Case 3:05-cv HTW-LRA Document 82 Filed 04/20/2007 Page 1 of 7

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

EEOC v. Pacific Airport Services, Inc.,

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

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

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. U-Haul International Inc.

EEOC v. Supreme Corporation and Supreme Northwest LLC

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

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

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

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

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Convergys Corporation

EEOC v. Merrill Pine Ridge, LLC

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

EEOC v. Brink's Incorporated

EEOC v. NEA-Alaska, Inc.

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

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

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

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

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

EEOC and Maria Torres v. The Restaurant Company dba Perkins

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

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

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

EEOC v. Mason County Forest Products, LLC

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT. lj'lhed States FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS E,.'/';~rn DiStrict. HOUSTON DIVISION CONSENT DECREE

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

EEOC v. Northwest Savings Bank

Cornell University ILR School. Judge Karen E. Schreier

EEOC v. Alyeska Pipeline Service Co.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. American Seafoods Company

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

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

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

EEOC v. Oglethorpe University

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

Case 1:00-cv JDT Document 26 Filed 06/21/2001 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FILED BY W D.C.

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

EEOC v. Tropiano Transportation Services, Inc.

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

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

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

Case 1:11-cv LG-JCG Document 2 Filed 11/17/11 Page 1 of 7

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

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA. Plaintiff, Defendant. AMENDED COMPLAINT AND JURY TRIAL DEMAND NATURE OF ACTION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DMSION CONSENT DECREE

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

I. Background and History of Proceedings

SIERRA COLLEGE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE

EEOC v. River View Coal, LLC

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO. ) Defendant. )

Courthouse News Service

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

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

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION NO Defendant. SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT INTRODUCTION

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

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

Case 2:11-cv LRH-GWF Document 177 Filed 06/03/15 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA INTRODUCTION

EEOC v. Altec Industries

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

EEOC v. Applegate Holdings LLC

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA NATURE OF THE ACTION

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

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Rochdale Village, Inc.

2:08-cv CWH-BM Date Filed 08/29/2008 Entry Number 5 Page 1 of 8

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. 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

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

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

EEOC v. John Wieland Homes and Neighborhoods, Inc.

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

EEOC v. Ealge Wings Industries, Inc.

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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

EEOC v. Moka Shoe Corporation

Case 3:11-cv CRW-TJS Document 1 Filed 04/06/11 Page 1 of 7

EEOC v. Dillard's, Inc

Case 1:15-cv KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2015 Page 1 of 9

EEOC v. Parker Palm Springs Hotel

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION

Case: 1:13-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 07/25/13 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:1

Case 1:18-cv RDB Document 1 Filed 07/30/18 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND BALTIMORE DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF HAWAII CV

Case 6:06-cv CJS Document 2 Filed 10/11/2006 Page 1 of 8

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

Case 1:18-cv RP Document 1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION

Case 4:04-cv LLP Document 1 Filed 12/28/2004 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA.

Case 2:09-cv BSJ-RLE Document 67 Filed 10/28/11 Page 1 of 6

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

NATURE OF THE ACTION. This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the

~ Civil Action No. A-04-C~-o03370lI

Transcription:

Case 3:05-cv-00052-HTW-LRA Document 82 Filed 04/20/2007 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI JACKSON DIVISION EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, vs. Plaintiff, RENAL CAR GROUP, INC., Defendant. Civil Action Number: 3 :05CV52HTW-JCS CONSENT DECREE The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC" or "Commission" fied this action against Renal Care Group, Inc. ("RCG" or "Defendant" on January 14, 2005, in this Court, to enforce Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,42 U.S.c. 2000e et seq. ("Title VII" and the Civil Rights Act of 1991,42 U.S.C. 198la. In the Complaint, the Commission alleged that RCG discriminated and retaliated against Vanessa Gray ("Gray" on the basis of her race and for opposing race discrimination, in violation of Title VII. RCG denies all allegations of unlawful or wrongful conduct raised in the Complaint, and nothing stated in this Decree constitutes an admission of liability or wrongdoing on the part ofrcg. The Parties do not object to the jurisdiction of the Court over this action and waive their rights to a hearing and the entry of tìndings of tàct and conclusions of law. Venue is appropriate in the Southern District of Mississippi (Jackson Division. The Parties agree that this Consent Decree is tàir, reasonable, and does not violate the law or public policy. The rights of Gray, RCG, and the Commission are protected adequately by this Decree.

Case 3:05-cv-00052-HTW-LRA Document 82 Filed 04/20/2007 Page 2 of 7 In the interest of resolving this matter and avoiding the expense of further litigation, and as a result of having engaged in comprehensive settlement negotiations, the Commission and RCG have agreed that this action should be finally resolved by entry of this Consent Decree. IT IS ORDERED, ADJUGED AN DECREED: 1. This Decree resolves all claims arising out of the issues between the Commission and Defendant RCG in this lawsuit including, without limitation, back pay, front pay, compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive relief, costs, and attorney fees. This Decree is limited in its scope to matters covered explicitly herein and in particular only the RCG facilities in the State of Mississippi. This Decree expires when RCG has provided the relief and taken the action provided for herein or as provided under Paragraph 12 of this Decree, whichever is later. 2. RCG has represented that its employment practices comply with Federal antidiscrimination law. Defendant and its officers, agents, employees, successors, and assigns, both at the time that this Decree becomes effective and for the duration of this Decree, agree to continue to comply with Federal law and acknowledge that it is unlawful to (a discriminate against any employee on the basis of race (b retaliate against any employee because he or she (i opposes or opposed discriminatory practices made unlawful by Title VII; (ii fies or fied a charge of discrimination or assists, assisted, participates or participated in the fiing of a charge of discrimination; or (iii assists, assisted, participates or participated in an investigation or proceeding brought under the federal or state laws prohibiting discrimination or retaliation; and (d alter the terms and conditions of any employee's employment because of race discrimination to the extent prohibited by Federal law. 2

Case 3:05-cv-00052-HTW-LRA Document 82 Filed 04/20/2007 Page 3 of 7 3. Although RCG voluntarily, in good faith, agrees to the terms outlined in this Consent Decree, nothing herein is an admission of liability of any wrongful or illegal conduct. In fact, RCG expressly denies such conduct and/or liability. RELIEF 4. RCG has entered into a separate settlement agreement with Gray. EEOC is not a party to that Agreement. However, RCG has represented that Gray received compensation for back wages and also received compensatory damages in the amount of $21,000. 5. RCG has represented that it has adopted employment practices and policies at its Jackson, Misssissippi facility that ensure a work environment free from race discrimination. Defendant represents that it will continue to carry out its policies and practices and training at its Jackson, Mississippi, facility that continue to help assure a work environment free from race-based discrimination, and retaliation for its employees; that allow employees to raise concerns or complaints without retaliation about matters, whether alleged, perceived or actual, made unlawful by Title VII; and that provide procedures for employees to report incidents of racebased discrimination and retaliation. 6. Defendant has represented that its current written policies include and will continue to include at a minimum: a. A clear and strong commitment to a workplace free of race-based discrimination and retaliation; b. A clear and strong message of encouragement to persons who believe they have been discriminated against to come forward; c. A description of the consequences, up to and including termination, that will be imposed upon violators of the policy; 3

Case 3:05-cv-00052-HTW-LRA Document 82 Filed 04/20/2007 Page 4 of 7 d. An assurance of non-retaliation for persons who believe they have been discriminated against and for witnesses; e. That discrimination on the basis of race by anyone, including management offcials, supervisors, vendors, suppliers, third parties, and customers is prohibited and will not be tolerated; f. Assurances that Defendant will investigate allegations of race-based discrimination and retaliation promptly, fairly, reasonably, effectively, and as confidentially as appropriate under the circumstances, by appropriate investigators, and take appropriate corrective action and follow-up to eradicate the discrimination; and g. That information will be provided to each employee regarding the employee's right to fie a charge of discrimination with the EEOC, including contact telephone numbers, TDY/TDD and addresses for the EEOC, such as that included in the EEOC "5 in 1" poster, currently already posted in RCG' s Jackson, Mississippi, facilities.. 7. RCG shall conduct two (2 trainings pursuant to this Decree and shall require all employees of its Jackson, Mississippi facility to attend each. The first training shall be held on or before June 20, 2007 and the second training shall be held between June and September in 2008. Each training shall explain (1 what constitutes race-based discrimination and retaliation; (2 that Title VII prohibits this misconduct; (3 how to prevent this misconduct; and (4 to whom employees may complain if they feel they have been subjected to this misconduct. This training will also include an explanation ofrcg's policies regarding race-based discrimination and retaliation; the importance of maintaining an environment free from race discrimination and retaliation; and the discipline that may be taken against other employees and the managers or supervisors who are found to have allowed the discrimination or retaliation to occur. 4

Case 3:05-cv-00052-HTW-LRA Document 82 Filed 04/20/2007 Page 5 of 7 a. Each training session shall be at least four (4 hours in length, plus an additional thirty (30 minutes for questions and answers. Defendant's Jackson, Mississippi, managers and all managers who may investigate employee complaints at Defendant's Mississippi facilities shall attend the annual training session. The referenced employees who are unable to attend the annual training session may watch a videotape of it. b. At each training, employees shall sign a registry when they attend the annual training session or the videotape of the annual training session. Defendant shall keep, for the duration of the Decree, this written record of all employees who attend the annual training session or watch it on videotape. c. RCG will confirm in writing to the Commission through the Regional Attorney that these two (2 training sessions have been completed in full compliance with this Consent Decree within twenty (20 days of the completion of the second training session. 8. RCG represents that its EEO posters are and shall continue to be posted in a prominent location, frequented by employees, at each of Defendant's facilities in Mississippi. A paper copy ofrcg's current written anti-discrimination policies shall be delivered to each RCG Jackson employee within thirty (30 days of the entry of this Decree and to each new employee when hired. Additionally, RCG may also make its policies available via the RCG intranet. 9. RCG agrees, in accordance with its policies, to investigate complaints of race-based discrimination or retaliation. The investigation wil include interviews of the complainant and witnesses and a written report of the investigation with a conclusion as to the findings and disciplinary action taken, if such discipline is determined to be appropriate. If disciplinary action is taken, it will be prompt and designed to stop said conduct and preclude it in the future. RCG 5

Case 3:05-cv-00052-HTW-LRA Document 82 Filed 04/20/2007 Page 6 of 7 will follow up with complainant at appropriate intervals to ensure discrimination or retaliation does not reoccur. NOTICE 10. Defendant will post the Notice attached as Attachment A at each of Defendant's fàcilities in Jackson, Mississippi. The Notice will be posted in an appropriate place frequented by employees for the duration of this Decree. The Notice shall be posted in both English and Spanish and shall be the same type, size, and style as Attachment A. 11. The Parties shall bear their own attorneys' fees and costs incurred in this action up to the date of entry of this Decree. FORCE AND EFFECT 12. The duration of this Consent Decree shall be eighteen (18 months from entry. This Court shall retain jurisdiction over this action for the duration of the Consent Decree during which time the Commission may petition the Court for compliance. Should the Court determine that RCG is not in compliance, it may order appropriate relief that may include extension until such time as compliance is met or take such other action as the Court deems appropriate. Absent Court intervention, this Consent Decree shall expire of its own terms at the end of eighteen (18 months after entry without any further action by either Party. 13. Should the Commission contend that RCG is not in full compliance with this Consent Decree, it shall provide RCG with notice in writing of the deficiencies alleged and allow RCG thirty (30 days in which to remedy said deficiencies and/or resolve any disputed issues. 6

Case 3:05-cv-00052-HTW-LRA Document 82 Filed 04/20/2007 Page 7 of 7 14. The parties agree to the entry of this Decree subject to final approval by the Court. APPROVED AND CONSENTED TO BY: S/ N. Victoria Holladay- N. V1CTORlAHOLLADAY (MS 2514 David A. Prather (MS# 99389 P. Daniel Riederer (MS#100329 Ford & Harrison, LLP 795 Ridge Lake Blvd., Suite 300 Memphis, TN 38120 Ph.: (901 291-1500 Fax: (901 291-1501 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT A TTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF EEOC: S/ C. Emanuel Smith C. Emanuel Smith (MS 7473 Regional Attorney s/ Julie Lee Julie Lee (D. C. Bar # 4332920 Supervisory Trial Attorney - S/ -Valerie Hicks Powe Valerie Hicks Powe (ASB 1127W70V Senior Trial Attorney EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Birmingham District Offce 1130 22nd Street South, Suite 2000 Birmingham, AL 35205-2886 Ph.: (205 212-2046