EEOC v. Michoacan Seafood Group. LLC

Similar documents
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, Plaintiff, v. Houston Area Sheet Metal Joint Apprenticeship Committee, Defendant.

EEOC v. River View Coal, LLC

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Rochdale Village, Inc.

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

I. Background and History of Proceedings

EEOC v. Pacific Airport Services, Inc.,

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. American Seafoods Company

EEOC v. Parker Palm Springs Hotel

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

EEOC v. Applegate Holdings LLC

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

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

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

EEOC v. Altec Industries

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

EEOC v. Bice of Chicago, et al.

EEOC v. Oglethorpe University

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Bob Watson Chevrolet

Cornell University ILR School. Judge Karen E. Schreier

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

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

EEOC and Maria Torres v. The Restaurant Company dba Perkins

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

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

EEOC v. John Wieland Homes and Neighborhoods, Inc.

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

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

EEOC v. NEA-Alaska, Inc.

EEOC v. U-Haul International Inc.

EEOC v. Alyeska Pipeline Service Co.

EEOC v. Moka Shoe Corporation

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Foodscience Corporation

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

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

United States of America v. City of Lubbock, Texas

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

EEOC v. Northwest Savings Bank

EEOC v. Cleveland Construction, Inc.

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

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

EEOC v. Mason County Forest Products, LLC

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

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

EEOC v. Merrill Pine Ridge, LLC

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

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

EEOC v. BJ's Wholesale Club, Inc.

EEOC v. Family Dollar Stores of Arkansas

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

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

EEOC v. Sunrise Hospitality BC II, LLC d/b/a Microtel Inns & Suites

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

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

EEOC v. Dillard's, Inc

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

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

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Dutch Farms, Inc.

EEOC v. Tropiano Transportation Services, Inc.

EEOC v. Supreme Corporation and Supreme Northwest LLC

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

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

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

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Convergys Corporation

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

EEOC v. Baldwin Supply Co.

EEOC v. KCD Construction, Inc.

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

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

EEOC v. Ealge Wings Industries, Inc.

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

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. Original Hot Dog Shops, Inc. doing business as Original Hot Dog Shop, Food Gallery Original, Inc. doing business as Original Hot Dog Shop

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

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

United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. BMW Manufacturing Co., LLC

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

EEOC v. Supervalu Holdings, Inc.

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

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

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

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

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN. Civil Action No.: [PROPOSED] CONSENT DECREE. Press Release.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anita Robinson, et al., v. Boeing Company, d/b/a Boeing Defense & Space Group

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

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

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

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

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

EEOC v. Zale Corporation

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

EEOC v. Brink's Incorporated

Transcription:

Cornell University ILR School DigitalCommons@ILR Consent Decrees Labor and Employment Law Program Fall 10-22-2010 EEOC v. Michoacan Seafood Group. LLC Judge Sim Lake 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. Michoacan Seafood Group. LLC Keywords EEOC v. Michoacan Seafood Group. LLC, 4:09-cv-03159, Race, Hispanic or Latino, Disparate Treatment, Hiring This article is available at DigitalCommons@ILR: http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/condec/461

Case 4:09-cv-03159 Document 19-1 Filed in TXSD on 10/22/10 Page 1 of 9 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Plaintiff, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:09-cv-03159 MICHOACAN SEAFOOD GROUP.LLC d/b/a OSTIONERIA MICHOACAN #8 RESTAURANT, INC JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendant. CONSENT DECREE Plaintiff, the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("Commission" or EEOC ) and Defendant, Michoacan Seafood Group, LLC. d/b/a Ostioneria Michoacan #8 Restaurant, Inc. ( Michoacan or Defendant ) agree to entry of this Consent Decree. I. Background and History of Proceedings A. Charging Party Gerald Jones ( Charging Party ) filed a charge of discrimination with the Commission (Charge No. 460-2008-00990) (the Charge ) alleging Defendant violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq. ("Title VII"). B. On September 30, 2009, the Commission commenced this action alleging that Michoacan engaged in discrimination on the basis of race and national origin by refusing to permanently hire Gerald Jones and Trang Nguyen (collectively called Claimants ) and a class of non-hispanic individuals (the class ) as servers in its restaurant because they did not speak Spanish. The Commission subsequently amended its complaint to allege that Michoacan failed, in violation of Section 709(c) of Title VII, 42

Case 4:09-cv-03159 Document 19-1 Filed in TXSD on 10/22/10 Page 2 of 9 U.S.C. 2000e-8(c) to make and preserve records relevant to the determination of whether unlawful employment practices have been or are being committed. C. Defendant denied the allegations in the complaint. D. The parties wish to avoid the risks, uncertainties and expenses of continued litigation. Accordingly, the parties have agreed to settle this lawsuit. Neither Defendant s consent to the entry of this Decree nor any of the terms set forth in it shall constitute or be construed as an admission of any Title VII violation. Defendant expressly denies that it engaged in any violation of Title VII. Both parties agree that this Consent Decree is being entered into for the sole purpose of compromising disputed claims without the necessity for protracted litigation. E. The Commission and Defendant stipulate to the jurisdiction of the Court and the satisfaction of all administrative prerequisites. The parties further waive hearing and entry of findings of fact and conclusions of law on all issues. II. Injunctive and Charging Party Relief IT IS ORDERED that: 1. This Consent Decree is entered in full and complete settlement of any and all claims brought by the EEOC arising out of or asserted in Civil Action No. 4:09- cv-03159, and the above-referenced Charge, on behalf of Claimants and the Class. This Consent Decree shall remain in effect for three years from the date of entry. ( Consent Period ) 2. During the Consent Period, Michoacan and all of its management employees will not engage in any employment practices which discriminate against any individual with respect to hiring, promotion, compensation, terms, conditions or -2-

Case 4:09-cv-03159 Document 19-1 Filed in TXSD on 10/22/10 Page 3 of 9 privileges of employment because of such individual s race or national origin or who has opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice under Title VII or has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, court proceeding or hearing under Title VII, including but not limited to, in connection with this case. Defendant will not permit nor maintain discrimination against any applicant or employee on the basis of race or national origin and Defendant will take prompt and remedial action to correct any alleged discrimination that has occurred on any such basis. 3. During the Consent Period, on an annual basis, Defendant will provide, using either an attorney or an independent experienced training person or group, a live and interactive program on employment discrimination violative of Title VII, including specific instruction on the prohibition of discrimination in hiring under Title VII to all management level employees or other persons responsible for hiring at the restaurant. The initial training shall be completed within six (6) months from the date the Consent Decree is entered. Defendant shall submit to the EEOC each year at least forty-five (45) days in advance of the program, for the EEOC s approval, the name of the program provider, each presenter s resume or CV, a curriculum outline of the information to be addressed during the training and copies of all agendas and materials to be distributed at the training seminar. The attorney, person or group administering the training shall have at least five years of experience in employment law. Written acknowledgment of receipt of the training shall be obtained by Defendant from all individuals attending the training and retained among the employment records of Defendant and also copies of the -3-

Case 4:09-cv-03159 Document 19-1 Filed in TXSD on 10/22/10 Page 4 of 9 attendance sheets shall be forwarded to the EEOC within thirty (30) days after the delivery of the training. 4. Defendant will develop and maintain a record-keeping system (or applicant flow log) to document all persons seeking employment with it. The information to be recorded shall include the name, address and telephone number for each applicant. Defendant shall provide this information to the Commission on a quarterly basis for the duration of the Consent Decree. 5. Defendant shall retain the applications of all applicants, whether hired or not, for the duration of this Consent Decree and, thereafter, for at least one (1) year from the date of submission. Defendant shall also retain all personnel records for an employee for the length of the Decree and, thereafter, for at least one (1) year following the date of the person s separation from employment with Defendant. 6. Within ninety (90) days from the entry of this Decree, Defendant shall revise the language used for all of its employment policies and employee handbooks and make them available to all current and future employees in English and Spanish. Defendant shall develop and maintain a written equal employment opportunity policy that specifically prohibits race, national origin and all other forms of discrimination. This policy shall be provided to Defendant s current and future employees in English and Spanish. Defendant shall provide the Commission with a copies of all of these policies and handbooks within one hundred (100) days from the entry of this Decree. 7. Defendant shall not require the ability to speak, read or write in the Spanish language as a qualification standard for any waitstaff or server position. -4-

Case 4:09-cv-03159 Document 19-1 Filed in TXSD on 10/22/10 Page 5 of 9 8. Defendant agrees to pay the total sum of TWO THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($2,50000), in full and final settlement of the Commission s lawsuit to provide monetary relief to Gerald Jones and Trang Nguyen and all claims that Jones and Nguyen may have against Defendant. To be eligible to receive payment under this Consent Decree, each Claimant must separately execute a General Release. Said sum shall be paid within ten (10) days from the date of entry of the Decree and receipt of the executed General Release for the Claimant, whichever is later. Defendant shall mail or deliver the settlement checks to each Claimants, in amounts specified by the Commission, at the addresses provided by the Commission to Defendant. Within seven (7) days of mailing or delivery of the check to Claimants, a copy of the checks disbursed to them shall be mailed to the Commission s undersigned counsel of record. 9. The sums payable to the Claimants may be subject to federal or state income tax. Defendant agrees to issue Internal Revenue Service ( IRS ) Form 1099 or an equivalent form to Claimants for all sums paid pursuant to this Consent Decree. Claimants will be responsible for paying any federal, state or local taxes, including federal income tax that may be due on the aforementioned monetary award. Defendant makes no representation as to the tax status of the funds being paid herein. III. 10. Recruitment and Notice During the Consent Period, Defendant, when placing job advertisements for server and/or waitstaff positions, shall state that it is an equal employment opportunity employer and that it is seeking qualified applicants for the job. -5-

Case 4:09-cv-03159 Document 19-1 Filed in TXSD on 10/22/10 Page 6 of 9 Defendant agrees to utilize the Texas Workforce Commission, the Work Source, local chapters of the National Urban League and the NAACP or other similar organizations when seeking applicants for server and/or waitstaff positions. 11. Within ten (10) days after entry of this Decree, Defendant will conspicuously post the attached notice (Exhibit A ) in an areas accessible to all employees at each of its Houston metropolitan locations. 12. 13. Each party to this action shall bear their own costs and attorney s fees. This Consent Decree shall be binding on Defendant and all of Defendant s successors-in-interest, and Defendant will notify all such successors-in-interest of the existence and terms of this Consent Decree. Successors-in-interest shall not include any third party that, as of the date of the Consent Decree, is not an officer or director of Defendant, has no relationship by blood or marriage to any officer or director of Defendant, or owns no stock in Defendant. 14. During the Consent Period, the Court shall retain jurisdiction to assure compliance with this Decree and to permit entry of such further orders or modifications as may be appropriate. The parties are specifically authorized to seek Court-ordered enforcement of this Decree in the event of a breach of any of the provisions herein. 15. In the event the parties believe the other to be in violation of any provision of this Consent Decree, that party shall notify the other, through their undersigned counsel, of such violation and afford that party the opportunity to remedy as may be appropriate any such alleged violation within 30 days of such notice, before instituting any legal action to enforce such provision(s). -6-

Case 4:09-cv-03159 Document 19-1 Filed in TXSD on 10/22/10 Page 7 of 9 16. Each signatory certifies that he/she is authorized to execute this document on behalf of the party whom he/she represents. Signed this day of, 2010 at Houston, Texas. Sim Lake United States District Judge -7-

Case 4:09-cv-03159 Document 19-1 Filed in TXSD on 10/22/10 Page 8 of 9 AGREED AND CONSENTED TO: ~ ~ m ission: SDN: 10145 TBN:02717500 Houston District Office 1919 Smith St., 7th Floor Houston, Texas 77002 (713) 209-3399 Fax: (713) 209-3402 kathv.boutchee@eeoc.gov bcotr ixewar Attorney-in-Charge YBN:14940900, 700 Louisiana, 25th Floor Houston, Texas 77002 (713) 226-7950 (713) 226-7181 newar@newarlaw.com 8

Case 4:09-cv-03159 Document 19-1 Filed in TXSD on 10/22/10 Page 9 of 9 U.s. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Houston District Office,, vu-key Le and Federal Bl Id me; 1919 Smith Street T floor Houston TX 77002-8049 7 13j 209-33/0 I Tv 1713-209-3439 "AX (713) 203-7391 NOTICE TO THE EMPLOYEES OF MICHOACAN SEAFOOD GROUP, L.L.C. k Kfoerai Jaw requires that then ne disc i Jrn man o n a ax just em: rmpiovment bemuse of (he applicant ni mien nr disability with respect to fx - fo X X '-' ' icx race- color. religion. national oriain. aee r employ n u 'iii ' - other term*. C o n d i,, p C f e g 2apl,37X2i72!:3332:7::;;;'X'',h hm'd/" =... «exercised their rights under the law 'by him- chmmwvah fo^h'- "'-d Ifo T ^ h:!w Commission (EEOC), providing information to f o l W ^ tmpin-vmem PPwtun,tv an EEOC investigation or huxit and 'or r >-v U C ^,d/0r partlclpatcd any manner with national origin dtxttmtnatton ehm' ' ^ t0r thc of any race or 3,piuu3232323773f X 3e X ; "1''1 i 1m T mmd "ic m employees or former employees who lime 7 clli,';nminatlon gainst applicant,, providing information to foe EEOC, and> ^ r t ic i ^ J m w,fo S g e ^ p r r t s.f L, J z x x qj ::x x x x X si,,,,a f'jl d,a u, "n^ wexffhjr;;;: D',,pnv application or employee who feels the-,- b g,, retaliation is achmed to report thh - -tin > ', X L tle ta,4 et of discrimination or _ J u mpoit tins nltioii promptly to Ese AHIdnn -L, v;.. n i,,,, freeway, Suite 105, Houston, Texas r7u60/,;281) 820-4^1 1 h M Xorth SION'ED tht. L.L.C slay of 1010. / 4 ' '?.,0-/o - foee A IP w D nx D ( j S x k z. Vice-President AIIC H O. \ C A N s E. \ FO o n c R (. - 9-