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

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

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Bob Watson Chevrolet

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

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

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

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

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

EEOC v. Bice of Chicago, et al.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Dutch Farms, Inc.

EEOC v. Ealge Wings Industries, Inc.

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

EEOC v. Northwest Savings Bank

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

EEOC v. Applegate Holdings LLC

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 COLUMBIA ~ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) THE LmGATION

EEOC v. Tropiano Transportation Services, Inc.

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

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

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

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

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

EEOC v. Pacific Airport Services, Inc.,

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

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

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

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Rochdale Village, Inc.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION CONSENT DECREE

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

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. Mint Julep Restaurant Operations, LLC d/b/a Cheddar's Casual Cafe, Defendant.

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

EEOC v. Mason County Forest Products, LLC

EEOC v. BJ's Wholesale Club, Inc.

EEOC v. U-Haul International Inc.

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

EEOC and Maria Torres v. The Restaurant Company dba Perkins

EEOC v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc., and CBOCS West, Inc.

EEOC v. Dillard's, Inc

EEOC v. Altec Industries

EEOC v. Moka Shoe Corporation

EEOC v. Merrill Pine Ridge, LLC

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

EEOC v. Supervalu Holdings, Inc.

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

EEOC v. Baldwin Supply Co.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EEOC v. Eastern Engineered Wood Products, Inc.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) NATURE OF THE ACTION

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

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

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

EEOC v. Family Dollar Stores of Arkansas

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

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT. FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS eu,:".' IJ~:'LD~~?~:~~URT EASTERN DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

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

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

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

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

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS. Plaintiff, Defendant. CONSENT DECREE

Case 3:04-cv RLA Document 1-1 Filed 09/30/2004 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

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

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

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT ~~"A"!tOl'T~'CTCOURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEX~eRQUE, New MI!XICO ORDER FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

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

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

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

~. OC' UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT,C:;'IWELl.. cleiwestern DISTRICT OF LOmSIANA

)

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

EEOC v. NEA-Alaska, Inc.

NATURE OF THE ACTION. This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the

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

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. Parker Palm Springs Hotel

Case 4:07-cv JLH Document 1 Filed 06/29/2007 ( Page 1 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

EEOC v. Scrub Inc. Cornell University ILR School. Judge Susan Cox

EEOC v. Brink's Incorporated

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

1. Employer shall make the following payment to Employee:

EEOC v. Cleveland Construction, Inc.

)

EEOC v. Roadway Express, INC. and YRC, INC.; William Bandy, et al. v. Roadway Express, INC. and YRC, INC.,

Case 3:06-cv JAP-TJB Document 1 Filed 03/27/2006 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

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

EEOC v. River View Coal, LLC

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE. into by and between Sandra G. Myrick ("Myrick") and the North Carolina Administrative Office

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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

Transcription:

. F I LED SEP 1 0 Z003 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ~PHILlPG.R I H FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLIll~ STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DIVISION EN ARD U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, v. Plaintiff, THE SHERWIN-WILLIAMS COMPANY Defendant. -------------------------------- CONSENT DECREE DOCKETED SEP 102003 Civil Action No. 03-CV -50344 Judge Reinhard Magistrate Judge Mahoney THE LITIGATION 1. Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "EEOC" filed this action alleging that in 2001 and 2002, Defendant, The Sherwin-Williams Company ("Defendant", violated Section 703(a of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended ("Title VII", 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(a, by discriminating against a female employee Courtney Moore ("Moore" on the basis of sex. Specifically, the EEOC alleged that Defendant violated Title VII by fostering or tolerating a working environment that was sexually hostile to Moore. Defendant denies these allegations. 2. In the interest of expeditiously resolving all disputed issues and avoiding further legal costs and litigation, and as a result of having engaged in comprehensive settlement negotiations, the parties have agreed that this action should be finally resolved by entry of this Consent Decree (hereafter "Decree". This Decree fully and finally resolves any and all issues and claims arising out of the Complaint filed by the EEOC in this action. Nothing in this Decree should be construed as an admission by any party regarding the claims or defenses of the other.

FINDINGS 3. Having carefully examined the terms and provisions of this Decree, and based on the pleadings, record, and stipulations of the parties, the Court finds the following: a. This Court has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this action and of the parties. b. The terms of this Decree are adequate, fair, reasonable, equitable, and just. The rights of the parties and the public interest are adequately protected by this Decree. c. This Decree conforms with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Title VII and is not in derogation of the rights or privileges of any person. The entry of this Decree will further the objectives of Title VII and will be in the best interests of the parties, Moore, and the public. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED THAT: NON-DISCRIMINATION 4. Defendant, its officers, agents (including management personnel, successors, and assigns shall not discriminate against its employees on the basis of sex in violation of Title VII. NON-RETALIATION 5. Defendant, its officers, agents, employees, successors, assigns and all persons acting in concert with it shall not engage in any form of retaliation against any person who is currently or has previously been employed by it because such person has opposed any practice made unlawful under Title VII, filed a Charge of Discrimination under Title VII, testified or participated in any marmer in any investigation, proceeding, or hearing under Title VII, or asserted any rights under this -2-

Decree. Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed as limiting any obligations regarding retaliation generally imposed upon Defendant by Title VII. MONETARY RELIEF 6. Defendant shall pay the gross sum of thirty-five thousand dollars ($35,000, to Courtney Moore within ten (10 business days of receiving a release, attached as Exhibit A, signed by Moore. This sum is solely for alleged non-pecuniary harm of emotional pain and humiliation. Defendant shall send a check directly to Moore by certified mail. Defendant shall also mail a copy of this check to the EEOC within five (5 business days of sending the check to Moore. Defendant shall issue a 1099 federal tax form for the payment made by Defendant to Moore. NOTICE 7. Within ten (10 days after the receipt of the Court's entry of this Consent Decree and for the duration of this Decree, Defendant shall continuously post the notice attached hereto as Exhibit A at its Sterling, Illinois store in prominent locations frequented by Defendant's employees. Within ten (10 days after receipt of the entered Consent Decree, Defendant shall certify in writing to the Chicago District Office of the EEOC that the Notice has been posted, and shall inform the EEOC of the location where it has been posted. RECORD KEEPING 8. For a period of two (2 years following entry of this Decree, Defendant shall maintain and make available for inspection and copying by the EEOC records of each complaint of sex harassment made by one of its employees from Defendant's retail stores within the Madison District of Defendant' s Midwest Division. Such report shall indicate the date the complaint was made, who -3-

made it, what was alleged, and what actions the Defendant took to resolve the matter. 9. Defendant shall make all documents or records referred to in Paragraph 8, above, available for inspection and copying within ten (10 business days after the EEOC so requests. In addition, Defendant shall make available for interview all persons within its employ whom the EEOC reasonably requests for purposes of verifying compliance with this Decree and shall perm.:t a representative of the EEOC to enter Defendant's premises for such purposes on ten (10 business days advance notice by the EEOC. 10. Nothing contained in this Decree shall be construed to limit any obligation Defendant may otherwise have to maintain records under Title VII or any other law or regulation. TRAINING 11. Defendant shall provide sexual harassment training to all employees who work at its Sterling, Illinois store by trainers chosen by Defendant with approval by the EEOC. This training shall be completed within six months of entry of this Decree, unless the parties agree to a reasonable extension. This training shall encompass the requirements of Title VII pertaining to sexual harassment. Within ten (10 days after the completion of the training described above, Defendant will certify to EEOC that the training has been completed, the name(s of the person(s conducting the training, the time( s, duration and date(s the training was held and a list identifying by ':!ame and position all individuals who received the training. -4-

REPORTING 12. Defendant shall furnish to the EEOC the following written reports semi-annually for a period of two (2 years following entry of this Decree. The first report shall be due six (6 months after entry of the Decree. The final report shall be due twenty-four (24 months after entry of the Decree. Each such report shall contain a summary of the information recorded by Defendant pursuant to Paragraph 8, including the name of the complainant, the allegation of the complaint and the action taken by Defendant in response. 13. When this Decree requires the submission by Defendant of reports, certifications, notices, or other materials to the EEOC, they shall be mailed to: RichardJ. Mrizek,Trial Attorney, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 500 West Madison Street, Suite 2800, Chicago, Illinois, 60661. DISPUTE RESOLUTION 14. In the event that either party to this Decree believes that the other party has failed to comply with any provision(s of the Decree, the complaining party shall notify the other party of the alleged non-compliance within ninety (90 days of the alleged non-compliance and shall afford the alleged non-complying party twenty (20 business days to remedy the non-compliance or to satisfy the complaining party that the alleged non-complying party has complied or that no non-compliance has occurred. If the alleged non-complying party has not remedied the alleged non-compliance or satisfied the complaining party that it has complied within twenty (20 business days, the complaining party may apply to the Court for appropriate relief. The party alleging non-compliance must act in good faith in both its allegation of non-compliance and the absence of appropriate remedial measures. -5-

DURATION OF THE DECREE AND RETENTION OF JURISDICTION 15. All provisions of this Decree shall be in effect (and the Court will retain jurisdiction of this matter to enforce this Decree for a period of two (2 years immediately following entry of the Decree, provided, however, that if, at the end of the two (2 years period, any dispute(s under Paragraph 13, above, remain unresolved, the term of the Decree shall be automatically extended (solely regarding such unresolved dispute(s and the Court will retain jurisdiction of this matter to enforce the Decree until such time as any such dispute(s has been resolved. -6-

ENTERED AND APPROVED FOR: For the EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 1801 L Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20507 For The Sherwin-Williams Company 101 Prospect Street 12th Floor, Midland Cleveland, Ohio 44115 ERIC S. DREIBAND General Counsel JAMES LEE Deputy General Counsel GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION NOELLE BRENNAN Supervisory Trial Attorney tj ~ Trial Attorney DATE: _..::...:SE=P_1_0--=2~OO:...:.3_ ENTER: I ~! The Honorable Philip G. Reinhard United States District Judge -7-

EXHIBIT A Date Courtney Moore RELEASE AGREEMENT I, Courtney Moore, for and in consideration of the sum of$35,000, payable to me pursuant to the terms of the Consent Decree entered by the Court in EEOC v. Sherwin-Williams., on behalf of myself, my heirs, assigns, executors, and agents, do hereby forever release, waive, remise, acquit, and discharge Sherwin-Williams, and all past and present shareholders, officers, agents, employees, and representatives, as well as all successors and assigns, from any and all claims and causes of action of any kind which I now have or ever have had under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2000e etseq., or 42 U.S.C. 1981A as a result ofar arising from the subject matter and claims which were or which could have been asserted in EEOC v. Sherwin- Williams., No. (N.D. Ill. or in EEOC charge No. 210A20330. -8-

EXHIBITB NOTICE TO ALL SHERWIN-WILLIAMS EMPLOYEES This Notice is being posted pursuant to a Consent Decree entered by the federal court in EEOC v. The Sherwin-Williams Company, resolving a lawsuit filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC" against The Sherwin-Williams Company. ("Sherwin-Williams" In its suit, the EEOC alleged that Sherwin-Williams fostered or tolerated a working environment that was sexually hostile toward one of its female employees, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII". Sherwin-Williams denies these allegations. In order to resolve this case, Sherwin-Williams and the EEOC agreed to the entry of a Consent Decree which provided, among other things, that: 1 Sherwin-Williams will pay monetary relief to a former employee; 2 Sherwin-Williams will not discriminate on the basis of sex; 3 Sherwin-Williams will not retaliate against any person because she opposed any practice made unlawful by Title VII, filed a Title VII charge of discrimination, participated in any Title VII proceeding, or asserted any rights under the Consent Decree; and 4 Sherwin-Williams will train its employees with respect to sexual harassment. The EEOC enforces the federal laws against discrimination in employment on the basis ofrace, color, religion, national origin, sex, age or disability. If you believe you have been discriminated against, you may contact the EEOC at (312 353-8195. The EEOC charges no fees and has employees who speak languages other than English. If you believe you have been discriminated against you may contact the EEOC. Date THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND MUST NOT BE DEFACED This Notice must remain posted for two years from the date below and must not be altered, defaced or covered by any other material. Any questions about this Notice or compliance with its terms may be directed to: EEOC 500 West Madison Street, Suite 2800, Chicago, Illinois 60661. SEP 102003 ;r~b; l2enk-lo...--l ThlHOnorable Philip G. Reinhard District Judge -9-