EEOC and Maria Torres v. The Restaurant Company dba Perkins

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

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

EEOC v. Merrill Pine Ridge, LLC

EEOC v. U-Haul International Inc.

EEOC v. Pacific Airport Services, Inc.,

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

EEOC v. Applegate Holdings LLC

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

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

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Bob Watson Chevrolet

EEOC v. Northwest Savings Bank

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

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

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Rochdale Village, Inc.

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

EEOC v. Mason County Forest Products, LLC

EEOC v. Bice of Chicago, et al.

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

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

EEOC v. Ealge Wings Industries, Inc.

EEOC v. NEA-Alaska, Inc.

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

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

EEOC v. Parker Palm Springs Hotel

EEOC v. Tropiano Transportation Services, Inc.

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

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

EEOC v. Baldwin Supply Co.

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

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

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

EEOC v. Altec Industries

Cornell University ILR School. Judge Karen E. Schreier

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

EEOC v. Dillard's, Inc

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

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

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

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

EEOC v. KCD Construction, Inc.

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

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

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Convergys Corporation

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

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

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

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

EEOC v. Moka Shoe Corporation

EEOC v. Brink's Incorporated

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. Cleveland Construction, Inc.

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

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

EEOC v. Supreme Corporation and Supreme Northwest LLC

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

EEOC v. Family Dollar Stores of Arkansas

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

EEOC v. John Wieland Homes and Neighborhoods, Inc.

EEOC v. Oglethorpe University

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

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Dutch Farms, Inc.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EEOC v. Alyeska Pipeline Service Co.

EEOC v. BJ's Wholesale Club, Inc.

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

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Pizza Hut of America, 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

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

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Foodscience Corporation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EEOC v. Supervalu Holdings, Inc.

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

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

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

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

US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Erika Morales, et al., v. ABM Industries Inc., et al.

EEOC v. River View Coal, LLC

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

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

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

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

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

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. American Seafoods Company

Transcription:

Cornell University ILR School DigitalCommons@ILR Consent Decrees Labor and Employment Law Program 8-2-2007 EEOC and Maria Torres v. The Restaurant Company dba Perkins Judge John R. Tunheim 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 and Maria Torres v. The Restaurant Company dba Perkins Keywords EEOC, Maria Torres, The Restaurant Company dba Perkins, 05-1656 JRT/FLN, Consent Decree, Sexual Harassment, Retaliation, Sex, Female, Hospitality, Employment Law, Title VII This article is available at DigitalCommons@ILR: http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/condec/89

Case 0:05-cv-01656-JRT-FLN Document 129 Filed 08/02/2007 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff, and Civil No. 05-1656 JRT/FLN MARIA TORRES, v. Plaintiff-Intervenor, CONSENT DECREE AND ORDER THE RESTAURANT COMPANY d/b/a PERKINS RESTAURANT AND BAKERY, Defendant. 1. This Consent Decree (the Decree ) is made and entered into by and between Plaintiff, United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (hereinafter EEOC ) and Defendant, The Restaurant Company (succeeded by Perkins & Marie Callender s, Inc.) d/b/a Perkins Restaurant and Bakery ( Perkins )(EEOC and Perkins are collectively referred to herein as the Parties ). 2. On August 4, 2005, EEOC initiated this action by filing its Complaint against Perkins alleging Perkins violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, ( Title VII ), when Maria Torres was sexually harassed by her supervisor, and retaliated against after she complained. 3. Perkins filed an Answer denying EEOC s allegations. 4. The Parties have agreed that this action should be finally resolved by entry of this Decree. This Decree shall not constitute an adjudication and/or finding on the merits of the case, nor shall it constitute an admission by either party of the allegations or defenses raised in the

Case 0:05-cv-01656-JRT-FLN Document 129 Filed 08/02/2007 Page 2 of 8 pleadings. 5. This Decree constitutes the complete agreement between EEOC and Perkins with respect to the matters referred to herein. No waiver, modification or amendment of any provision of this Decree shall be effective unless made in writing, approved by all parties to this Decree and approved by the Court or ordered by the Court. NOW, THEREFORE, the Court having carefully examined the terms and provisions of this Consent Decree, and based on the pleadings, record and stipulations of the Parties, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED THAT : 6. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action and over the Parties for purposes of entering and enforcing this Decree. 7. The terms of this Decree are adequate, fair, reasonable, equitable and just. 8. This Decree conforms with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 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, those for whom EEOC seeks relief, and the public. 9. This Decree resolves all claims arising out of the Charge of Discrimination filed by Maria Torres against Perkins, Charge No. 265-2004-01894, and constitutes a complete resolution of all claims under Title VII that EEOC made or could have made in this action. SCOPE OF CONSENT DECREE 10. The duration of this Decree shall be two (2) years from the date of entry of the Decree. During that time, this Court shall retain jurisdiction over this matter and the Parties for purposes of enforcing compliance with the Decree, including issuing such orders as may be required to effectuate its purposes. The provisions of this Decree shall apply to the restaurants 2

Case 0:05-cv-01656-JRT-FLN Document 129 Filed 08/02/2007 Page 3 of 8 operated by Perkins within its recognized Region 2 (of Area 1). GENERAL INJUNCTIVE PROVISION 11. Sexual Harassment. During the term of this Consent Decree, Perkins and its officers, agents, and managers (including supervisory employees), and all those in active concert or participation with them, are hereby enjoined from: (a) engaging in or being a party to any action, policy or practice that is intended to or is known to them to have the effect of harassing or intimidating any female employee on the basis of her gender in violation of Title VII; and/or (b) creating, facilitating or permitting the existence of a work environment that is hostile to female employees in violation of Title VII. 12. Retaliation. During the term of this Consent Decree, Perkins and its officers, agents, and managers (including supervisory employees), and all those in active concert or participation with them, are hereby enjoined from engaging in, implementing or permitting any action, policy or practice with the purpose of retaliating against any current or former employee of Perkins because he or she opposed any practice of sexual harassment made unlawful under Title VII; filed a Charge of Discrimination alleging any such practice; testified or participated in any manner in any investigation (including, without limitation, any internal investigation undertaken by Perkins), proceeding, or hearing in connection with this case and/or relating to any claim of sexual harassment and/or race harassment; was identified as a possible witness in this action; asserted any rights under this Consent Decree; or sought and/or received any monetary and/or non- monetary relief in accordance with this Consent Decree. TRAINING & POLICIES 13. Perkins agrees that it shall provide mandatory annual training regarding sex 3

Case 0:05-cv-01656-JRT-FLN Document 129 Filed 08/02/2007 Page 4 of 8 harassment and retaliation to all employees, including training sessions in Spanish for those employees who wish to receive training in Spanish. The training shall be completed by one or more experienced trainers and shall include at a minimum, training in regard to: Title VII, including, but not limited to, sex harassment; retaliation; complaint procedures for reporting sex harassment and retaliation; techniques for investigating and stopping sex harassment and retaliation; Perkins duty not to permit sexual harassment in the work place; Perkins duty not to retaliate against employees who complain; and Perkins sex harassment and retaliation policies. The notice setting forth the date and time of the annual training shall be in English and Spanish. The initial training shall be completed within 60 days of entry of this Decree. With regard to the managers, supervisors and human resources personnel, the training shall be repeated once per calendar year thereafter until the expiration of this Decree. Perkins must, within 60 days of completion of the annual training, provide EEOC s Milwaukee Area Office with a list of those trained. An agenda for the training and an identification of the trainees shall be provided to the undersigned counsel of the EEOC at least seven (7) calendar days before the training. Within that time, EEOC may provide notice concerning any aspect of the training that it believes is not in compliance with this Decree. For the length of this Decree, Perkins will include during new employee orientation training regarding sexual harassment and retaliation, including Perkins policies on these issues. 14. If requested, Perkins will provide a Spanish-language interpreter for performance evaluation reviews. Perkins will provide a Spanish language interpreter if requested by the employee involved, before finalizing any disciplinary action. POSTING 15. Perkins shall place a public notice, in a conspicuous place, for a period of two (2) 4

Case 0:05-cv-01656-JRT-FLN Document 129 Filed 08/02/2007 Page 5 of 8 years from the date of entry of this Consent Decree and Order. The notice shall be in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A and captioned Official Notice To All Employees of Perkins. In addition, Perkins shall post in a conspicuous place a copy of its policies regarding sexual harassment and retaliation in both Spanish and English, including a hotline number employees can call to report any concerns about sexual harassment and retaliation. RECORD KEEPING 16. For two (2) years from the date of this Consent Decree, Perkins shall document and maintain records related to every Complaint that it or any manager or supervisor receives alleging sexual harassment and retaliation. REPORTING 17. Perkins shall provide the undersigned counsel for the Commission every six (6) months for the duration of this Decree, the following information regarding every complaint of sexual harassment or retaliation it receives: the name, address, and telephone number of all employees who rendered a Complaint; the date and nature of each Complaint; the identity of each person to whom each Complaint was made; and the action taken by Perkins in response to each Complaint. The Commission may inspect and copy documents maintained by Perkins underlying each complaint. The Commission shall give written notice to Perkins regarding the Commission s intent to inspect the documents, and Perkins shall have ten (10) days to comply with such request. In addition, if upon review of the complaint information, the Commission has reason to believe that the investigation was not conducted properly, it has, at its discretion, the right, upon reasonable notice, to interview the witnesses. Nothing contained herein shall constitute a waiver by Perkins of its right to assert the attorney-client privilege. 5

Case 0:05-cv-01656-JRT-FLN Document 129 Filed 08/02/2007 Page 6 of 8 MONETARY RELIEF 18. Perkins agrees, within thirty (30) days of signature of this Consent Decree, Order by the Court, and execution by Maria Torres of settlement documentation pertaining to her individual claims, to pay Maria Torres $127,000.00, in compensatory damages under the Civil Rights Act of 1991,42 U.S.C. 1981a, simultaneously mailing a copy of the check to counsel for EEOC. With respect to such payment, Perkins shall issue to Ms. Torres an IRS Form 1099, evidencing payment to her on account of her claims for compensatory damages. COSTS AND NOTICES 19. Perkins agrees to pay all of its costs associated with the administration of this Decree, except as is specifically provided otherwise in this Decree. 20. Each Party shall bear its own litigation costs and attorneys fees associated with this litigation, except as otherwise provided for in this Decree, and neither Party shall seek reimbursement for any outstanding litigation costs. 21. Except as is otherwise provided for in this Decree, all notifications, reports and communications to the Parties required under this Decree shall be made in writing and shall be sufficient as hand-delivered or sent by first class mail to the following persons: For EEOC: Deborah J. Powers, Esq.- EEOC 310 West Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 800 Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53203 Facsimile: (414) 297-3146 E-Mail: deborah.powers@eeoc.gov For Perkins: Andy Whiteley, Esq. Senior Counsel Perkins & Marie Callender s Inc. 6075 Poplar Ave. Suite 800 Memphis, TN 38119 Any party may change such addresses by written notice to the other parties, setting forth 6

Case 0:05-cv-01656-JRT-FLN Document 129 Filed 08/02/2007 Page 7 of 8 a new address for this purpose. Notwithstanding the provisions for notification contained in this paragraph, the Parties may send each other such notifications, reports and communications by facsimile transmission or e- mail. SO ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED this 2nd day of August, 2007. s/john R. Tunheim United States District Court Judge Agreed to in form and content: /s Deborah J. Powers Milwaukee Area Office 310 W. Wisconsin Ave., Suite 800 Milwaukee, WI 53203-2292 Phone: (414)297-3983 Fax:(414)297-3146 Deborah J. Powers Senior Trial Attorney deborah.powers@eeoc.gov /s Charles Conine Charles Conine Executive Vice President, Human Resources and Administration Perkins & Marie Callender s Inc. 6075 Poplar Ave. Suite 800 Memphis, TN 38119 FOR THE DEFENDANT PERKINS FOR THE PLAINTIFF, EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 7

Case 0:05-cv-01656-JRT-FLN Document 129 Filed 08/02/2007 Page 8 of 8 Exhibit A NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES AT THE PERKINS RESTAURANT This Notice is posted pursuant to a Consent Decree entered into between Perkins and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). It is unlawful under federal law, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and state law to discriminate against an employee on the basis of sex, including sexual harassment, in the recruitment, hiring, promotion, firing, compensation, assignment, or other terms, and conditions or privileges of employment. It is also unlawful to retaliate against any person because the person protested discriminatory practices or contacted the EEOC. Perkins shall not discriminate against any employee on the basis of sex and shall not retaliate against any employee for complaining about sex discrimination. If you believe you have been discriminated against, you have the right to seek assistance from: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Minneapolis Area Office 330 Second Avenue south, Suite 430 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: 612.335.4040 Website: www.eeoc.gov Firmwide:82831447.1 028509.1022 7/25/07 8