EEOC v. Zale Corporation

Similar documents
EEOC v. NEA-Alaska, Inc.

EEOC v. Alyeska Pipeline Service Co.

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

EEOC v. Mason County Forest Products, LLC

EEOC v. Supreme Corporation and Supreme Northwest LLC

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

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

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

EEOC v. Pacific Airport Services, Inc.,

EEOC v. Family Dollar Stores of Arkansas

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. American Seafoods Company

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. Cleveland Construction, Inc.

EEOC v. Baldwin Supply Co.

EEOC v. Brink's Incorporated

EEOC v. Applegate Holdings LLC

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Rochdale Village, Inc.

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

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

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

EEOC v. Oglethorpe University

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

EEOC v. Tropiano Transportation Services, Inc.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Bob Watson Chevrolet

EEOC v. Altec Industries

Cornell University ILR School. Judge Karen E. Schreier

EEOC v. Northwest Savings Bank

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

EEOC v. Ealge Wings Industries, Inc.

EEOC v. Parker Palm Springs Hotel

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

EEOC v. Dillard's, Inc

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

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

EEOC v. Merrill Pine Ridge, LLC

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

EEOC and Maria Torres v. The Restaurant Company dba Perkins

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Convergys Corporation

EEOC v. River View Coal, LLC

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

EEOC v. Bice of Chicago, et al.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EEOC v. Den-Cal North, Den-Tex West, d/b/a Denny's Restaurant

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

EEOC v. Supervalu Holdings, Inc.

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

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

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

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

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

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

EEOC v. Moka Shoe Corporation

EEOC v. BJ's Wholesale Club, Inc.

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

EEOC v. U-Haul International Inc.

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

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

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

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

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. Michoacan Seafood Group. LLC

EEOC v. John Wieland Homes and Neighborhoods, Inc.

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

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

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

Griffin & EEOC v. Formosa Plastics

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

EEOC v. KCD Construction, Inc.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EEOC v. Eastern Engineered Wood Products, Inc.

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

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

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

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

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Foodscience Corporation

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

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

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

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

Case 6:10-cv TC Document 1 Filed 09/24/10 Page 1 of 7 Page ID#: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF HAWAII CV

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

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

Transcription:

Cornell University ILR School DigitalCommons@ILR Consent Decrees Labor and Employment Law Program --0 Judge John W. Sedwick 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.

Keywords EEOC, Christina Zantarzis, Zale Corporation, A0-cv-000 ( JWS), Consent Decree, Disparate Treatment, Promotion, Sex, Female, Retail, Employment Law, Title VII This article is available at DigitalCommons@ILR: http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/condec/

WILLIAM R TAMAYO, REGIONAL ATTORNEY OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION SAN FRANCISO DISTRICT OFFICE 0 THE EMBARCADERO, SUITE 00 SAN FRANCISCO, CA - JOHN F. STANLEY, SUPERVISORY TRIAL ATTORNEY MOLLY KUCUK, TRIAL ATTORNEY 0 FIRST AVE., SUITE 00 SEATTLE, WA TEL: ()0- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA, v. ZALE CORPORATION, Plaintiff, Defendant No. A0-cv-000 (JWS) CONSENT DECREE I. INTRODUCTION 1. This action originated when Christina Kantarzis ("Charging Party") filed a charge ("Charge") with the Equal Employm ent Opportunity Comm ission ("EEOC" or "Commission") on June, 0. Kantarzis alleged that Za le Corporation ("Zale") in Anchorage, Alaska discriminated against her based upon her sex (pregnancy) in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of, U.S.C. 00e, atseq. ("Title VII") when she was denied prom otion to the position of store m anager of the S ears Mall Zales Jewelers ("Zales") location. Pagel of Telephone: () 0- Facsimile: ()0- TDD: ()0-

. On January, 0, the EEOC issued a letter of determ ination with a finding of reasonable c ause that Zale violated Title VII when Ms. Kantarz is was not promoted to the Sears Mall store manager position. Thereafter, the EEOC attempted to conciliate the charge, but the parties could not reach agreement.. The Commission filed its Lawsuit on March, 0, in the United States District Court for the District of Alaska (T he "Lawsuit"). The Lawsuit alleges that Zale violated Title VII by failing to promote Ms. Kantarzis because of her sex (pregnancy).. Defendant denies the allegations of discrimination in Kantarzis' charge of discrimination and in the Lawsuit, and asse its there was no discrim ination against the Charging Party.. The parties want to conclude fully and finally all claims arising out of the EEOC's Lawsuit and the Charge of discrimination filed with the EEOC by Christina Kantarzis. The parties agree that it is in their mutual interest to resolve this matter fully without the expense and delay of litigation. The parties agree that this Decree may be entered into without Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law being made and entered by the Court. II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to U.S.C. 1,1,, and. This action is authorized pursu ant to Sections 0(f)(1) and () of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of, as amended, U.S.C. 00e-(f)(l ) and (), and Section of the Civil Rights Act of 1, U.S.C. 1a. The employment Page of Telephone: () 0- Facsimile: ()0- TDD: ()0-

practices alleged to b e unlawful in the co mplaint filed herein occurred within in the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the District of Alaska. III. SETTLEMENT SCOPE. This Consent Decree is the final and complete resolution of all allegations of unlawful employment practices contained in Kantarzis' discrimination Charge, in the EEOC's administrative determinations, and in the Lawsuit filed herein. The Decree, including any requirements herein, is limited in scope to the Region as defined herein. The Region as used in this Consent Decree is defined as all employees, including managers, at Zales Jewelers stores in the State of Alaska (the "Region").. Zale's voluntary agreement to entry of this Consent Decree shall not be deemed as an adm ission of liability, and none of the parties to this Lawsuit shall be deemed a prevailing party. There has been no judicial determination in the Lawsuit that Zale has violated any law, or der, or regulation of the U nited States or of any state regarding its employment practices or policie s. Nothing in this Consent Decree shall be construed to limit or reduce Zale's obligation to fully comply with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, as amended, the Equal Pay Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act, or the regulations promulgated pursuant thereto. IV. MONETARY RELIEF. In settlement of this Lawsuit, Zale agrees to pay Christina Kantarzis $,000.00 less deductions required by law. Paym ent will be made directly to Ms. Kantarzis at an Page of Telephone: () 0- Facsimile: ()0- TDD: ()0-

address to be provided by the EEOC. Payment will be made within twenty () days after this Consent Decree is entered by the Court. V. INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER RELIEF A. General Provisions. Zale, its officers, agents, and employ ees in the Region shall not engage in practices which unlawfully discriminate against applicants and/or employees on the basis of sex (pregnancy). In recogn ition of its obligation und er Title VII, Zale agrees to evaluate its policies and practices set forth below. B. Anti-Discrimination Policies and Procedures Yi. Zale shall carry out anti-discrim ination policies, procedures and training for employees, supervisors and management personnel in the Region and will provide equal employment opportunities for all employees consistent with its obligations under the law Zale shall evaluate and, where appropriate, modify the practices of its m anagers and supervisors in the Region in order to preven t discrimination in employment. Zale shall communicate its Equal Em ployment Opportunity ("EEO) policies to its m anagers and supervisors in the Region, and provide a certif ication to ensure that these m anagement and supervisory employees have received the policies. Within one hundred twenty (1) days of the effective date of this Consent i Decree, Zale shall: (a) evalua te its EEO policy to ensure that it adequately prohibits unlawful discrimination against employees in the Region on the basi s of sex (pregnancy) and addresses Zale's obligation to provide a discrimination-free work environment for its employees; and (b) distribute this written EEO policy to all present employees and future Page of Telephone: () 0- Facsimile: ()0- TDD: ()0-

employees in the Region both m anagement and non-m anagement. Zale shall provide EEOC with a written copy of its EEO policy. C. Training. Within one hundred twenty (1) da ys of the execution of this Consent Decree, Zale shall p resent all management and supervisory employees in the Regio n at least hours of training on em ployment discrimination issues, including discrim ination against employees based on sex (pregnancy).. Zale shall notify the EEOC of the completion of the training and shall specify the names and job titles of all m anagers and supervisory employees in the Region who participated in and completed the training as part of its annual reporting to the EEOC. D. Expungement of Records. Zale shall expunge from its files all copies of Ms. Kantarzis'charge of discrimination or this lawsuit from her personnel files, the Regional Manager file, and the Director of Stores Manager file. E. Policies Designed to Promote Supervisory Accountability. Zale shall im pose appropriate discipline up to and including term ination, suspension without pay or demotion, upon any supervisor or m anager in the Region who discriminates against any employee on the basis of sex (pregnancy). Zale shall state this policy in a communication to all of its supervisors and managers in the Region.. An indi vidual's handling of EEO m atters shall be tak en into account when Zale evaluates the performance of managers and supervisors and in any consideration of their promotions in the Region. Page of Telephone: () 0- Facsimile: ()0- TDD: ()0-

. Zale shall include compliance with the equal employment opportunity laws as a consideration for qualification for supervisory positions in the Region. F. Reporting. Zale shall repo it in writing and in affidavit form to the EEOC, for the duration of this Consent Decree, the following information. a. Certification of the com pletion of hour s of training to m anagers and supervisory employees in the Region, as refe renced in paragraph hereof, and a list of attendees; b. Certification that its EEO policy has b een distributed to all current employees and new employees in the Region; c. Certification of the Expungem ent of all copies of the lawsuit brought by the EEOC and the complaint of discrimination made by Ms. Kantarzis from files as described in paragraph ; d. A copy of its EEO policies and procedures which concern or affect the subject of discrimination or retaliation; e. A copy of the anti-discrim ination training materials presented to m anagement and supervisory employees in the Region; f For the duration of this Consent Decree, Zale shall annually submit a summary of sex and pregnancy discrimination complaints, if any, by applicants or employees in the Region against Zale that are reported to Hu man Resources or to the Shared Serv ices Center and the resolution of each complaint; and g. Following the expiration of the term of this Decree, a statement certifying that Zale has complied with Paragraph & of the Decree. If Zale has not compiled with Paragraph & of the Decree, th e statement will specify the areas of noncom pliance, the reason for the noncompliance, and the steps taken to bring Zale into compliance. G. Posting. Zale will post a Notice, attached as Exhibit 1 to this Consent Decree. The Notice shall be posted at all stores in the Region for the duration of this Consent Decree. Page of Telephone: () 0- Facsimile: ()0- TDD: ()0-

VI. ENFORCEMENT. If the EEOC determ ines thatzaleha s not com plied with the term s of this Decree, the EEOC will provide written notification, v ia certified mail, of the alleged breach to the office oft he General Counsel of Zale at 01 W. Walnut Hill Lane, A, Irving, TX 0, and to Ralph C. Pond, Be nedict Garratt Pond, PLLC, 00 Second Ave. 0 th Floor, Seattle, W A. The EEO C will not petition the court for enforcement of the decree for at least thirty (0) days after providing written notification of the alleged breach, and only in the event Za le does not substantially cure the alleged breach. The thirty (0)-day period following parties for good faith efforts to resolve the dispute. VII. RETENTION OF JURISDICTION the written notice shall be used b y the. The United States District Court of the District of Alaska shall retain jurisdiction over this matter for the duration of the decree. VIII. DURATION AND TERMINATION. This Decree shall be in effect for two () years beginning the date this Court enters this Consent Decree. If the EEOC petitions the Court for breach of the Decree, and the Court finds Zale to be in violation of the terms of the Decree, the Court may extend the duration of the Decree. IX. ATTORNEYS' FEES, EXPENSES AND COSTS. Each party shall bear its own attorney s' fees, expenses and costs incurred in this case. Page of Telephone: () 0- Facsimile: ()0- TDD: ()0-

X. CONCLUSION. The parties are not bound by any provision of this decree until it is signed by authorized representatives of each party and entered by the Court. WILLIAM R. TAMAYO Regional Attorney San Francisco District Office 0 Embarcadero, Suite 0 0 San Francisco, CA - JOHNF. STANLEY Supervisory Trial Attorney Molly P. Kucuk Trial Attorney By: /s/bill Tamayo DATED this d day of July, 0 RONALD S. COOPER GENERAL COUNSEL JAMES E. LEE Deputy General Counsel Gwendolyn Young Reams Associate General Counsel Seattle, WA ()0- Facsimile () 0- Attorneys for Plaintiff Office of the General Counsel 01 "L" Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 0,rd Dated this ra day of July, 0 Robertson, Monagle & Eastaugh By /s/ Robert Blasco Robert P. Blasco, AK Bar No. 0 Counsel for Defendant Zale Corporation Page of Telephone: () 0- Facsimile: ()0- TDD: ()0-