EEOC v. NEA-Alaska, Inc.

Similar documents
EEOC v. Mason County Forest Products, LLC

EEOC v. Alyeska Pipeline Service Co.

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

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

EEOC v. Zale Corporation

EEOC v. Supreme Corporation and Supreme Northwest LLC

EEOC v. Pacific Airport Services, Inc.,

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

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission et al. v. Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc., d/b/a Harbor Freight Tools

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

EEOC v. Tropiano Transportation Services, Inc.

EEOC v. Northwest Savings Bank

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO I. INTRODUCTION. 1. This action originated with a discrimination charge filed by Travis Woods

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

EEOC v. Stephens Institute d/b/a The Academy of Art College

EEOC and Maria Torres v. The Restaurant Company dba Perkins

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. American Seafoods Company

EEOC v. Merrill Pine Ridge, LLC

EEOC v. Altec Industries

EEOC v. Family Dollar Stores of Arkansas

EEOC v. River View Coal, LLC

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

EEOC v. Applegate Holdings LLC

EEOC v. Cleveland Construction, Inc.

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

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

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

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Rochdale Village, Inc.

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

EEOC v. Baldwin Supply Co.

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

EEOC v. Oglethorpe University

EEOC v. Ealge Wings Industries, Inc.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Bob Watson Chevrolet

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

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

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

EEOC v. U-Haul International Inc.

EEOC v. Brink's Incorporated

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

IllY _ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY ) CIVIL NO. COO-16S1 Z 10 COJ\.

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

EEOC v. Lawry's Retaurants, Inc,, d/b/a Lawry's The Prime Rib, Five Crowns, and Tam O'Shanter Inn

EEOC v. John Wieland Homes and Neighborhoods, Inc.

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

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

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Plaintiff, v. Lutheran Social Services of Southern California, Defendant.

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

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

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Sherree Salter, et al., v. The Shoe Show of Rocky Mount, Inc., Andre Jones

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

EEOC v. Parker Palm Springs Hotel

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Convergys Corporation

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

EEOC & Mitchel, et al., v. Allied Aviation Services, Inc., Allied Aviation Fueling of Dallas, LP, Allied Aviation Fueling Company of Texas, Inc.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, et al., v. White House Home for Adults

EEOC v. Bice of Chicago, et al.

EEOC and Darmo et al. v. Pinnacle Nissan, Inc. et al.

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

EEOC v. Moka Shoe Corporation

Cornell University ILR School. Judge Karen E. Schreier

EEOC v. Supervalu Holdings, Inc.

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

EEOC v. BJ's Wholesale Club, Inc.

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

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Tri-Spur Investment Company, Inc., dba Sbarro's Italian Eatery

EEOC v. Dillard's, Inc

EEOC v. PVNF, L.L.C., d/b/a Chuck Daggett Motors and Big Valley Auto

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

EEOC v. Hannon's Food Services of Jackson Inc (d/b/a Kentucky Fried Chicken)

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

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

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

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

EEOC and Thornton, et al, v. University of Phoenix, Inc. and Apollo Group, Inc.

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

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Plaintiff, v. United Airlines, Inc., Defendant.

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

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

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

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Revolution Studios and Smile Productions, LLC

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Pizza Hut of America, Inc.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Betsy Ross Flag Girl, Inc. d/b/a Betsy Ross Flag Girl and Barjac Company

EEOC. v. Fox News. Cornell University ILR School. Judge William H. Pauly

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and Peter Servidio, Plaintiffs, v. Labranche & Co., Inc., Defendant.

EEOC v. Eastern Engineered Wood Products, Inc.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Plaintiff, v. The Pepsi Bottling Group, Inc., Defendant.

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

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

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

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Dutch Farms, Inc.

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

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

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Foodscience Corporation

EEOC v. Michoacan Seafood Group. LLC

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Plaintiff and Jane Doe, Plaintiff-Intervenor v. Brookshire Grocery Company, Defendant.

) Case 3:05-cv MEJ Document 21-2 Filed 08/16/2006 Page 1 of 6

Griffin & EEOC v. Formosa Plastics

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

Transcription:

Cornell University ILR School DigitalCommons@ILR Consent Decrees Labor and Employment Law Program --0 EEOC v. NEA-Alaska, Inc. Judge Ralph R. Beistline Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/condec Thank you for downloading this resource, provided by the ILR School's Labor and Employment Law Program. Please help support our student research fellowship program with a gift to the Legal Repositories! This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Labor and Employment Law Program at DigitalCommons@ILR. It has been accepted for inclusion in Consent Decrees by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@ILR. For more information, please contact hlmdigital@cornell.edu.

EEOC v. NEA-Alaska, Inc. Keywords EEOC, NEA-Alaska, INC., CV-0-00, Sex, Female, Disparate Treatment, Education, Employment Law, Title VII This article is available at DigitalCommons@ILR: http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/condec/

WILLIAM TAMAYO, REGIONAL ATTORNEY OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION SAN FRANCISCO DISTRICT OFFICE 0 THE EMBARCADERO, SUITE 00 SAN FRANCISCO, CA -0 JOHN STANLEY, SUPERVISORY TRIAL ATTORNEY CARMEN FLORES, SENIOR TRIAL ATTORNEY OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 0 FIRST AVENUE, SUITE 00 SEATTLE, WA TEL: () - ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA DENISE J. POOLE Plaintiff and Plaintiff-Intervenor, v. NEA-ALASKA, INC., THOMAS HARVEY and NATIONAL EDUCATON ASSOCIATION, Defendants. CIVIL ACTION NO. CV-0-00 RRB CONSENT DECREE I. INTRODUCTION CV-0-00-RRB CONSENT DECREE - Page 1 of 0 First Avenue, Suite 00 Seattle, Washington -1 Telephone: () - Facsimile: () - TDD: () -

1. This action originated when Denise J. Poole filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC or Commission"). Ms. Poole alleged that NEA-Alaska, Inc. ( NEA-AK or Defendant ) discriminated against her and a class of similarly situated women based on their gender in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of, as amended ( Title VII ), U.S.C. 00e et seq.. The EEOC issued a letter of determination with a finding of reasonable cause to believe that NEA-AK violated Title VII on behalf of Ms. Poole and a class of similarly situated women. Thereafter, EEOC attempted to conciliate the charge and conciliation was unsuccessful.. The Commission filed its Complaint on September, 0, in the United States District Court for the District of Alaska. The Complaint alleges that NEA-AK discriminated against Ms. Poole and class members, Ellen Cruse, Kimila Cherry and Lyn Jackson based on their gender in violation of Title VII.. The parties want to conclude fully and finally all claims arising out of the EEOC s Complaint and Ms. Poole s charge of discrimination filed with EEOC. The EEOC and NEA-AK enter into this Consent Decree to further the objectives of equal employment opportunity as set forth in Title VII. II. NON-ADMISSION OF LIABILITY AND NON-DETERMINATION BY THE COURT. This Consent Decree is not an adjudication or finding on the merits of this case and shall not be construed as an admission by NEA-AK of a violation of Title VII. III. SETTLEMENT SCOPE. This Consent Decree is the final and complete resolution of all allegations of unlawful employment practices contained in Ms. Poole s discrimination charge, in the EEOC's CV-0-00-RRB CONSENT DECREE - Page of 0 First Avenue, Suite 00 Seattle, Washington -1 Telephone: () - Facsimile: () - TDD: () -

administrative determination, and in the Complaint filed herein, including all claims by the parties for attorney fees and costs. IV. MONETARY RELIEF. In settlement of this lawsuit, NEA-AK agrees to pay directly to Ms. Poole $0,000, Ms. Cruse $0,000 ($,000 of which constitutes lost wages), Ms. Cherry $,000 and Ms. Jackson $,000 within seven () days of the date of entry of this consent decree. V. INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER RELIEF A. General Provisions. NEA-AK, its officers, agents, managers, assistant managers and other supervisors and all human resource professionals who provide advice and assistance to the foregoing individuals are enjoined from engaging in practices which unlawfully discriminate against applicants and/or employees on the basis of disability or in retaliation for engaging in protected activity. In recognition of its obligations under Title VII, NEA-AK shall institute the policies and practices set forth below. B. Anti-Discrimination Policies and Procedures. Defendant shall carry out anti-discrimination policies, procedures and training for management personnel, supervisors and employees.. NEA-AK shall continue in effect the equal employment opportunity ( EEO ) policy now in effect that prohibits discrimination against applicants and/or employees with respect to any term, condition or privilege of employment, and addresses NEA-AK s obligation to provide a work environment free from discrimination and retaliation for its employees. Not later than sixty (0) days after entry of this Consent Decree, NEA-AK shall certify that it has CV-0-00-RRB CONSENT DECREE - Page of 0 First Avenue, Suite 00 Seattle, Washington -1 Telephone: () - Facsimile: () - TDD: () -

distributed a written copy of its EEO policy to all its employees, both management and nonmanagement. C. Equal Employment Opportunity Training. NEA-AK shall provide an annual, four-hour EEO training seminar to all of its managers, supervisors, and employees. This anti-discrimination training shall include, at a minimum, a discussion of federal law prohibiting employment discrimination and retaliation, including Title VII and a review of NEA-AK s EEO policies. The training shall be aimed at helping attendees understand how to define and identify employment discrimination, and provide information as to avenues of addressing suspected employment discrimination. Training materials must be submitted to the EEOC in reasonable time ahead of the training session for review and approval prior to their use. The EEOC shall not, however, unreasonably withhold approval.. Not later than December 1, 0, NEA-AK shall provide the EEO training noted in Paragraph to all of its managers and supervisors, including those responsible for hiring and discharge decisions.. Not later than December 1, 0, NEA-AK shall provide the EEO training noted in Paragraph to those non-management or supervisory employees employed at the time the EEO training seminar is scheduled. Thereafter, NEA-AK shall provide an annual EEO training seminar(s) for managers, supervisors and employees during the duration of the Consent Decree.. For the duration of this Consent Decree, NEA-AK shall notify the EEOC of the completion of the training seminars and shall specify the names and job titles of the managers, supervisors and employees who participated in and completed the training. This information shall be provided as part of the annual report NEA-AK submits to the EEOC. CV-0-00-RRB CONSENT DECREE - Page of 0 First Avenue, Suite 00 Seattle, Washington -1 Telephone: () - Facsimile: () - TDD: () -

D. Non-Disclosure of Information. NEA-AK shall not disclose any information or make reference to any charge of discrimination or this lawsuit in responding to requests for information about Ms. Poole, Ms. Cruse, Ms. Cherry or Ms. Jackson. E. Policies Designed to Promote Accountability. NEA-AK agrees that it shall impose discipline, up to and including termination of employment, upon any supervisor or manager who discriminates against any applicant and/or employee on the basis of disability, or who retaliates against any person who complains about or participates in any investigation or proceeding concerning any allegation of discrimination. NEA-AK shall communicate this policy to all of its managers and supervisors.. NEA-AK agrees that it shall continue to advise all managers and supervisors of their duty to ensure compliance with anti-discrimination laws and the Company s EEO policy. In conducting performance reviews, the Company shall hold managers and supervisors accountable for EEO enforcement and compliance. F. Reporting. NEA-AK shall agree to report to the EEOC for a period of four () years. The reports shall be in writing and submitted on an annual basis during the four year reporting period. The reporting period will run from the date of the entry of this Consent Decree by the United States District Court for the District of Alaska.. These annual reports shall contain the following information and attachments: a. Certification that NEA-AK has: 1. Continued to maintain its written EEO policies and procedures and annually distributed copies of its EEO policy to all current and newly hired employees and as described in Paragraph ; CV-0-00-RRB CONSENT DECREE - Page of 0 First Avenue, Suite 00 Seattle, Washington -1 Telephone: () - Facsimile: () - TDD: () -

. Complied with the training provisions enumerated in this Consent Decree, as provided in Paragraphs -;. Continued to promote policies and procedures to promote EEO accountability by managers and supervisors, as required by Paragraph -.. Complied with all other provisions of this Consent Decree. b. Copies of the following documents shall be included with each annual report submitted to the Seattle office of the EEOC: 1. A copy of the Company s EEO policy and procedures;. A summary of internal formal or informal discrimination complaints on the basis of disability or retaliation, if any, filed by employees and the resolution of each such complaint;. A sign-in sheet or list of the NEA-AK names and job titles of the managers, supervisors and employees who completed EEO training and the dates the training was conducted during the previous reporting period.. If applicable, NEA-AK shall submit a statement with its report to the EEOC specifying the areas of noncompliance, the reason for the noncompliance, and the steps that shall be taken to bring NEA-AK into compliance. G. Posting. NEA-AK shall post a Notice to All Employees. This Notice is attached as Exhibit 1 to this Consent Decree. The Notice shall be posted on a centrally located bulletin board at all NEA-AK facilities for the duration of the Consent Decree. VI. ENFORCEMENT. If the EEOC determines that NEA-AK has not complied with the terms of this Consent Decree, the EEOC shall provide written notification of the alleged breach to NEA-AK. CV-0-00-RRB CONSENT DECREE - Page of 0 First Avenue, Suite 00 Seattle, Washington -1 Telephone: () - Facsimile: () - TDD: () -

The EEOC shall not petition the Court for enforcement of this Consent Decree for at least twenty () days after providing written notification of the alleged breach. The -day period following the written notice shall be used by the EEOC and NEA-AK for good faith efforts to resolve the dispute. VII. RETENTION OF JURISDICTION. The United States District Court for the District of Alaska shall retain jurisdiction over this matter for the duration of this Consent Decree. VIII. DURATION AND TERMINATION. This Consent Decree shall be in effect for four () years from the date of entry of the Decree. If the EEOC petitions the Court for breach of this Consent Decree, and the Court finds NEA-AK to be in violation of the terms of the Consent Decree, the Court may extend the duration of this Consent Decree. Dated this rd day of September 0. WILLIAM TAMAYO Regional Attorney JOHN STANLEY Supervisory Trial Attorney CARMEN FLORES Senior Trial Attorney BY: /s/ Carmen Flores OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Seattle Field Office 0 First Avenue, Suite 00 Seattle, Washington Telephone () - carmen.flores@eeoc.gov JAMES L. LEE Deputy General Counsel GWENDOLYN Y. REAMS Associate General Counsel Office of the General Counsel 1 M Street, N.E. Washington, D.C. 0 CV-0-00-RRB CONSENT DECREE - Page of 0 First Avenue, Suite 00 Seattle, Washington -1 Telephone: () - Facsimile: () - TDD: () -

Attorneys for Plaintiff BY: /s/ Leslie Longenbaugh Leslie Longenbaugh Logenbaugh Law Firm, LLC Main Street Juneau, Alaska 01 Phone: 0--0 Fax: 0--0 lesliel@longenbaughlawfirm.com Attorneys for Defendants NEA-AK and Thomas Harvey CV-0-00-RRB CONSENT DECREE - Page of 0 First Avenue, Suite 00 Seattle, Washington -1 Telephone: () - Facsimile: () - TDD: () -

NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the National Education Association-Alaska have agreed to a Consent Decree that has been entered pursuant to an Order of the Court. This notice has been posted pursuant to the Order entered in the EEOC & Poole v. National Education Association-Alaska, National Education Association and Harvey in the U.S. District Court of Alaska, Cause No. CV-0-00(RRB). The Consent Decree is in no way an admission of wrongdoing. Nor is it an adjudication or finding on the merits of the case. NEA-AK disputes all claims of the plaintiffs in this lawsuit; they have entered into the Consent Decree in the interest of limiting the expense of litigation. Federal law and this Consent Decree prohibit discrimination or retaliation against any employee. Federal law also prohibits retaliation against any employee by an employer because the individual complains of discrimination, cooperates with any Employer or Government Investigation of a charge of discrimination, participates as a witness or potential witness in any investigation or legal proceeding, or otherwise exercises his or her rights under the law. Any employee who is found to have retaliated against any other employee because such employee participated in this lawsuit will be subject to substantial discipline up to and including immediate discharge. Should you have any complaints of discrimination, including harassment or retaliation, you should refer to your workplace anti-discrimination policy for reporting procedures. Employees also have the right to bring complaints of discrimination or harassment to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or local state Human Rights Commission in their respective area. EXHIBIT 1

WILLIAM TAMAYO, REGIONAL ATTORNEY OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION SAN FRANCISCO DISTRICT OFFICE 0 THE EMBARCADERO, SUITE 00 SAN FRANCISCO, CA -0 JOHN STANLEY, SUPERVISORY TRIAL ATTORNEY CARMEN FLORES, SENIOR TRIAL ATTORNEY OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 0 FIRST AVENUE, SUITE 00 SEATTLE, WA TEL: () - ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION And DENISE J. POOLE, Plaintiff, Plaintiff-Intervenor v. NEA-AKASKA, INC., THOMAS HARVEY, and NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, Defendants. CIVIL ACTION NO. CV-0-00 RRB [PROPOSED] ORDER OF DISMISSAL ORDER APPROVING CONSENT DECREE AND DISMISSING ACTION The Court having considered the foregoing stipulated agreement of the parties, HEREBY EEOC and Poole v. NEA-Alaska, Inc., et al CV-0-00-RRB [PROPOSED] ORDER OF DISMISSAL Page 1 of 0 First Avenue, Suite 00 Seattle, Washington -1 Telephone: () - Facsimile: () - TDD: () -

ORDERS THAT the foregoing consent decree is approved as the final decree of this Court in full settlement of this action. This lawsuit is hereby dismissed with prejudice and without cost or attorneys fees to any party. The Court retains jurisdiction of this matter solely for purposes of enforcing the consent decree approved herein. DATED this day of, 0. Presented by: UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE /s/ Carmen Flores EEOC Trial Attorney EEOC and Poole v. NEA-Alaska, Inc., et al CV-0-00-RRB [PROPOSED] ORDER OF DISMISSAL Page of 0 First Avenue, Suite 00 Seattle, Washington -1 Telephone: () - Facsimile: () - TDD: () -