismiss, or, in the alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment

(DE# 8). The Report and Recommendation was issued on October 16, 2002. Indian River Memorial

Hospital, Inc. filed its objection to the Report and Recommendation on October 29, 2002 (DE# 23),

,J7 and Emergency Medicine Associates, Inc. filed its objection October on 28, 2002 (DE# 22).
Thereafter, on November 13,2002 Gloria Farina MD filed a response to the Objections (DE# 24),

1!

Case 2:02-cv-14139-JCP Document 27 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/18/2002 Page 2 of 6
and the EEOC filed its consolidated response to the objections (DE# 25). Upon careful scrutiny of the multitude of submissions, including a de novo review of the
portions ofthe report and recommendation to which the Defendants Indian River Memorial Hospital, Inc., and Emergency Medicine Associates, object, the court agrees with Magistrate Judge Lynch's conclusions.
BACKGROUND The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") filed the complaint in the present case, no. 02-14139-Civ-Paine/Lynch, on May l, 2002. The complaint alleges that the Defendants subjected Dr. Farina and similarly situated women to a sexually hostile working environment, failed to promote Dr. Farina, and terminated her because of her sex and in retaliation for protesting the harassment. On July 3, 2002, Defendant Indian River Memorial Hospital, Inc. filed its Motion to Dismiss (DE# 6), and on July 8, 2002, Defendant Emergency Medicine Associates filed its Motion to Dismiss, or in the alternative Summary Judgment (DE# 8). 1 Thereafter on July 10, 2002, an order was issued granting Dr. Farina's Motion to Intervene.
DISCUSSION The Report and Recommendation recommends this court deny the Motions to Dismiss (DE# 6 and DE# 8), without prejudice. The Report and Recommendation finds that it is premature to rule upon a motion to dismiss or a motion for summary judgment which asks the District Court to make factual determinations while discovery is still ongoing. The Defendant Indian River Memorial
1The Defendants seek dismissal of this case based upon the argument that there is no subject matter jurisdiction for the Plaintiff to proceed against either Defendant, they allege they are not a single employer pursuant to Title VII.
2

Case 2:02-cv-14139-JCP Document 27 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/18/2002 Page 3 of 6
Hospital Inc. objects to the Magistrate's recommendation requiring the parties to permit any
discovery by the EEOC, because:
The EEOC has already had the benefit of ten months of "discovery" as to the jurisdictional issues during its investigation of the underlying Charge of Discrimination. In the alternative, Indian River Memorial Hospital, Inc. Objects to the Magistrate's recommendation that the parties engage in full discovery regarding the EEOC's and Intervenor Plaintiff's multiple claims when the question of subject matter jurisdiction has yet to be resolved. Indian River Memorial Hospital, Inc. requests that ifthe court decides it needs additional information before ruling on the Motion to Dismiss, that discovery initially be limited to the issues of subject matter jurisdiction for a period of four months. (DE# 23)
Emergency Medicine Associates, Inc. filed similar objections stating that:
The EEOC has not only a duty to conduct an investigation, but the extensive power to require compliance by the alleged employer which can include the issuance of subpoenas, the examination and copying of documents and the taking of testimony. See 42 U.S.C. §§2000e-(b), 2000e-8(a), 29 C.P.R. § 1601.16(a). The EEOC has therefore, already had its opportunity to obtain evidence on the question of subject matter jurisdiction and independent contractor status, defenses raised by EMA during the Plaintiff's investigation. In the alternative, EMA object to the Report and Recommendation which permits discovery to proceed on the merits as well as the jurisdictional defenses. EMA seeks a ruling limiting discover to the issues of subject matter jurisdiction and Farina's status as an independent contractor. Until this court first determines whether it has power to hear this case EMA should not be put to the expense of full discovery on all issues. (DE# 22)
In a factual attack upon subject matter jurisdiction a court is allowed to proceed as it never
could under Rule 12(b)(6) or Fed.r.Civ.P. 56. Scarfo v. Ginsber, 175 F.3d 957, 960 (11th Cir. 1999f.
It is a clear abuse of discretion for a district court not to allow a plaintiff an opportunity to benefit
2[I]n a factual attack upon subject matter jurisdiction the trial court may proceed as it never could under 12(b)(6) or Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. Because at issue in a factual 12(b)(l) motion is the trial court's jurisdiction, it's very power to hear the case, there is substantial authority that the trial court is free to weigh the evidence and satisfy itself as to the existence of its power to hear the case. In short, no presumptive truthfulness attaches to plaintiff's allegations, and the existence of disputed material facts will not preclude the trial court from evaluating for itself the merits ofjurisdictional claims. Scarfo v. Ginsber, 175 F.3d 957,960-61 (11th Cir. 1999).
3

Case 2:02-cv-14139-JCP Document 27 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/18/2002 Page 4 of 6
from reasonable discovery before dismissing the plaintiffs claim for lack of subject matter jurisdictions. Majd-Pour v. Georgiana Community Hospital, Inc., 724 F.2d 901, 903 (I lth Cir. 1984). In view ofthe large volume of complaints before the Commission and the non-adversary character of many of its proceedings, court actions under Title VII are de novo proceedings. Mcdonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 799 (1973).
Scarfo clearly sets forth the standard ofreview in this case, however this court cannot ignore all other binding precedent which affords a plaintiff an opportunity to benefit from reasonable discovery before dismissing the plaintiff's claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The complaint in this case was filed on May 1, 2002, approximately two months later, the Defendants filed their respective Motions to Dismiss, July 3, 2002, and July 8, 2002. The Defendants argue that the EEOC has had the benefit of ten months of discovery as to the jurisdictional issue during its investigation of the underlying Charge of Discrimination. While this may be the case, as previously stated, court actions under Title VII are de novo proceedings. Furthermore, Gloria Farina, M.D. who was permitted to intervene in this cause of action on July 9, 2002, is entitled and shall be afforded the opportunity to conduct and benefit from reasonable discovery.
The Defendants further argue that discovery should be limited to the issues of subject matter jurisdiction. Indian River Memorial Hospital, Inc. contends that it would not "be just, speedy, nor inexpensive to allow discovery as to the many issues raised in this case outside of subject matter jurisdiction prior to this court's determination of its jurisdiction because, there will be much time and effort spent requesting and interpreting contracts and documents, ferreting out the unnamed witnesses in Dr. Farina's verified complaint, interviewing and deposing witnesses, and engaging expert witnesses (DE# 23)". Similarly, Emergency Medicine Associates, Inc. argues that "discovery
4

Case 2:02-cv-14139-JCP Document 27 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/18/2002 Page 5 of 6
should be limited because, until this court firs determines whether it has the power to hear this case Emergency Medicine Associates, Inc. should not be put to the expense of full discovery on all issues." (DE# 22) Emergency Medicine Associates, Inc., further contends that, "Farina's Intervening Complaint contains eight counts. The EEOC Complaint alleges sexual harassment, gender discrimination and retaliation. Discovery on these claims will be extensive, complex and expensive. While the EEOC may have an unlimited budget to engage in such wholesale discovery, Emergency Medicine Associates, Inc. does not (DE# 22)."
On the other hand, both the EEOC and Gloria Farina, MD, contend that bifurcating discovery would require the same witnesses to be deposed twice and would result in countless disagreements regarding the scope of the questioning. It would prove highly problematic and extremely difficult to delineate the scope of questioning as to each witness (DE# 24). The EEOC further contends that, "it would be more efficient to examine the witnesses once regarding the full scope of their knowledge, rather than arrange for all parties to meet back several months later for further questions. This is especially true here where jurisdictional questions will overlap with the substantive claims of the case, during the course of depositions (DE# 25)." Though Federal court may limit the scope of discover, this court finds that in the present case, bifurcation of discovery would not lead to judicial economy. Therefore, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that United States Magistrate Judge Frank J. Lynch, Jr.'s Report and Recommendation (DE# 21) is Affirmed and Adopted and made the order ofthis Court. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant Indian River Memorial Hospital, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss (DE# 6) and Defendant Emergency Medicine Associates, Inc.'s Motion to
5

Case 2:02-cv-14139-JCP Document 27 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/18/2002 Page 6 of 6

Dismiss or for Summary Judgment (DE# 8) is DENIED without prejudice to be raised again after

discovery has been concluded should the facts so warrant the filing of a renewed motion.

~%ay DONE AND ORDERED at West Palm Beach, Florida, this

of December, 2002.

~c~CI~
TATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies furnished to:
Honorable Frank J. Lynch, Jr.
Rachel H. Shonfield, Esq. EEOC District Office One Biscayne Tower Suite 2700 Two Biscayne Blvd. Miami, FL 33609
Jill S. Schwartz, Esq. Jeffery Feulner, Esq. 180 Park Avenue North Suite 200 Winter Park, FL 32789
Ted L. Shinkle, Esq. P.O.Box 1870 Melbourne, FL 32902-1870
Grant D. Petersen, Esq. 600 North Westshore Blvd. Suite 200 Tampa, FL 33609

6

 Case 2:02-cv-14139-JCP Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/24/2003 Page 1 of 10

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT PIERCE DlVlSlON

CASE NO. 02·14139-CIV-PAINEIL YNCH

L'Nll'ED STATES £QUAL EMPLOYMENT )

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

and DR. GLORIA FARINA,

)

)

Intervenor,

)

)

v.

)

)

EMERGENCY MEDICINE ASSOCIATES, INC., )

)

Defendant,

)

)

and

)

)

INDlAN RiVER MEMORJAL HOSPITAL, INC., )

)

Defendant.

)

FILEDby >((> D.C.
DEC 2 3 2003
CLARENCE MADDOX CLERK U.S. DIST. CT. S.D. OF FLA. • W.P.B.

CONSENT DECREE
1. This Consent Decree is entered into by and berween Plaimiff, the U.S. ~qual Employmenr Opporrunity Commission (bereinafterreferred to as the ··Commission" or ··EEOC''), Plaintiff
intervenor, Gloria Farina (hereinafter referred to as "'Plaintiff Intervener" or "Dr. Farina")
and the Defendant, EMERGENCY MEDICINE ASSOCiATES, INC. ( 1er~inafter referred
to as '"Defendant"). The Commission, rhe lnrervenor, and the Defend .nt are collecrively
referred to as the "Panies". 2. The Commission filed this action on May l, 2002, under Title VII oftl.t Civil Rights Act
!!'
of 1964 ('"Title Vll'') and Tille I ofthe Civil Rights Act of l99ltJ correct unlawful~
J

r r urn-rvwrvv ~~\.11.
Case 2:02-cv-14139-JCP Document 59

I l,,tJ\,1

'

'tl._l I..

I

Ill Willi

Entered on FLSD Docket 12/24/2003 Page 2 of 10

employment practices on the basis ofsex (female) and retaliation and to p1 cvide appropriate relief to Dr. Farina, and other similarly situated individuals who were ad\ !rsely affected by such practices. EEOC's complaint alleged that Defendant subjected Dr. F.IDna to a sexually hostile work environment, failed to promote her to parmer, tt:rnlinated her on the basis of her sex and/or in retaliation for complaining about the sexually hostile worl\ environment. 3. The court granted Plaimiff-lntervenor's Motion to lnterven~ in the ; bove-sryled case. Plaintiff-Intervenors' ComplainT alleged that Defendant violated Title Vll ofthe Ci vii Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000(e) et seq. ("Title VII") and Title I nfth~ Civil Rights Act of 1991, and the Florida Civil Rights Act (FCRA). 4. In the interest of resolving this maner, to avoid the costs of hrigation, and as a resuii of having engaged in comprehensive settlement negotiations, the Panies h<: Ye agreed that this action should be finally resolved by the entry of this Decree. This I ·ecree is final and binding upon the Parties, their successors and assigns. 5. The parties agree that this Decree resolves all the claims against Dtfendru:t alleged in EEOC charge nwnber 150 AD 3139 and civil action number 02-14139-Cl V- P. \INE. The Parries further agree that this Decree does not resolve any Charges of Discrimi 11ation that may be pending with the EEOC other than the charge referred to in this paragra,Jh.

NOW, THEREFOR£, the Court having carefully examined the terms an 1provisions of this Consent Decree, and based on rhe pleadings filed by the parries, tt ts ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECR£ED THAT:

2

Case 2:02-cv-14139-JCP Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/24/2003 Page 3 of 10

I. JURISDJCTJON

6. This coun has jurisdiction of rhe subjecr matter of this action and oveJ the Parties for the

purposes of entering and enforcing this Decree.

7. No party shall contest the jurisdiction of this Federal Coun to enforce this Decree and its

tenns or the right of the EEOC to bring an enforcement suit upon breach ,)fany terms ofthis

Decree.

II. GENERAL PROVISIONS AND INJUNCTIVE RELU F

8. The Defendant, its officers, managers, employees, agents, partners and a..signs, are enjoined

from engaging in any conduct which violates Title VII by adversely affe c.ring the terms and

conditions of any individual's employment because of their sex.

9. Defendant, its officers, managers, employees, agents, partners and ass1gns, shall nor

discriminate against .:my individual who oppost:s any of Defendant's 1~racrices which thi!

employee beheves to be unlawful employment discrimination, who files a charge of

uiscrimination with the EEOC alleging violations of the Starutes the Co1 nmission enforces;

who cooperates with the EEOC in investigation and/or prosecution of any charge of

discrimination; or who cooperated in the investigation or who of1 ~red testimony or

information in the above styled litigation which resulted in this Consem Decrl!e.

111. DEVELOPMENT OF POLICES AND TRAINING

~._., '·. \

.J~~.c

10. Defendant_ ~establis~ a wrinen sexual harassment and retaliaric n policy which W.

k_ ~-~.J 41lu._ £-E.-eC j ~-~?'~, 3'} U!p 'f •

altad~~Q herete as--Exhi~ A. A complete copy of this policy will be '- i:nributed to all its

~,it

curr~t employees ar irs Y~o Beach facilities in the State offloricla byl.~t.'-tember 30, 200t,

Defendant funher agrees that all new c:mployee:s will bt! provided a copy )frhe policy wiihin

one week of employment.

3

rrom-MMuu t:t:UI..

"•' 11o

r .,.,._

Case 2:02-cv-14139-JCP Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/24/2003 Page 4 of 10

11. In order to funher ensure the effective implementation of Defendant's <nti-discrimination

policies, Defendant will conduct an eight (8) hour annual training throu ~hout rhe duration

oftbis Decree for all of its managers and supervisory personnel at the Vcro Beach facilities

in the State of Florida, with specific emphas1s on recogniling sexual barassment, wage

discrimination and acts that constitute unlawful retaliation and the pror er procedure to be

followed if they become aware of sexual harassment or retaliation in th1 · workplace and/or

if they receive a complaint of such harassment or retaliation for compl2 ining about s~xual

harassment. Defendant agrees to provide theE EOC with at least two (2) \ reeks notice before

it conducts its training session(s), with the date(s) and location(s) c f the trainmg, the

identification of the training materials to be used at the training session and the name and

job title of the employees who will be in attendance at the training. 1 1e training will be

conducted by

c:::L
qualified party appn,ved by the ££0C.

Additionally, Defendant agrees that the EEOC may, at the EEOC's discretion, be m

attendance at each training session(s).

12. Defendant agrees that the training described in paragraph 11 shall be cc :1ducted by March 30, 2004, and should thereafter take place by July 30th annually in the~ arne fonnat for the

duration of this Decree. Defendant funher agret!S that the training des, ribed in paragraph

11 shall be given to all new managers and supervisors who did not anend che annual training

wjthin thiny (30j days ofbeing placed in a management or supervisor) position.

lV. POSTING

13. Defendant shall post a laminated l 1Xl7 size copy of the notice anachc d hereto as Exhibit

~ wit~jn .~~fthe entering ofth1s decree. Said notice shall be posto-d in a conspicuous
J;u..( m I' .
location in the emergency room break room, emergency room n.nse's station and

4

I -...,1,1\,1

1 • \1\11 1 ~

Case 2:02-cv-14139-JCP Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/24/2003 Page 5 of 10

convenience care nurse's station. This notice is to remain posted for tht! tt nn ofthis Decree_

V. REPORTING AND MONITORING

14. Defendant will retain all employment records relating in any way to any' umplaint made to

a supervisor or manager and to any invest1gation of sexual harassmen1 ~r retaliation for

complaining ofsexual harassment at Defendant's Vero Beach facilities in 1be State offlorida

for the duration of this Dl!cree and as required by federal law.

For the dll!ation ofthis Decree, Defendant will provide the EEOC every s1X (6) months \\lith

.,

bt,~-1

the name, last known address and last known phone number of any P• rson employed at

~

A

Defendant's Vero Beach locations who has complained to his or her M:,nag~/Supervisor,

Human Resources Depanmem, that he or she has been subjected to se) ual harassmem or

retaliation while working at Defendant's Vero Beach Emergency Care an .l hospital facilities

during the preceding six (6) months. Dcf!!ndant will also state its action; taken in rt=sponse

to each such allegation. Tht! first repon shall be submitted no later tha 1 March 31, 2004,

Defendant will provide upon reqt.lest by the Commission (a) a copy of1 ne complaint, or if

no written ~omplaim was filed, a sta"temem describing the nature of tl t: complaint; (b) a

statement describing the actions taken; and (c) outcome regarding such ~:omplaint.

16. Defendant will certify to the EEOC every six (6) months throughout tile duration of this

Decree that it is in compliance with all aspects ofthis Dt!cree. The fi~,: such certification

will be due no later than March 31, 2004, and thereafter b1annually on: ;c:ptember 30!/1 and

March 31st throughout the duration of this consent dc:cree.

17. The Defendant will appoint one individual who shall be responsibl.~ for ccordin3ting

Defendant's compliance 'Nith this Consent Decree and for providing re >ons to rhe EEOC.

This person shall be appointed and the EEOC notified of his ar her ider [~ty within 15 days

5

Case 2:02-cv-14139-JCP Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/24/2003 Page 6 of 10
of the Coun's approval of this Consent Dt;:cn:e. All reports and docum;ms required to be delivered by Defendant ro rhe EEOC purs~ant to this Consent Decree ;hall be mailed to: United Stares Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Attenti• .•n: Office of the Regional Attorney, 1 Biscayne Tower, Suite 2700, 2 South Biscayne Blvd, Miami, FL 33131.
VI. MONETARY RELIEF
18. Defendant shall pay a lump sLlm in the amount of Five Hundred Thousand dollars ($500,000). a. Two Hundred Ninety-Six Thousand Eight Hundred doll;;-rs ($296,800) shall be representative of compensatory, personal injury and Drt damages, made payable directly to Dr. Gloria farina. Defendant shall i:.>sue an IRS form 1099 for said amount directly to Dr. Farina. b. Two Hundred Three Thousand Two Hundred dollars ( }103,200) shall be representative of anomey fees and costs incurred by Dr. F.uina made payable to Jill S. Schwanz & Associates, P.A. Defendant shall issu.e an lRS form 1099 for said amount to the Law Firm ofJill S. Schwartz, L Associates, P.A.. Ali payments referenced in paragraphs 18a and b shall issue wirhin thirt) (30) calendar days from the Cou.n's ext:cution of this Decree, by certified mail. The check. shall be mailed to
the Jill S. Schwanz & Associates Law Finn, P.A., at 180 North Park .'\Venue, Suite 200, Winter Park, FL 32789. Copies of the check shall be forwarded to t:1e anention of rhe
Regional Arromey, US. Equal Employment Opportunity Commissi,··n, Miami District Office, One Biscayne Tower, 2 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 27 II), Miami, Florida 33131.
6

Case 2:02-cv-14139-JCP Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/24/2003 Page 7 of 10

19. If Defendant fails to tender the above-mentioned payments as set for h in paragraph 18

above, then Defendant shall pay mterest on the defaulted payment at ,.he rate calculated

pursuant to 26 tJ.S.C. Section 662l(b) until the same is paid, and bear :uy additional costs

incurred by the EEOC caused by the non-compliance of rhc: D10:fendam.

VII. ENFORCEMENT

20. The Corrunission shall have independent authority to seek judicial enforcement of each

aspect, term, provision and attachment of this Decree. However, the El :OC shall not seek

such judicial enforcement unless it has first (1) given Defendant a w,itten notice of its

intention to seek judicial enforcement, which notice shall spccif:y the .illc:gc;d breach for

which judicial enforcement shall be sought and (2) provided Defendant at least 15 days to

cure any alleged breach ofany tenns, except the provisions set forth in pa !'~graph 18 entitled

monetary relief, for which court enforcement may be sought immediately The Commission

will take whatever measures it deems appropnate to effectuate the enforc ::ment of the terms

of this decree

21. The coun will take whatever measures necessary to effectuate the tenm uf this Decree.

VIII. COSTS

22. Each party shall bear its own costs associated with this litigation to the extent that they are

not already addressed herein.

IX. DURATION OF CONSENT DECREE

23. The duration ofthis Decree shall be four (4) years from the date ofentrt of the Decree.

SO ORDERED ADJUDGED AND DECREED, this ~ay of Decen ber, 2003

--r-C-~t_

J

C. PAINE

UNl ED STATES DlSTRICT JlDGE

7

Case 2:02-cv-14139-JCP

Document 59

..,.., • ..,.., .. "T"T"""T

........

Entered on FLSD Docket 12/24/2003

Page 8 of 10

AGREED TO: FOR THE PLAfNTIFF, UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSIOf·l

( 1·. ,-'"'vi

.(

by: f~t"--h.Ct /11..o.1 tk(:;_: .--~:,,--

Dare:

Delner Franklin-Thomas

Regional Anomey

US. Equal Employment Opponunity Commission

Miami Disnict Office

One Biscayne Tower, Suite 2700

2 South Biscayne Boulevard

Miami, Florida 33131

AGREED TO: FOR THE PLAINTIFF·!NTERVENORS DR. GLOR!A FARINA

by:

: ...

Jill S. Schwanz, Esq.

Andrew Wedmore, Esq.

flLL S. SCHWARTZ & ASSOCIATES, P.A.

180 Park Avenue Nonh, Suite 200

Winter Park, FL 32789

AGREED TO: FOR THE Defendant EMERGENCY MEDlCCNE ASSOCIATES, JNC.,

~" ~-:w,:o.o~··""~,;;m.,.·~..,g,.O~-;-!:;;:.[?="'~ic-in-e-A-s-o-ciates, Inc.
GR.AY, HARRlS & ROBINSON, P.A. P.O. Box 1870 Melbourne, FL 32902-1870

Date: _ _ __

Date: </1!(,/:r~-1,(:; ?~

i

:

!'
9

Case 2:02-cv-14139-JCP Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/24/2003 Page 9 of 10
EXHIBIT A
10

Case 2:02-cv-14139-JCP Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/24/2003 Page 10 of 10
EXHIBIT B
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES POSTED PURSUANT TO A CONSENT DECREE BETWEE~ THE UNITED STAT£S £QUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMM lSSION AND DR. GLORIA FARlN.~ aud EMERGENCY MEDICINE .<\SSOClATES, INC.
This notice is being posted pursuant to a Consent Decree entered by the< \)un in EEOC and
f.mDa vs. Emergency Medicine Associart:s. Inc., et ?J., Civil Action N··. 02-14139-C!Y-
PAINE/L YNCH. Emergency Medicine Associates, Jnc. 's polic}' prohibits discrimination against empl·Jyees in violation of Title VII ofrhe Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VU"). Title VII protects individuals from employment discrimination because of their race religion, col tr, national origin, or sex. Title VII also protects individuals from retaliation for having complai1~ed of an unlawful employment practice. Emergency Medicine Associates, Inc. will not con.lone employment discnmination ofany kind a~ ser forth in federal anti-discrimination laws, includ ng, b~t not limited to, sexu.al harassment.
Funhennore, Emergency Medicine Associates, Inc. supports Title V11 w1d will not take any retaliatory action against an individual because he/she has exerc1sed his/her rigr rs under the law to oppose discriminatory acts or ro file charges with the EEOC.
Appropriate corrective action, up to and including termination, based upOl, ihe circumstances involved, shall be taken against any employee (including management person l~l) found to have viola red Emergency Medicine Associates, Inc.'s policy prohibiting discriminat on.
This notice shall rc::main posted for four (4) years tram the date Decree er,tered. Employees or applican£s for employment who have questions about their rights under Tit e VII or any other federal ami-discrimination law may telephone Emergency Medicine Associat.:s, lnc. at or the Miami Disrrict Office of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission at 1800-669-4000.
Signed thisSz,~~ day of ,_");.< .&4u1 «:,_ , 2003.
PRESIDENT/CEO, Emergency Medicine Associates, fnc.
DO NOT REMOVE BEFORE _ _ _ ___, 2007.

 CM/ECF - Live Database - flsd - Docket Report

https://ecf.flsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?918464405476003-L_92...

U.S. District Court Southern District of Florida (Ft. Pierce) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:02-cv-14139-JCP

CLOSED

U.S. - EEOC v. Emergency Medicine, et al Assigned to: Senior Judge James C. Paine Demand: $0 Cause: 42:2000 Job Discrimination (Sex) Plaintiff United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
V. Defendant Emergency Medicine Associates, Inc.

Date Filed: 05/01/2002 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff
represented by Kenneth Lawrence Gillespie Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office 2 S Biscayne Boulevard 2700 One Biscayne Tower Miami, FL 33131-2483 305-530-6006 Fax: 536-4494 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rachel H. Shonfield Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office 2 S Biscayne Boulevard 2700 One Biscayne Tower Miami, FL 33131-2483 305-530-6007 TERMINATED: 12/05/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alec Dane Russell Gray Robinson 1800 W Hibiscus Boulevard Suite 138 PO Box 1870 Melbourne, FL 32902-1870 321-727-8100 Fax: 984-4122 Email: arussell@gray-robinson.com LEAD ATTORNEY

1 of 8

7/26/2007 12:43 PM

CM/ECF - Live Database - flsd - Docket Report
Defendant Indian River Memorial Hospital, Inc.
Intervenor Plaintiff

https://ecf.flsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?918464405476003-L_92...
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew Stanton Hament Ford & Harrison LLP One Harbor Place 1901 S. Harbor City Boulevard Suite 501 Melbourne, FL 32901 (321) 724-5970 Fax: (321) 724-5979 Email: ahament@fordharrison.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Theodore Livingston Shinkle Gray Robinson 1800 W Hibiscus Boulevard Suite 138 PO Box 1870 Melbourne, FL 32902-1870 321-727-8100 Fax: 984-4122 Email: tshinkle@gray-robinson.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Grant David Petersen Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart 100 N Tampa Street Suite 3600 Tampa, FL 33602 813-289-1247 Fax: 289-6530 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Helen Price Palladeno Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart 100 N Tampa Street Suite 3600 Tampa, FL 33602 813-289-1247 Fax: 289-6530 Email: helen.palladeno@ogletreedeakins.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

2 of 8

7/26/2007 12:43 PM

CM/ECF - Live Database - flsd - Docket Report

https://ecf.flsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?918464405476003-L_92...

Gloria Farina M.D.
V. Intervenor Defendant Emergency Medicine Associates, Inc. Intervenor Defendant Indian River Memorial Hospital, Inc.

represented by David Hanan Spalter David H. Spalter 180 Park Avenue North Suite 200 Winter Park, FL 32789 407-647-8911 Fax: 628-4994 Email: dspalter@schwartzlawfirm.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jill S. Schwartz Jill S. Schwartz & Associates 180 Park Avenue North Suite 200 Winter Park, FL 32789 407-647-8911 Fax: 628-4994 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 05/01/2002 05/02/2002 05/02/2002 05/20/2002 05/20/2002 07/03/2002

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT filed; FILING FEE waived Magistrate Judge Frank J. Lynch, Jr. (cj, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/02/2002)
2 SUMMONS() issued for Emergency Medicine (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/03/2002)
3 SUMMONS() issued for Indian River Memoria (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/03/2002)
4 Intervenor's COMPLAINT by Gloria Farina against Emergency Medicine, Indian River Memoria (cg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/22/2002)
5 MOTION by Gloria Farina for leave to file Intervenor complaint (cg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/22/2002)
6 MOTION by Indian River Memoria to dismiss complaint (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/08/2002)

3 of 8

7/26/2007 12:43 PM

CM/ECF - Live Database - flsd - Docket Report

https://ecf.flsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?918464405476003-L_92...

07/03/2002 07/08/2002 07/10/2002
07/12/2002 07/16/2002
07/17/2002 07/24/2002 07/31/2002 08/02/2002 08/02/2002 08/09/2002 08/09/2002 08/12/2002
08/12/2002

7 MEMORANDUM OF LAW by Indian River Memoria in support of [6-1] motion to dismiss complaint (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/08/2002)
8 MOTION with memorandum in support by Emergency Medicine to dismiss complaint , or in the alternative for summary judgment (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/09/2002)
9 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO INTERVENE granting [5-1] motion for leave to file Intervenor complaint. The Intervenor Complaint filed on 5/21/02 (DE #4) is deemed filed as of the date of this order. (Signed by Judge James C. Paine on 7/9/02) [EOD Date: 7/10/02] (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/10/2002)
10 EMERGENCY UNOPPOSED MOTION with memorandum in support by U.S. EEOC to extend time to file a consolidated response to defendants' motions to dismiss and for summary judgment (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/15/2002)
11 ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME granting [10-1] motion to extend time to file a consolidated response to defendants' motions to dismiss and for summary judgment Response to motion reset to 8/1/02 for [8-1] motion to dismiss complaint, reset to 8/1/02 for [8-2] motion for summary judgment, reset to 8/1/02 for [6-1] motion to dismiss complaint (Signed by Judge James C. Paine on 7/15/02) [EOD Date: 7/17/02] (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/17/2002)
12 MOTION by Emergency Medicine for clarification of [9-1] order AND SUPPORTING LEGAL AUTHORITY (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/17/2002)
13 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION granting [12-1] motion for clarification of [9-1] order ( Signed by Judge James C. Paine on 7/24/22) [EOD Date: 7/24/02] (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/24/2002)
14 CONSOLIDATED RESPONSE by U.S. - EEOC to [8-1] motion to dismiss complaint, [8-2] motion for summary judgment, [6-1] motion to dismiss complaint (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/01/2002)
15 MOTION by Gloria Farina for Jill S. Schwartz and Jeffrey Feulner to appear pro hac vice (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/02/2002)
Filing Fee Paid; FILING FEE $150.00 RECEIPT# 716743 for Jill S. Schwartz and Jeffrey Feulner to appear PHV (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/02/2002)
16 REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT by Indian River Memoria to response to [6-1] motion to dismiss complaint (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/12/2002)
17 AFFIDAVIT OF JEFFERY SUSI by Indian River Memoria Re: [16-1] response reply (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/12/2002)
18 ORDER GRANTING PRO HAC VICE APPEARANCES granting [15-1] motion for Jill S. Schwartz and Jeffrey Feulner to appear pro hac vice (Signed by Judge James C. Paine on 8/12/02) [EOD Date: 8/13/02] (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/13/2002)
19 REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT by Emergency Medicine to response to [8-1] motion to dismiss complaint, [8-2] motion for summary judgment (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/13/2002)

4 of 8

7/26/2007 12:43 PM

CM/ECF - Live Database - flsd - Docket Report

https://ecf.flsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?918464405476003-L_92...

10/07/2002
10/16/2002
10/28/2002 10/29/2002 11/13/2002 11/13/2002 11/15/2002 12/18/2002
12/23/2002 12/23/2002 01/08/2003 01/08/2003 03/14/2003

20 ORDER OF REFERENCE Referring Motion(s) [8-1] motion to dismiss complaint referred to Magistrate Frank J. Lynch, [8-2] motion for summary judgment referred to Magistrate Frank J. Lynch, [6-1] motion to dismiss complaint referred to Magistrate Frank J. Lynch ( signed by Judge James C. Paine on 10/7/02) [EOD Date: 10/8/02] (kw, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/08/2002)
21 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS of Magistrate Frank J. Lynch recommending that [6-1] motion to dismiss complaint, [8-2] motion for summary judgment be DENIED with out prejudice. Motion no longer referred. Signed on: 10/16/02 Objections to R and R due by 10/28/02 CCAP (cg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/18/2002)
22 OBJECTION by Emergency Medicine to [21-1] report and recommendations (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/29/2002)
23 OBJECTION by Indian River Memoria to [21-1] report and recommendations (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/30/2002)
24 RESPONSE by Gloria Farina to [23-1] objection, [22-1] objection (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/14/2002)
25 CONSOLIDATED RESPONSE by U.S. - EEOC to [23-1] objection (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/14/2002)
26 Joint Scheduling Report of Scheduling Meeting by U.S. - EEOC, Gloria Farina, Emergency Medicine, Indian River Memoria (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/18/2002)
27 ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON DEFENDANT INDIAN RIVER MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, INC'S MOTION TO DISMISS (DE#6) AND DEFENDANT EMERGENCY MEDICINE ASSOCIATES, INC'S MOTION TO DISMISS, OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DE #8) adopting [21-1] report and recommendations denying [8-1] motion to dismiss complaint, denying [8-2] motion for summary judgment, denying [6-1] motion to dismiss complaint (Signed by Judge James C. Paine on 12/16/02) [EOD Date: 12/18/02] CCAP (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/18/2002)
28 Answer and affirmative defenses by Emergency Medicine (cg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/24/2002)
29 Answer and affirmative defenses by Emergency Medicine as to the Intervening complaint (cg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/24/2002)
30 ANSWER to Complaint by Indian River Memoria (gp, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/09/2003)
31 ANSWER to Intervenor-Plaintiff Gloria Farina, M.D. Complaint by Indian River Memoria (gp, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/09/2003)
32 ORDER SETTING JURY TRIAL AND DIRECTING PRETRIAL PROCEDURES setting Deadline for filing of All Pretrial Motions by 12/9/03; Jury Trial set for 9:30 a.m. on 2/9/04; Pretrial Stipulation due on or before 12/29/03; Calendar Call set for 9:00 a.m. on 1/29/04; All Discovery Deadline

5 of 8

7/26/2007 12:43 PM

CM/ECF - Live Database - flsd - Docket Report

https://ecf.flsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?918464405476003-L_92...

03/14/2003 06/18/2003 11/10/2003 11/10/2003 11/10/2003 11/10/2003 11/10/2003 11/10/2003 11/10/2003 11/10/2003 11/13/2003 11/17/2003 11/19/2003
11/20/2003 11/20/2003

11/24/03; (Signed by Judge James C. Paine on 3/14/03) [EOD Date: 3/17/03] CCAP (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/17/2003)
33 ORDER MANDATING MEDIATION referring case to mediation. 15 days to appoint mediator (Signed by Judge James C. Paine on 3/14/03) [EOD Date: 3/17/03] (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/17/2003)
34 NOTICE of Unavailability by Emergency Medicine for dates of: 7/3/03 thru 7/20/03 (cg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/20/2003)
36 MOTION by Emergency Medicine for final summary judgment or in the alternative partial summary judgment (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/17/2003)
37 MEMORANDUM OF LAW by Emergency Medicine in support of [36-1] motion for final summary judgment or in the alternative partial summary judgment (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/17/2003)
38 NOTICE of Filing Depositions by Emergency Medicine (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/17/2003)
39 DEPOSITION of Gloria Farina, MD (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/17/2003)
40 VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION of Gloria Farina MD Volume II (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/17/2003)
41 VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION of Gloria Farina MD volume III (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/17/2003)
42 DEPOSITION of James Dozier MD Volume I (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/17/2003)
43 DEPOSITION of James Dozier MD Volume II (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/17/2003)
35 NOTICE of FILING ATTACHMENT TO EMA'S MOTION FOR FINAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT by Emergency Medicine (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/17/2003)
44 MOTION with memorandum in support by Emergency Medicine for protective order from taking second deposition , and to quash subpoena (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/19/2003)
45 ORDER OF REFERENCE Referring Motion(s) [44-1] motion for protective order from taking second deposition referred to Magistrate Frank J. Lynch, [44-2] motion to quash subpoena referred to Magistrate Frank J. Lynch (signed by Judge James C. Paine on 11/19/03) [EOD Date: 11/20/03] (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/20/2003)
46 UNOPPOSED JOINT MOTION by U.S. - EEOC, Gloria Farina to extend time to file responses to Emergency Medicine Associates motion for summary judgment (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/21/2003)
47 Unopposed MOTION by U.S. - EEOC for substitution of Kenneth L. Gillespie as cnsl (cg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/21/2003)

6 of 8

7/26/2007 12:43 PM

CM/ECF - Live Database - flsd - Docket Report

https://ecf.flsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?918464405476003-L_92...

11/21/2003
11/24/2003 11/26/2003 12/02/2003 12/04/2003 12/05/2003
12/05/2003
12/08/2003 12/10/2003 12/10/2003 12/18/2003 12/23/2003 01/12/2004

48 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT, EMERGENCY MEDICAL ASSOCIATES, INC'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT granting [46-1] joint motion to extend time to file responses to Emergency Medicine Associates motion for summary judgment Response to motion reset to 12/12/03 for [36-1] motion for final summary judgment or in the alternative partial summary judgment (Signed by Judge James C. Paine on 11/21/03) [EOD Date: 11/24/03] (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/24/2003)
49 MOTION with memorandum in support by U.S. - EEOC to compel discovery (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/25/2003)
50 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL by Emergency Medicine of [44-1] motion for protective order from taking second deposition, [44-2] motion to quash subpoena (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/26/2003)
51 JOINT MOTION with memorandum in support by U.S. - EEOC to extend time to file pretrial stipulation (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/03/2003)
52 RESPONSE by Indian River Memoria to [49-1] motion to compel discovery (mh, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/05/2003)
53 ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE PRETRIAL STIPULATION granting [51-1] motion to extend time to file pretrial stipulation. Parties shall have until and including 1/9/03 within which to provide their Pretrial Stipulation. (Signed by Judge James C. Paine on 12/4/03) [EOD Date: 12/8/03] (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/08/2003)
54 ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL granting [47-1] motion for substitution of Kenneth L. Gillespie as cnsl. Rachel H. Shonfield shall be relieved as counsel for the Plaintiff EEOC. All further papers and pleadings shall be served on substitute counsel for plaintiff Kenneth L. Gillespie. (Signed by Judge James C. Paine on 12/1/03) [EOD Date: 12/8/03] (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/08/2003)
55 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL by Emergency Medicine of [36-1] motion for final summary judgment or in the alternative partial summary judgment (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/09/2003)
56 AMENDED NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL by Emergency Medicine of [36-1] motion for final summary judgment or in the alternative partial summary judgment (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/11/2003)
57 NOTICE of Filing Consent Decree by U.S. - EEOC (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/11/2003)
58 FINAL report of Mediator. Disposition: Settled (lh, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/22/2003)
59 CONSENT DECREE (Signed by Judge James C. Paine on 12/23/03) [EOD Date: 12/24/03] (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/24/2003)
60 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK'S OFFICE TO CLOSE CASE The Clerk's Office CLOSE this case and deny all pending motions without prejudice as MOOT. (Signed by Judge James C. Paine on 1/12/04) [EOD Date: 1/13/04] (at, Deputy

7 of 8

7/26/2007 12:43 PM

CM/ECF - Live Database - flsd - Docket Report

https://ecf.flsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?918464405476003-L_92...

01/12/2004

Clerk) (Entered: 01/13/2004)
CASE CLOSED. Case and Motions no longer referred to Magistrate. (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/13/2004)

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

07/26/2007 13:42:10

PACER Login:

hs0328

Client Code:

Description:

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

Billable Pages: 4

Cost:

eeoc 2:02-cv-14139-JCP 0.32

8 of 8

7/26/2007 12:43 PM


The EEOC filed this suit on May 1, 2002 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Ft. Pierce). The complainant intervened in the suit. The EEOC alleged that defendants Emergency Medicine Associates, Inc. and Indian River Memorial Hospital, Inc. violated Title VII by sexually discriminating against a female employee. Both defendants filed motions to dismiss the case that were unsuccessful. Defendant Emergency Medicine Associates, Inc. also filed a motion for summary judgment that was subsequently withdrawn. The case was referred to mediation on March 14, 2003. On December 10, 2003, two days after the motion for summary judgment was withdrawn, the parties filed notice of filing a consent decree. The consent decree was entered into the record on December 23, 2003. 

In the consent decree the defendant agreed to pay $500,000, $203,200 of which applied to complainant's costs and attorney's fees. Defendant also agreed to provide training for its employees, distribute an anti-discrimination policy, appoint a coordinator, and report to the EEOC regarding complaints of discrimination.

The decree was entered in 2003 and scheduled to last until 2007. No further docket entries exist, so the case is closed.
