Input:
IN THE CNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ;..jEW Y1EXICO

06 SEP 27 P,'i 4: 03 ~

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,
Plaintiff. vs.
Cracker Ban·el Old Country Store, Inc.,
Defendant.

) ) )
) ) COMPLAI1'<T A;..jD ) JURY TRIAL DEMAND )
~ CIV elY - 0 6 - 0 9 2 0 MV WDS
) )

------------------------)

NATL'RE OF ACTIO:'ol

This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of the Civil

Rights Act of 1991 to correct alleged unlawful employment practices on the bases of sex and

retaliation and to provide appropriate relief to Jennifer Jackson. Lorraine Provencio and a class

of females who were adversely affected by such practices. Ms. Jackson, Ms. Provencio. and

other female employees were discriminated against by Defendant when they werc sexually

harassed by Daniel Guzman, a management official of Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc. In

addition, Ms. Jackson, Ms. Provencio, and other female employees were retaliated against

because they opposed the harassment.

JURISDlCTIO:'ll AND VEI\UI~

I. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.c. §§ 451, 1331, 1337, 1343 and

1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Sections 706(f)(1) and (3) ofTitie VII

of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. as amended, 42 U.S.c. §§ 2000e-5(f)(I) and (3) (nTitle Vlln)

\

and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991. 42 e.s.c. § 1<)81a.
2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawlill were committed within the jurisdiction of the United Stales District Court for the District of New Mexico.
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Comniission (the "Commission"), is the agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title VI!, and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Sections 706(f)(1) and (3) ofTitle VI!, 42 U.S.c. § 2000e-5(f)(I) and (3). 4. At all relevant timcs, Defcndant Cracker Barrel Old Country Store. Inc. ("Defendant" or "Employer"), has been a Tenncssee corporation doing business in the State of J\ew Mexico and the City of Las Cruces and has continuously had at least 15 employees. 5. At all relevant times, Detcndant has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701 (b), (g) and (h) of Title VlI, 42 U.S.c. §§ 2000c(b), (g) and (h).
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 6. More than thirty days prior to the institution ofthis lawsuit, Jennifer Jackson and Lorraine Provencio filed a charge with the Commission alleging violations of Title VIl by Defendant. All conditions precedcnt to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled 7. Since at least July, 2001. Defendant has engaged in unlawful employmcnt practices at their Las Cruces, New Mexico. facility located at 1490 Hickory Drive, Las Cruces, New Mexico, in violation of Section 703(a) ofTitle VII, 42 U.S.c. § 2000c-2(a), by SUbjecting Ms. Jackson,
-2-

Ms. Provcncio and a class of fcmale employees to a hostile work environment due to scxual

harassment. The scxual harassmcnt includcd, but was not limited to, unwelcome conduct of a

sexual nature by Daniel Guzman to Ms. Jackson, Ms. Provcncio, and othcr females, such as:

a.

Comments about women's "crotches";

b. Comments about women's breasts or buttocks;

c.

Comments about "boning" fcmale employees;

d. Commcnts about sex;

c.

Simulating the male anatomy by pUlling items between his legs.

8. Since at least Scptcmbcr, 2004, Defendant has engaged in unlawful retaliatory practices

in violation of Section 704(a) ofTitlc Vll. 42 U.S.c. § 2000e-3(a). Defendant's retaliatory

conduct included, but was not limited to. discharging and/ or constructively discharging Jennifer

Jackson and Lorraine Provencio because thcy opposed practices madc unlawful by Tille VII.

9. The effect of the practices complained of in paragraphs 7-8 above has been to deprive

Ms. Jackson, Ms. Provencio and a class of females of equal employment opportunitics and

otherwise adversely affect their status as employees because of their sex and in retaliation lor

opposing practices madc unlawful by Title VII.

10. The unlawful employment practiccs complained of in paragraphs 7-8 above were and are

intentional.

II. The unlawful employmcnt practices complained of in paragraphs 7-8 above were done

with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Ms. Jackson, Ms.

Provencio, and a class of fcmales.

-3-

PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant, its officers, successors, assigns, and ull persons in active concert or participation with it from engaging in sexual harassment, retaliation and any other employment practice which discriminates on the basis of sex or retaliation. B. Order Defendant to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for women and those who oppose unlawful employment discrimination, and which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices. C. Order Defendant to make whole Ms. Juckson, Ms. Provencio, and a class of females by providing appropriate backpay with prejudgment interest, in amounts to be determined at trial, and other affinllative rcliefnccessary to eradicate the effects of their unlawful employment practices including, but not limited to, rightful-place reinstatemcnt. D. Order Defendant to make whole Ms. Jackson, Ms. Provencio, and a dass of females, by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described above, in amounts to be detcnllined at trial. E. Order Defendant to make whole Ms, Jackson, Ms, Provencio, and a class of females by providing compensation for past and future non-pecuniary losses resulting Irom the unlawful practices complained of in paragraphs 7-8 above, including emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, humiliation, and other nonpecuniary
-4-

/

/

losses in amounts to be determined at trial.

/

F. Order Defendant to pay Ms. Jackson. Ms. Provencio and a class of females

punitive damages for their malicious and/or reckless conduct. described in paragraphs 7-8 above,

in amounts to be determined at trial.

G. Grant such further relief as the Court decms necessary and proper in the public

interest.

H. Award the Commission its costs of this action.

JCRY TRIAL DEMAr\D

The Commission requests ajury trial on all questions of fact raised by its

complaint.

RESPECTFULL Y SUBMITTED this 27lh day of September, 2006.

Ronald S. Cooper General Counsel

James L. Lee Deputy General Counsel

Gwendolyn Young Reams Associate General Counsel

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNIT'l

COMMISSION

1801 L Street, N.W.

~hA-

Mary Jo O'Neill

~

Regional Attorney

-5-

.I

.. L/))l~.e-" Sally C. Shanley

o

,

..L..A
() ~

Supervisory Trial Attorney

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Phoenix District Oflice 3300 N. Central Avc., Suite 690 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 (602) 640-5032
~Q Veronica A. Molina Trial Attorney

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Alhuquerque Area Office 505 Marquette NW, Suite 900 Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102-2189 (505) 248-5231

Attorneys for Plaintiff

-6-

 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

)

COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

CRACKER BARREL OLD COUNTRY

)

STORE, INCORPORATED,

)

)

Defendant.

)

__________________________________________)

No. CIV-06-0920 MV/WDS CONSENT DECREE

The United States Equal Em ployment Opportunity Com mission (the “Com mission” or “EEOC”) filed this action against Defendant Crack er Barrel Old Country Stor e, Incorporated to enforce Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a. In the Complaint, the Commission alleged Jennifer Jackson, Lorraine Provencio, and a class of female employees were discriminated against by Defendant when they were sexually harassed by Daniel Guzman, an associate manager at Cracker Barrel Store No. 253. The Commission also alleged Ms. Jackson, Ms. Provencio, and other female employees at Store No. 253 were retaliated against because they opposed the harassment. The parties agree that this decree shall not in any way be construed or interpreted as an admission of liability or wrongdoing by Cracker Barrel as to the claims brought in this litigation, any such liability or wrongdoing being expressly denied.
The parties do not object to t he jurisdiction of the Court over this action and waive their rights to a hearing and the entry of findings of f act and conclusions of law. This decree does not constitute an adjudication on the merits of the allegations of the complaint.

It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: 1. This decree resolves all claims of the Commission against Defendant arising out of the issues in this lawsuit, including all claims for back pay, compensatory and punitive damages, interest, injunctive relief, attorney’s fees and costs.
INJUNCTION 2. For three years f ollowing entry of this decree, Defendant, its managers and supervisory employees, agents, officers, successors and assigns and all persons in active concert or participation with it, are enjoined f rom discriminating against any em ployee at Store No. 253 because of sex, including subjecting em ployees at Store No. 253 to a hostile work environm ent based on sexual harassment. Further, Defendant, its managers and supervisory employees, agents, officers, successors and assigns and all persons in atcive concert or participation with it, are enjoined from retaliating against any individual who: (a) opposes practices made unlawful by Title VII or a state equal em ployment opportunity statute; (b) m akes a charge of discrim ination or assists or participates in an inve stigation or proceeding under Title VII or a state equal em ployment opportunity statute; or (c) files an int ernal complaint of gender discrim ination, including sexual harassment. This injunction shall in no way s erve to increase or decrease Defendant’s rights or obligations under the law.
MONETARY RELIEF TO CHARGING PARTIES AND CLASS MEMBERS 3. In accordance with this decree, Defendant shall pay the amount of two hundred seventy thousand dollars and zero cents ($270,000.00), which shall be distributed as follows: A. Charging Party Jennifer Jackson will receive from Defendant compensatory damages
in the amount of $20,000.00, back pay inthe amount of $20,000.00, and attorney’s
Page 2 of 17

fees in the amount of $20,000.00, for a total of $60,000.00; B. Charging Party Lorraine Provencio will receive from Defendant com pensatory
damages in the amount of $15,000.00, back pay in the amount of $25,000.00, and attorney’s fees in the amount of $20,000.00, for a total of $60,000.00; C. Class Member Jessica Tuton will receivefrom Defendant compensatory damages in the amount of $50,000.00, and back pay in the amount of $10,000.00, for a total of $60,000.00; D. Class Member Summer Irvin will receive from Defendant compensatory damages in the amount of $55,000.00; and E. Class Member Cynthia Barela will receive from Defendant compensatory damages in the amount of $35,000.00. 5. Lawful employee payroll deductions for social security and withholding taxes shall be deducted from the back pay am ounts paid to Charging Parties Jennifer Jackson and Lorraine Provencio and Class Mem ber Jessica Tuton, and the deductions shall be itemized. Defendant’s share of payments for FUTA and FICA shall be paid by Defendant and shall not be deducted from the settlement payments. Defendant will issue aUnited States Internal Revenue Service Form1099 to the Charging Parties and Class Members for the amounts designated by EEOC as compensatory damages. 6. Within ten (10) business days of entry ofthe decree and receipt of an executed copy of the Release Agreement attached as Exhibit C and Agreement as to Tax Consequences attached as Exhibit D fromthe Charging Parties and Class Members Defendant shall separately mail checks, via certified mail, at the addresses provided bythe Commission, to Ms. Jackson, Ms. Provencio, Ms. Tuton, Ms. Irvin, Ms. Barela , and the attorney(s) for Ms. Jackson and Ms. Provencio for the individual amounts designated in Paragraph 4. Within five (5) businessdays of the issuance of these checks, Defendant will submit a copy of the ch ecks and related correspondence to the Regional
Page 3 of 17

Attorney, Equal Em ployment Opportunity Com mission, 505 Marquette NW , Suite 900, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102-2189.
7. Defendant shall not condition the receipt of this individual relief on the Charging Parties’ or Class Members’ agreement to: (a) maintain as confidential the terms of this decree or other matters on the public record; (b) waive their statutory right to file a charge with any federal or state anti-discrimination agency; or (c) waive their right to apply for a position with Defendant.
8. In response to any em ployment inquiries or reference checks concerning the Charging Parties and Class Members, consistent with its representation of its customary practice, Defendant shall only provide the individual’s da tes of employment, last position held, and job duties. Claimants shall direct all such inquiries or reference checks to Defendant’s home office, at 800-333-9566, and Defendant’s home office shall promptly respond to such inquires or reference checks. This provision shall remain in force forso long as the Charging Parties and Class Members use Defendant as a reference and is not lim ited to the duration of this decree. Additionally, Defendant will provide a neutral letter of introduction to the Charging Parties and Class Members which includes each individual’s dates of employment, last position held, and job duties.
9. Defendant shall not take any action against the Charging Parties, Class Members, or witnesses in this case in retaliation f or filing a charge of employment discrimination or f or participating, assisting or testifying in this action.
10. Within ten (10) business days of entry of this decree, Defendant shall provide Jennifer Jackson, Lorraine Provencio, Jessica Tuton, Summer Irvin, andCynthia Barela with a letter in the form of Exhibit A.
DEFENDANT’S CORRECTIVE POLICIES AND PRACTICES 11. For three years from the entry of the decree, Defendant shall enforce policies and practices at its Store No. 253 that are designed to provide a work environm ent free from sex
Page 4 of 17

discrimination in accordance with Title VII, i ncluding policies and practices designed to prevent sexual harassment of its em ployees, and that allow em ployees and other individuals to raise concerns or complaints about matters made unlawful by Title VII, whether alleged, perceived or actual, without retaliation.
12. Within fifteen (15) business days of entry of the decree, Defendant shall review its existing policies on sex discrimination, policies on sex discrimination, including sexual harassment, and make any changes necessary to ensure that its policies comply with Title VII, are designed to be easily understood and provide a convenient, confidential and reliable procedure for report ing incidents of sex discrimination, including sexual harassment.
13. Within fifteen (15) business days of entryof the decree, and for three years fromthe entry of the decree, Defendant shall confirm that all of its employees in Store No. 253 have received a copy of the Defendant’s policy prohibiting sexual harassment and providing for the reporting of perceived sex discrimination, including sexual harassment, and that any new em ployees hired at Store No. 253 during this three-year period receive such policy within five (5) business days of employment. The policy shall be provided in atelast English or Spanish as needed by the employee.
14. Within fifteen (15) business days of entryof the decree, and for three years fromthe entry of the decree, Defendant shall designate oneor more employee relations representative(s) who will serve as an investigative resource for sexual harassment or related retaliation issues arising in Store No. 253. Defendant shall post in Store No. 253 contact information for these individuals. If the contact information for these investigative officers changes, Defendant will immediately notify its employees in Store No. 253 of the change.
15. Within thirty (30) days of entry of theDecree, Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc. shall certify that this/these employee relations representative has received at least eight (8) hours of training concerning the investigation of discrimination, harassment and/or retaliation complaints within the past year. Should other em ployee relations representatives becom e responsible for
Page 5 of 17

overseeing sexual harassment or related retaliation complaints arising in Store No. 253 for two years from the entry of this decree, within thirty (30) days of assuming such duties, Defendant shall also certify that s/he has received suchtraining. For three years fromthe entry of the decree, complaints related to sexual harassme nt or retaliation arising out of Store No. 253 will be accepted by Defendant in writing or orally, and all such complaints will be taken seriously and investigated.
16. For three years from the entry of the decree, managers or supervisors in Store No. 253 who learn or suspect that individuals in the work place may be engaging in sexual harassment or retaliation will be responsible f or immediately reporting such conduct to the investigative officer(s) referred in Paragraph 14, above. Managersor supervisors who fail to report such activity will be advised by Defendant that corrective action, including termination, may result.
17. For three years fromthe entry of the decree, only those who have an immediate need to know, including, but not limited to, the person(s) referenced in Paragraph 14, above, the alleged target(s) of harassment or retaliation, the alleged harasser(s) or retaliator(s), and any witness, may find out the identity of a complainant.
18. For three years from the entry of the decree, during an investigation of a sexual harassment complaint of an em ployee in Store No. 253, the person identified in Paragraph 14, above, shall prom ptly interview all affected indi viduals and available witnesses to the alleged harassment.
19. For three years from the entry of the decree,all parties contacted in the course ofan investigation will be advised that any retaliation orreprisal against an individual who is an alleged target of sexual harassment or related retaliation, who has made a complaint, or who has provided information in connection with such a com plaint, will not be tolerated and could result in disciplinary action.
20. For three years from the entry of the decree, the person(s) referenced in Paragraph 14, above, will recom mend remedial measures, if appropriate, based upon the results of the
Page 6 of 17

investigation and Defendant will promptly act upon such recommendations. If no remedial measures are recommended, the person(s) referenced in Paragraph 14 will document the reason(s) for such recommendation.
21. For three years from the entry of the decree, the person(s) referenced in Paragraph 14, above, will m aintain or cause to be m aintained a file on the original com plaint which will include complete documentation of all activity related to investigations andremedial measures taken and recommended, including identification of all individuals accused of sexual harassment and/or retaliation, and/or involved in taking subsequent remedial measures taken (if any).
22. For three years from the entry of the decree, the person(s) referenced in Paragraph 14, above, will faithfully record all witness interviewsand statements related to such investigations.
23. Defendant’s employees in Store No. 253,including managers and supervisors, who engage in sexual harassment or related retaliation, who fails to cooperate with company-sponsored investigations of sexual harassm ent or related retaliation, or who r efuse to implement remedial measures, will be advised that they m ay be sanctioned severely by suspensi on without pay or dismissal.
24. Daniel Guzman is not currently eligible to be rehired by Defendant. Shoul d Defendant rehire Mr. Guzman, Defendant shall within thirty (30) days of hire provide Mr. Guzman with the training referenced in Paragraph 26, as well as at least six (6) hours of counseling with a certified counselor on gender sensitivity. All cost s associated with Mr. Guzm an’s training and counseling shall be paid by Defendant.
POSTING OF A NOTICE 25. Within five (5) business days of the entr y of this decree, Defendant shall post a nd continuously post for three years from the entry of this decree, in one or more prominent places frequented by employees in Defendant’s Store No. 253, a Notice as atatched to this decree as Exhibit
Page 7 of 17

B. This Notice shall be the sam e type, style and size as in Exhibit B, and shal l be provided in at least English and Spanish, as appropriate.
TRAINING 26. Defendant shall provide training on sex discrimination, including sexual harassment, and retaliation according to the following terms: A. Defendant shall provide at least three (3) training sessions within two years of the
entry of this decree. All managers, supervisors and employees at Defendant’s Store No. 253 shall attend the training. Duplicative sessions may be held to accommodate staffing needs. Defendant shall be responsible for all costs associated with this training. The training provided pur suant to this Paragraph 26 is in addition to the training provided to employees as part of new hire orientation. B. The first training session shall be conducted within s ix months of the entry of this decree. The second training session shall take place in the year 2008, and the third training session shall take place in the first six months of 2009. C. Defendant currently intends to conduct this training via a computer (“e-learning”) module and live trainer. Defe ndant shall submit the trainer’s nam e, resume, the electronic training agenda and the date(s) of the proposed training to the Regional Attorney of the Albuquerque Area Office of the Equal Em ployment Opportunity Commission within forty-five days of the entry of this decree for the first session of the first year. During the second and third training sessions, the inform ation shall be submitted to the Regional Attorney ofthe Albuquerque Area Office of the EEOC at least forty-five days prior to theseminar-training session. The Commission shall have twenty-one days from the date of receipt of the information described above to reject the propos ed trainer and/or the contents of the sem inar. In the event the
Page 8 of 17

Commission does not approve Defendant’s designated trainer, Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc., within ten days, shall designate another trainer acting in close consultation with the EEOC. D. The training shall include a minimum of one (1) hour of instruction, and up to onehalf hour of questions and answers, as needed. The registry of attendance shall be retained by Defendant during the two-year term. E. The training, at a m inimum, shall include the subjects of: what constitutes sex discrimination, including sexual harassment, and retaliation; that sex discrimination and retaliation in the terms, conditions or privileges of employment and retaliation violate Title VII; how to prevent sex discrimination and retaliation; how to provide a work environment free from sex discrimination and retaliation; and to whom and by what means employees may complain, including complaining to the EEOC, if they feel they have been subjected to sex discrimination and retaliation. F. Immediately following the training sessions, a management official with oversight in or over Store No. 253 shall speak to ostre employees about: (1) potential discipline that can be taken against supervisors, managers and employees who commit acts of sex discrimination or retaliation, or who allow sex discrim ination or retaliation to occur in the workplace; (2) the importance of maintaining an environment free of sex discrimination and retaliation; and (3) the em ployer’s policies regarding se x discrimination and retaliation. This time shall not be counted toward the one hour minimum instruction time required in Paragraph 26(D).
REPORTING BY DEFENDANT AND ACCESS BY EEOC 27. Defendant shall certify i n writing to the Regional Attorney of the Com mission’s Albuquerque Area Office at 505Marquette NW, Suite 900, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102-2189,
Page 9 of 17

by December 31, 2007, by D ecember 31, 2008, a nd again by June 30, 2009, the f ollowing information:
A. Any changes, modifications, revocations, or revisions to its policies and procedures which concern or affect the subject of sex discrimination and retaliation.
B. The name, address, position, and telephonenumber of any employee who, during the six months preceding the report , has brought allegations of sex discrim ination or related retaliation arising fr om activities in Defendant’s Store No. 253 against Defendant or their personnel, including, but not limited to, management officials, vendors, agents, or employees. The natureof the complaint and the corrective action taken, if any, shall be specified.
C. The registries of persons attending eachof the seminar-training sessions required in Paragraph 26(D) of this decre e and a list of current employees on the day of the seminar-training sessions.
E. A certification in writing from Defendant that the training required in Paragraph 26 this decree was conducted. The written certification shall be provided within thirty (30) days after the each training session was conducted.
F. A certification in writing from Defendant stating the Notice required in Paragraph 25 of this decree was posted and the location(s) where it was posted.
28. The Commission, upon reasonable notice, shall have the right to enter and inspect the premises of Defendant’s facilities to ens ure compliance with this decree and federal antidiscrimination laws.
COSTS AND DURATION 29. Except as explicitly provided in Paragraph3s(A) and (B), each party shall bear its costs and attorney’s fees incurred as a result of this action through the entry of this decree.
Page 10 of 17

30. The duration of this decree shall be three (3) years from its entry, with the exception of a portion of Paragraph 15 and Paragraph 26, each owf hich is two (2) years in duration fromentry of the decree and the first two sentences of Paragraph 8, which shall be indefinite in duration. This Court shall retain jurisdiction of this action for these durations, during which the Commission may petition this Court for compliance with this decree. Should the Court determine that Defendant has not complied with this decree, appropriate relief, including extension of this decree for such period as may be necessary to remedy its non-compliance, may be ordered.
31. This decree shall expire by i ts own term s at the end of the durations set forth in Paragraph 30, above, after entry, without further action by the parties.
32. The parties agree to entry of this decree and judgment subject to final approval by the Court.
ENTERED AND ORDERED this 24th day of August, 2007.
_________________________________________ HONORABLE JUDGE MARTHA VASQUEZ CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
Page 11 of 17

APPROVED AND CONSENTED TO:
/s/ David E. Gevertz _______________________________ David E. Gevertz, Esq. Erica V. Garey, Esq. BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, P.C. Six Concourse Parkway Suite 3100 Atlanta, Georgia 30328-t353 (678) 406-8716

Ronald S. Cooper General Counsel
James L. Lee Deputy General Counsel
Gwendolyn Young Reams Associate General Counsel
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
1801 L. Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20507
/s/ Veronica A .Molina for ____________________________ Mary Jo O’Neill Regional Attorney
/s/ Veronica A. Molina for ____________________________ Sally C. Shanley Supervisory Trial Attorney
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
3300 N. Central Ave., Suite 690 Phoenix, Arizona 85012
/s/ Veronica A. Molina ________________________________ Veronica A. Molina Trial Attorney
Loretta Medina Senior Trial Attorney
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Albuquerque Area Office 505 Marquette N.W., Suite 900 Albuquerque, NM 87102 Telephone: (505) 248-5231

Page 12 of 17

Attorneys for Plaintiff /s/ Blaine T. Maynatt ___________________________________ Blaine T. Mynatt, Esq. HOLT, BABINGTON, MYNATT, P.C. 1660 Hickory Loop Las Cruces, NM 88004-2699 Telephone: (505) 524-8812 Private Attorney for Charging Parties Jennifer Jackson and Lorraine Provencio
Page 13 of 17

Address

Charging Party’s or Class Member’s Name

Re: Your Cracker Barrel Employment

Dear Ms.____

On behalf of Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc. and myself personally, I wish to express my sincere apology that you found your experience while employed at Cracker Barrel to be objectionable.
Thank you for the contributions you made while employed at Cracker Barrel, and we wish you nothing but success in your future endeavors.
Very truly yours,

EXHIBIT A

(Name) General Manager

Page 14 of 17

NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF CRACKER BARREL OLD COUNTRY STORE, INC.
This Notice is posted pursuant to a Consent Decree entered into between Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc. and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
It is unlawful under federal law (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) and state law to sexually harass employees or to discrim inate against an em ployee on the basis of sex in hiring, firing, compensation or other terms and conditions or privileges of employment.
It is also unlawful under federal law (Title VIIof the Civil Rights Act of 1964) and state law to retaliate against any employee who opposes a practice made unlawful under federal law, files, assists or participates in the filing of a charge of discrimination or participates in any investigation under Title VII and state law or who files a grievance alleging discrimination.
If you believe you have been discrim inated against because of sex, including sexual harassment, or retaliated against in your workplace, you always have the right to seek assistance from:
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION (EEOC) 505 Marquette N.W., Suite 900 Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102, TOLL FREE: 1-800-669-4000
or
NEW MEXICO DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Human Rights Division 1596 Pacheco St., Suite 103 Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505 TELEPHONE: (505) 827-6838
YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO FILE A CHARGE WITH THE EEOC OR THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR IF YOU BELIEVE YOU ARE BEING DISCRIMINATED AGAINST.
EXHIBIT B
Page 15 of 17

RELEASE AGREEMENT

I, __________________, for and in consideration of the sum of $______ payable to me pursuant to the terms of the Consent Decree entered by the Court in EEOC v. Crack er Barrel Old Country Store, Inc., No. CIV-06-0920 MV/WDS (D. N.M.), on behalf of myself, my heirs, assigns, executors, and agents, do hereby forever release, waive, remise, acquit, and discharge Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc. (“Defendant”), and all past and present shareholders, officers, agents, employees, and representatives of Defendant, as well as all successors and assignees of Defendant from any and all claims and causes of action oaf ny kind (including, but not limited to, claims for attorneys’ fees or expenses of litigation) which I now have or ever have had under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et . seq., as a result of or arising from the subject matter and claims which were or which could have been asserted in EEOC v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc., No. CIV-06-0920 MV/WDS (D. N.M.)

_________________________________ ___________

Signature

Date

EXHIBIT C

Page 16 of 17

Agreement as to Tax Consequences
I, _____________________, agree that I am ultimately and solely responsible for paying the correct amount of taxes owed by me on amounts I receive in connection with the Consent Decree entered in EEOC v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Incorporated, CIV-06-0920 D.NM. I further agree to hold Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Incorporated harmless from all expenses, penalties, damages, fees, and/or interest charges I may individually incur resulting from my non-payment of taxes on amounts paid to me under the Consent Decree.

______________________________ Signature

___________ Date

EXHIBIT D

Page 17 of 17

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

EEOC, vs.

Plaintiff,

CIV. No. 06-920 MV/WDS

CRACKER BARREL, Defendant. ORDER ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSING CASE
The parties in this case entered into a Consent Decree resolving all claims. The Consent Decree, which was approved by the Court on August 24, 2007, provides that the Court will retain jurisdiction to enforce compliance with the terms of the Consent Decree. For statistical reasons, the Court prefers that this case not remain on its active docket during the period of years the Consent Decree is in effect and will hereby administratively close the case. The administrative closure will not affect the Court’s jurisdiction to enforce compliance with the terms of the Consent Decree. See, e.g., Mickeviciute v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 327 F.3d 1159, 1161, n.1 (10th Cir. 2003) ( “The administrative closing of a case does not result in a final order. It is merely an administrative convenience which allows the removal of cases from the calendar in appropriate situations.”); American Heritage Life Ins. Co. v. Orr, 294 F.3d 702, 715 n.4 (5th Cir. 2002) (concurring opinion) (an administrative closure “has no jurisdictional significance”); United States v. 27.09 Acres of Land, 1 F.3d 107, 111 (2nd Cir. 1993) (administrative order closing case for statistical purposes is not a final judgment).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this case be administratively termed. The Court will retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the Consent Decree.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all pending motions be termed as moot. Dated this 29st day of September, 2007.
MARTHA VÁZQUEZ U. S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

 District Version v3.0.6 LIVE DB - Docket Report

https://ecf.nmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?436532686619026-L_3...

CLOSED, REFER
U.S. District Court District of New Mexico - Version 3.0 (Santa Fe) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 6:06-cv-00920-MV-WDS

EEOC v. Cracker Barrel, et al Assigned to: Chief Judge Martha Vazquez Referred to: Magistrate Judge W. Daniel Schneider Demand: $0 Cause: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

Date Filed: 09/27/2006 Date Terminated: 09/29/2007 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by Gwendolyn Young Reams EEOC Legal Counsel Office 1801 L Street, NW Washington, DC 20507 (202) 663-4669 Fax: 663-4639 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James L Lee EEOC Legal Counsel Office 1801 L Street, NW Washington, DC 20507 (202) 663-4669 Fax: 663-4639 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mary Jo O'Neill EEOC Phoenix District Office 3300 North Central Avenue #690 Phoenix, AZ 85012-2504 (602) 640-5000 Fax: (602) 640-5009 Email: mary.oneill@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sally C Shanley EEOC Phoenix District Office

1 of 8

3/18/2008 1:54 PM

District Version v3.0.6 LIVE DB - Docket Report
V. Defendant Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc.
2 of 8

https://ecf.nmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?436532686619026-L_3...
3300 North Central Avenue #690 Phoenix, AZ 85012-1848 602-640-5032 Fax: 602-640-5009 Email: sally.shanley@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Veronica A Molina Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Legal Unit 505 Marquette N.W., Suite 900 Albuquerque, NM 87102 (505) 248-5231 Fax: (505) 248-5217 Email: veronica.molina@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert W. Horton Bass Berry & Sims PLC 315 Deaderick St #2700 Nashville, TN 37238 (615) 742-7708 Fax: 742-2799 Email: rhorton@bassberry.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas L Stahl Rodey, Dickason, Sloan, Akin & Robb, P.A. Post Office Box 1888 Albuquerque, NM 87103 (505) 765-5900 Fax: (505) 768-7395 Email: tstahl@rodey.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David E Gevertz Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz PC (GA)
3/18/2008 1:54 PM

District Version v3.0.6 LIVE DB - Docket Report

https://ecf.nmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?436532686619026-L_3...

Six Concourse Parkway Suite 3100 Atlanta, GA 30328 Email: dgevertz@bakerdonelson.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Erica V Garey Six Concourse Parkway, Suite 3100 Atlanta, GA 30328 678-406-8718 Email: egarey@bakerdonelson.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 09/27/2006 11/30/2006 12/08/2006
12/21/2006 01/05/2007
01/05/2007
01/12/2007
01/23/2007 01/26/2007 01/26/2007 01/31/2007

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT for Employment w/jury demand (1 Summons(es) issued) (referred to Magistrate Judge W. D. Schneider) (nc) (Entered: 09/28/2006)
2 ANSWER by deft [1-1]* (jm) (Entered: 12/01/2006)
3 INITIAL SCHEDULING ORDER by Magistrate Judge W. D. Schneider setting Rule 16 scheduling conference on 1/30/07 @ 1:50 pm in Albuquerque, NM; IPTR and provisional discovery plan due 1/23/07 (cc: all counsel)* (jm) (Entered: 12/08/2006)
4 MOTION by pltf to strike Affirmative Defenses * (jm) (Entered: 12/22/2006)
5 NOTICE of Appearance by Thomas L Stahl and David E Gevertz on behalf of Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc. (Stahl, Thomas) Modified on 1/12/2007 to add additional attorney (pz). (Entered: 01/05/2007)
Scheduling Conference set for 1/30/2007 01:50 PM in Albuquerque - 720 Judge W. Daniel Schneider Chambers before United State Magistrate Judge W. Daniel Schneider. THIS IS A TEXT ONLY ENTRY. THERE ARE NO DOCUMENTS ATTACHED. (mm) (Entered: 01/05/2007)
6 RESPONSE in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses 4 filed by Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc. (Stahl, Thomas) Modified on 1/15/2007 to create link (pz). (Entered: 01/12/2007)
7 Joint Status Report and Provisional Discovery Plan by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Molina, Veronica) (Entered: 01/23/2007)
8 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc. of Initial Disclosures (Stahl, Thomas) (Entered: 01/26/2007)
9 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission of Initial Disclosures (Molina, Veronica) (Entered: 01/26/2007)
10 ORDER by Judge W. Daniel Schneider Settlement Conference set for 7/5/2007 09:00 AM in Albuquerque - 720 Judge W. Daniel Schneider Chambers before Magistrate Judge W. Daniel Schneider. (mm) (Entered: 01/31/2007)

3 of 8

3/18/2008 1:54 PM

District Version v3.0.6 LIVE DB - Docket Report

https://ecf.nmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?436532686619026-L_3...

01/31/2007 02/02/2007 02/02/2007 02/20/2007 02/20/2007 02/20/2007 03/01/2007 03/01/2007
03/02/2007 03/05/2007 03/22/2007 03/22/2007 03/22/2007 03/22/2007

11 REPLY to Response to Motion to Strike filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Molina, Veronica) (Entered: 01/31/2007)
Clerk's Minutes A R16 was held on 1/30/2007 before Judge W. Daniel Schneider :. (mm) (Entered: 02/02/2007)
12 NOTICE of Briefing Complete by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission regarding Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses 4 (Molina, Veronica) Modified on 2/5/2007 to reference document and include link (pz). (Entered: 02/02/2007)
13 Scheduling ORDER by Judge W. Daniel Schneider Discovery due by 6/29/2007. Motions due by 7/9/2007. Pretrial Order due by 10/22/2007. (mm) (Entered: 02/20/2007)
14 ORDER by Judge W. Daniel Schneider Settlement Conference reset for 7/31/2007 09:00 AM in Albuquerque - 720 Judge W. Daniel Schneider Chambers before Magistrate Judge W. Daniel Schneider. (mm) (Entered: 02/20/2007)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Motions due by 8/16/2007. Pretrial Order due by 11/1/2007. (dmw) Modified on 3/26/2007 (dmw) (Entered: 03/26/2007)
15 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission of First Request For Production Of Documents to counsel on 2/28/07 (Molina, Veronica) Modified text on 3/5/2007 (pz). (Entered: 03/01/2007)
16 NOTICE of Hearing: Jury Selection set for 1/28/2008 09:30 AM in Santa Fe Judge Martha Vazquez Courtroom before Chief Judge Martha Vazquez. Jury Trial set for 1/28/2008 09:30 AM in Santa Fe - Judge Martha Vazquez Courtroom before Chief Judge Martha Vazquez. Pretrial Conference set for 1/15/2008 09:30 AM in Santa Fe - Judge Martha Vazquez Chambers 2nd floor before Chief Judge Martha Vazquez. (vf) (Entered: 03/01/2007)
17 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc. of First Interrogatories and Requests for Production to counsel on 3/2/07 (Stahl, Thomas) Modified text on 3/6/2007 (pz). (Entered: 03/02/2007)
18 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc. of First Set of Requests for Admissions to Plaintiff and Class Members to counsel on 3/5/07 (Stahl, Thomas) Modified text on 3/6/2007 (pz). (Entered: 03/05/2007)
19 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission of First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant on 3/19/07 (Molina, Veronica) Modified text on 3/27/2007 (pz). (Entered: 03/22/2007)
20 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission of EEOC's Second Request for Production of Documents to Defendant on 3/19/07 (Molina, Veronica) Modified text on 3/27/2007 (pz). (Entered: 03/22/2007)
21 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission of EEOC's First Supplemental Initial Disclosures to counsel on 3/22/07 (Molina, Veronica) Modified text on 3/27/2007 (pz). (Entered: 03/22/2007)
22 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission of EEOC's Second Supplemental Initial Disclosures to counsel on 3/22/07 (Molina, Veronica) Modified text on 3/27/2007 (pz). (Entered: 03/22/2007)

4 of 8

3/18/2008 1:54 PM

District Version v3.0.6 LIVE DB - Docket Report

https://ecf.nmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?436532686619026-L_3...

03/23/2007 03/28/2007 04/02/2007
04/02/2007
04/02/2007 04/03/2007 04/04/2007 04/05/2007 04/05/2007
04/05/2007 04/06/2007 04/16/2007 04/20/2007 04/20/2007

23 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission of EEOC's Third Supplemental Initial Disclosures to counsel on 3/23/07 (Molina, Veronica) Modified text on 3/27/2007 (pz). (Entered: 03/23/2007)
24 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc. Defendant's First Amended Initial Disclosures to counsel on 3/28/07 (Gevertz, David) Modified text on 4/4/2007 (pz). (Entered: 03/28/2007)
25 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission of Answers and Objections to Defendant's First Interrogatories to counsel on 4/2/2007 (Molina, Veronica) Modified text on 4/6/2007 (pz). (Entered: 04/02/2007)
26 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission of Responses and Objections to Defendant's First Request for Production of Documents to counsel on 4/2/07 (Molina, Veronica) Modified text on 4/6/2007 (pz). (Entered: 04/02/2007)
27 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission of Fourth Supplemental Initial Disclosures to counsel on 4/2/2007 (Molina, Veronica) Modified text on 4/2/2007 (pz). (Entered: 04/02/2007)
28 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc. Objections and Responses to Plaintiff's First Request for Admission to counsel on 4/3/07 (Gevertz, David) Modified text on 4/9/2007 (pz). (Entered: 04/03/2007)
29 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Second Supplemental Answers To Defendant's First Interrogatories to counsel on 4/4/07 (Molina, Veronica) Modified text on 4/9/2007 (pz). (Entered: 04/04/2007)
30 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission First Supplemental Answers To Defendant's First Interrogatories to counsel on 4/4/07 (Molina, Veronica) Modified text on 4/9/2007 (pz). (Entered: 04/05/2007)
31 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission of Responses and Objections to Defendant's First Set of Uniform Requests for Admissions to Plaintiffs and Class Members to counsel on 4/4/07 (Molina, Veronica) Modified text on 4/9/2007 (pz). (Entered: 04/05/2007)
32 FILED IN ERROR - NOTICE of Appearance by David E Gevertz on behalf of Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc. (Gevertz, David) Modified on 4/9/2007 (pz). (Entered: 04/05/2007)
33 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission of Fifth Supplemental Initial Disclosures to counsel on 4/6/07 (Molina, Veronica) Modified text on 4/10/2007 (pz). (Entered: 04/06/2007)
34 NOTICE of Appearance by Erica V Garey on behalf of Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc. (Garey, Erica) (Entered: 04/16/2007)
35 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Sixth Supplemental Initial Disclosures (Molina, Veronica) (Entered: 04/20/2007)
36 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission of EEOC's Sixth Supplemental Initial Disclosures - Amended Certificate (Molina,

5 of 8

3/18/2008 1:54 PM

District Version v3.0.6 LIVE DB - Docket Report

https://ecf.nmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?436532686619026-L_3...

04/23/2007 04/23/2007 04/25/2007 04/27/2007 05/02/2007 05/02/2007 05/04/2007 05/10/2007 05/10/2007 05/10/2007 05/10/2007 05/11/2007 05/11/2007 05/11/2007 05/14/2007

Veronica) (Entered: 04/20/2007)
37 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc. Defendant's Objections and Responses to Plaintiff's First Interrogatories (Gevertz, David) (Entered: 04/23/2007)
38 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc. Defendant's Objections and Responses to Plaintiff's Second Requests for Production of Documents (Gevertz, David) (Entered: 04/23/2007)
39 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc. Second Amended Initial Disclosures (Gevertz, David) (Entered: 04/25/2007)
40 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Third Request For Production Of Documents (Molina, Veronica) (Entered: 04/27/2007)
41 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc. Notice of Independent Medical Examinations (Gevertz, David) (Entered: 05/02/2007)
42 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc. Defendant's Expert Witness Disclosure (Gevertz, David) (Entered: 05/02/2007)
43 Unopposed MOTION for Discovery Unopposed Motion for Leave to Take Additional Depositions by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Molina, Veronica) (Entered: 05/04/2007)
44 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc. Defendant's Third Amended Initial Disclosures (Gevertz, David) (Entered: 05/10/2007)
45 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission of EEOC's Third Supplemental Answers and Objections to Defendant's First Interrogatories (Molina, Veronica) (Entered: 05/10/2007)
46 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission of EEOC's Seventh Supplemental Initial Disclosures (Molina, Veronica) (Entered: 05/10/2007)
47 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission of EEOC's Supplemental Responses and Objections to Defendant's First Request for Production of Documents (Molina, Veronica) (Entered: 05/10/2007)
48 MOTION To Request A Status Conference Before Magistrate Schneider by Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc.. (Gevertz, David) (Entered: 05/11/2007)
49 MOTION to Compel Independent Medical Examination of Jessica Tuton and Cynthia Barela by Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc.. (Stahl, Thomas) (Entered: 05/11/2007)
51 RESPONSE to Motion re 48 MOTION To Request A Status Conference Before Magistrate Schneider filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Molina, Veronica) (Entered: 05/11/2007)
52 NOTICE of Briefing Complete by Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc. re 48 MOTION To Request A Status Conference Before Magistrate Schneider filed by

6 of 8

3/18/2008 1:54 PM

District Version v3.0.6 LIVE DB - Docket Report

https://ecf.nmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?436532686619026-L_3...

05/18/2007 05/22/2007 05/24/2007 05/29/2007 05/30/2007 05/30/2007 05/30/2007 05/31/2007 06/01/2007
06/07/2007 06/27/2007 07/25/2007 07/26/2007 08/24/2007 09/29/2007

Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc. (Gevertz, David) (Entered: 05/14/2007)
53 Opposed MOTION to Strike Defendant's Expert Witness Disclosure and Supporting Memorandum by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 # 2 Exhibit)(Molina, Veronica) (Entered: 05/18/2007)
54 ORDER by Judge W. Daniel Schneider denying 48 Motion (mm) (Entered: 05/22/2007)
57 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc. Notice of Independent Medical Examination for Jennifer Jackson (Gevertz, David) (Entered: 05/24/2007)
59 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc. Defendant's Objections and Responses to Plaintiff's Third Request for Production of Documents (Gevertz, David) (Entered: 05/29/2007)
60 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc. Second Continuing Interrogatories (Gevertz, David) (Entered: 05/30/2007)
61 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc. Second Continuing Requests for Production of Documents (Gevertz, David) (Entered: 05/30/2007)
62 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Response To Defendant's Motion For Independent Medical Evaluation (Molina, Veronica) (Entered: 05/30/2007)
63 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Request For Admissions (Molina, Veronica) (Entered: 05/31/2007)
64 RESPONSE in Opposition re 53 Opposed MOTION to Strike Defendant's Expert Witness Disclosure and Supporting Memorandum filed by Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit D# 5 Exhibit E# 6 Exhibit F# 7 Exhibit G# 8 Exhibit H# 9 Exhibit I)(Gevertz, David) (Entered: 06/01/2007)
65 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc. Fourth Amended Initial Disclosures (Gevertz, David) (Entered: 06/07/2007)
67 NOTICE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Unavailability (Molina, Veronica) (Entered: 06/27/2007)
68 ORDER by Judge W. Daniel Schneider vacating the July 31, 2007 Settlement Conference (mm) (Entered: 07/25/2007)
69 AMENDED ORDER by Judge W. Daniel Schneider (mm) (Entered: 07/26/2007)
70 CONSENT DECREE Approved and Consented to by the Parties as noted therein by Judge Martha Vazquez (td) (Entered: 08/24/2007)
71 ORDER administratively closing case pursuant to 70 Consent Decree by Judge Martha Vazquez. The Court will retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the Consent Decree (td) (Entered: 09/29/2007)

7 of 8

3/18/2008 1:54 PM

District Version v3.0.6 LIVE DB - Docket Report

https://ecf.nmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?436532686619026-L_3...

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

PACER Login:
Description:
Billable Pages:

03/18/2008 12:54:07

wu0079 Client Code: eeoc

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

6:06-cv-00920-MV-WDS

5

Cost:

0.40

8 of 8

3/18/2008 1:54 PM

Output:
In September 2006, the Phoenix District Office and Albuquerque Area Office of the EEOC filed this lawsuit against restaurant Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico alleging discrimination on the basis of gender, female, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  Specifically, the complaint alleged the defendants created a hostile work environment and retaliated against the complainants for complaining of this treatment.  Following some discovery, the parties settled the lawsuit in September 2007 through a consent decree.

The three-year decree, containing anti-discrimination and retaliation provisions, required the defendant to: report on complaints and make other compliance reports, keep records, allow access for monitoring, create internal compliance managers, provide neutral references for the complainants, post and distribute notice, provide EEO training, implement a complaint resolution procedure, add additional criteria to managerial responsibilities, keep the complainants' identities a secret, require retraining for a terminated employee if they ever reapplied to the position, and pay $270,000 to be distributed among five individuals and their attorneys. The docket sheet does not show any further enforcement; the case was presumably closed in 2010.


Input:
CLOSED,STAYED,TYPE I-FOIA
U.S. District Court District of Columbia (Washington, DC) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:18-cv-01967-RC

MUSLIM ADVOCATES v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE et al Assigned to: Judge Rudolph Contreras Cause: 05:552 Freedom of Information Act

Date Filed: 08/23/2018 Date Terminated: 06/16/2020 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 895 Freedom of Information Act Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant

Plaintiff MUSLIM ADVOCATES

represented by MUSLIM ADVOCATES PRO SE

Matthew W. Callahan MUSLIM ADVOCATES P.O. Box 34440 Washington, DC 20043 (202) 897-2622 Fax: (202) 508-1007 Email: matthew@muslimadvocates.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sirine Shebaya NATIONAL IMMIGRATION PROJECT OF THE NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD 2201 Wisconsin Ave NW Suite 200 Washington, DC 20007 202-656-4788 Email: sirine@nipnlg.org TERMINATED: 08/16/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY

Johnathan James Smith MUSLIM ADVOCATES P.O. Box 34440

V. Defendant UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Defendant UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT

Washington, DC 20043 (202) 897-1897 Fax: (202) 508-1007 Email: johnathan@muslimadvocates.org TERMINATED: 02/01/2019
Nimra H. Azmi DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 1251 6th Avenue 21st Floor New York, NY 10020 804-387-1303 Email: nimra@muslimadvocates.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Johnny Hillary Walker , III U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Civil Division 555 4th Street NW Washington, DC 20530 (202) 252-2575 Email: johnny.walker@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Doris Denise Coles-Huff U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 555 Fourth Street, NW Washington, DC 20530 (202) 252-2557 Fax: (202) 252-2599 Email: doris.coles@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Johnny Hillary Walker , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Doris Denise Coles-Huff (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 08/23/2018 08/23/2018 08/23/2018 08/27/2018
08/27/2018

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 0090-5654213) filed by MUSLIM ADVOCATES. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Civil Cover Sheet, # 5 Summons DOJ, # 6 Summons ICE, # 7 Summons U.S. Attorney General, # 8 Summons USAO-DC)(Smith, Johnathan) (Entered: 08/23/2018)
2 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney Name- Nimra H. Azmi, :Firm- Muslim Advocates, :Address- P.O. Box 34440, Washington, D.C. 20043. Phone No. - 202-897-2564. Fax No. - 202508-1007 Filing fee $ 100, receipt number 0090-5654300. Fee Status: Fee Paid. by MUSLIM ADVOCATES (Smith, Johnathan) (Entered: 08/23/2018)
Case Assigned to Judge Rudolph Contreras. (zmd) (Entered: 08/24/2018)
MINUTE ORDER granting 2 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice: Local Rule 83.2(c)(2) provides that "[a]n attorney who engages in the practice of law from an office located in the District of Columbia must be a member of the District of Columbia Bar and the Bar of this Court to file papers in this Court." On motion submitted by a member of the Bar of this Court, attorney Nimra H. Azmi seeks pro hac vice admission to represent Plaintiff in this case. Ms. Azmi declares that she works from an office located in the District of Columbia and that she has a pending application for membership to the District of Columbia Bar. Notwithstanding Local Rule 83.2(c)(2), it is hereby ORDERED that Nimra H. Azmi is admitted to represent Plaintiff pro hac vice in this case. As soon as practicable after Ms. Azmi's admission to the District of Columbia Bar, she must seek admission to the Bar of this Court. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on August 27, 2018. (lcrc2) (Entered: 08/27/2018)
3 SUMMONS (4) Issued Electronically as to UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General (Attachments: # 1 Notice and Consent) (zmd) (Entered: 08/27/2018)

08/28/2018 4 NOTICE of Appearance by Sirine Shebaya on behalf of MUSLIM ADVOCATES (Shebaya, Sirine) (Entered: 08/28/2018)

09/06/2018 5 NOTICE of Appearance by Johnny Hillary Walker, III on behalf of All Defendants (Walker, Johnny) (Entered: 09/06/2018)

09/10/2018

6 RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE served on 8/29/2018, RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed on United States Attorney General. Date of Service Upon United States Attorney General 8/29/2018., RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed as to the United States Attorney. Date of Service Upon United States Attorney on 8/29/2018. ( Answer due for ALL FEDERAL DEFENDANTS by 9/28/2018.) (Shebaya, Sirine) (Entered: 09/10/2018)

09/10/2018

7 RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed. UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT served on 9/10/2018 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Shebaya, Sirine) (Entered: 09/10/2018)

09/27/2018

8 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Walker, Johnny) (Entered: 09/27/2018)

09/27/2018

MINUTE ORDER granting 8 Defendants' Consent Motion for Extension of Time: It is hereby ORDERED that Defendants shall have up to and including October 12, 2018 to answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff's complaint. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 9/27/18. (lcrc1) (Entered: 09/27/2018)

10/12/2018

9 ANSWER to Complaint by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT.(Walker, Johnny) (Entered: 10/12/2018)

10/12/2018

MINUTE ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall meet, confer, and jointly submit a proposed briefing schedule on or before October 26, 2018. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 10/12/2018. (lcrc2) (Entered: 10/12/2018)

10/12/2018

Set/Reset Deadlines: Proposed Briefing Schedule due by 10/26/2018 (tj) (Entered: 10/12/2018)

10/26/2018

10 Joint STATUS REPORT by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT. (Walker, Johnny) (Entered: 10/26/2018)

10/26/2018

MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of 10 the parties' Joint Status Report, it is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall submit another joint status report by December 10, 2018. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 10/26/2018. (lcrc2) (Entered: 10/26/2018)

12/10/2018

11 Joint STATUS REPORT by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT. (Walker, Johnny) (Entered: 12/10/2018)

12/10/2018

MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of 11 the parties' Joint Status Report, it is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall file another joint status report by January 24, 2019. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on December 10, 2018. (lcrc2) (Entered: 12/10/2018)

12/13/2018

Set/Reset Deadlines: Status Report due by 1/24/2019 (tj) (Entered: 12/13/2018)

01/23/2019

12 Unopposed MOTION to Stay and for extension of time by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Coles-Huff, Doris). Added MOTION for Extension of Time to on 1/28/2019 (znmw). (Entered: 01/23/2019)

01/24/2019

MINUTE ORDER granting 12 Motion to Stay: It is hereby ORDERED that this case is stayed until appropriations are restored to the Department of Justice. The deadline for submitting the joint status report, previously due on January 24, 2019, is extended until 14 days after appropriations are restored. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on January 24, 2019. (lcrc2) (Entered: 01/24/2019)

02/01/2019

13 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE as to MUSLIM ADVOCATES. Attorney Johnathan James Smith terminated. (Smith, Johnathan) (Entered: 02/01/2019)

02/08/2019

14 Joint STATUS REPORT by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT. (Walker, Johnny) (Entered: 02/08/2019)

02/08/2019

MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of 14 the parties' joint status report, it is hereby ORDERED that the parties will file another joint status report by March 8, 2019. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on February 8, 2019. (lcrc2) (Entered: 02/08/2019)

03/01/2019

Set/Reset Deadlines: Status Report due by 3/8/2019 (tj) (Entered: 03/01/2019)

03/07/2019

15 Joint STATUS REPORT by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT. (Walker, Johnny) (Entered: 03/07/2019)

03/07/2019

MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of the parties' 15 Joint Status Report, it is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall file another joint status report by April 7, 2019. (So Ordered Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on March 7, 2019). (lcrc2) (Entered: 03/07/2019)

03/07/2019

Set/Reset Deadlines: Status Report due by 4/7/2019 (tj) (Entered: 03/07/2019)

04/05/2019 16 Joint STATUS REPORT by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT. (Walker, Johnny) (Entered: 04/05/2019)

04/08/2019

MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of 16 the parties' Joint Status Report, it is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall file another joint status report by May 31, 2019. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on April 8, 2019. (lcrc2) (Entered: 04/08/2019)

04/11/2019

Set/Reset Deadlines: Status Report due by 5/31/2019 (tj) (Entered: 04/11/2019)

05/31/2019

17 Joint STATUS REPORT by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT. (Walker, Johnny) (Entered: 05/31/2019)

06/03/2019

MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of 17 the parties' Joint Status Report, it is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall file another joint status report by July 19, 2019. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on June 3, 2019. (lcrc2) (Entered: 06/03/2019)

07/19/2019

18 Joint STATUS REPORT by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT. (Walker, Johnny) (Entered: 07/19/2019)

07/19/2019

MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of 18 the parties' Joint Status Report, it is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall file another joint status report by September 6, 2019. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on July 19, 2019. (lcrc2) (Entered: 07/19/2019)

07/23/2019

Set/Reset Deadlines: Status Report due by 9/6/2019 (tj) (Entered: 07/23/2019)

08/16/2019

19 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE as to MUSLIM ADVOCATES. Attorney Sirine Shebaya terminated. (Shebaya, Sirine) (Entered: 08/16/2019)

08/22/2019

20 NOTICE of Appearance by Matthew W. Callahan on behalf of MUSLIM ADVOCATES (Callahan, Matthew) (Main Document 20 replaced on 8/23/2019) (znmw). (Entered: 08/22/2019)

09/06/2019

21 Joint STATUS REPORT by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT. (Walker, Johnny) (Entered: 09/06/2019)

09/16/2019

MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of 21 the parties' Joint Status Report, it is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall file another joint status report on or before November 8, 2019. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 09/16/2019. (lcrc2) (Entered: 09/16/2019)

11/08/2019

22 Joint STATUS REPORT by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT. (Walker, Johnny) (Entered: 11/08/2019)

11/12/2019

MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of 22 the parties' Joint Status Report, it is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall file another joint status report on or before December 13, 2019. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 11/12/2019. (lcrc2) (Entered: 11/12/2019)

12/13/2019

23 Joint STATUS REPORT by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT. (Walker, Johnny) (Entered: 12/13/2019)

12/16/2019

MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of 23 the parties' Joint Status Report, it is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall file another joint status report on or before January 13, 2020. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 12/16/2019. (lcrc2) (Entered: 12/16/2019)

12/17/2019

Set/Reset Deadlines: Status Report due by 1/13/2020 (tj) (Entered: 12/17/2019)

01/13/2020

24 Joint STATUS REPORT by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT. (Walker, Johnny) (Entered: 01/13/2020)

01/15/2020

MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of 24 the parties' Joint Status Report, it is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall file another joint status report on or before February 12, 2020. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 1/15/2020. (lcrc2) (Entered: 01/15/2020)

01/15/2020

Set/Reset Deadlines: Status Report due by 2/12/2020 (tj) (Entered: 01/15/2020)

02/12/2020 25 Joint STATUS REPORT by MUSLIM ADVOCATES. (Azmi, Nimra) (Entered: 02/12/2020)

02/13/2020

MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of 25 the parties' Joint Status Report, it is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall file another Joint joint status report on or before March 12, 2020. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 2/13/2020. (lcrc2) (Entered: 02/13/2020)

02/13/2020

NOTICE OF ERROR re 25 Status Report; emailed to nimra@muslimadvocates.org, cc'd 5 associated attorneys -- The PDF file you docketed contained errors: 1. Invalid attorney signature, 2. In future, the signature on the pleading and the PACER login must match. (ztth, ) (Entered: 02/13/2020)

02/20/2020

Set/Reset Deadlines: Status Report due by 3/12/2020 (tj) (Entered: 02/20/2020)

03/12/2020

26 Joint STATUS REPORT by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT. (Walker, Johnny) (Entered: 03/12/2020)

03/12/2020

MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of 26 the parties' Joint Status Report, it is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall file another Joint Status Report on or before April 10, 2020. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 3/12/2020. (lcrc2) (Entered: 03/12/2020)

03/18/2020

Set/Reset Deadlines: Status Report due by 4/10/2020 (tj) (Entered: 03/18/2020)

04/10/2020

27 Joint STATUS REPORT by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT. (Walker, Johnny) (Entered: 04/10/2020)

04/13/2020

MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of 27 the parties' Joint Status Report, it is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall file another Joint Status Report on or before May 8, 2020. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 4/13/2020. (lcrc2) (Entered: 04/13/2020)

04/13/2020

Set/Reset Deadlines: Joint Status Report due by 5/8/2020. (zcal) (Entered: 04/13/2020)

05/08/2020

28 Joint STATUS REPORT by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT. (Walker, Johnny) (Entered: 05/08/2020)

05/08/2020

MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of 28 the parties' Joint Status Report, it is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall file another Joint Status Report on or before May 29, 2020. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 5/8/2020. (lcrc2) (Entered: 05/08/2020)

05/08/2020

Set/Reset Deadlines: Joint Status Report due by 5/29/2020. (zcal) (Entered: 05/11/2020)

05/29/2020

29 Joint STATUS REPORT by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT. (Walker, Johnny) (Entered: 05/29/2020)

05/29/2020

MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of 29 the parties' Joint Status Report, it is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall file another Joint Status Report on or before June 15, 2020. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 5/29/2020. (lckc) (Entered: 05/29/2020)

06/01/2020

Set/Reset Deadlines: Status Report due by 6/15/2020. (tj) (Entered: 06/01/2020)

06/15/2020

30 STIPULATION of Dismissal by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT. (Walker, Johnny) (Entered: 06/15/2020)

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt

01/15/2021 23:08:46

PACER Login:

CRClearinghouse Client Code: Leake

Description:

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

1:18-cv-01967RC

Billable Pages: 5

Cost:

0.50

Exempt flag: Not Exempt

Exempt reason: Not Exempt

 Case 1:18-cv-01967-RC Document 1 Filed 08/23/18 Page 1 of 15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

MUSLIM ADVOCATES P.O. Box 34440 Washington, D.C. 20043
Plaintiff, v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20530-0001
and
UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT 500 12th Street, SW Washington, D.C. 20024
Defendants.

CASE NO.____________

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Plaintiff Muslim Advocates brings this action under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552 et seq. for declaratory, injunctive, and other appropriate relief to compel the disclosure and release of documents from Defendants U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) (collectively, “Defendants”).
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1. Muslim Advocates is a not-for-profit legal advocacy and educational organization. On January 11, 2018, Plaintiff submitted a FOIA Request (the “Request”) for materials related to denaturalization efforts by the federal government, including but not limited to “Operation Janus,” a joint initiative between DOJ and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”), where
1

Case 1:18-cv-01967-RC Document 1 Filed 08/23/18 Page 2 of 15
federal agencies reviewed the files of naturalized citizens for the purpose of identifying misrepresentations in their naturalization applications that could render American citizens eligible for denaturalization. The Request was sent to the DOJ’s National Security Division (“NSD”), DOJ’s Civil Division (“Civil Division”), DHS, and DHS’s component agency, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”). See Ex. A. On January 25, 2018 DHS referred the Request to its component agency, ICE. On February 13, 2018, Muslim Advocates submitted a revised FOIA request to ICE after the agency requested clarification on the scope of the request (hereinafter, the “Second ICE Request”). See Ex. C.
2. As of this filing, Defendants have wholly failed to comply with their obligations under FOIA: Defendant DOJ wrongfully denied Plaintiff’s Request and has thereafter failed to adjudicate Plaintiff’s administrative appeal of the Civil Division’s denial within the time limit. Defendant ICE has outright refused to process either Muslim Advocates’ initial Request or the Second ICE Request and has likewise failed to respond to any appeals. To date, neither of the Defendants have produced a single document in response to Plaintiff’s FOIA requests. 1
3. The interests at stake in government transparency on the issue of denaturalization could not be more important. An aggressive pursuit of denaturalization by the federal government is unprecedented in recent history and has the potential to disrupt thousands of U.S. citizen lives and families.2 The documents and information Muslim Advocates seeks would help provide much-
1 Neither NSD nor USCIS are named in this action. NSD issued a final determination on Muslim Advocates’ request on July 6, 2018. Muslim Advocates is currently in discussions with USCIS regarding the production of responsive documents. 2 See, e.g., Adiel Kaplan, Miami grandma targeted as U.S. takes aim at naturalized immigrants with prior offenses, MIAMI HERALD (July 9, 2018); Masha Gessen, In America, Naturalized Citizens No Longer Have an Assumption of Permanence, THE NEW YORKER (June 18, 2018).
2

Case 1:18-cv-01967-RC Document 1 Filed 08/23/18 Page 3 of 15
needed transparency with respect to the means, ends, and enforcement patterns of the government’s ongoing denaturalization efforts.
4. Plaintiff brings this action to compel Defendants to immediately process and release to Plaintiff all responsive records that they have unlawfully withheld.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 5. This Court has original jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1346. This Court also has subject matter jurisdiction over this action and personal jurisdiction over all parties pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B). 6. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B) and 28 U.S.C.
§ 1391(e), because a substantial portion of the events giving rise to this action occurred in this District, and because Defendants maintain records and information subject to the Requests in this District.
PARTIES 7. Plaintiff Muslim Advocates is a non-profit organization with offices in Washington, D.C. and Oakland, California that works to ensure civil rights for Americans of all faiths through legal advocacy, litigation, policy engagement, and civic education. Muslim Advocates also regularly disseminates information to the public through its website, social media platforms, and email distribution lists. Muslim Advocates is a “person” within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. § 551(2). 8. Defendant U.S. Department of Justice is the United States agency responsible for the enforcement of law and in particular, the prosecution of civil denaturalization suits. The Civil Division is a component of DOJ and a direct recipient of the Request at issue. The Civil Division litigates cases related to immigration enforcement on behalf of the United States, including
3

Case 1:18-cv-01967-RC Document 1 Filed 08/23/18 Page 4 of 15
prosecuting denaturalization lawsuits. DOJ has possession of and control over the documents and information requested by Plaintiff.
9. Defendant Immigration and Customs Enforcement is a component of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and an “agency” within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. § 552(f)(1). ICE is the component agency of DHS that enforces U.S. immigration law. ICE has possession of and control over the documents and information requested by Plaintiff.
STATUTORY BACKGROUND 10. The Freedom of Information Act provides that any member of the public may request records from a United States agency. Upon receipt of a FOIA request, an agency must determine within 20 business days—or, in “unusual circumstances,” by 30 business days— whether it will comply with a request and notify the requestor of its determination and reasoning in writing. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A)(i)-(B)(i). This determination must also timely indicate the scope of the documents the agency intends to produce and the exemptions, if any, that it will apply to withhold documents. 11. In response to a FOIA request, an agency, after engaging in a reasonable search for responsive records, including of any field offices that may possess relevant materials, must disclose in a timely manner all records that do not fall within nine narrowly construed statutory exemptions. 5 U.S.C. § 552 (a)(3)(A), (C), (b)(1)-(9). 12. Typically, a requester under FOIA must appeal agency action administratively before commencing litigation. However, if the agency has failed to abide by its obligations and issue a determination on the request or a determination on an administrative appeal within the statutory timeframe, the administrative appeal process is considered exhausted. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(C)(i).
4

Case 1:18-cv-01967-RC Document 1 Filed 08/23/18 Page 5 of 15
13. Upon complaint, a district court can enjoin an agency from withholding records and order production of records improperly withheld. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND 14. Historically, denaturalization has been used sparingly and almost exclusively against perpetrators of war crimes, such as members of the Schutzstaffel (“SS”), Nazi concentration camp guards, and other genocidaires who lied on their U.S. immigration documentation.3 However, systematic denaturalization has come to the fore occasionally: during the Red Scare, the government initiated a program of denaturalization proceedings against suspected Communists.4 Likewise, during World War II, DOJ pursued denaturalization against German Americans and against Indian Americans following the Supreme Court’s 1923 decision in United States v. Thind, which held that Indians were ineligible for citizenship because of their race.5 15. Seventy years after the Red Scare, the federal government has mounted a concerted campaign to increase the use of denaturalization to strip foreign-born U.S. citizens of their citizenship and deport them, regardless of how long they have resided in the country and the families and lives they have built.
3 See, e.g., Linda Greenhouse, Justices Revoke U.S. Citizenship of a Nazi Guard, N.Y. TIMES (Jan. 22, 1981), at A1, available at https://www.nytimes.com/1981/01/22/us/justices-revoke-uscitizenship-of-a-nazi-guard.html. 4 Ruth Ellen Wasem, Trump administration now has naturalized citizens in its sights, THE HILL (July 17, 2018), http://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/396923-trump-administration-now-hasnaturalized-citizens-in-its-sights. 5 See Kritika Agarwal, Stripping Naturalized Immigrants of Their Citizenship Isn’t New, SMIHTSONIAN MAG (Jul. 24, 2018), https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/strippingnaturalized-immigrants-their-citizenship-isnt-new-180969733/.
5

Case 1:18-cv-01967-RC Document 1 Filed 08/23/18 Page 6 of 15
16. In 2016, DHS launched Operation Janus, an effort coordinated with DOJ, where
immigration agencies reviewed the files of hundreds of thousands of naturalized citizens. Through
Operation Janus, DHS identified 315,000 cases where “some fingerprint data was missing from the centralized digital fingerprint repository.”6
17. The current administration has increased and intensified these denaturalization
efforts.
18. On September 19, 2017, DOJ announced that it had filed “denaturalization
complaints” in the Middle District of Florida, District of Connecticut, and District of New Jersey, alleging that each defendant had obtained his U.S. citizenship fraudulently.7 The defendants are two men of Pakistani origin and one man of Indian origin.8 Each of these cases were referred to
DOJ for prosecution as a result of Operation Janus. According to the DOJ press release, these cases
resulted from “an ongoing collaboration between [DHS and DOJ] to investigate and seek denaturalization proceedings….”9 On January 5, 2018, a judge in the District Court of New Jersey ordered a citizen denaturalized as part of Operation Janus.10
19. Those prosecutions are the tip of the iceberg. In January 2018, DOJ announced in that USCIS intends to refer approximately 1,600 cases to DOJ for prosecution.11 As part of this
6 Press Release, Dep’t of Justice Off. Pub. Affairs, Justice Department Secures First Denaturalization As a Result of Operation Janus (Jan. 9, 2018), https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-secures-first-denaturalization-resultoperation-janus. 7 Press Release, Dep’t of Justice Off. Pub. Affairs, United States Files Denaturalization Complaints in Florida, Connecticut and New Jersey Against Three Individuals Who Fraudulently Naturalized After Having Been Ordered Deported Under Different Identities (Sept. 19, 2017), https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/united-states-files-denaturalization-complaints-floridaconnecticut-and-new-jersey-against. 8 Id. 9 Id. 10 Press Release, Dep’t of Justice Off. Pub. Affairs, supra note 6. 11 Id.
6

Case 1:18-cv-01967-RC Document 1 Filed 08/23/18 Page 7 of 15
growing, coordinated interagency effort, in June 2018, DHS announced the institution of a new office within USCIS dedicated to reviewing and referring cases to DOJ for denaturalizing and deporting U.S. citizens.12
20. Transparency about this initiative is of the utmost concern to the American public. As of 2015, there are 19.8 million naturalized U.S. citizens, with 500,000 to 750,000 new citizens naturalized each year. The growing government policy of actively seeking denaturalization of everyday Americans effectively renders naturalized citizens “second-class”13 and has the potential to disrupt lives and families in violent and unpredictable ways. This effort is therefore of exceptional importance to these citizens, their families, their communities, and the American public at large.
A. PLAINTIFF’S FOIA REQUESTS 21. Plaintiff submitted the Request to NSD, the Civil Division, DHS, and USCIS on
January 11, 2018. See Ex. A. 22. The Request seeks records concerning policies and procedures relating to how DHS
and its component agencies, including USCIS, identify denaturalization cases and refer them to DOJ for prosecution, interagency guidance shared between DHS, USCIS, and/or DOJ pertaining to denaturalization complaints and/or Operation Janus, and DOJ guidance and memoranda regarding denaturalization complaints and Operation Janus. The Request further seeks nonidentifying information reflecting the countries of origin and/or ethnic background of individuals identified as candidates for denaturalization complaints.
12 Nicole Rojas, New USCIS Office Aims to Strip U.S. Citizenship from Naturalized Americans for Lying on Application, NEWSWEEK (June 13, 2018), available at http://www.newsweek.com/new-uscis-office-aims-strip-us-citizenship-naturalized-americanslying-975484. 13 Gessen, supra note 2.
7

Case 1:18-cv-01967-RC Document 1 Filed 08/23/18 Page 8 of 15
23. Muslim Advocates sought a determination on the Request within ten calendar days pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 16.5(d)(4). Muslim Advocates also sought a fee waiver pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(ii)(II), (iii) because disclosure of documents pertaining to denaturalization and Operation Janus is in the public interest and because Muslim Advocates is a member of the news media. See Ex. B.
B. AGENCY RESPONSE AND EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES 1. Defendant DOJ’s Response
24. On January 18, 2018, DOJ’s Civil Division sent a letter via email acknowledging receipt of the Request in their office on January 11, 2018. See Ex. B. The letter denied expedited processing. It also found that Muslim Advocates is a member of the news media and reserved decision on the grant of a full fee waiver until after it processed the request. Under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(B)(iii)(I), the Civil Division invoked a 10-day extension beyond the typical 20-day statutory limit to respond to Plaintiff’s Request.
25. The following day, on January 19, 2018, the Civil Division sent a letter via email to Plaintiff denying in full Plaintiff’s request for records related to Operation Janus, invoking 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(A) (“Exemption 7(A)”), claiming that the records had been compiled for law enforcement purposes the release of which would be “reasonably expected” to interfere with enforcement. The Civil Division further invoked 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(E) (“Exemption 7(E)”), claiming that the requested documents would disclose law enforcement investigation and prosecution techniques and procedures. See id. The Civil Division letter was conclusory and provided no description of the relevant law enforcement investigation and prosecution techniques and procedures. The Civil Division did not explain why all of the documents were covered by the
8

Case 1:18-cv-01967-RC Document 1 Filed 08/23/18 Page 9 of 15
claimed exemptions or how their disclosure would present a risk of circumvention of the law.14 As such, the Civil Division’s withholding of responsive documents was improper.
26. This letter advised Plaintiff that they could file an administrative appeal to OIP within ninety days of this determination.
27. On January 29, 2018, in light of this complete denial, Plaintiff sent a letter to the Civil Division requesting a Vaughn Index, in which the government provides an itemized index of the withheld portions of documents justifications for each withheld document. See Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820, 827 (D.C. Cir. 1973).
28. The Civil Division did not respond to this request. 29. On April 5, 2018, Plaintiff timely submitted an administrative appeal of the Civil Division’s denial to DOJ’s Office of Information Policy (“OIP”). OIP was required to respond to this appeal within 20 days. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A)(ii). 30. On April 18, 2018, Muslim Advocates received a letter from OIP stating that the appeal had been received in their office on April 9, 2018. 31. Accordingly, a response on this appeal was due to Muslim Advocates by April 30, 2018. 32. As of this filing, Plaintiff has not received the required determination from OIP regarding its appeal of the Civil Division’s determination. Undersigned counsel called OIP on June
14 See, e.g., N.L.R.B v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co., 437 U.S. 214, 235 (1978) (“Where an agency fails to demonstrat[e] that the . . . documents [sought] relate to any ongoing investigation or . . . would jeopardize any future law enforcement proceedings, Exemption 7(A) would not provide protection to the agency’s decision.”) (internal quotation marks omitted); See PHE, Inc. v. Dep’t of Justice, 983 F.2d 248, 250 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (“An agency that chooses to withhold requested information bears the burden of justifying its decision.”).
9

Case 1:18-cv-01967-RC Document 1 Filed 08/23/18 Page 10 of 15
19, 2018 and was told by an agency official that there are no updates on the status of Muslim Advocates’ appeal.
33. A complete copy of Muslim Advocates’ correspondence with DOJ is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
2. Defendant ICE’s Response 34. On January 25, 2018, DHS informed Muslim Advocates by letter sent via email that they had transferred the Request to Defendant ICE. See Ex. C. 35. On February 7, 2018, ICE sent a letter via email acknowledging receipt of the Request in their office on January 25, 2018. 36. On February 5, 2018, the ICE FOIA Office acknowledged receipt of the Request, invoking a 10-day extension and granting Muslim Advocates’ request for a fee waiver. 37. On February 9, 2018, ICE sent a boilerplate letter to Muslim Advocates stating that the Request submitted was “too broad in scope, did not specifically identify the records which you are seeking, or only posed questions to the agency” and that accordingly, ICE refused to process the Request. 38. Even though the original letter was appropriately specific, Muslim Advocates, in response to ICE’s letter, submitted a revised version of its FOIA request, augmenting it with further detail. ICE failed to respond to the Second ICE Request for over a month. 39. On March 6, 2018, Muslim Advocates emailed the ICE FOIA Office seeking confirmation of receipt of the Second ICE Request and stating that FOIA required a determination by March 14, 2018 or 20 business days after the revised request was submitted. 40. On March 15, 2018, the ICE FOIA Office sent a response to the Second ICE Request, claiming that the Second ICE Request submitted on February 13, 2018 was received in
10

Case 1:18-cv-01967-RC Document 1 Filed 08/23/18 Page 11 of 15
their office over a month later on March 15, 2018. The ICE FOIA Office claimed once more in a boilerplate letter that the Second ICE Request was “too broad in scope, did not specifically identify the records which you are seeking, or only posed questions to the agency.”
41. Plaintiff’s Second ICE Request sought a narrow subset of records pertaining to denaturalization and Operation Janus, listing specific types of records sought, and posed no questions to ICE.
42. ICE’s categorical denials of Muslim Advocates’ Requests obstruct public access to agency records and are squarely at odds with the purpose of FOIA.
43. On April 16, 2018, Muslim Advocates timely appealed the ICE FOIA Office’s refusal to respond to the Second ICE Request to ICE’s Office of the Principal Legal Advisor in the Government Information Law Division, explaining that courts have repeatedly held that agencies have a duty to construe FOIA requests liberally and that a refusal to do so violates FOIA. See Ex. C. Muslim Advocates also cited to ICE’s duty under FOIA to exert a “reasonable amount of effort” and utilize “common sense” when interpreting FOIA requests.
44. Under the statutory 20-day time limit for responding to an appeal, ICE’s determination with respect to Muslim Advocates’ appeal was due by May 7, 2018.
45. As of the date of this filing, over three months after that deadline, the Office of the Principal Legal Advisor has neither responded to the appeal nor issued a determination.
46. A complete copy of Muslim Advocates’ correspondence with ICE is attached hereto as Exhibit C.
11

Case 1:18-cv-01967-RC Document 1 Filed 08/23/18 Page 12 of 15
3. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies 47. Despite their clear obligations under FOIA, Defendants have not provided any substantive determination in response to the Requests or appeals submitted nor released any records responsive to the Requests within the statutory timeframe. 48. OIP has failed to timely adjudicate Muslim Advocates’ appeal of DOJ – Civil Division’s invocation of Exemptions 7(A) and 7(E). 49. ICE has wholesale and improperly refused to process Plaintiff’s Requests. The Government Information Law Division has failed to timely adjudicate Muslim Advocates’ appeal of ICE’s refusal to process the Second ICE Request. 50. Because Defendants have not complied with the statutory time limits set forth in the FOIA statute, Plaintiff’s administrative remedies are considered exhausted under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(C)(i). See Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Rossotti, 326 F.3d 1309, 1310 (D.C. Cir. 2003).
CAUSES OF ACTION FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Violation of the Freedom of Information Act
5 U.S.C. § 552(a) Against DOJ
51. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations in the foregoing paragraphs as if set forth fully herein.
52. Defendant DOJ has violated 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A) and applicable regulations promulgated thereunder by improperly withholding documents from Plaintiff without providing reasons for its determination.
12

Case 1:18-cv-01967-RC Document 1 Filed 08/23/18 Page 13 of 15
53. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B) authorizes the grant of injunctive relief to Plaintiff because Defendant DOJ continues to flout FOIA and improperly withhold agency records. Defendant DOJ’s refusal to reach a determination on Plaintiff’s Request and release responsive documents prevents Plaintiff from properly advising impacted individuals and from educating the public about Operation Janus and other denaturalization efforts. Defendant DOJ’s withholding of responsive documents will continue to cause Plaintiff irreparable injury.
54. 28 U.S.C. § 2201 authorizes declaratory relief because an actual and justiciable controversy exists regarding Defendant’s improper withholding of agency records in violation of FOIA.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION Violation of the Freedom of Information Act
5 U.S.C. § 552(a) Against ICE
55. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations in the foregoing paragraphs as if set forth fully herein.
56. Defendant ICE has violated 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6) by inappropriately refusing to process Plaintiff’s proper requests and by failing to make a determination on Plaintiff’s appeal within 20 days.
57. Defendant ICE’s failure to timely release agency records in response to Plaintiff’s Request and Second ICE Request violates 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3)(A).
58. Defendant ICE has violated 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3)(C)-(D) by failing to make reasonable efforts to search for records responsive to Plaintiff’s requests to ICE.
59. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B) authorizes the grant of injunctive relief to Plaintiff because Defendant ICE continues to flout FOIA and improperly withhold agency records. Defendant ICE’s refusal to reach a determination on Plaintiff’s Request and release responsive documents prevents
13

Case 1:18-cv-01967-RC Document 1 Filed 08/23/18 Page 14 of 15
Plaintiff from properly advising impacted individuals and educating the public about the ramifications of Operation Janus and other denaturalization programs. Therefore, Plaintiff will continue to suffer irreparable injury from Defendant ICE’s withholding of government documents subject to Plaintiff’s Request to ICE in defiance of FOIA mandates.
60. 28 U.S.C. § 2201 authorizes declaratory relief because an actual and justiciable controversy exists regarding Defendant’s improper withholding of agency records in violation of FOIA.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Muslim Advocates respectfully prays that this Court: A. Enter judgment that Defendants DOJ – Civil Division and ICE’s failure to timely adjudicate Plaintiff’s administrative appeals violates FOIA; B. Enter judgment that Defendants’ unlawful withholding of the records requested violates FOIA; C. Enter an order requiring Defendants to immediately release any and all responsive, non-exempt records or reasonably segregable portions of records to Plaintiff; D. Enter an order requiring Defendant DOJ – Civil Division to immediately release a Vaughn Index of any responsive records withheld; E. Award Plaintiff their reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §
552(a)(4)(E); and
 F. Award such other further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
DATED: August 23, 2018
14

Case 1:18-cv-01967-RC Document 1 Filed 08/23/18 Page 15 of 15
Respectfully submitted, /s/ Johnathan Smith Johnathan Smith (D.C. Bar No. 1029373) Sirine Shebaya (D.C. Bar No. 1019748) Nimra H. Azmi*° MUSLIM ADVOCATES P.O. Box 34440 Washington, D.C. 20043 Tel: (202) 897-2622 Fax: (202) 508-1007 johnathan@muslimadvocates.org sirine@muslimadvocates.org nimra@muslimadvocates.org * application for pro hac vice admission forthcoming °admitted in New York only; supervised by members of the D.C. Bar
15

Output:
On August 23, 2018, Muslim Advocates filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia against the United States Department of Justice [DOJ] and United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement [ICE]. The complaint alleged that the defendants improperly withheld information in violation of the Freedom of Information Act [FOIA], 5 U.S.C. § 552(a), and sought declaratory and injunctive relief. Muslim Advocates had requested information from both defendants regarding Operation Janus, where the DOJ, in conjunction with other agencies, reviewed the files of naturalized citizens and began intensive denaturalization efforts. In-house counsel along with the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild and Davis Wright Tremaine LLP represented the plaintiff.

The plaintiff had requested information from both defendants on January 11, 2018. The Civil Division of the DOJ denied the request in full on January 19, 2018, claiming that the release of the documents would be "reasonably expected" to interfere with law enforcement. The DOJ did not explain their reasoning for this determination. The plaintiff then requested a Vaughn index, in which the government provides an itemized index of withheld documents and justification for doing so. The DOJ did not respond to this request. On February 9, 2018, ICE informed the plaintiff that the scope of the request was too broad, and thus did not process the FOIA request. Even after the plaintiff amended its request for information on several occasions, ICE did not release any of the requested documents.

The case was assigned to Judge Rudolph Contreras.

Status reports indicate that the parties reached an agreement on all FOIA issues on January 13, 2020; that agreement has not yet been publicized. Negotiations over ICE's payment of plaintiff's attorneys fees are ongoing as of June 9, 2020; the next status report is due June 15, 2020.