IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NO: 5:12-CV-818

Similar documents
Case 5:11-cv F Document 13 Filed 01/24/12 Page 1 of 9

EEOC v. Altec Industries

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ASHEVILLE DIVISION

EEOC v. Fleming, Inc., d/b/a J. Edward's

)

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. The Gehl Corporation d/b/a The Gehl Group

EEOC v. Zale Corporation

)

EEOC, et al v Lafayette College, et al.,

EEOC v. Tropiano Transportation Services, Inc.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Plaintiff, v. Studley Products, Inc. and Wildwood Industries, Inc., Defendants.

EEOC v. Applegate Holdings LLC

United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Plaintiff, v. Jetson Midwest Mailers, Inc., Defendant.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT. lj'lhed States FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS E,.'/';~rn DiStrict. HOUSTON DIVISION CONSENT DECREE

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Maharaja Hospitality Inc, d/b/a Quality Inn by Choice Hotels

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION ) ) ) NATURE OF THE ACTION

EEOC v. Northwest Savings Bank

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CONSENT DECREE

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT. FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLIll~ STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DIVISION CONSENT DECREE THE LITIGATION

EEOC v. Ealge Wings Industries, Inc.

EEOC v. Supervalu Holdings, Inc.

EEOC v. Baldwin Supply Co.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ~ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) THE LmGATION

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. American Airlines, Inc., and Transport Workers Union Local 501

Case 1:11-cv NLH -AMD Document 61 Filed 01/24/13 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 211 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

EEOC v. Bice of Chicago, et al.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA. v. CONSENT DECREE INTRODUCTION

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Plaintiff, v. Mint Julep Restaurant Operations, LLC d/b/a Cheddar's Casual Cafe, Defendant.

EEOC v. River View Coal, LLC

EEOC and David Marcotte and Robert Kerouac v. Federal Express Corp.

EEOC v. Oglethorpe University

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, et al., v. Insurance Car Rentals, Inc., d/b/a Aaron Rent-a-Car, et al.

EEOC v. Mason County Forest Products, LLC

EEOC v. Hiten Hospitality L.L.C. d/b/a Family Motor Inn and Jay Kishan Hospitality, Inc. and Mike Patel

EEOC v. NEA-Alaska, Inc.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Bob Watson Chevrolet

EEOC v. U-Haul International Inc.

EEOC v. Original Hot Dog Shops, Inc. doing business as Original Hot Dog Shop, Food Gallery Original, Inc. doing business as Original Hot Dog Shop

EEOC v. RSG Forest Products Inc. dba Estacada Lumber Co.

EEOC v. Jolet II, Inc., d/b/a Thompson Care Center

Case 3:06-cv JMM Document 140 Filed 06/12/09 Page 1 of 14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIR E CONSENT DECREE

Case 2:01-cv MLM Document 59 Filed 11/20/2002 Page 1 of 16

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Plaintiff, v. Associated Home Health Care of Palm Beach.

EEOC and Maria Torres v. The Restaurant Company dba Perkins

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION CONSENT DECREE. Tbe Litigation

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CONSENT DECREE

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION. Plaintiff, CV-W-2-ECF

EEOC, Christopher, Bhend, and Chamara v. National Education Association, National Education Association - Alaska

Case 2:99-cv JPM Document 14 Filed 11/24/1999 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

EEOC & Suzanne Whitty v. Mount Carmel, LLC, and Benedictine Health System, et al.

EEOC & Aimee Boss and Morgan Hagedon v. Bodega Bars USA, LLC d/b/a Mosaic Restaurant

EEOC v. Michoacan Seafood Group. LLC

EEOC and Quianna M. Knowles v. Remedy Intelligent Staffing, Inc.

Case 2:03-cv BBD-sta Document 14 Filed 08/05/2004 Page 1 of 7

EEOC v. JEC Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a McDonalds

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "Commission" or

EEOC v. Wal-Mart Stores d/b/a Sam s Club

U.S. EEOC v Promens USA, Inc. and Bonar Plastics, Inc.

EEOC v. Family Dollar Stores of Arkansas

IN TIlE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, FOR TIlE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION. Judge Gettleman CONSENT DECREE THE LITIGATION

EEOC & Wolansky v. United Healthcare of Florida, Inc.

Case 1:11-cv LG-JCG Document 2 Filed 11/17/11 Page 1 of 7

United States of America v. City of Alma, Georgia and Bacon County, Georgia

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA ) ) ) ) INTRODUCTION

EEOC v. Alyeska Pipeline Service Co.

Case 1:16-cv CCB Document 98 Filed 06/28/16 06/23/16 Page 1 of 14 11

EEOC v. Merrill Pine Ridge, LLC

EEOC v. Grimmway Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a Grimmway Farms; Esparza Enterprises, Inc.

EEOC v. Consolidated Stores, Inc. d/b/a Big Lots

Case 1:16-cv LTS Document 1 Filed 11/18/16 Page 1 of 22. Plaintiff, COMPLAINT

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Equal Employment Opportunity ) Commission, ) Case No.: CV PHX-DAE

EEOC v. Brink's Incorporated

EEOC v. Mcdonald's Restaurants of California, Inc.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Rochdale Village, Inc.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION NO Defendant. SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT INTRODUCTION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Case 5:07-cv VAP-JCR Document 11 Filed 06/14/2008 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA EASTERN DIVISION

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Plaintiff, v. Monk's Inc., d/b/a International House of Pancakes, Defendant.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Plaintiff, and The Heil Company, Defendant.

EEOC v. Renhill Group Inc.

Case 2:01-cv DLG Document 30 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/08/2002 Page 1 of 10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Japanese Food Solutions Inc., d/b/a Minado Restaurant

EEOC v. Moka Shoe Corporation

Cornell University ILR School. Judge Karen E. Schreier

EEOC v. Pass and Seymour, Inc. and Kennmark Group, Ltd. (Consent Decree as to Pass and Seymour)

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission et al. v. Majesty Maintenance, Inc.

EEOC v. CMC Service of Chicago, LLC d/b/a Great Clips for Hair

EEOC v. Supreme Corporation and Supreme Northwest LLC

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA STATESVILLE DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) NATURE OF THE ACTION

EEOC v. Cleveland Construction, Inc.

CONSENT DECREE;~:~~~~~ s; ~~~: c:? The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("Commission" or "EEi:;~ins0\Ited

United States of America v. The City of Belen, New Mexico

EEOC v. Pacific Airport Services, Inc.,

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO. ) Defendant. )

EEOC & Rodriguez, et al. v. Dynamic Medical Services, Inc.

EEOC v. BJ's Wholesale Club, Inc.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. American Seafoods Company

Transcription:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NO: 5:12-CV-818 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff, BRITTHAVEN, INC. d/b/a BRITTHAVEN OF HENDERSON and PRINCIPLE LONG TERM CARE, INC. d/b/a KERR LAKE NURSING & REHABILITATION CENTER, v. Defendant. CONSENT DECREE The Equal Em ployment Opportunity Comm ission (the Comm ission instituted this action pursuant to Section 107(a of the Am ericans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ( ADA, 42 U.S.C. Section 12117(a, which inco rporates by reference Section706 (f(1 and (3 of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as am ended, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(f(1 and (3 ( Title VII, and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. 1981a. The Comm ission s complaint alleged that Defendants, Britthaven, Inc. d/b/a Britthaven of Henderson and Principle Long Term Care, Inc. d/b/a Kerr Lake Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, failed to provide Nicky Thom as with a reasonable accommodation for her disability and subsequently terminated her from her position as a Cook because of her disability, in violation of the ADA. The Comm ission and the Defendants, Britthaven, Inc. d/b/a Britthaven of Henderson and Principle Long Term Care, Inc. Case 5:12-cv-00818-BR Document 32 Filed 01/09/14 Page 1 of 10

d/b/a Kerr Lake Nursing and Rehabilitation Center (the Defendant, hereby stipulate to jurisdiction of the Court over the parties and agree that the subject m atter of this action is properly before the Court. The parties have adv ised this Court th at they desire to resolve the alleg ations in the Complaint without the burden, expense, and delay of further litigation. It is therefore the finding of this Court, made on the pleadings and the record as a whole, that: (1 the Court has jurisdiction o ver the parties and the subject m atter of this action; (2 the purpose and provisions of the ADA will be promoted and effectuated by the entry of the Consent Decree; and (3 this Decree resolves all matters in controversy between the parties as provided in paragraphs 1 through 16 below. It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED as follows: 1. Defendant shall not discrim inate against any person on the basis of disability within the meaning of the ADA, including failing to provide a reasonable accommodation. 2. Defendant shall not discriminate or retaliate against any person because of opposition to any practice made unlawful under the ADA or because of the filing of a charge, the giving of testimony or assistance, or the participation in any investigation, proceeding or hearing under that statute. 3. Defendant shall pay Nicky Thom as the sum of Fift y-thousand Dollars ($50,000.00 in settlement of the claims raised in this action. Defendant shall m ake payment by issuing a check payable to Nicky Thom as. Payment shall be made within fifteen (15 days afte r the Court approves this Consent Decree, and Defendant shall mail the check to Nicky Thomas at an address provided by the Comm ission. Within ten (10 days after the check has been sent, Defendant shall send to the Commis sion, a copy of the check and proof of its delivery to Nicky 2 Case 5:12-cv-00818-BR Document 32 Filed 01/09/14 Page 2 of 10

Thomas. 4. Within ten (10 days of the entry of this decree by the Court, Defendant shall eliminate from the em ployment records of Nicky Thom as any and all docum ents, entries, or references of any kind relating to the facts and circum stances which led to the filing of EEO C Charge Number 433-2011-00590 and the related events that occurred thereafter, including this litigation. In addition, within ten (10 days of the entry of this decree by the Court, Defendant shall eliminate all reference to Thom as termination from its personnel records. W ithin fifteen (15 days of the entry of this decree by the Cour t, Defendant shall report compliance with this provision to the Commission. 5. Defendant shall provide Nicky Thomas with a positive letter of reference using the form attached hereto as Exhibit A. Within ten (10 days of the entry of this Consent Decree by the Court, the original, signed letter of reference shall be provided to Nicky Thomas at an address provided by the Commission. Nicky Thomas is free to disseminate the letter to potential employers. Defendant agrees that if it receives any inquiry about Nicky Thomas from a potential employer, it will provide only the information set forth in the letter of reference in response. 6. W ithin ninety (90 days of the entry of this decree by the Court, Defendant shall revise its written anti-discrim ination policy to in clude the following: (a an explanation of the requirements of the federal equal employ ment opportunity laws, including the ADA and the requirement that employers provide employees or applicants with a reasonable accomm odation unless such accommodation would constitute an undue hardship; (b a procedure for requesting a reasonable accommodation, including the identification of a person or persons to whom a request for reasonable accommodation should be m ade, under the ADA; and (c an explanation of the employer s obligation to engage in the interactive process when an em 3 ployee requests a Case 5:12-cv-00818-BR Document 32 Filed 01/09/14 Page 3 of 10

reasonable accommodation under the ADA. Defendant will distribute a copy of the revised policy to all of its facilities as an update to its Policy Manual. Defendant shall distribute directly to each current employee at its Kerr Lake facility a copy of the policy within the aforementioned ninety (90 day tim e period. W ithin one hundred (100 days of the entry of this decree, Defendant shall report com pliance to the C ommission. During the term of this Decree, Defendant shall distribute the policy to all new employees at its Kerr Lake facility and review it with them at the time of hire. 7. During the term of this decree, Defendant shall post a copy of the policy described in paragraph 6, supra, in its Kerr L ake facility in a place where it is visible to employees. If the policy becom es defaced or unreadab le, Defendant shall rep lace it by postin g another copy of the policy. W ithin one hundred (100 days after the Consent Decree is entered, Defendant will post the policy and notify the Commission that it has been posted. 8. During the term of this Decree, Defendant shall provide an annual training program to all of its m anagers, supervisors, employees and anyone involved in the reasonable accommodation process at its Kerr Lake facility. Each train ing program shall include an explanation of the requirements of the ADA and its prohibition against discrim ination based on disability and reasonab le accommodation requirem ent absent undue hardship. E ach training program shall also include an explanation of Defendant s policy referenced in paragraph 6 above, and an explanation of the rights and responsibilities of employees and managers under the policy. The first training program shall be com pleted within six (6 m onths after entry of the decree by the Court. Each subsequent training program shall be conducted at approxim ately one-year intervals. At least fifteen (15 days prior to each program, Defendant shall provide the 4 Case 5:12-cv-00818-BR Document 32 Filed 01/09/14 Page 4 of 10

Commission with an agenda for the training program. Within ten (10 d ays after completion of each training program, Defendant shall certify to the Commission the specific training which was undertaken and shall provide the Commission with a roster of all employees in attendance. 9. Beginning within thirty (30 days after the entry of th is Decree by the Court, and continuing throughout the term of this Decree, Defendant shall conspicuously post the attached Employee Notice, marked Exhibit B, hereby made a part of this Decree, in a place where it is visible to employees at its Kerr Lake facility. If the Noti ce becomes defaced or unreadab le, Defendant shall replace it by posting another copy of the Notice. W ithin forty-five (45 days after entry of this Decree, Defendant shall notify the Commission that the Notice has been posted pursuant to this provision. 10. During the term of this Consent Decree, Defendant shall provide the C ommission with reports at six (6 month intervals, with the first being due four (4 months after approval by the Court of this Decree. The reports will include the following information: A. the identities of all app licants or employees at Defendant s Kerr Lake Facility who at any tim e during the reporting period requested an accommodation for a physical or m ental impairment, including by way of identification each person s ass igned employee number, date of accommodation request, accommodation requested, whether the request was granted, and what, if any, accommodation was provided to th e individual; B. for each individual identified in 10.A. above, who was not provided with an accommodation, provide a detailed explanation as to wh y the request was not granted and identify the individual(s involved in the decision regarding the accommodation request; C. for each individual identified in 10.B. above, explain whether the individual s employment status has changed in any resp ect (for example, including but not lim ited to, termination, firing, demotion, promotion, or to part-time from full-time at any tim e since the individual s request f or an accommodation; and 5 Case 5:12-cv-00818-BR Document 32 Filed 01/09/14 Page 5 of 10

D. for each individual whose employment status has changed as identified in 10.C. above, a detailed statem ent explaining why the individual s employment status has changed and the identity of all pe rsons involved in the decision to change said employment status. In the event there is no activity to report pursuant to this paragraph, Defendant shall send the Commission a negative report indicating no activity. 11. The Commission may review com pliance with this Decree. As part of such review, the Commission may inspect Defendant s facilities, interview employees and exam ine and copy documents. 12. If anytime during the term of this Decree, the Comm ission believes that Defendant is in violation of the Decree, the Commission shall give notice of the alleged violation to Defendant. Defendant shall have ten (10 days in which to investigate and respond to the allegations. Thereafter, the parties shall then have a period of ten (10 days or such additional period as m ay be agreed upon by them, in which to engage in negotiation regarding such allegations before the Commission exercises any remedy provided by law. 13. The term of this Decree shall be for two (2 years from its entry by the Court. 14. All reports or other docum ents sent to the Commission by Defendant pursuant to this Consent Decree shall be sent by electron ic mail to: (1 EEOC-CTDO-decreemonitoring@eeoc.gov; or (2 if by regular mail to - Lynette A. Barnes, Regional Attorney, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 129 West Trade Street, Suite 400, Charlotte, NC 28202. 15. Each party shall bear its own costs and attorney s fees. 16. This Court shall retain jurisdiction of this cause for purposes of monitoring compliance with this Decree and entry of such further orders as may be necessary or appropriate. 6 Case 5:12-cv-00818-BR Document 32 Filed 01/09/14 Page 6 of 10

IT IS SO ORDERED. 1/9/2014 Date Judge, Senior U.S. District Court 7 Case 5:12-cv-00818-BR Document 32 Filed 01/09/14 Page 7 of 10

The parties jointly request that the Court approve and enter the Consent Decree: EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff P. DAVID LOPEZ General Counsel JAMES L. LEE Deputy General Counsel GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel /s/ Lynette A. Barnes LYNETTE A. BARNES Regional Attorney 129 West Trade Street, Suite 400 Charlotte, N.C. 28202 BRITTHAVEN, INC. d/b/a BRITTHAVEN OF HENDERSON and PRINCIPLE LONG TERM CARE, INC. d/b/a KERR LAKE NURSING & REHABILITATION CENTER, Defendants /s/ Gregory P. McGuire Gregory P. McGuire N.C. Bar No. 14237 Margaret S. Scholz N.C. Bar No. 44777 Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. 4208 Six Forks Road, Suite 1100 Raleigh, N.C. 27609 Phone: (919 787-9700 Fax: (919 783.9412 Greg.McGuire@ogletreedeakins.com Attorneys for Defendant /s/ Zoë G. Mahood ZOË G. MAHOOD N.C. Bar No.21722 Senior Trial Attorney Raleigh Area Office 1309 Annapolis Drive Raleigh, NC 27608 Phone: (919 856.4080 Fax: (919 856.4156 Zoe.Mahood@eeoc.gov Attorneys for Plaintiff 8 Case 5:12-cv-00818-BR Document 32 Filed 01/09/14 Page 8 of 10

[Defendant=s letterhead] EXHIBIT A [Date] TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: We are pleased to provide the following reference on behalf of our former employee, Nicky Thomas. Ms. Thomas was employed by Britthaven, Inc. d/b/a Britthaven of Henderson from September 25, 2009 through December 1, 2010. During her tenure with us, Ms. Thomas held the position of cook and dietary aide. Her ending salary was $8.00 per hour. Ms. Thomas was an honest and reliable employee who possesses excellent skills. Indeed, we valued Ms. Thomas services to our company. We hope that this information about Ms. Thomas is helpful to you in considering her for employment. Sincerely, [Typed name of company president] Vice President, Britthaven, Inc. Case 5:12-cv-00818-BR Document 32 Filed 01/09/14 Page 9 of 10

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NO: 5:12-CV-818 EXHIBIT B EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v. BRITTHAVEN, INC. d/b/a BRITTHAVEN OF HENDERSON and PRINCIPLE LONG TERM CARE, INC. d/b/a KERR LAKE NURSING & REHABILITATION CENTER, Defendant. NOTICE 1. This Notice is posted pursuant to a se ttlement between the U.S. Equa l Employment Opportunity Commission and Britthaven, Inc. d/b/a Britthaven of Henderson and P rinciple Long Term Care, Inc. d/b/a Kerr Lake Nursing and Rehabilitation Center ( Defendants in a case of discrimination based on disability. Specifically, the EEOC alleged that Defendants discriminated against a former employee in refusing to ac commodate her physical impairment and discharging her because of her disability in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act ( ADA. As part of the settlement, Defendants agreed to pay monetary damages to the former employee and to take other action set out in the Consent Decree resolving this matter. 2. Federal law requires that employers not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of the individual s race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age (40 or older or disability. The Americans with Disabilities Act specifically prohibits religious discrimination. 3. Defendants will com ply with such federal law in all re spects. Furtherm ore, Defendants will not take a ny actions against employees because they have e xercised their rights, report ed an al leged violation under the l aw or give n testimony, assistance or p articipation in any investigation, proceeding or he aring conducted by the U. S. Equa l Employment Opportunity Commission. An employee has the right, and is encouraged to exercise that right, to report allegations of employment discrimination in the workplace. An employee may contact their local U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission field office for the purpose of filing a charge of employment discrimination. To locate the nearest field office, contact: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 1801 L Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20507 TEL: 1-800-669-4000 TTY: 1-800-669-6820 This Notice will remain posted for at least five (5 years by agreement with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE UNTIL:, 2015. 10 Case 5:12-cv-00818-BR Document 32 Filed 01/09/14 Page 10 of 10