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

Similar documents
[f'~8dl CONSENT DECREE NOV Fax: (661) Attorneys for Esparza Enterprises, Inc. 16

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

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

EEOC v. Pacific Airport Services, Inc.,

EEOC v. NEA-Alaska, Inc.

EEOC v. Mason County Forest Products, LLC

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

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

EEOC and Maria Torres v. The Restaurant Company dba Perkins

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

EEOC v. Supreme Corporation and Supreme Northwest LLC

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

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

EEOC v. Northwest Savings Bank

EEOC v. Tropiano Transportation Services, Inc.

EEOC v. Merrill Pine Ridge, LLC

EEOC v. Applegate Holdings LLC

EEOC v. Alyeska Pipeline Service Co.

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

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Bob Watson Chevrolet

Cornell University ILR School. Judge Karen E. Schreier

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

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

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

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

EEOC v. Ealge Wings Industries, Inc.

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

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

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

EEOC v. Family Dollar Stores of Arkansas

EEOC v. Altec Industries

EEOC v. U-Haul International Inc.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Rochdale Village, Inc.

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

EEOC v. Bice of Chicago, et al.

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

EEOC v. John Wieland Homes and Neighborhoods, Inc.

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

EEOC v. Oglethorpe University

EEOC v. Cleveland Construction, Inc.

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

EEOC v. Dillard's, Inc

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

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

EEOC v. Moka Shoe Corporation

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

EEOC v. Parker Palm Springs Hotel

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

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

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

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

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. American Seafoods Company

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

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

EEOC v. Brink's Incorporated

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

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

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

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

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

EEOC v. BJ's Wholesale Club, Inc.

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. Studley Products, Inc. and Wildwood Industries, Inc., Defendants.

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

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

EEOC v. Zale Corporation

EEOC v. River View Coal, LLC

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

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Convergys Corporation

Case 2:03-cv WBS-KJM Document 10 Filed 05/18/2004 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

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

EEOC v. Baldwin Supply Co.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Betsy Ross Flag Girl, Inc. d/b/a Betsy Ross Flag Girl and Barjac 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 & Mitchel, et al., v. Allied Aviation Services, Inc., Allied Aviation Fueling of Dallas, LP, Allied Aviation Fueling Company of Texas, Inc.

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

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

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Dutch Farms, Inc.

EEOC v. Supervalu Holdings, Inc.

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

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

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

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

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Foodscience Corporation

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

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

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

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

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

-CIVIL RIGHTS EMPLOYMENT

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

EEOC v. Eastern Engineered Wood Products, Inc.

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

Griffin & EEOC v. Formosa Plastics

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

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

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

Transcription:

Cornell University ILR School DigitalCommons@ILR Consent Decrees Labor and Employment Law Program 11-19-2007 EEOC v. Grimmway Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a Grimmway Farms; Esparza Enterprises, Inc. Judge Lawrence Joseph O'Neill 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. Grimmway Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a Grimmway Farms; Esparza Enterprises, Inc. Keywords EEOC, Grimmway Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a Grimmway Farms; Esparza Enterprises, Inc., CV-06-00561 LJO DLB, Consent Decree, Disparate Treatment, Retaliation, Sexual Harassment, Sex, Retail, Employment Law, Title VII This article is available at DigitalCommons@ILR: http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/condec/58

WILLIAM R. TAMAYO, SBN 084965 DAVID F. OFFEN-BROWN, SBN 063321 LINDA S. ORDONIO-DIXON,SBN 172830 US. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION San Francisco District Office 350 The Embarcadero, Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94105-1260 Telephone No. (415) 625-5654 Fax No. (415)625-5657 Attorneys for Plaintiff BOB H. JOYCE, SBN 84607 LORNA BRUMFIELD, SBN 109263 J. NILE KINNEY, SBN 108433 LeBEAU-THELEN, LLP 5001 E. Commercenter Drive, Suite 300 Bakersfield, CA 93309 Telephone No. (661) 325-1127 Attorneys for Defendant Grimmway Farms DANIEL K KLINGENBERGER,SBN 131134 DOWLING, AARON & KEELER, INC. 5060 California Avenue, Suite 620 Bakersfield, California 93309 Telephone No. (661) 716-3000 Fax: (661) 716-3005 Attorneys for Esparza Enterprises, Inc. r NOV 9 WW CLERK U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA BY. DEP ERK UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - FRESNO EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, v. Plaintiff, GRIMMWAY ENTERPRISES, INC. d/b/a GRIMMWAY FARMS; ESPARZA ENTERPRISES, INC. Defendants. CIVIL ACTION NO. 06-00561 LJO DLB [PROPOSED] CONSENT DECREE II II CONSENT DECREE CV-06-00561LJODLB

Plaintiff U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("Commission" or "EEOC") brought this lawsuit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, to correct alleged unlawful employment practices on the basis of sex (female) and to provide appropriate relief to Charging Party Ana-Berta Rubio and other similarly situated female employees who were adversely affected by such practices. In the interest of resolving this matter the Commission, and Defendants Esparza Enterprises g I Inc., and Grimmway Enterprises Inc., (hereinafter referred to as "the Parties") have agreed that the 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 above-captioned.lawsuit (the "Lawsuit") should be finally resolved by entry of this Consent Decree. This Consent Decree, being entered into with the consent of the EEOC, Grimmway Farms and Esparza Enterprises, shall not constitute an adjudication and/or a finding on the merits of the lawsuit and shall not be construed as an admission of liability by either Grimmway Farms or Esparza Enterprises. This Consent Decree resolves all claims arising out of EEOC Charge Nos. 375-2005-00068 (Ana Berta Rubio vs. Grimmway Farms) and 375-2005-00416 (Ana Berta Rubio vs. Esparza Enterprises, Inc.) and the Complaint in this Lawsuit, and constitutes a complete resolution of all claims of discrimination under Title VII that were made or could have been made by the Commission based on these charges. This Consent Decree does not, however, resolve any future charges or charges that may be pending with the EEOC other than the charges and Complaint specifically referenced in this paragraph. This Consent Decree comprises the full and exclusive agreement of the Parties with respect to the matters discussed herein. No waiver, modification or amendment of any provision of this Consent Decree shall be effective unless made in writing and approved by all the Parties to this Decree, and any substantive change, modification or amendment of any provision of this Consent Decree shall also require approval by the Court. CONSENT DECREE 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 The Court has reviewed this Consent Decree in light of the pleadings, the record herein, and now approves this Consent Decree. THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: I. GENERAL PROVISIONS This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the Parties to this Lawsuit. This Court will retain jurisdiction over this Decree for all purposes until the expiration of Defendant's obligations as set forth herein. This Consent Decree is final and binding upon the Parties, their agents, successors and assigns. The Parties will each bear their own costs and attorney fees in this action. n. GENERAL INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Sex Discrimination: Consistent with Section 703 of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2. Defendants and their officers, agents, managers (including supervisory employees), successors and assigns, are prohibited from discriminating against persons on the basis of sex by creating, allowing or otherwise supporting sexual harassment in their workforce. Retaliation: Consistent with Section 704 of Title VII, 42 USC 2000e-3, Defendants, their officers, agents, managers (including supervisory employees), successors and assigns, are prohibited 20 I from engaging in, implementing or permitting any action, policy or practice with the purpose of 21 retaliating against any current or former employee because he or she has in the past, or during the 22 23 24 25 26 27 term of this Consent Decree (a) opposed any practice of harassment or other discriminatory acts on the basis of sex made unlawful under Title VII; (b) filed a Charge of Discrimination alleging any such practice; (c) testified or participated in any manner in any investigation (including, without limitation, any internal investigation undertaken by Defendant), proceeding or hearing in connection with this Lawsuit; (d) was identified as a possible witness in this Lawsuit; or (e) asserted any rights 28 under this Consent Decree. CONSENT DECREE 3 CV-06O0165

1 III. MONETARY RELIEF 2 Defendants shall pay the total sum of $175,00.00 (One Hundred and Seventy Five Thousand 3 Dollars and No Cents) (the "SettlementPayment")as damages to Ana Berta Rubio. Each Defendant shall be jointly and separately responsible for payment of the total sum; Defendants shall determine between themselves the amount to be paid by each Defendant. a. Defendants shall report the Settlement Payment by issuance of IRS Form 1099. g b. Pursuant to the term of the separate settlement agreement entered into by the parties, 9 10 Defendants shall pay the Settlement Payment as follows: 11 Within ten (10) days of the entry of this Consent Decree, Defendants shall issue the total 12 13 14 payment made payable to Ana Berta Rubio and her attorney, William J. Smith. Defendants shall make their respective payments in the form of a business check, cashier's check, or certified check. c. Check(s) shall be sent via Federal Express to William J. Smith, Law Offices of William J. 15 Smith, 2350 West Shaw Ave., Suite 132, Fresno, CA. 16 d. A copy of the check(s) shall be faxed to EEOC Counsel Linda Ordonio-Dixon at 17 (415)625-5657. 18 IV. SPECIFIC INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 19 EEO and Anti-Discrimination Policies 20 Defendants shall revise their respective sexual harassment and complaint investigation. policies within sixty (60) days of signing the Consent Decree, such that the policies: (i) provide that 23 complaints of discrimination and/or retaliation will be accepted irrespective of whether they are 24 made verbally or in writing; and (ii) indicate that, promptly upon the conclusion of the investigation " 26 27 28 of a complaint, the company will communicate to the complaining party the results of the investigation and the remedial actions taken or proposed, if any. The revised policies shall be submitted to the Commission for review to ensure that the terms above have been met. CONSENT DECREE

After the Commission has reviewed and approved the policies, Defendant shall effectively disseminate their revised policies and procedures by: i. Distributing copies to all current employees within 30 days after the Commission's approval of the policies; ii. Distributing copies along with employee paychecks to all employees one year after the distribution indicated, above; iii. Giving a copy to all new employees at all locations upon the employees' hire. Posting. The "Notice to all Employees" which is attached to this Consent Decree shall be posted and remain posted in a clearly visible locationfrequentedby employees for the term of the Consent Decree. Training of Employees. Once a year for the next two years, Defendants shall provide an explanation of Defendant's anti-discrimination policies in an employee safety meeting or other employee meeting to all employees and contract workers. The information provided at the meetings shall provide participants with an understanding of the company's policies, prohibitions regarding retaliation and the company's complaint discrimination procedures. Defendants shall provide sexual harassment training to all supervisors as required by California AB 1825. This training shall provide participants with an understanding of discrimination issues, particularly sexual harassment, sources of legal protection for discrimination victims, the employees' obligation to report sex discrimination, the employer's obligation to take preventive, investigative and remedial action with respect to discrimination complaints, and to review company policies (including discipline policies) and practices related to discrimination and retaliation with CONSENT DECREE 5.

1 employees. 2 3 4 5 6 Acknowledgmentof Dissemination of Policies and Training Attendance. All persons attending mandatory anti-discrimination training pursuant to this Consent Decree shall sign an acknowledgment of their attendance at the training. Defendants shall retain the originals of these acknowledgments and the EEOC may inspect the acknowledgements. - Reports to the Commission 8 Defendants will provide verification in the form of a yearly statement to the EEOC for two form 9 years, in the^skhof a signed verification by a company official attesting that all requirements under 10 11 12 13 14 j5 the Consent Decree have been met for that year. Policies Designed to Promote Supervisor Accountability Defendants agree that they shall impose appropriate discipline, up to and including termination, suspension without pay or demotion, upon any supervisor or manager who engages in sexual harassment or retaliation or knowingly permits any such conduct to occur in his or her work 16 area or among employees under his or her supervision, or who retaliates against any person who 17 complains or participates in any investigation or proceeding concerning such conduct. Defendants 18 shall communicate this poliey to all of their supervisors and managers. 19 20 21 V. RETENTION OF JURISDICTION AND EXPIRATION OF CONSENT DECREE " complied with the Consent Decree, the Commission will provide written notification of the alleged 26 breach to said Defendant and will not petition the Court for enforeement sooner than thirty (30) days 27 28 a. This Consent Decree shall terminate two (2) years from the date of entry by the 23 Court, unless the Commission petitions this Court for an extension of the Decree because of non- 24 compliance by either Defendant. If the Commission determines that any Defendant has not after providing written notification. The thirty-day period following written notice shall be used by CONSENT DECREE 6

the parties for good faith efforts to resolve the issue. If the Commission petitions the Court and the Court finds one or both Defendant(s) be in substantial violation of the terms of the Decree, the Court may extend this Consent Decree, but only as to the Defendant(s) that the Court finds to be in substantia] violation. b. Except as provided in the preceding paragraph, two (2) years after the entry of this Consent Decree, this lawsuit will be dismissed with prejudice, provided that Defendants have complied substantially with the terms of this Consent Decree. Defendants will be deemed to have complied substantially if the Court has not made any findings or orders during the term of the Decree that Defendants have failed to comply with any of the terms of this Decree. This Consent Decree will automatically expire without further Court Order. c. For purposes of enforcing the provisions of this Consent Decree, and pursuant to Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. ofam., 511 U.S. 375,381-82 (1994) and Flanagan v. Arnaiz, 143 F.3d 540, 543-44 (9 th Cir. 1998), this Court will retain jurisdiction of the instant lawsuit until the expiration of the Consent Decree. Dated: November 6,2007 X ite WILLIAM RyTAMAYO For PlaintiffEEOC Dated: November 6, 2007 Dated: November6,2007 Dated: November 6, 2007 Dated: November 6, 2007 CONSENT DECREE LINDA S. ORDONIO-DIXON For Plaintiff EEOC LORNA BRUMFIELD For Defendant Grimmway Enterprises, Inc. DANIEL K. KLINGENBERGER For Defendant Esparza Enterprises 7.

Sent By: LeBeau-Thelen, LLP; 661-325-1127; N0V-7-07 10:03AM; Page 8/10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 the parties for good faith efforts to resolve the issue. If the Commissionpeiitions the Court and tlic Court finds one or both Defendants) be insubstantial violation of the icrms yftlie Decree, tlic Court may extend this Consent Decree, but only as to the Dcfcndant(s) that tlic Court findsto be in substantial violation. b. Except as provided in the preceding paragraph, two (2) years after the entry of this Consent Decree, this lawsuit will be dismissed with prejudice, provided that Defendants have complied substantially with the terms of this Consent Decree. Defendants will bo deemed to have complied substantially if the Court has not made any findings or orders during the term of the Decree that Defendants have failed to comply with any of the terms of this Decree. This Consent Decree will automatically expire without further Court Order. c. For purposes of enforcing the provisions of this Consent Decree, and pursuant to Kokkonenv. Guardian Life Ins. Co.ofAm.,S\[ U.S. 375, 381-82 (1 994) and Flanagan v. Arnab, 143 F.3d 540, 543-44 (9,h Cir. 1998), this Court will retain jurisdiction of the instant lawsuit until die expiration of the Consent Decree. Dated: November6,2007 _... WILLIAM R. TAMAYO For Plaintiff EEOC Dated; November 6,2007 DAVID F. OFFEN-BROWN For Plaintiff BBOC 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Dated: November 6,2007 Dated: November6,2007 Datod: November 6, 2007 CONSENT DKCHKK LINDA S. ORDON10-DIXON For Plaintiff EEOC. - LO WA BKmfrffiLD^ For Defendant Grimmway Enterprises, Inc. DANIEL K.KL1NGENBERGER For Defendant Eaparza Enterprises 7. /

-NOV-07-07 08:45 FROM-Hogan 1 Klinganbirgar P.C. 681-716-3006 T-080 P.00B/010 H 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 & 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 the parties for good faith cffons to resolve the issue. If the Commission peritions the Gburt and the Court finds one or both Defendants) be in substantia] violation of nw terms of the Decree, the Court may extend this Consent Decree, but only as to the Defendants) that the Court finds to be in substantial violation. b. Except as provided in the preceding paragraph, two (2) years after the entry of this Consent Decree, this lawsuit will be dismissed with prejudice, provided that Defendants have complied substantially \aih the terms of this Consent Decree. Defendants will be deemed to have complied substantially if the Court has not made any findings or orders during the term of the Decree that Defendants have failed to comply with any of the terms of this Decree. This Consent Decree will automatically expire without further Court Order. c. For purposes of enforcing the provisions of this Consent Decree, and pursuant to Kokkonenv. Guardian Life ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 381-82(1394) and Flanagan v. Arnalz, 143 F,3d 540, 543-44 (9* Cir. 1998), this Court will retain jurisdiction of the instant lawsuit until the expiration of the Consent Decree. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Dated: November 6,2007 Dated: November 6,2007 Dated: November 6,2007 Dated: November 6,2007 Dared: November 6,2007 CONSENT DECREE WTLLIAM R. TAMAYO For Plaintiff EEOC DAVID F. OFFEN-BROWN For Plaintiff EEOC LINDA S. ORDONIO-DDCON For Plaintiff EEOC LORNA BRUMFIELD For Defendant Grimmway Enterprises, Inc. DANLEL K. KUNGENBERGER For Defendant Esparza Enterprises 7.

IT IS SO ORDERED: Dated: A/^b^J^^ 9 Zfl^ 7 CONSENT DECREE

EXHIBIT A NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES This Notice is being posted to resolve the federal lawsuit Equal Employment Opportunity Commission/Ana Berta Rubio vs. Grimmway Farms/Esparza Enterprises, Civil Action 06-00561 LJO DLB (Eastern District of California). Title Vll of the Civil Rights Act or 1964,42 U.S.C. Section 20006-2(0), et seq., as amended, (Title VII"), makes it unlawful for an employer to subject an employee to sexual harassment or to otherwise discriminate against any individual because of his or her race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Title VII further prohibits retaliation against employees or applicants who avail themselves of the rights under Title VII by engaging in protected activities such as filing a charge of discrimination and/or testifying or participating in a Commission investigation. The EEOC is the federal agency which investigates charges of unlawful employment discrimination. The EEOC has the authority to bring lawsuits in federal court to enforce Title VII. If you believe you have been discriminated against, you may contact the EEOC at 1-800- 669-4000. The EEOC charges no fees and has employees who speak languages other than English. THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND MUST NOT BE DEFACED OR REMOVED BY ANYONE This notice must remain posted for two years from the date below and must not be altered, defaced or covered by any other material. Any questions about this Notice or compliance with its terms may be directed to Maricela Medina, (408) 291-7354. By Court Order dated: CONSENT DECREE