)

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

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

EEOC v. Altec Industries

)

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

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

EEOC v. River View Coal, LLC

EEOC v. Dillard's, Inc

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

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

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

EEOC and Maria Torres v. The Restaurant Company dba Perkins

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

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

EEOC v. U-Haul International Inc.

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

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

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

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

EEOC v. Oglethorpe University

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

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

EEOC v. Tropiano Transportation Services, Inc.

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

EEOC v. NEA-Alaska, Inc.

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

EEOC v. Mason County Forest Products, LLC

EEOC v. Pacific Airport Services, Inc.,

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

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

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

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 v. Applegate Holdings LLC

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Bob Watson Chevrolet

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

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

EEOC v. Supervalu Holdings, 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. Studley Products, Inc. and Wildwood Industries, Inc., Defendants.

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

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

EEOC v. Moka Shoe Corporation

EEOC v. Supreme Corporation and Supreme Northwest LLC

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

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

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

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

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

EEOC v. Northwest Savings Bank

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

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

EEOC v. Alyeska Pipeline Service Co.

EEOC v. Bice of Chicago, et al.

EEOC v. BJ's Wholesale Club, Inc.

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

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

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

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

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

EEOC v. Brink's Incorporated

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

Cornell University ILR School. Judge Karen E. Schreier

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

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. Rochdale Village, Inc.

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

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

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

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

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

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

EEOC v. Merrill Pine Ridge, LLC

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

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

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

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

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND CONSENT DECREE. I. Background

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

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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

EEOC v. Baldwin Supply Co.

NONDISCRIMINATION AND EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

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

EEOC v. KCD Construction, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIR E CONSENT DECREE

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

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

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

UNITED STA1ES DISTRICT COURT EAS1ERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. Civil Action No. 06 CV 2697 (ARR)(RER) CONSENT DECREE

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

ORIGINAL. Attorneys for Plaintiff UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF HAWAII. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT ) OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, ) Plain tiff, ) )

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

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

EEOC v. Ealge Wings Industries, Inc.

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

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

EEOC v. Family Dollar Stores of Arkansas

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. American Seafoods Company

Transcription:

Case 4:98-cv-00136-H Document 52 Filed 10/10/2001 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN DIVISION Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., Plaintiff, Defendant. --------------------------- CONSENT DECREE Civil Action No. 4:98-CV-136-H(4 This action was instituted by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "Commission" pursuant to Title vn of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, alleging that Defendant Sears, Roebuck and Co. ("Defendant" failed to hire Francisco G. Santana because of his national origin. Defendant denies any national origin discrimination. The Court has jurisdiction over this lawsuit pursuant to 28 U.S.c. 451, 1331, 1337, 1343 and 1345. The Commission and Defendant hereby stipulate to jurisdiction of the Court over the subject matter of this action. The parties have advised this Court that they desire to resolve allegations in the Complaint without the burden, expense and delay of further litigation. It is therefore the finding of the Court, made on the pleadings and the record as a whole, that: (1 the Court has jurisdiction over the partes and subject matter of this action; (2 the 1

Case 4:98-cv-00136-H Document 52 Filed 10/10/2001 Page 2 of 5 purpose and provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Civil Rights Act of 1991 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 9 below: It is therefore, ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED as follows: 1. Defendant shall not discriminate against applicants on the basis of national origin by failing to hire them at its Morehead City, North Carolina store. 2. Within thirty (30 days of the entry of the approval of this Consent Decree and for the term of this Consent Decree, Defendant shall conspicuously post an Employee Notice, marked as Exhibit "A", in a place where it is visible to all employees at its Morehead City, North Carolina store. 3. Defendant shall conduct training for all management employees at its Morehead City, North Carolina store during the term of this Consent Decree. The training program will include an explanation of the requirements of the federal equal employment opportunity laws, including Title VII and the Civil Rights Act of 1991, particularly in the area of discrimination due to national origin. Upon completion of the training program, Defendant shall certify to the Commission the specific training which was undertaken and shall provide the Commission with a roster of all management employees in attendance. The training program will be conducted within sixty (60 days of the Court's approval of this Decree. Management employees who are hired or transferred by Defendant into its Morehead City, North Carolina store, after the training, but during the term of the Consent Decree, shall be given a written copy of Defendant's nondiscrimination policy at the time of hire or transfer. 2

Case 4:98-cv-00136-H Document 52 Filed 10/10/2001 Page 3 of 5 4. During the tenn of this Consent Decree, Defendant shall provide the Commission with reports at six (6 month intervals, with the first report being due five (5 months after approval ofthis Decree and the second being due six (6 months after the first. The reports shall include the following infonnation: the name, address and telephone number of all applicants at Defendant's Morehead City, North Carolina store, if any, who, during the reporting period, complained to store management about discrimination due to national origin, a description of the complaint, the identity of each person to whom each complaint was made, and the action taken by the Defendant about each complaint. The reports shall be submitted to the Commission at the time intervals outlined immediately above. 5. In order to review compliance with this Decree, the Commission may inspect Defendant's premises, interview employees, examine and copy documents related to any complaints reported in accordance with paragraph 4 above. 6. If at any time during the tenn ofthis Decree, the Commission believes that the Defendant is in violation of this Decree, the Commission shall give written notice of the alleged violation to the Defendant. The Defendant shall have thirty (30 days in which to investigate and respond to the allegations. Thereafter, the parties shall have a period often (10 days, or such additional period as may be agreed upon by them, in which to engage in negotiation and conciliation regarding such allegations, before the Commission exercises any right provided by law. 7. The tenn of this Decree shall be for one (1 year from its entry by the Court. 8. With the exception of costs previously paid pursuant to court order, Defendant and Plaintiff EEOC shall bear its own costs and attorney fees associated with the litigation of this 3

Case 4:98-cv-00136-H Document 52 Filed 10/10/2001 Page 4 of 5 case, styled EEOC v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., Civil Action No. 4:98-CV-136H(4, and the entry of this Decree. 9. This Court shall retain jurisdiction of this action for purposes of enforcing this Decree and entry of such further orders as may be necessary or appropriate. 1[1-1- DJ Date The parties jointly request that the Court approve and enter this Consent Decree: SEARS, ROEBUCK AND CO. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION m Johnson & Greaves LLC Mindy. ei tem Regional Attorney Charlotte District Office copies to: Erania Ebron, Esq. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 129 West Trade Street Charlotte, NC 28202 James B. Spears, Jr. Haynsworth Baldwin Johnson & Greaves LLC 400 West Trade Street Charlotte, NC 28202 4

Case 4:98-cv-00136-H Document 52 Filed 10/10/2001 Page 5 of 5 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., Attachment "A" IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN DIVISION Plaintiff, Defendant. ---------------------------- NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES Civil Action No. 4:98-CV-136-H(4 This Notice is being posted pursuant to a Consent Decree entered in Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., Civil Action No. 4:98-CV-136-H(4, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, Eastern Division. Federal law prohibits discrimination against any employee or applicant for employment because of the individual's race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability or age (40 and over, with respect to hiring, promotion, discipline, firing, compensation or other terms, conditions or privileges of employment. Federal law prohibits the failure to hire an individual due to his or her national origin. Sears, Roebuck and Co. supports and will comply with such federal law in all respects. Specifically, Sears, Roebuck and Co.: (a will seek to maintain a work environment that is free of discrimination due to national origin; (b will provide annual training to all Store managers concerning the federal employment discrimination laws, particularly as they apply to Title VII and discrimination due to national origin; and (c will provide a copy of its policy concerning discrimination to all managers. Sears, Roebuck and Co. has an equal employment opportunity policy and will ensure that all management, supervisory and other employees abide by the requirements of that policy, and that employees will not be subjected to discrimination due to national origin. If you believe that you have been subjected to discrimination due to your national origin, you should promptly report the discriminatory conduct to a member of Sears, Roebuck and Co. management, or to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. This Notice will remain posted for one (1 year by agreement with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE UNTIL:,2002. Date For Sears, Roebuck and Co.