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

Similar documents
EEOC v. NEA-Alaska, Inc.

EEOC v. Mason County Forest Products, LLC

EEOC v. Alyeska Pipeline Service Co.

EEOC v. Supreme Corporation and Supreme Northwest LLC

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

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

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. American Seafoods Company

EEOC v. Pacific Airport Services, Inc.,

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

EEOC v. Altec Industries

EEOC v. Tropiano Transportation Services, Inc.

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

EEOC v. Northwest Savings Bank

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Bob Watson Chevrolet

EEOC v. Merrill Pine Ridge, LLC

EEOC and Maria Torres v. The Restaurant Company dba Perkins

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

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

EEOC v. Cleveland Construction, Inc.

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

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

EEOC v. Oglethorpe University

EEOC v. Bice of Chicago, et al.

EEOC v. Applegate Holdings LLC

EEOC v. River View Coal, LLC

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

EEOC v. Dillard's, 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. Rochdale Village, Inc.

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

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

EEOC v. Brink's Incorporated

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

EEOC v. U-Haul International Inc.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EEOC v. Zale Corporation

EEOC v. Moka Shoe Corporation

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. John Wieland Homes and Neighborhoods, Inc.

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

EEOC v. Baldwin Supply Co.

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

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

EEOC v. Family Dollar Stores of Arkansas

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

Cornell University ILR School. Judge Karen E. Schreier

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

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

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

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

EEOC v. BJ's Wholesale Club, Inc.

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

EEOC v. Parker Palm Springs Hotel

EEOC v. Ealge Wings Industries, Inc.

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

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

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

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. Convergys Corporation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Swift Transportation Co., Inc.

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

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

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. Monk's Inc., d/b/a International House of Pancakes, Defendant.

EEOC v. Supervalu Holdings, Inc.

EEOC v. Michoacan Seafood Group. LLC

EEOC v. Eastern Engineered Wood Products, Inc.

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

EEOC v. KCD Construction, Inc.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Foodscience Corporation

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

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

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

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

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

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

Griffin & EEOC v. Formosa Plastics

EEOC v. Preferred Labor LLC, d/b/a Preferred People Staffing

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

Transcription:

Cornell University ILR School DigitalCommons@ILR Consent Decrees Labor and Employment Law Program --00 EEOC v. RSG Forest Products Inc. dba Estacada Lumber Co. Judge Owen M. Panner 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. RSG Forest Products Inc. dba Estacada Lumber Co. Keywords EEOC, RSG Forest Products Inc., Estacada Lumber Co., 0-CV--JE, consent decree, hostile work environment, sexual harassment, sex, male, manufacturing, employment law, title VII This article is available at DigitalCommons@ILR: http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/condec/

FILEIP0 MhY A. LUIS LUCERO, JR., REGIONAL ATTORNEY JOHN F. STANLEY, ACTING SUPERVISORY TRIAL ATTORNEY EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 0 FIRST AVENUE, SUITE 00 SEATTLE, WA 0 TEL: (0 0- FAX: (0 0- John.Stanlev@eeoc.aov ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF EEOC 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON 0 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, NO. 0-CV--JE Plaintiff, CONSENT DECREE DAVID POULIN, Plaintiff-lntervenor, v. RSG FOREST PRODUCTS, INC. dbaestacada LUMBER CO., Defendant. I. INTRODUCTION. This action originated with a charge of discrimination David Poulin filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ( EEOC. The charge alleged that the defendant, RSG Forest Products, Inc. ( RSG, engaged in unlawful employment practices at its Estacada, Oregon facility in violation of 0(a of Title CONSENT DECREE - PAGE 0 First Avenue, Suite 00 Seattle, Washington 0-0 Telephone: (0 0- Facsimile: (0 0- TDD: (00-

0 0 VII, U.S.C. 000e-(a, by subjecting him to a sexually hostile work environment.. The EEOC sent the defendant a Letter of Determination with a finding there was reasonable cause to believe Mr. Poulin s allegations were true and that similarly situated male employees were also subjected to a sexually hostile work environment.. The Commission filed this lawsuit on September, 00, in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon at Portland. This Court granted Mr. Poulin s motion to intervene on January, 00.. The parties want to conclude the claims arising out of Mr. Poulin s charge, the EEOC's determination, and this action without expending further resources in contested litigation. II. NONADMISSION OF LIABILITY AND NONDETERMINATION 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 the defendant 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 David Poulin s discrimination charge, in the EEOC's Letter of Determination, and in the EEOC s complaint filed in this action, including all claims by the parties for attorney fees and costs. IV. MONETARY RELIEF. The defendant agrees to pay David Poulin, Jose Castaneda, Preston Gorbett, Zane Burke, and Frank Smith a total of $ 00,000 in compensatory and CONSENT DECREE - PAGE 0 First Avenue, Suite 00 Seattle, Washington 0-0 Telephone: (0 0- Facsimile: (0 0- TDD: (00-

0 0 punitive damages, allocated as follows, in settlement and satisfaction of all claims for monetary relief in this action and subject to all withholding required by law:. David Poulin $ 0,000. Jose Castaneda $,000. Preston Gorbett $,000. Zane Burke $,000. Frank Smith $,000 In return, each listed recipient of settlement funds will release defendant from all claims arising out of this lawsuit. V. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF A. General Provisions. The defendant reaffirms its commitment to comply with the provisions of Title VII and all other federal laws against discrimination in its employment decisions. In furtherance of this commitment, it will monitor the affirmative obligations of this consent decree.. The defendant will not retaliate against any current or former employee for opposing any practice made unlawful by Title VII. Nor will the defendant retaliate against any current or former employee for making a charge or for testifying, assisting, or participating in any investigation, proceeding, or hearing associated with this action. 0. In recognition of its obligations under Title VII, the defendant will institute the policies and practices set forth below. B. Establishment of Policy and Procedures to Prevent Discrimination. Defendant will create a written equal employment opportunity policy which sets forth the requirements of federal laws against employment discrimination CONSENT DECREE - PAGE 0 First Avenue, Suite 00 Seattle, Washington 0-0 Telephone: (0 0- Facsimile: (0 0- TDD: (00-

0 0 and specifically those provisions which make sexual harassment discrimination unlawful.. The policy will include a statement of defendant's commitment to ensuring that the practices and the conduct of its employees will comply with the requirements of federal laws against employment discrimination. It will include a provision stating that those who violate the policy will be subject to appropriate discipline, up to and including termination.. The policy will include an internal complaint procedure for employees to report suspected incidents of discrimination so that the defendant can investigate and take appropriate action if it determines that any employee has violated its EEO policy.. The internal complaint procedure will include the following provisions: a. A list of the appropriate persons to whom an individual should report allegations of discrimination in the workplace. b. An explanation of how to make a complaint and what an investigation will involve, including informing the affected individuals of the outcome of the investigation.. The defendant will submit a copy of its policy and procedures for the EEOC within forty-five days of the date of entry of this decree. The defendant will distribute the policy to all present and future employees, both management and nonmanagement. C. Posting Notice. The defendant will post the notice attached as Exhibit to this consent decree. The notice shall be posted on centrally located bulletin boards in defendant s Estacada, Oregon facility where notices to employees are normally posted or where employees will see the notice for the duration of the consent decree. The defendant CONSENT DECREE - PAGE 0 First Avenue, Suite 00 Seattle, Washington 0-0 Telephone: (0 0- Facsimile: (0 0- TDD: (00-

0 will also post in the same locations a copy of the EEO policy referenced in paragraph. D. Training. During the term of this consent decree, RSG will provide at least six hours of employment discrimination training annually for its managers, specifically including topics related to sexual harassment. Training will be conducted by a vendor mutually agreed upon by both parties. The first training will take place within sixty days of entry of this consent decree. The second training will take place within sixty days after the one-year period following entry of this consent decree. The third training will take place within sixty days after the two-year period following entry of this consent decree. The form and content of the training events will be subject to prior review by the EEOC, and the cost of training shall be borne by defendant.. The defendant will provide to the EEOC a list of attendees of the training provided pursuant to paragraph, an evaluation form filled out and signed by each attendee, and a copy of the training materials and handouts with the reports required in paragraph. 0 F. Reporting. Six months after entry of this decree, and every six months thereafter for the term of the decree, the defendant will provide a report to the Commission with the following information: a. A summary of any complaints of employment discrimination alleging conduct constituting a violation of laws against discrimination on the basis of sexual harassment. b. Copies of the training attendee lists, evaluations, and materials CONSENT DECREE - PAGE 0 First Avenue, Suite 00 Seattle, Washington 0-0 Telephone: (0 0- Facsimile: (0 0- TDD: (00-

0 generated by the training required by paragraphs -. c. A statement listing the other provisions of this decree with which defendant is required to comply during the preceding period and certifying that it has complied with the terms of the decree. If the defendant has not complied with any term of the decree, the statement will specify the areas of noncompliance, the reason for the noncompliance, and the steps taken to bring the defendant into compliance. VI. ENFORCEMENT 0. The United States District Court for the District of Oregon shall retain jurisdiction over this matter for the duration of the decree. If the EEOC concludes that the defendant has breached any of the above provisions, it may bring an action to enforce this consent decree no sooner than thirty days after providing the defendant written notification of the alleged breach. The period following the written notice will be used by the parties for good faith efforts to reach agreement on how to bring the defendant into compliance with the decree. 0 VII. TERMINATION OF DECREE. This decree shall be in effect for ( three years commencing with the date the decree is entered by the court. If the EEOC petitions the court and the court finds the defendant to have violated the terms of this consent decree, it may extend the period of this consent decree and award the Commission its costs in bringing an enforcement action. II II CONSENT DECREE - PAGE 0 First Avenue, Suite 00 Seattle, Washington 0-0 Telephone: (0 0- Facsimile: (0 0- TDD: (00-

0 // // // //, DATED this day of v. 00. Respectfully submitted, A. LUIS LUCERO, JR. GWENDOLYN REAMS Regional Attorney Associate General Counsel JOHN F. STANLEY Acting Supervisory Trial Attorney EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 0 st Avenue, Suite 00 Seattle, Washington 0 Telephone (0 0- EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of the General Counsel 0 "L" Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 00 Attorneys for Plaintiff 0 Mark H. Wagner Hoffman, Hart & Wagner LLP 000 S.W. Broadway, 0th FI. Portland, OR 0 BY: A K Attorneys for Defendant CONSENT DECREE - PAGE 0 First Avenue, Suite 00 Seattle, Washington 0-0 Telephone: (0 0- Facsimile: (0 0- TDD: (00-

ORDER The Court, having considered the foregoing stipulated agreement of the parties, HEREBY ORDERS that the foregoing consent decree be, and the same hereby is, approved as the final decree of this Court in full settlement of this action. This lawsuit is hereby dismissed with prejudice and without costs or attorneys' fees to any party. The Court retains jurisdiction of this matter for purposes of enforcing the consent decree approved herein. DATED this day o f. 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 0 CONSENT DECREE - PAGE 0 First Avenue, Suite 00 Seattle, Washington 0-0 Telephone: (0 0- Facsimile: (0 0- TDD: (00-

NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES This notice is being posted pursuant to an agreement between RSG FOREST PRODUCTS, INC. and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of, as amended, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of, the Equal Pay Act of, and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 0 are enforced by the EEOC and require the following: That there be no discrimination against any employee or applicant for employment because of the employee's race, sex, color, religion, national origin, age (over age 0, or disability with respect to hiring, firing, compensation, or other terms, conditions or privileges of employment. It is an unlawful employment practice for an employer to retaliate against any employees or applicants for employment because they have opposed a practice or because they have made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding or hearing under these statutes. RSG will institute a training program to train managers regarding the requirements of the above statutes, with particular emphasis on discrimination in the form of sexual harassment. RSG has posted this notice because the company supports and will comply with these federal laws in all respects and will not take any retaliatory action against employees because they have exercised their rights under the law. DATED: RSG FOREST PRODUCTS, INC.