On December 1, 2004 the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed this lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri. EEOC sued UMB Financial Corporation (UMB) under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991. With the assistance of private counsel, the complainant intervened in the lawsuit shortly after the EEOC filed this lawsuit and sought declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as punitive damages. Specifically, EEOC and the plaintiff claimed that the defendant engaged in unlawful employment practices by failing and refusing to hire the plaintiff to their sales department because of his disability, quadriplegia. The case was assigned to Judge Howard Sachs. On November 28, 2005, EEOC filed a motion for partial summary judgment. It alleged that it made a good faith effort to conciliate with the defendant to resolve the claims before filing suit. On January 25, 2006 Judge Sachs recused himself and the case was reassigned to Judge Gary A. Fenner. On March 17, 2006, Judge Fenner denied the motion for partial summary judgment and the case was stayed for 60 days. 432 F. Supp. 2d 948. The court found that EEOC refused to meet face-to-face with the defendant to conciliate, and therefore failed to satisfy its duty to conciliate in good faith. In January 2007, the case then went to trial before a jury. At the close of the plaintiff's case, the defendant filed for judgment as a matter of law, which was denied. The jury found in favor of the defendant and awarded $11,478.87 in costs against the plaintiff. The plaintiff appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on August 3, 2007 (Docket No. 07-02901). On March 13, 2009, the court issued an opinion affirming the lower court judgment. The case is now closed.

Summary: In December 2004 plaintiff, a quadriplegic who was not hired by defendant, alleged that defendant's employment practices were discriminatory under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and under Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991. The case went to trial and the jury found in favor of the defendant and awarded $11,478.87 in costs against the plaintiff. Plaintiff appealed the judgment to the 11th Circuit and on March 13, 2009 the appellate court issued an opinion affirming the lower court. The case is now closed.


On September 21, 2007, the EEOC filed a claim in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 on behalf of two aggrieved female employees. The EEOC alleged that Defendant, Bodega Bars, engaged in unlawful employment practices on the basis of sex. Specifically, the EEOC claimed that the two female employees were subjected to egregious sexual harassment by one of Defendant's customers, and Defendant did not take appropriate corrective action despite the employees' repeated complaints. Furthermore, the propositions, touching, and graphic sexual comments by the customer allegedly created a sexually hostile work environment for the employees that was so oppressive that they were forced to resign their employment. The EEOC sought injunctive and monetary relief. On November 30, 2007, the District Court (Judge Charles A. Shaw) granted a motion to intervene by the two employees. The plaintiff-intervenors filed their complaint that same day, making the same claims as included in the original complaint. The District Court (Judge Donald J. Stohr) then approved a settlement between the parties under a consent decree on July 2, 2008. The decree accorded general injunctive relief, requiring that Defendant not engage in sexual harassment or sex discrimination in any of its restaurants against its employees. The decree also provided that Defendant pay $64,000 in monetary damages ($32,000 each) to the two aggrieved employees. Defendant was also required to take reasonable steps to exclude from its premises the customer at issue. The decree further provided that Defendant establish a sexual harassment policy that would be distributed to all of its employees, as well as provide two hours of training on the policy to its managers. The consent decree was to be in effect for a period of two years. On June 28th, 2010, the Court extended the consent decree by a further six months, due to allegations by the Plaintiffs that the Defendant failed to comply with the terms of the consent decree. The Plaintiffs specifically alleged that the Defendants failed to pay the last $10,000 in monetary damages to the two aggrieved employees. There has been no further activity on this case since the June 28th, 2010 order, and the case is now closed.

Summary: On September 21, 2007, the EEOC filed a claim in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 on behalf of two aggrieved female employees. The EEOC alleged that Defendant, Bodega Bars, engaged in unlawful employment practices on the basis of sex. In 2008, the parties entered into a consent decree that required the Defendant to not engage in sex discrimination or sexual harassment of employees, establish a sexual harassment policy and training program for employees, as well as pay monetary damages to the two aggrieved employees. The case is presumed closed.


On September 14, 2005, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina against Quik-Chek, Inc. on behalf of a black employee. The EEOC alleged that Quik-Chek had violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. § 2000e et. seq.) by firing the employee in retaliation for complaining about racial discrimination and threatening litigation. The EEOC sought its costs and monetary and injunctive relief for the employee, including a retaliation prohibition, implementation of equal employment policies, back pay, job search expenses, compensation for emotional harm, and punitive damages. The parties participated in mediation on May 19, 2006 and reached a settlement. The Court (Judge James A. Beaty Jr.) entered the settlement agreement as a consent decree on June 28, 2006. The employee was paid $11,500. The five-year decree required Quik-Chek not to discriminate or retaliate and to provide the employee a neutral reference letter. Quik-Chek had ceased operating by the time of the decree, but was also subject to a variety of provisions that would kick in if it resumed any business operations. The provisions included adopting an antidiscrimination policy, reporting procedures, and investigative procedures, distributing the policy to employees, posting the policy, providing annual Title VII training to all employees, and reporting all Title VII complaints and investigations to the EEOC. The parties bore their own costs and attorneys' fees. No further court activity appears on the docket and the case is now closed.

Summary: The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed this Title VII retaliation suit against Quik-Chek, Inc. on behalf of a black employee. The EEOC alleged that Quik-Chek had fired the employee in retaliation for complaining about racial discrimination and threatening litigation over the discrimination and the company's response to her complaints. The parties reached a settlement in mediation, which the Court entered as a consent decree. The decree provided $11,500 to the employee and contained an array of injunctive provisions. Defendant had ceased business operations, and the decree included provisions, such as antidiscrimination training and EEOC reporting, that would activate if Defendant resumed business activities. The case is closed.


On August 3, 2006, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission brought this suit against S.G.T. Cinelli's, Inc., doing business as Cinelli's Restaurant, and its related corporate entity Cinelli's Ristorante, Inc. The suit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. It alleged that the company violated Title VII by subjecting two female employees to a sexually hostile work environment that included frequent sexual harassment in the form of lewd gestures, comments, and touching. The plaintiff sought damages and injunctive relief. The case was assigned to Judge Terrence W. Boyle. On November 16, 2006, the EEOC amended its complaint to include both the main Cinelli’s Restaurant and its related corporate entity, Cinelli’s Ristorante. Starting in January 2007, the case was briefly stayed for settlement talks, but these were unsuccessful. In March 2007, Cinelli’s (through each of its corporate entities) filed answers to the amended complaint. Shortly afterward, all of Cinelli’s lawyers for all of its litigating entities sought to withdraw as counsel. The court granted the lawyers permission to withdraw on April 23, 2007. On January 11, 2008, the EEOC moved for default judgment, as a corporation cannot defend a suit without legal representation. The court deferred ruling on this request for several months before finally granting it on August 12 of that year, after Cinelli’s continually failed to respond. 2008 WL 3539806. On August 27, the court held a hearing where a lawyer from the EEOC presented her case for the plaintiff. The defendant did not show up. On September 12, 2008, the court entered judgment in favor of the plaintiff and awarded approximately $87,674 in damages. Each of the injured employees received $25,000 plus interest in compensatory damages, and one of them received an additional $12,674 in back pay. They also received a gross $25,000 jointly and severally in punitive damages. The court did not grant injunctive relief. We do not know whether defendant paid the damages, but there is nothing further in the docket, so it seems likely that they did. Cinelli’s Restaurant has since closed.

Summary: In August 2006, the EEOC brought this suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina on behalf of two female employees of Cinelli's restaurant. The EEOC alleged that the company violated Title VII by subjecting two female employees to a sexually hostile work environment. In 2008, the court entered a default judgment because the defendant failed to respond. The employees were awarded approximately $87,674 in back pay, compensatory damages, and punitive damages.


EEOC's Charlotte, NC office filed this lawsuit alleging discrimination based on national origin against the defendant, Sears, Roebuck & Co. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina (Eastern Division) on 09/16/1998. The defendant operates the Sears store chain nationwide. EEOC alleged on behalf of a job applicant who was a naturalized American of Mexican origin that the defendant refused to hire him because of his national origin and specifically Spanish accent. EEOC claimed that the defendant instead hired a caucasian with less experience than the complainant. The complainant intervened in the suit. After postponing the trial date three times, the district court judge Malcolm J. Howard granted defendant's motion for summary judgment. Judge Howard believed that although the plaintiff made a prima facie case under the McDonnell-Douglas framework, he failed to show discrimination was the real reason for defendant's refusing to hire him. Both the EEOC and the individual complainant appealed to the Fourth Circuit. The Fourth Circuit reversed and remanded the case. The Fourth Circuit followed the Supreme Court's decision in Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc. The Fourth Circuit held that a plaintiff did not need to prove pretext for discrimination. Sufficient evidence to find that the employer's asserted justification is false is enough to survive a summary judgment motion. EEOC v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 243 F.3d 846 (4th Cir. 2001). Upon remand of the case, the individual complainant voluntarily dismissed the case after settling with the defendant. The EEOC resolved its suit on 10/10/2001 with a consent decree with a one-year term. Under the consent decree, the defendant was prohibited from discriminating against future job applicants on the basis of national origin. The defendant was also required to provide training and post notice about EEO laws and policies.

Summary: EEOC's Charlotte, NC office filed this lawsuit alleging discrimination based on national origin against the defendant, Sears, Roebuck & Co. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina (Eastern Division) on 09/16/1998. EEOC alleged on behalf of a job applicant who was a naturalized American of Mexican origin that the defendant refused to hire him because of his national origin and specifically Spanish accent. The district court's granting of summary judgement to the defendant was reversed on appeal. The defendant and the applicant settled and voluntarily dismissed his part of the case, while the EEOC and the defendant entered into a 1-year consent decree, which prohibited national origin discrimination and mandated training and posting of an Equal Employment notice.


On August 7, 2007, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a lawsuit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 against the University of North Carolina in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. The DOJ alleged that the defendant discriminated against two female employees by subjecting them to sexual harassment. The DOJ sought injunctive relief to enjoin the defendant from failing or refusing to take appropriate nondiscriminatory measures to combat the effects of discrimination, including an effective program to address and prevent sexual harassment; and monetary relief for the two female employees. The DOJ alleged this sexual harassment created a hostile work environment for the female employees. On August 17, 2007, the two female employees of UNC and its component institution, North Caroline Agricultural and Technical State University (A&T) filed a motion to intervene. On October 1, 2007, the Court (Judge Wallace Dixon) granted the motion to intervene as plaintiff-intervenors, and both plaintiffs filed intervenor complaints. The first intervenor plaintiff alleged she was subjected to sexual harassment by her supervisor, including conditioning her employment on agreeing to his advances and lewd, offensive remarks; and that her employer knew of the harassment, did not take any action and even promoted the supervisor. The second intervenor plaintiff alleged similar facts of sexual harassment, but she also alleged that she was retaliatory discharged after making complaints about the supervisor's conduct. She sought damages for discrimination and retaliation. On December 27, 2007, the intervenor plaintiffs filed a motion to consolidate the present case with Gloria Adams Smoot v. The University of North Carolina, Case No. 1:07-CV-00812. The plaintiff in that case also alleged sexual harassment on the hands of the same supervisor with knowledge of the employer, and discharge in retaliation. The motion was granted on January 9, 2008 and the cases were consolidated for pre-trial procedures and discovery. On February 5, 2008, the case was referred to mediation. However, the case settled prior to mediation. On April 28, 2008, the Court (Judge Thomas D. Schroeder) entered a consent decree. The decree applied to both UNC and A&T, and only resolved the dispute with respect to two intervenor plaintiffs.The decree contained two general injunctions: 1) prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sex; 2) prohibition of retaliation. The defendant agreed to modify its anti-discrimination policies and procedures with respect to sexual harassment and hostile work environment in the following ways: 1) clarification of complaints procedures as to what is available, including posting links on their website; 2) ensuring confidentiality of complainants; 3) posting of information in public places; 4) mandatory training on equal employment law, subject to approval by the United States. The defendant agreed to keep records to allow monitoring by the United States. Two intervenor plaintiffs received awards of $29,000 and $26,000 (total of $55,000). The defendant agreed to provide them with neutral references in the future. The Court retained jurisdiction over the decree. The decree was to dissolve after two years from its entry. On May 23, 2008, two intervenor plaintiffs filed a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice.

Summary: On August 7, 2007, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a lawsuit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 against the University of North Carolina in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. The DOJ, alleging that the defendant discriminated against two female employees by subjecting them to sexual harassment. On April 28, 2008, the Court (Judge Thomas D. Schroeder) entered a consent decree. The contained injunctions on gender discrimination and retaliation, and orders to modify harassment complaints procedure, and to provide anti-discrimination training. Individuals received monetary damages of $55,000 total.


On June 3, 2004, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed suit in the Camden U.S. district court for the District of New Jersey against Blackwell's Book Services on behalf of a black employee. After joining a company committee called the Staff Quality Forum, the employee received racial discrimination and harassment complaints about a white supervisor, which she passed on to the company vice president and the human resources officer. Investigation resulted in the supervisor's firing. The EEOC alleged that the employee was advised to resign from the committee and abruptly fired in retaliation for bringing forth those complaints, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. § 2000e et. seq.). The EEOC sought its costs and monetary and injunctive relief for the employee, including a retaliation prohibition, back pay, job search expenses, compensation for emotional harm, and punitive damages. The Court (Judge Joel B. Rosen) granted the employee's motion to intervene on October 20, 2004. The employee brought further claims for a racially hostile work environment, for racially discriminatory impairment of a contractual relationship in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and for violation of New Jersey law. The employee voluntarily dismissed her claims with prejudice on May 25, 2005. The parties reached a settlement agreement, which the Court (Judge Freda L. Wolfson) entered as a consent decree on the same day. The employee received $65,000, subject to the execution of a release agreement. The 2-year decree required Blackwell's not to retaliate against employees for making claims or participating in investigations of unlawful discrimination, to post a notice of the lawsuit and its resolution, to provide Title VII training to all managers, supervisors, and Human Resources employees, and to maintain records of all complaints of discrimination or harassment and their resolution. Blackwell's also had to make the complaint records available to the EEOC for inspection and copying upon request. The docket shows no further activity and the case is now closed.

Summary: The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed this Title VII retaliation suit against Blackwell's Book Services on behalf of a black employee. The EEOC alleged that the employee was abruptly fired in retaliation for passing on complaints of racial discrimination and harassment and in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. § 2000e et. seq.). The EEOC sought its costs and monetary and injunctive relief for the employee, including a retaliation prohibition, back pay, job search expenses, compensation for emotional harm, and punitive damages. The employee intervened, bringing claims for hostile work environment, impairment of contract, and violation of New Jersey law. The employee later dismissed her claims voluntarily, and the EEOC and Blackwell's entered a settlement agreement, which the Court entered as a consent decree. Under the2-year decree, the employee received $65,000, and Balckwell's was subject to an array of injunctive provisions. The case is now closed.


The New York District Office of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission brought this suit against U.S. Aluminum, Inc., United States Bronze Powders, Inc., and UAW Local 1668 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on August 11, 2006. The complaint alleged age discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act because the collective bargaining agreement between the employers and the union reduced severance pay for employees over 60 years old who were entitled to pensions. Employees over 65 years who were entitled to pensions received no severance pay at all. The EEOC sought injunctive relief and damages for the charging parties, two employees over the age of 60 who received reduced severance pay after the plant where they worked shut down. The case was assigned to Judge Mary L. Cooper. The first complaint that the EEOC filed listed only the union and U.S. Aluminum, Inc. as defendant. On May 29, 2007, the EEOC filed its last amended complaint, which named all three defendants. In late October 2007, all three defendants moved for summary judgment. They did not dispute any of the EEOC’s factual allegations, but they did dispute that their conduct had violated the ADEA. On December 3, the EEOC made a cross motion for summary judgment. On May 27, 2008, the court granted the defendants’ motions for summary judgment, denied the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, and entered judgment in favor of the defendants. The court held that reducing severance pay for employees who are entitled to a pension did not violate the ADEA because the statute explicitly allowed for the coordination of severance pay and pension benefits in certain situations. 2008 WL 2224820. Reasoning that severance pay and pension benefits serve largely the same purpose (to provide a bridge to the newly unemployed person's next pursuit, either a new job or retirement), the court held that the agreement between the employers and the union was fair. No relief was awarded to any party. The EEOC appealed this case to the Third Circuit but voluntarily dismissed it on September 10, 2008. (Docket Number: 08-03253). The docket ends after this date; the case is presumably closed.

Summary: In August 2006, the EEOC brought this suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of two employees over aged 60 who received reduced severance pay after their plant closed. It alleged that reducing the severance pay of employees over 60 who qualified for pensions violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. On May 27, 2008, the court ruled in favor of the defendants and awarded no relief.


On September 26, 2002, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a complaint on behalf of two female employees in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico. Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, the Plaintiff sought injunctive and monetary relief, arguing that the female employees had suffered sexual harassment and had been subjected to a hostile work environment by two managers and a supervisor, who had made offensive comments, sexual questions, sexual suggestions and unwelcoming touching. According to the Plaintiff, the Defendants did not exercise reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct the sexual harassment. The Defendants answered the complaint on December 23, 2002, denying Plaintiff's allegations of unlawful employment practices, alleging that the Plaintiff failed to state a claim that would support injunctive relief and that the injunctive relief sought by the Plaintiff was not in accord with the injunctive relief prescribed under Title VII, besides being overly broad. Therefore, the Defendants requested that the Court dismiss Plaintiff's complaint with prejudice. On January 13, 2003, the Plaintiff filed a motion to strike Defendants' answer, arguing it was untimely filed and filed without leave of the Court. Parties then discussed if the default should be set aside or not, until the Judge Leslie C. Smith granted Defendant's motion to set aside the default. On June 16, 2003, the judge ordered the action be consolidated with EEOC v. Bell Gas, Inc., et al., CIV 02-1212 BB/KBM. That lawsuit involved a claim of retaliation related to one of the employees, against one of the Defendants and other two companies. District Judge Bruce D. Black found these actions involved common questions of law or fact, hence, granted the motion to consolidate the actions at least for discovery purposes, to avoid unnecessary costs or delay. One of the employees entered into a consent decree with the Defendants, which was approved by Chief District Judge James A. Parker on January 14, 2004. The Defendants agreed to pay $20,000.00 to the employee. As a result, this individual employee's claims were dismissed with prejudice. The settlement expressly did not preclude the EEOC from prosecuting the remaining claims related to the other employee against the Defendants. After that, the consolidation order was rescinded on March 26, 2004, by a decision issued by District Judge Bruce D. Black on Case No. 02-1212. On July 20, 2004, District Judge Bruce D. Black issued a Memorandum, Opinion and Order, denying the Defendants' motions for summary judgment, which had been filed in both actions. The remaining employee and the Defendants settled on both actions. On September 22, 2004, District Judge William P. Johnson approved the consent decree in which the Defendants agreed to pay $ 36,000.00 to the remaining employee. On the same day, District Judge Bruce D. Black approved the consent decree filed on Case No. 02-1213, by which the Defendants agreed to pay $10,000.00 to the employee. In both, one of the Defendants recognized it was already the subject of a consent decree in another lawsuit (CIV-02-1090 WPJ/ACT) and agreed that it was obligated to undertake the policies and training provided in that consent decree. As a result, all claims asserted by the EEOC against the Defendants were dismissed with prejudice. The Court retained jurisdiction for the purpose of enforcement of the consent decrees during their two years term. The consent decrees ran the two years without any further litigation. The cases are now closed.

Summary: In 2012, EEOC filed a complaint on behalf of two female employees of the Defendants, who had suffered sexual harassment. Plaintiff argues the Defendants violate Section 703(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§2000e-2(a). In 2004, the parties reached a settlement by which Defendants agreed to pay damages to the employees. The case then was closed.


On September 14, 2005, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) brought this lawsuit against Nichols Gas and Oil, Inc. (Nicholas) in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York. The complaint alleged discrimination based on sex in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. More specifically, the claimant alleged the defendants engaged in sexual harassment, retaliated against individuals who complained of sexual harassment, and caused the constructive discharge of claimants due to the ongoing pervasive sexual harassment. The EEOC sought injunctive and monetary relief against the defendants. The case was assigned to Judge Marian Payson. Prior to submitting an answer to the complaint, defendant Nichols Gas and Oil, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss portions of the EEOC's complaint. The court denied this motion on March 13, 2016. As this lawsuit was moving through the court, Townsend Oil Corporation (Townsend) purchased defendant Nichols Gas & Oil. The EEOC filed an amended complaint in 2007, adding Townsend as a defendant to the lawsuit. In 2008, the parties’ began discovery proceedings. On January 14, 2010, the court made a ruling on the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and the EEOC’s cross motion for summary judgment. Both motions concerned whether Townsend--the entity that purchased Nicholas--should be liable for compensatory and punitive damages. The court found that Townsend could only be found liable for compensatory damages. On September 11, 2012, the court approved the parties’ consent decree. This decree gave the court jurisdiction over the matter for ten years as to Nicholas and five years as to Townsend. The consent decree pertained to injunctive and monetary relief. For monetary relief, the defendants agreed to pay $150,000.00 to the claimants. For injunctive relief, the defendants agreed to refrain from sex discrimination and retaliation. Moreover, the defendants agreed to reform their policies and procedures to align with Title VII. To ensure compliance with Title VII, the defendant agreed to provide training to all employees through an EEOC approved entity and report to the EEOC any complaints of sex discrimination or retaliation. As of May 2020, the consent decree is ongoing, and there has been no further litigation.

Summary: In 2005, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) brought suit against Nichols Gas and Oil, Inc. (Nicholas) and Townsend Oil Corporation (Townsend) in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York. The complaint alleged discrimination based on sex, female, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The case ended in and court approved consent decree granting monetary and injunctive relief.


On August 9, 2004, plaintiff filed this putative class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, on behalf of all Hispanic and/or non-white refreshment concession personnel who were hired, employed or offered employment by the defendants, Restaurant Associates and RA Tennis Corp. The plaintiff sued the defendants, two New York corporations, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the New York State Human Rights Law. Represented by a private attorney, the plaintiff asked the court for damages and injunctive relief. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants engaged in unlawful employment discrimination on the basis of national origin and race respecting the assignment of positions and locations to food vendors employed at the U.S. Open Tennis Tournament. Specifically, that the defendants were deliberately and overwhelmingly assigning beer wagons to non-Hispanic white people over other demographics. Extensive settlement negotiations, supervised by the Court, did not result in a settlement. In December of 2005 plaintiff sought class certification, but before full briefing took place, settlement negotiations resumed and this time were successful. A class-wide settlement established a $90,000 settlement fund to be divided pro rata among non-white employees and employees of non-U.S. national origin who file claims, along with counsel fees of $50,000 and an incentive award to the named plaintiff of $7,500. Plaintiffs' counsel estimated that most class members suffered an individual wage loss of about $400. After notice to the class and briefing, on July 28, 2006, U.S. District Court Judge Robert M. Levy issued a final approval order of the proposed settlement of this action. In the agreement of settlement, Restaurant Associates was to make payment of $90,000 to be distributed equally among the claimants within 30 days after the entry by the Court of the final order of approval. The named plaintiff in the case was to receive $7,500 dollars. This case is closed.

Summary: On August 9, 2004, the plaintiff filed this class action lawsuit in the Eastern District of New York on behalf of all Hispanic and/or non-white refreshment concession personnel who were hired, employed or offered employment by the defendants, Restaurant Associates and RA Tennis Corp. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants engaged in unlawful employment discrimination on the basis of national origin and race respecting the assignment of positions and locations to food vendors employed at the U.S. Open Tennis Tournament. Specifically, they alleged that the defendants were deliberately and overwhelmingly assigning beer wagons to non-Hispanic white people over other demographics. The parties soon reached a settlement which was approved by U.S. District Court Judge Robert M. Levy, and Restaurant Associates agreed to pay damages. This case is closed.


On November 12, 2003, an individual employee, filed a handwritten, pro se complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging thaf she was discriminated against by her employer, defendant Eastman Kodak Company on account of her race, African American. On March 10, 2004 the case was transferred to the United States District Court for the Western District of New York and on April 28, 2004, based on the parties' prior consent to jurisdiction by a U.S. Magistrate, the case was assigned to U.S. Magistrate Jonathan W. Feldman. On July 30, 2004, plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint asserting claims on behalf of the following named plaintiffs: Employees Committed for Justice ("ECJ"), an organization of past and current African American employees of defendant Kodak and eleven individuals. On March 1, 2006, plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint on behalf of a class of all past, current and future African American employees of Kodak. Plaintiffs claimed that Kodak "engaged in an ongoing pattern and practice of discrimination against its African American employees." Specifically, plaintiffs allege (i) discrimination in compensation, (ii) discrimination in promotions, (iii) discrimination in wage classifications and job assignments, (iv) harassment/hostile work environment, and (v) retaliation. Plaintiffs asserted three causes of action against defendant, including claims for violations of (1) Title VII of The Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., (2) The Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and (3) The New York Human Rights Law, 15 N.Y. Executive Law §§ 291 et seq. See id. at ¶¶ 174-187. Plaintiffs sought class-wide injunctive relief, compensatory damages and punitive damages. On March 29, 2007, the court (Mag. Judge Feldman) granted summary judgment against three individual named plaintiffs who had signed releases. On June 2, 2009 the parties reached a settlement agreement on behalf of a class of individuals composed of all African Americans employed by Kodak from January 1, 1999 through May 18, 2006. The settlement created a settlement fund of $21,376,500 with $9,655,500 to be distributed as monetary damages awarded to individual class members. Additionally, the settlement required Kodak to engage in a continued commitment to non-discrimination and retaliation, to employ an Industrial Psychologist to enforce and evaluate policies regarding discrimination, a new monitoring process, employee and supervisor EOE and diversity training and new system of reporting incidents of discrimination. On June 4, 2009, the court (Mag. Judge Jonathan W. Feldman) granted preliminary approval of the settlement and on September 3, 2010, Final Approval was entered.

Summary: This case was brought in 2004 by a class of plaintiffs (composed of nearly 1,000 black current and former employees of Kodak) against Eastman Kodak Co. in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York, alleging that Kodak engaged in an ongoing pattern or practice of racial discrimination against African-American employees. This case was settled in 2009 with Defendants agreeing to implement non-discriminatory employment practices and to pay damamges to the class.


On September 25, 2017, three detectives of the New York Police Department (NYPD) filed this class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiffs sued the City of New York, the NYPD Deputy Commissioner, and the NYPD Assistant Chief under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and state law. The plaintiffs, represented by the New York Civil Liberties Union, sought declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief as well as attorneys’ fees and costs. The case was assigned to Judge Gregory H. Woods and referred to Magistrate Judge Barbara C. Moses. The plaintiffs filed this action to vindicate the rights of the many African American detectives in the NYPD’s Intelligence Division whose promotions, according to the plaintiffs, were denied or delayed solely based on race. The plaintiffs claimed that NYPD’s Intelligence Division had implemented a secretive and unstructured promotions policy, administered by white supervisors who refused to promote deserving African-Americans detectives. As a result of these policies, the named plaintiffs and other African-American detectives had been repeatedly denied promotions in violation of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. In 2011, the plaintiffs had filed a complaint against the department with the EEOC. In 2016, the EEOC found that the plaintiffs, and black detectives in general, received lesser and later opportunities for promotion than appropriate given their qualifications. After an attempt at conciliation failed, the EEOC recommended the case to the Department of Justice, which determined not to file suit. The Plaintiffs then brought this suit. On December 5, 2017, the court entered an order of automatic referral to mediation pursuant to the court’s standing Administrative Order of May 24, 2015. The standing order required that all counseled employment discrimination cases, except those brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act, were to be automatically referred to the Southern District of New York’s Alternative Dispute Resolution Program of mediation upon the filing of an answer. On January 19, 2018, the parties entered into a stipulated confidentiality agreement, setting out terms for the rest of discovery. Discovery continued until April 4th, 2019, when the parties reached a confidential settlement agreement. The New York Daily News reported that the agreement included $700,000 in damages to cover backpay and loss of reputation. On April 4, the court ordered that the action be discontinued with prejudice (since the court does not retain jurisdiction to enforce confidential settlements), unless the plaintiffs moved within 30 days to restore the action to the active calendar. The plaintiffs were granted three extensions to this deadline, but did not move to restore the action, and the court closed the case in July of 2019.

Summary: This 2017 lawsuit was brought by three detectives of the NYPD in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiffs claimed that the City of New York and various agents of the NYPD had violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by implementing a secretive policy of refusing to promote deserving African American detectives solely based on race. The parties reached a confidential settlement that was reported to include $700,000 in damages to cover backpay and loss of reputation.


On December 1, 2017, seven Black employees of the Fire Department of New York (FDNY) filed this class-action lawsuit against the City of New York in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs alleged racial discrimination in FDNY’s hiring, promotion, and compensation practices and sought compensatory damages, in the form of back and front pay as well as lost benefits. Additionally, the employees sought attorney’s fees and costs and injunctive relief in the form of internal agency policy changes. Represented by Valli Kane & Vagnini based in New York and Mehri & Skalet based in Washington, D.C., the employees sued under 42 U.S. § 1981 and § 1983, alleging that FDNY disproportionately hires few Black people relative to other City agencies and fosters a culture of managerial discretion that leads to favoritism and harms Black candidates seeking promotions or pay raises. Additionally, the employees sued under New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL) for the same alleged racial discrimination. Judge James Paul Oetken was assigned to the case. On October 29, 2018, the case was automatically referred to mediation. Only once – on May 23, 2019 – has a mediation session actually been held. Plaintiffs sought class certification with respect to three groups: (1) Black FDNY workers who have been employed in a civilian position at any level below Department Leader and Black applicants who met the requirements listed in FDNY’s job postings yet; (2) Black FDNY workers who have been employed in a civilian position at any level below Department Leader; and (3) Black FDNY workers employed as EMS lieutenants. On January 9, 2018, one plaintiff withdrew their claims against the defendant. This individual was the only named plaintiff representing the EMS class. On February 11, 2018, the City moved to dismiss the FDNY employees’ complaint for failure to state a claim for which relief may be granted. On September 28, 2018, the City’s motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part. Judge Oetken dismissed the employees’ claims related to the EMS employees. Judge Oetken additionally dismissed the employees’ claims under § 1981 and NYCHRL related to compensation and for occurrences prior to December 1, 2014 because the three-year statute of limitations on these claims had passed. However, the City’s motion to dismiss was denied with respect to the claims relating to hiring and promotion practices within the FDNY. While the motion was considered, the Court stayed discovery, but fact discovery began shortly after, with the parties agreeing to a case management plan on November 27, 2018. Discovery ended on December 20, 2019. Plaintiffs filed a motion in response to amend their complaint on November 13, 2018, in order to address the deficiencies in the complaint, as the Court found it. This motion was granted on April 8, 2019. The employees filed their amended complaint on April 25, 2019. The amended complaint listed eight plaintiffs – five from the original filing and three new parties. In the amended complaint, the FDNY employees supplemented their pleading with additional information regarding pay disparities that analyzed a broader range of positions with FDNY. The employees also modified the sought classes to be (a) Black employees of FDNY that made below $150,000 and were not in administrator or manager positions and (b) Black applicants who possessed the requirements for non-administrator, non-manager positions within FDNY and were rejected. Within the former class, the employees listed a further subclass of employees who worked in Professional or Management Specialist positions to whom claims of pay raise or compensation disparities applied. The City moved for partial summary judgment on May 26, 2020, arguing that some of the class representatives had retired and thus could not seek injunctive or declaratory relief and that other plaintiffs could represent specific classes. The City additionally sought to strike claims relating to disparate impact class allegations pertaining to any policies that afforded employees within the FDNY to have discretion over hiring, promotion, or compensation decisions. On the same day, the FDNY employees moved to certify the class. As of February 11, 2021, the motions for partial summary judgment and class certification remained pending. This case is ongoing.

Summary: Current and former Black FDNY employees sued the City of New York alleging racial discrimination in their hiring, promotion, and compensation practices. Plaintiffs sought to represent a class of individuals similarly situated who suffered from FDNY's policies that afforded too much discretion to higher-level individuals and fostered a culture of favoritism that harmed Black candidates for hiring and advancement. The City filed a motion to dismiss and the Court partially granted the motion, but sustained the plaintiffs' claims related to the hiring and promotion practices with the FDNY. The City moved for partial summary judgment in May 2020, arguing that the retired class representatives could not seek relief. At the same time, the plaintiffs moved to certify the class. Both motions were pending as of February 11, 2021.


The Philadelphia district office of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) brought this suit against Pitt-Ohio Express, Inc., a transport company, in March 2006, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. The complaint was brought on behalf of a woman who had applied to work for Pitt-Ohio Express but had allegedly been denied employment as a truck driver or dockworker in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1991. The complaint sought injunctive and monetary relief for the individual complainant and a class of similarly situated women. In August 2006, the court granted the complainant’s request to intervene on behalf of herself and the class of women who had been refused employment due to their sex. The parties began settlement discussion on November 20, 2007. Almost a year later, on October 1, 2008, the court approved of the plaintiff-intervenor and Pitt-Ohio’s settlement agreement. The settlement called for the defendant to pay $570,000.00 total to the plaintiff: the plaintiff-intervenor was awarded $265,000.00 in monetary relief and $305,000.00 in attorney fees and costs. In addition, the plaintiff-intervenor agreed to dismiss her claims against the defendant. On October 21, 2008, the court approved the EEOC and defendant’s consent decree. The court retained jurisdiction for five years to ensure compliance. The terms of this decree were as follows: 1. The defendant was made to pay $2,430,000.00 to be distributed amongst the class of claimants, women that the EEOC determined to have been denied an opportunity to work as a driver and/or dockworker at Pitt-Ohio establishments. Specifically, the decree aimed at women that were not hired between September 1, 1997 through October 19, 2008. 2. The defendant was prohibited from discriminating against women applicants based on their sex. 3. The defendant was prohibited from retaliation. 4. The defendant was required to implement “priority hiring consideration.” Priority hiring consideration required Pitt-Ohio to make employment offers for driver and dockworker positions to women that EEOC determined were not hired for a position at Pitt-Ohio for which she applied, but who was qualified under Pitt-Ohio’s hiring criteria, and remained interested in employment at Pitt-Ohio as a driver and/or dock worker. 5. The defendant was obligated to provide EEOC approved anti-employment discrimination training for all employees. 6. In addition to training, the defendant had to ensure that managers and supervisors enforce anti-employment discrimination through management accountability. This directed managers and supervisors to take corrective action when necessary to counter individuals engaging in unlawful employment discrimination. Further, managers and supervisors were obligated to report incidents of unlawful discrimination or retaliation to Pitt-Ohio’s human resources group. 7. Pitt-Ohio Express was obligated to post notices of the outcome of this case to its Ohio terminals and headquarters in areas where bulletins and notices are posted to employees and applicants. These notices were to remain posted for the duration of this consent decree. 8. Pitt-Ohio Express was obligated to give regular reports to the EEOC in regard to recruitment and hiring of women in the driver and dock worker positions in Ohio. 9. Both parties bear their own attorney fees and costs. This case is currently closed. The consent decree’s duration has lapsed, and the court docket shows no further activity.

Summary: In 2006, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the plaintiff-intervenor, the complainant, filed this class action lawsuit against Pitt-Ohio Express, Inc., a transport company, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. The plaintiffs alleged that Pitt-Ohio discriminated against women by refusing to hire women as truck drivers or dockworkers, in violation of Title VII 42 U.S.C. § 2000e. On October 1, 2008, the court approved a settlement agreement between the plaintiff-intervenor and Pitt-Ohio. The defendant agreed to pay $265,000 in monetary relief and $305,000 in attorney fees and costs. That same month, the court approved a consent decree between EEOC and Pitt-Ohio. This decree required the defendant to pay $$2,430,000 to EEOC (to be distributed to women that were affected by the defendant’s discrimination), to adopt anti-discrimination policies, to offer driver and/or dockworker positions to the women that were discriminated against, and regularly report to the EEOC to ensure compliance. This decree had a duration of five years.


In August 2001, the Cleveland District Office filed this lawsuit against Sundance Rehabilitation Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio alleging violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the Equal Pay Act of 1963, and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The complaint specifically alleged that the defendant required terminated employees to sign a waiver of claims against the defendant, including EEO violations, in order to receive severance pay. Following discovery and motions for summary judgment for both parties, the District Court granted summary judgment to the EEOC in July 2004. The defendant appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in September 2004. The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's judgment in October 2006. The U.S. Supreme Court granted an extension of time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari in June 2007. However, the docket does not indicate that this option was exercised.


On May 25, 2007 the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a lawsuit against the Village of Woodmere, Ohio in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio to enforce Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e, et seq. The D.O.J. asked the court for injunctive and compensatory relief, alleging the defendant had violated Title VII by discriminating against two employees in the defendant's police department on the basis of their race, white. The court granted motions of two separate plaintiffs, both white police officers, to intervene in the case. Both interveners alleged: (1) termination against the plaintiffs was disproportionate and racially discriminatory; (2) gross and discriminatory conduct by the Village of Woodmere police chief; (3) defendants, acting in their official capacities, furthered the village's plan of racial preference by terminating the plaintiff and terminating another white officer while being aware that black officers are not disciplined for actions significantly more serious that those of the plaintiff and by another white officer. The DOJ complaint alleges that the Village of Woodmere, Ohio violated Title VII by: (1) failing or refusing to confirm the one officer from probationary to regular status as a police officer approximately one year after she began employment as a probationary officer; (2) failure to provide said officer with any pre-disciplinary/termination hearing; (3) terminating both officers' employment; (4) failing or refusing to take appropriate action to remedy the effects of it's discrimination against either of the officers. The DOJ sought to remedy the effects of the discrimination by requiring the defendant to: (1) provide sufficient remedial relief to make the officers whole again as the result of losses suffered by the allegations in the complaint; (2) take other appropriate non-discriminatory measures to overcome the effect of the discrimination; (3) award compensatory damages to both officers to compensate for injuries resulting from defendant's discrimination. The parties reached a settlement agreement and filed a joint motion for entry of consent decree on August 11, 2008. The decree was entered by the Court (Judge Donald C. Nugent) on August 13, 2008. Under the agreement, the parties sought to ensure that the defendant did not discriminate against employees on the basis of race. For that purpose, the defendant agreed to maintain clear and well-publicized policies, provide adequate nondiscrimination training, appoint an equal opportunities officer (EEO) to administer its policies and procedures. The decree contained two general injunctions: 1) prohibition of discrimination on the basis of race; 2) prohibition of retaliation. The defendant agreed to the amend its policies to implement the following: 1) description of complaints procedures, written or verbal; 2) identification of persons responsible for handling race discrimination complaints; 3) prompt and objective investigation of complaints, with results no later than 30 days after filing of a complaint; 4) maintaining confidentiality of complainants to the maximum extent possible. One individual in the case received $125,000.00. The other individual was also to receive a monetary award, but the amount is unknown. One of the individuals was reinstated with retroactive seniority. Both of their records were expunged from negative references and both of them were to receive neutral references in the future. The defendant agreed to keep records pertinent to the implementation of the decree. The United States reserved a right to monitor compliance. The Court retained jurisdiction over the decree for its duration.

Summary: On May 25, 2007 the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a lawsuit against the Village of Woodmere, Ohio in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio to enforce Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e, et seq. The D.O.J. asked the court for injunctive and compensatory relief, alleging the defendant had violated Title VII by discriminating against two employees in the defendant's police department on the basis of their race (white) in termination of their employment. The parties reached a settlement and the Court entered a three year consent decree on May 23, 2008. The defendant agreed to implement new policies to deal with racial discrimination complaints and provide mandatory nondiscrimination training. The individuals were to receive monetary awards, and one of them receive reinstatement.


On December 9, 2011, an openly gay former employee of Ohio Bell Telephone Company filed suit in U.S District Court for the Northern District of Ohio alleging that he had been dismissed in violation of both state and federal law. Specifically, Mr. Koren, who had taken the name of his husband, alleged that Ohio Bell violated the ADA, multiple sections of the Ohio Civil Rights Act, and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act when it dismissed him under the guise of missing days of work when in reality he was fired because his actions did not conform to the gender stereotype and he had AIDS. On August 14, 2012, the court denied Defendants' motion for summary judgment. The case was dismissed after a settlement was reached on September 7, 2012.

Summary: On December 9, 2011, an openly gay former employee of Ohio Bell Telephone Company filed suit in U.S District Court for the Northern District of Ohio alleging that he had been dismissed in violation of the ADA, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, and multiple sections of Ohio's Civil Rights Act. Plaintiff took his husband's last name after the couple was married in Massachusetts and had AIDS and alleged he was fired for those reasons. The court denied Defendant's motion to dismiss and the case settled in September 2012.


On January 18, 2001, the U.S. Department of Justice ("D.O.J.") filed a lawsuit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 against the City of Sulphur in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma alleging that the City discriminated against a Mexican-American employee on the basis of his national origin. The D.O.J. sought injunctive and monetary relief. The D.O.J. alleged that the defendant, specifically the Sanitation Department failed or refused to promote the Mexican-American employee. The D.O.J. also alleged that the defendant failed or refused to take action to remedy the effects of the discrimination. On February 23, 2001, the district court (Judge Frank Seay) entered a consent decree in which the defendant agreed to implement a nondiscriminatory policy and train its supervisory employees on Title IV. The decree also included a general prohibition on retaliation. The consent decree further provided defendant would pay the employee $45,000 in damages including back pay. The City agreed to keep records pertinent to the implementation of the decree. The United States had a right to inspect the records and to monitor compliance. The decree was supposed to terminate within five years of its entry, unless any party moved to extend its duration. There is no further information on the case. The case is closed.

Summary: On January 18, 2001, the U.S. Department of Justice ("D.O.J.") filed a lawsuit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 against the City of Sulphur in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma alleging that the City discriminated against a Mexican-American employee on the basis of his national origin, when it failed or refused to promote him and took no action to remedy the effects of discrimination. The D.O.J. sought injunctive and monetary relief. On February 23, 2001, the Court entered a consent decree, containing injunctions on discrimination and retaliation, with orders to the defendant to implement a nondiscriminatory policy and antidiscrimination training. The individual received $45,000. The decree expired after five years.


On November 3, 2003, African-American employees of Kraft Foods filed a class action lawsuit against their employer in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The plaintiffs alleged violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e, and asked the court for class-wide injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and equitable financial relief. Specifically, the plaintiffs contended that Kraft had discriminated with regard to discipline and hiring. On January 31, 2006, the court (Judge Paul S. Diamond) denied the plaintiffs' motion for class certification, holding that the plaintiffs did not meet the typicality requirement. Davis v. Kraft Foods, 2006 WL 237512 (E.D. Pa. 2006). The court approved a preliminary settlement agreement on May 1, 2007. Kraft agreed to pay $1.325 million, which included $1,000 for each plaintiff, plus $3,000 for each plaintiff who was suspended and $10,000 for each plaintiff who was terminated. Kraft also agreed to purge their disciplinary records, monitor their disciplinary system better using tracking, and conduct employee surveys.

Summary:
On November 3, 2003, African-American employees of Kraft Foods filed a lawsuit against their employer in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The plaintiffs alleged violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e, contending that Kraft had discriminated with regard to discipline and hiring.

The court approved a preliminary settlement agreement on May 1, 2007 in which Kraft agreed to pay $1.325 million and grant other forms of non-monetary relief.


On May 13, 2008, the plaintiffs filed this lawsuit in the Western District of Pennsylvania against Latrobe Specialty Steel Company. The plaintiffs, represented by private counsel, sought injunctive relief and damages on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated claiming that Latrobe violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. § 621. The plaintiffs alleged that Latrobe engaged in practices that discriminated against its older work force in conducting terminations and forced retirements over an extended period time. The four plaintiffs named in the complaint are all over the age of fifty and had worked at Latrobe for a number of years. They were all terminated after sending and receiving inappropriate material on their Latrobe email accounts, and were replaced by younger employees. The plaintiffs claimed that they suffered disparate treatment under the ADEA in that Latrobe's stated justifications for terminating the plaintiffs were a pretext for willful age discrimination, as well as disparate impact under the ADEA, because Latrobe favored younger employees and targeted older ones in deciding who would be terminated following the discovery of the emails. The plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the second claim regarding disparate impact on June 17, 2008. The court denied the defendant's motions for summary judgment on March 31, 2009, and April 23, 2009. The court then granted the defendant's motions to exclude any claims under the ADEA that accrued before May 17, 2007. Latrobe contended that it was entitled to summary judgment because the plaintiffs were unable to show any evidence that age was a determinative factor in its decision to terminate their employment. Latrobe conceded that the plaintiffs established a prima facie case of discrimination, but maintained that their decision to terminate the plaintiffs was based on their violations of Latrobe policy. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that "but for" their ages, Latrobe would not have terminated their employment for sending sexually explicit and pornographic emails. Additionally, the plaintiffs admitted that they sent the emails and could not dispute that doing so violated Latrobe's policies. On December 29, 2010, the Court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted and dismissed the collective action claims. 761 F.Supp.2d 261 (W.D. Penn. 2010). The plaintiffs appealed this order. The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the Western District of Pennsylvania's holding on November 17, 2011. The Third Circuit held that a reasonable jury could not find that the plaintiffs would not have been fired but for their ages. Additionally, given the conduct in which the plaintiffs engaged and the lack of sufficient evidence suggesting an atmosphere of age discrimination at Latrobe, there was no basis for a finding that Latrobe's proffered rationale was a pretext for age discrimination. 451 F. App'x 238 (3d Cir. 2011). The plaintiffs were subsequently taxed $21,863.88 in favor of the defendant.

Summary: Four plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, filed a lawsuit against Latrobe Specialty Steel Company for violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). All four plaintiffs were over the age of fifty and were terminated following the discovery of inappropriate emails on their work email accounts. Despite the plaintiffs' claims that the emails were a pretext for age discrimination, the court held that there was no evidence that but for their ages, the plaintiffs would not have been terminated. Thus, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant, which was affirmed by the appellate court. Taxation was assessed against the plaintiffs in the amount of $21,863.88.


On April 30, 2010, the plaintiff, an African American job applicant with a felony criminal record, filed this class action lawsuit in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The plaintiff, represented by Outten & Golden LLP, sued the defendants, a company and its affiliates which specialized in training truck drivers and placing them with trucking companies, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000(e). The plaintiff alleged that the defendants refused to procure placement for applicants with a felony conviction, and because of this practice, disparately impacted African American and Latino applicants. On July 2, 2010, defendants moved to dismiss on the grounds that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendant, the venue was improper, and the plaintiff failed to state a claim as the defendants are an employment Agency, and thus cannot be held liable under Title VII. On July 20, 2010, the Court (Judge J. Curtis Joyner) granted the parties a period for jurisdictional discovery and extended the time for the plaintiff to oppose the motion to dismiss. The plaintiff amended their complaint to include additional jurisdictional information about the defendants on July 23, 2010. The Court granted a stay of litigation for settlement discussions on August 13, 2010, which was continually extended through January 21, 2011. Discovery continued throughout this period. The parties returned to litigation at the end of January. The court dismissed as moot defendant’s motion to dismiss on February 11, 2011, and on February 18, 2011, the plaintiff amended their complaint to join two additional defendants, both trucking companies who recruited through the defendant and allegedly played a role in developing the criminal background policy. Defendants re-filed their motion to dismiss on March 2, 2011. On July 8, 2011, the Court granted a stay of litigation for the parties to again engage in settlement negotiations. The plaintiff moved for preliminary approval of the settlement, conditional certification of the settlement class, appointment of plaintiffs’ counsel as class counsel, and approval of the proposed notice of settlement on January 17, 2012. The settlement was preliminarily approved on February 13, 2012 (2012 WL 453234), and the Court granted final approval of the settlement on August 17, 2012. 2012 WL 3578856. For settlement purposes, the certified class was: All Latino and African American individuals who submitted applications to Defendants for a placement with one of the trucking companies for which Defendants recruit inexperienced truck drivers and whom Defendants rejected based on their criminal background between January 24,2009 and September 30, 2010. The settlement agreement created a fund of $475,000 for class members’ awards, Court-approved attorneys’ fees and costs, a Court-approved service payment for the named plaintiff, claims administrator’s fees, and other expenses related to the distribution of the settlement payment. The allocation formula for class members worked as follows: for each week a claimant was unemployed between January 4, 2009 and August 17, 2012, the claimant earned one point. After a sixty-day claim period, all points would be added together, each claimant’s individual points would be divided by the total number of points, and each claimant would receive that percentile of the net settlement fund. The plaintiff’s counsel sought $158,333.33 of the settlement fund as attorneys’ fees and $10,000 in costs. The named plaintiff sought an additional payment of $15,000 as a service award. In addition to the settlement, defendants agreed to injunctive relief of modifying their criminal background hiring policy. Under the revised policy, applicants cannot be barred for felonies greater than ten years old or misdemeanors greater than five years old, except for specifically designated crimes. If an applicant does have a record with a specifically designated crime, or has a felony or misdemeanor less than 10 or 5 years old respectively, defendants must consider: (1) the nature and gravity of the conviction; (2) whether there is a direct relationship between the conviction(s) and the duties and responsibilities of the sought job; (3) rehabilitation and good conduct by the applicant since the conviction; (4) the age of the applicant at the time of the occurrence; (5) the length of time since the conviction; and (6) the nature of the job held or sought. There has been no action on the docket since August 17, 2012.

Summary: On April 30, 2010, the plaintiff, an African American job applicant with a felony criminal record, filed this class action lawsuit against the defendants, a company and its affiliates which specialized in training truck drivers and placing them with trucking companies. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants refused to procure placement for applicants with a felony conviction, and because of this practice, disparately impacted African American and Latino applicants. The parties settled on August 17, 2012.


In March 2006, the EEOC's Memphis office filed suit in U.S. District Court, Western District of Tennessee, against A&I Products, Inc., a company that manufactures and distributes agricultural parts. The complaint alleged that the defendant violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act by subjecting two female employees at its Memphis warehouse to sexual harassment. The employees alleged that a male co-worker repeatedly exposed himself and engaged in lewd conduct in their presence, that their employer failed to take any steps to remedy the situation for nearly a year, and that they were disciplined in retaliation when one of them filed a charge with the EEOC. The defendant moved for summary judgment, but the motion was denied. In November of 2007, the case was resolved via consent decree. The complainants were awarded a total of $30,000, and the defendants were ordered to implement anti-discrimination training for all employees at their Memphis facility. The decree was entered in 2007 and scheduled to last 2008. No further docket entries exist, so the case is closed.

Summary: This sexual harassment case was brought by the Memphis office of the EEOC in 2006. The case was resolved by Consent Decree in November 2007 which provided individual relief and also required anti-discrimination training, posting of policies and reports to the EEOC.


The Memphis Office of the EEOC brought this suit against Paramount Staffing, Inc. in September 2006 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee (Memphis). The complaint alleged discrimination and retaliation based on race (African American) and national origin (American). The case was assigned to Judge John Phipps McCalla and Magistrate Diane K. Vescovo, and was later transferred to Magistrate Judge Gerald B. Cohn. The defendant moved for Summary Judgement in July 2008. In March 2009, Magistrate Judge Cohn denied the Summary Judgment motion and set a date for jury trial. 601 F.Supp.2d 986, 2009 WL 593729. The parties then proceeded to prepare for trial through 2009 and litigated discovery. On August 9, 2010, the parties reached a settlement. The parties entered into a consent decree 10 days later on August 19, 2010. The consent decree was not an admission of liability by the defendant; but the defendant was enjoined from discriminatory hiring practices on the basis of race. The decree also contained provisions for the defendant to hire an expert to develop and implement a fair hiring policy and awareness training, submit three reports to the EEOC, and award $585,000 in damages to the plaintiff and all eligible class members. The consent decree was in effect for two years from the date of entry. The case was dismissed with prejudice.

Summary: The Memphis Office of the EEOC brought this suit against Paramount Staffing, Inc. in September 2006 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee (Memphis). The complaint alleged discrimination and retaliation based on race (African American) and national origin (American). The parties settled out of court on a two-year consent decree.


On September 16, 2006, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) brought this lawsuit against Sharp Manufacturing Company in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee. The complaint alleged that Sharp violated the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) by failing to provide the complainant with reasonable accommodation and then discharging her because of her disability. The EEOC sought injunctive and monetary relief against the defendant. Judge Daniel Breen was assigned to this case, but the case was later reassigned to Judge Thomas Anderson on May 21, 2008. On February 1, 2008, the court granted in part and denied in part Sharp's motion for summary judgment. Sharp contended that first, the EEOC could not produce sufficient evidence that the former employee had a disability. Second, Sharp claimed that the former employee was not a qualified individual with a disability who could be reasonably accommodated. The court considered whether the former employee’s osteoarthritis, which limited her ability to stand for long periods of time, fell under the ADA as a protected disability. The opinion stated that the court found that the case should proceed on the issue of the former employee’s physical limitations to stand. 534 F. Supp. 2d 797 The defendant went on to argue that the former employee was not a protected individual under the ADA because she would not have been able to work even with reasonable accommodations. In response, the EEOC explained that the former employee’s health condition had deteriorated, but at the time of the discharge, she could have worked with reasonable accommodation. The court found the EEOC’s argument compelling and stated that a jury could reasonably find that the former employee’s condition got worse only after she left the defendant company. In addition, the court found an issue of fact regarding whether or not Sharp could have offered the former employee reasonable accommodations. Id. The court granted the defendant’s motion in part in regard to the plaintiff’s ADA claim that the former employee was substantially limited in her ability to walk because the proposed accommodation related only to the inability to stand. In addition, the court granted the defendant’s motion in part on the grounds that the former employee was not otherwise qualified to be a casual employee as a reasonable accommodation, but the question remained whether other available accommodations were reasonable. Id. The parties met with a mediator on September 23, 2008. On November, 25, 2008, the parties notified the court that they had reached a settlement. The parties agreed to monetary terms of the settlement but were still in the process of finalizing a consent decree. On January 22, 2009, the court approved the parties’ consent decree. The consent decree gave the court jurisdiction of one year to ensure compliance. This decree instructed the defendant to: refrain from unlawful employment discrimination and retaliation; report regularly to the EEOC to ensure compliance with Title VII; revise its policies on reasonable accommodations; post notices of this agreement in their offices; and pay $30,000.00 to the plaintiff. The docket shows no further activity, and the duration of the consent decree has lapsed. Therefore, the case is now closed.

Summary: In 2006, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) brought this suit against Sharp Manufacturing Company in the U.S. District for the Western District of Tennessee. The complaint alleged that Sharp violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by failing to provide the complainant with reasonable accommodation and discharged her because of her disability. The EEOC sought injunctive and monetary relief as well as punitive damages against the defendant. In 2009, the court approved the parties’ consent decree. This decree had a duration of one year and instructed the defendant to: refrain from unlawful employment discrimination and retaliation; report to the EEOC on compliance with Title VII; revise its policies on reasonable accommodations; post notices of this agreement in their offices; pay $30,000.00 to the plaintiff. The case is closed.


On January 22, 2004 a group of Fairfield Resorts employees filed this class action lawsuit against Cendant Corporation, Fairfield Resorts, and 15 individuals working at Fairfield Resorts in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division. On February 18, 2005 the complaint against Cendant Corporation, the parent corporation to Fairfield Resorts, was dropped. The plaintiffs sued Fairfield Resorts and individual employees under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000, and 42 U.S.C. 1981. The plaintiffs, represented by private counsel, asked the court for injunctive and equitable relief, as well as compensatory and punitive damages. The plaintiffs were filing suit over alleged sexual harassment, gender discrimination, and retaliation they experienced on the job. On July 8, 2005 the plaintiffs and defendants brought a joint motion for preliminary approval of a proposed consent decree. The consent decree included monetary relief for all female employees who filed complaints with human resources, and between $75,000 and $250,000 for the named parties in the settlement. It required a commitment from the defendant to ensure equal employment opportunities for female employees and applicants. On October 28, 2005, Judge William J. Haynes approved the consent decree. The consent decree ordered the defendant to pay a total of $550,000 to the five complainants. It further ordered the defendant to commit to equal employment opportunities for female employees; revise its policy and trainings on sexual harassment, including a Zero-Tolerance Policy; modify its complaint system to ensure complaining parties receive information about corrective actions taken; and impose substantial discipline procedures for sexual harassment and gender discrimination. The decree left open the opportunity for the plaintiff to move for attorney fees. On January 25, 2006, Judge Haynes granted the plaintiff's unopposed motions for attorney's fees in the total of $1,439,235.00. After the initial joint motion for approval of the consent decree, one plaintiff severed his case. He submitted a separate complaint against the same parties under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. 2000. The plaintiff asked the court for compensatory and punitive damages. He alleged that he was retaliated against after opposing the sexual harassment and gender discrimination he witnessed at Fairfield Resorts. The docket indicates no findings on the second plaintiff’s complaints.

Summary: On January 22, 2004 a group of Fairfield Resorts employees filed this class action lawsuit against Cendant Corporation, Fairfield Resorts, and 15 individuals working at Fairfield Resorts in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division. The plaintiffs were filing suit over alleged sexual harassment, gender discrimination, and retaliation they experienced on the job. On October 28, 2005, Judge William J. Haynes approved a consent decree granting monetary relief to plaintiffs and other female employees.


On September 28, 2006, The Dallas District Office of the EEOC filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The plaintiff sued Beall Concrete Enterprises, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of U.S. Concrete, Inc. under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. The plaintiff, representing a former employee of the defendant, asked the court for injunctive relief enjoining the defendant from discrimination on the basis of disability or age, and for monetary relief as compensation for harm. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant violated the ADA by failing to provide the employee with reasonable accommodations and then firing the employee due to his disabilities. In an amended complaint, submitted on May 7, 2007, the plaintiff further alleged that the defendant terminated the complainant's employment because of his age and failed to rehire him based on his disability and age. On November 14, 2007, the defendant moved for partial summary judgment on the plaintiff's claims under the ADA. On March 15, 2008, Judge Reed O'Connor granted the summary judgment. He found that the injuries sustained by the plaintiff on the job did not constitute a disability under the ADA. Judge O'Connor further found that the defendant's 12 month leave policy was not in violation of the ADA. 2008 WL 877769 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 15, 2008). On April 3, 2008, Judge Reed O'Connor approved a consent decree over the remaining claim that the defendant had violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. The consent decree required the defendant to pay the complainant $50,000 in backpay, conduct ADEA training for its employees for two years, and post a notice about federal anti-discrimination employment laws.

Summary: On September 28, 2006, The Dallas District Office of the EEOC filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The plaintiff sued Beall Concrete Enterprises, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of U.S. Concrete, Inc. under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. On April 3, 2008, Judge Reed O'Connor approved a consent decree over the remaining claim that the defendant had violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. The consent decree required the defendant to pay the complainant $50,000 in backpay, conduct ADEA training for its employees for two years, and post a notice about federal anti-discrimination employment laws.


On November 9, 1999, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"), on behalf of a female employee, filed a lawsuit in the Northern District Court of Texas, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, as amended, against Parfumes De Couer Limited, Inc. The EEOC sought reinstatement of the applicant, injunctive relief, compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees, and other forms of affirmative relief claiming that the defendant fired the complainant based on her sex because she was pregnant. On March 23, 2001, the District Court (Judge Sidney Allen Fitzwater) entered a consent decree where the defendant, among other things, agreed to pay the complainant $5,000.

Summary: On November 9, 1999, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"), on behalf of a female employee, filed a lawsuit in the Northern District Court of Texas, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, as amended, against Parfumes De Couer Limited, Inc. The EEOC sought reinstatement of the applicant, injunctive relief, compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees, and other forms of affirmative relief claiming that the defendant fired the complainant based on her sex because she was pregnant. On March 23, 2001, the District Court entered a consent decree where the defendant, among other things, agreed to pay the complainant $5,000.


On September 19, 2002, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"), on behalf of a black employee, filed a lawsuit in the Western District Court of Texas against Union Pacific Railroad Company, however the complaint was unavailable. On April 7, 2003, the employee filed a complaint as plaintiff-intervenor under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, against the same defendant. The plaintiff-intervenor sought injunctive relief, compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees, and other forms of affirmative relief claiming that the defendant discharged the plaintiff-intervenor when he lied about his criminal background on his application but did not discharge similarly situated white employees who also lied. On October 2, 2003, the District Court (Judge David Briones) granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment with regards to the plaintiff's racial discrimination claim filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and denied with regards to plaintiff's Title VII claims. The District Court (Judge Briones) filed an amended opinion on October 24, 2003 but with the same outcome. On January 21, 2004, the District Court (Judge David Briones) entered a consent decree where the defendant, among other things, agreed to pay the plaintiff-intervenor $84,000.

Summary: On September 19, 2002, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"), on behalf of a black employee, filed a lawsuit in the Western District Court of Texas against Union Pacific Railroad Company. On January 21, 2004, the District Court (Judge David Briones) entered a consent decree where the defendant, among other things, agreed to pay the plaintiff-intervenor $84,000.


On January 12, 2006, individuals who were either current or former pilots for American Airlines brought this class action lawsuit against the airline under 38 U.S.C. § 4301, et seq. (USERRA) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The plaintiff class consisted of all past and present pilots of American Airlines who are or were members of the United States Armed Services and who took military leave from January 2001 to 2006. Represented by an attorney from the Department of Justice (DOJ) Civil Rights Division, the plaintiffs asked the court for injunctive and declaratory relief, alleging that American Airlines had violated USERRA by discriminating against pilots who took military leaves of absence. They claimed that they were unfairly charged fewer "in service" days which prevented them from bidding on a number of benefits including flight schedules, paid vacation time, and earned sick leave. Pilots who had taken comparable types of non-military leave were not similarly penalized. On October 6, 2006, U.S. District Court Judge Barbara M.G. Lynn, issued a memorandum and order denying the defendant's motion to dismiss, and allowing the plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint concerning trip bidding. After filing two amended complaints, the plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class, preliminarily approve settlement agreement, and approve forms of class notice on April 17, 2008. On May 13, 2008, Judge Lynn issued an order conditionally agreeing to the plaintiffs' motion, and on August 1, 2008, the Judge issued a final order granting the plaintiffs' motion. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, American Airlines agreed to comply with the provisions of USERRA, and provide all currently employed pilots who are in the Uniformed Services and who take a Qualified Leave all vacation and sick leave benefits that would be afforded such polite if they were not absent for such Qualified Leave. The agreement also provided that counsel for the class could, for nine months after the effective date, make up to three written inquiries upon American Airlines regarding the status of distributing monetary awards and providing the other remedial relief set forth in the agreement. The trip bidding claim was declared mooted by a separate settlement agreement between the parties and dismissed here. In February 2009, American Airlines certified to the Court that implementation of the settlement had been completed. The case is now closed.

Summary: This class action suit was filed on January 12, 2006, under 38 U.S.C. § 4301, et seq. ("USERRA") in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The plaintiff class consisted of all past and present pilots of American Airlines who are or were members of the United States Armed Services and who took military leave from January 2001 to 2006. They asked the court for injunctive and declaratory relief, alleging that American Airlines had violated USERRA by discriminating against pilots who took military leaves of absence. They claimed that they were unfairly charged fewer "in service" days which prevented them from bidding on a number of benefits including flight schedules, paid vacation time, and earned sick leave. Pilots who had taken comparable types of non-military leave were not similarly penalized. After filing two amended complaints, and the court denying the defendants' second motion to dismiss, the plaintiffs motion to certify class, preliminarily approve settlement agreement, and approve forms of class notice. This motion was granted by U.S. District Court Judge Barbara M.G. Lynn in a final order on August 1, 2008.


On August 22, 2003, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"), on behalf of a female employee, filed a lawsuit in the Eastern District Court of Washington, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, against Huntwood Industries, Inc. The EEOC sought injunctive relief, compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees, and other forms of affirmative relief claiming that the defendant subjected the plaintiff-intervenor to a sexually hostile work environment because of her sex, female, resulting in her constructive discharge. On January 26, 2004, the plaintiff-intervenor filed a complaint against the defendant. On July 21, 2004, the District Court (Judge Frederick Van Sickle) entered a consent decree where the defendant, among other things, agreed to pay the complainant $100,000.

Summary: On August 22, 2003, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"), on behalf of a female employee, filed a lawsuit in the Eastern District Court of Washington, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, against Huntwood Industries, Inc. The EEOC sought injunctive relief, compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees, and other forms of affirmative relief claiming that the defendant subjected the plaintiff-intervenor to a sexually hostile work environment because of her sex, female, resulting in her constructive discharge. On July 21, 2004, the District Court (Judge Frederick Van Sickle) entered a consent decree where the defendant, among other things, agreed to pay the complainant $100,000.


The Seattle District Office of the EEOC brought this Title VII suit against Laidlaw Inc., a school bus company, in March 2002, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. The complaint alleged that the defendant discriminated against her because of sex. The complainant intervened in the suit in May 2002 adding causes of action under the Washington Law Against Discrimination and state tort law. The defendant moved for summary judgment, which was granted in part and denied in part. The sex discrimination claims were allowed to proceed, but Judge Thomas Zilly dismissed the claims related to negligent infliction of emotional distress and negligent hiring and retention. The case went to trial in June 2003 and the court issued a judgment in favor of the plaintiff on claims under federal and state law, but for the defendant on the issues of punitive and injunctive relief. The court ordered an amended judgment a year later that required the defendant to offset adverse tax consequences of the damages, which were $3,029.78 in economic damages and $30,000 in non-economic damages. All parties filed notices of appeals in September 2004, but dismissed the appeals in October 2004.

Summary: In March 2002, the Seattle District Office of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued Laidlaw Inc., a school bus company, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington for alleged violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The complainant intervened in May 2002, alleging that the defendant violated the Washington Law Against Discrimination and state tort law by discriminating against her on the basis of sex. The defendant moved for summary judgment, which was granted in part and denied in part. The case went to trial in June 2003. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs on their federal and state law claims and in favor of the defendant with regard to punitive and injunctive relief. The court awarded $3,029.78 in economic damages and $30,000 in non-economic damages. The parties appealed in September 2004, but the appeals were dismissed in October 2004.


On June 26, 2006, the Equal Employment Opportunity Council's (EEOC) Milwaukee District Office filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin on behalf of two female employees and a class of similarly situated employees of the Defendant companies. The three Defendants were: 1) Management Hospitality of Racine, doing business as International House of Pancakes (IHOP); 2) the company's former president; and 3) Flipmeastack, Inc (Flip), an Illinois corporation doing business in Illinois and Wisconsin. The Plaintiff sued under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. § 2000e) and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 (42 U.S.C. § 1981a). Specifically, the Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants engaged in unlawful employment practices on the basis of sex and retaliation, and that the Defendants had subjected female employees to a sexually hostile work environment. It also alleged that at least one female employee had been fired in retaliation for complaining about the way she was being treated. EEOC sought permanent injunctive relief, monetary damages (backpay, benefits, and compensation for emotional pain, suffering, and humiliation), and punitive damages. The case was assigned to Judge Lynn Adelman. The parties' initially held a settlement conference on January 18, 2007, but the efforts proved futile. EEOC subsequently filed an amended complaint on July 2, 2007 only to add the third Defendant, Flip. After the settlement efforts fell through, the parties focused their efforts on the discovery process, which went on between January 2007 and November 2009. At the close of discovery, jury trials were finally held in four-parts from November 16 to 19, 2009, and the verdict was for the Plaintiff. The jury ordered the Defendant to pay two claimants $5,000 in compensatory damages and $100,000 in punitive damages. In February 2010, the EEOC subsequently moved for damages and injunctive relief. The Defendants in turn also moved for judgment as a matter of law or in the alternative a new trial or a remittitur (lowering of the damage amount by the judge). On August 31, 2010, when Judge Adelman ruled in favor of the EEOC and granted its motion while denying the Defendants' motion. He ordered the Defendants to pay the $105,000 in damages the jury had awarded. He did not order payment of attorneys' fees and costs. He also ordered that Flip comply with the following injunctions: - Prohibit a sexually hostile work environment. - Create a new sexual harassment program for all employees. - Provide the EEOC with a proposal for creating the above program. - Post a written notice informing employees of this order. - Report to the EEOC of any sexual harassment complaint. - Maintain records of its compliance with this injunction. 780 F.Supp.2d 802 (E.D.Wis. 2010). This decision led the parties to cross-appeal: the Defendant appealed on September 24, 2010, while the EEOC cross-appealed on November 1, 2010 to dismiss the case. While the appeal was pending, the parties encountered further problems. Flip had allegedly failed to comply with three specific parts of the injunction. Judge Adelman held a Contempt Hearing on May 20, 2011 regarding this noncompliance. He held in favor of the EEOC, finding Flip and IHOP's president guilty of civil contempt for violating the injunction entered on August 31, 2010. In addition to ordering that the Defendants abide by the previous injunction order, Judge Adelman added another requirement-- that the EEOC shall be allowed to conduct random inspections of the seventeen restaurants during business hours to ensure that the notices have been posted in accordance with the injunction and this order. 794 F.Supp.2d 921 (E.D.Wis. 2011). On March 2, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (Chief Judge Easterbrook, Circuit Judge Bauer, and District Judge Young) made its decision on the parties' cross appeals. The Court of Appeals: - Affirmed the district court’s denial (from August 31, 2010) of the Defendants’ motion for judgment as a matter of law and motion for new trial with respect to Defendants. - Reversed the district court’s grant of the EEOC’s Post-Trial Motions. - Reversed and remanded the judgment against Flip, thereby dissolving the injunction. - Remanded the decision on punitive damages. - Confirmed no award of costs. 666 F.3d 422. Because USCA dissolved the injunction, the parties strived to reach a settlement. On August 14, 2012, the parties submitted to the court a Proposed Settlement Agreement. Judge Adelman approved a Consent Decree a week later, which included all the details of the Agreement. The Decree was set to continue in effect for 2 years. The terms of the Agreement were as follows: Monetary relief: - Flip shall pay a combined $65,000 to two female claimants. Injunctive relief: - Flip shall not allow a sexually hostile work environment to exist at any of its seventeen restaurants at which it provides restaurant management consulting services. Restaurant management consulting services refer to sexual harassment, diversity and discrimination training, prevention, compliance, and investigation services. Flip shall advise EEOC in writing if any restaurants are added or deleted from that list during the term of the Consent Decree. - Flip shall provide sexual harassment training for all employees at any restaurants. - In a conspicuous location in its restaurants, Flip shall post a written notice that explains this lawsuit and employees' rights to complain to the EEOC about sexual harassment. - Flip shall report to the EEOC within 30 days of any complaint of sexual harassment at any of its restaurants. Judge Adelman closed the case in 2012.

Summary: In June 2006, the EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin against the restaurant chain International House of Pancakes (IHOP), its former president, and another company that together with IHOP operated restaurants throughout Illinois and Wisconsin. The EEOC sued under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. § 2000e) and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 (42 U.S.C. § 1981a) on behalf of two female employees and similarly situated employees of the Defendants. Specifically, the EEOC alleged that the Defendants engaged in unlawful employment practices on the basis of sex and retaliation, and that they had subjected female employees to a sexually hostile work environment. In 2009, the jury held for the EEOC. In 2012, the parties settled, and the Court approved a Consent Decree/Settlement Agreement (lasting 2 years) that awarded monetary damages to two female claimants and promised injunctive relief. The case closed in 2012.