EEOC v. Family Dollar Stores of Arkansas

Similar documents
EEOC v. Cleveland Construction, Inc.

EEOC v. Pacific Airport Services, Inc.,

EEOC v. NEA-Alaska, Inc.

EEOC v. Mason County Forest Products, LLC

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

Case 4:07-cv JLH Document 1 Filed 06/29/2007 ( Page 1 of 6

EEOC v. Altec Industries

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

EEOC v. U-Haul International Inc.

EEOC v. Tropiano Transportation Services, Inc.

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

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CONSENT DECREE

EEOC v. Alyeska Pipeline Service Co.

EEOC v. Applegate Holdings LLC

EEOC v. Baldwin Supply Co.

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

EEOC v. Northwest Savings Bank

EEOC and Maria Torres v. The Restaurant Company dba Perkins

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

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Rochdale Village, Inc.

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)

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

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

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

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

EEOC v. Oglethorpe University

EEOC v. Supreme Corporation and Supreme Northwest LLC

Cornell University ILR School. Judge Karen E. Schreier

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

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

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

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 of America v. The City of Belen, New Mexico

EEOC v. Eastern Engineered Wood Products, Inc.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Bob Watson Chevrolet

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. Brink's Incorporated

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

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

EEOC v. Merrill Pine Ridge, LLC

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

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

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

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Foodscience Corporation

EEOC v. Supervalu Holdings, Inc.

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

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

EEOC v. Bice of Chicago, et al.

EEOC v. John Wieland Homes and Neighborhoods, Inc.

EEOC v. River View Coal, LLC

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

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

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

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

EEOC v. Parker Palm Springs Hotel

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

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

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

EEOC v. Moka Shoe Corporation

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

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

EEOC v. Zale Corporation

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Convergys Corporation

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

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

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

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

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

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

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Dutch Farms, Inc.

EEOC v. BJ's Wholesale Club, Inc.

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

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

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION. Plaintiff, CV-W-2-ECF

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

EEOC v. Ealge Wings Industries, Inc.

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

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

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

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 v. Japanese Food Solutions Inc., d/b/a Minado Restaurant

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

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

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

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

Griffin & EEOC v. Formosa Plastics

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

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

EEOC v. Michoacan Seafood Group. LLC

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

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

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

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

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

Transcription:

Cornell University ILR School DigitalCommons@ILR Consent Decrees Labor and Employment Law Program 6-30-2008 EEOC v. Family Dollar Stores of Arkansas Judge J. Leon Holmes 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. Family Dollar Stores of Arkansas Keywords EEOC, Family Dollar Stores, Retail, 4:07-cv-00603-JLH, Consent decree, disparate treatment, retaliation, promotion, constructive discharge, race, black, african-american, Employment law, Title VII This article is available at DigitalCommons@ILR: http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/condec/321

*( Case 4:07-cv-00603-JLH Documents Filed 06/30/2008 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, _.._y.s. J. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS JUN 3 0 2008 JAMBS W. McCORMACK, CLERK Bv:\7 t%^ntiasia0^ ^ D E P CLERK Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:07cv00603 JLH FAMILY DOLLAR STORES OF ARKANSAS, INC. Defendant. CONSENT DECREE Introduction For purposes of settlement and compromise only, the parties have advised the Court that they wish to resolve the instant controversy without the expense, delay, and burden of further litigation. Plaintiff, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (hereinafter the "Commission"), instituted this action on behalf of Debra Terry, alleging that Defendant Family Dollar Stores of Arkansas, Inc. (hereinafter the "Defendant or "Family Dollar"), failed to promote Debra Terry to a store manager position because of her race, Black, and constructively discharged her in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (hereinafter "Title VII"). The Defendant has consistently denied and continues to deny that it engaged in any unlawful employment practices as alleged by the Commission or that it otherwise

Case 4:07-cv-00603-JLH Documents Filed 06/30/2008 Page 2 of 10 violated Title VII. In the event this proposed Consent Decree is not approved or does not become final, then it shall not be admissible in evidence in any subsequent proceeding in this action. Further, this Consent Decree shall not be admissible in any other action now pending or which may be filed in the future. This Consent Decree constitutes the complete and exclusive agreement between the parties with respect to the matters referred to herein. No waiver, modification, or amendment of any provision of this Consent Decree shall be effective unless made in writing and signed by both parties. The Court has reviewed the terms of the proposed Consent Decree in light of the applicable laws and regulations and the statements and representations of counsel for all parties and hereby approves the Consent Decree. 1. JURISDICTION The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division, has jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter of this litigation. II. GENERAL PROVISIONS This Consent Decree, being entered with the consent of the parties for purposes of settlement, shall not constitute an adjudication on the merits of this lawsuit and shall not be construed as an admission by Defendant of any violation of Title VII or any executive order, law, rule, or regulation dealing with or in connection with discrimination in employment. III. SCOPE AND DURATION OF AGREEMENT 1. By entering into this Consent Decree, the parties do not intend to 2

Case 4:07-cv-00603-JLH Documents Filed 06/30/2008 Page 3 of 10 resolve any charges of discrimination currently pending before the Commission other than Charge No. 493-2006-01342 filed by Debra Terry that created the procedural foundation for the complaint in this case. 2. This Consent Decree constitutes the complete and exclusive agreement between the Commission and Defendant, with respect to the matters referred to herein and arising out of Charge No. 493-2006-01342. Notwithstanding any provisions contained in the Consent Decree, this Agreement shall not be considered in any manner to be dispositive of any other charges now pending before any office of the Commission, or other lawsuits, if any, pending against Defendant. This Agreement shall remain in effect for a period of three years. IV. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 1. Defendant, its officers, agents, management, (including supervisory employees), successors, and assigns are hereby enjoined from denying promotions to Black employees on the basis of their race. 2. Defendant its officers, agents, employees, and all persons acting in concert with Defendant are hereby enjoined from retaliating against any employee or applicant for employment. V. TRAINING Defendant shall provide employment-discrimination awareness training to all district managers and store managers in District 66 and 310 in Arkansas according to the following terms: (a) (b) The training session will include at least two (2) hours of instruction. The training will include the following topics: what constitutes race 3

Case 4:07-cv-00603-JLH Documents Filed 06/30/2008 Page 4 of 10 discrimination; how to prevent, identify, and remedy race discrimination in promotions; what constitutes retaliation in violation of Title VII; Defendant's policy against race discrimination and retaliation; and implementation of Defendant's policy against race discrimination, including procedures and responsibilities for reporting, investigating, and remedying conduct an employee believes may constitute race discrimination. (c) Within sixty (60) days after execution of this Consent Decree by the parties, Defendant shall submit to the Commission the date of the proposed training session and a detailed outline of the proposed training. (d) The training session will be conducted within ninety (90) days after the date of the entry of this Consent Decree by the Court. (e) Defendant within 120 days of this agreement shall provide documentation to the Commission of training compliance for all district managers and store managers in Arkansas. VI. POSTING AND POLICIES Within thirty (30) days of the entry of this Consent Decree, Defendant shall post and cause to remain posted for one year at each store located within District 66 and 310 the notice attached hereto as Exhibit A. VII. RELIEF 1. Defendant will pay a total of $4,279.59 in back pay, less applicable withholding taxes, and $20,720.41 in damages to Debra Terry by cashier's check, within ten days of the entry of the Decree. The check will be mailed to the following address: Debra Terry P.O. Box 458 4

Case 4:07-cv-00603-JLH Documents Filed 06/30/2008 Page 5 of 10 614 Cedar Street Lonoke, Arkansas 72086 2. A copy of the check will be mailed to Pamela B. Dixon. 3. Late payment of the check shall be subject to the accrual of interest pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1961. VIII. REPORTING 1. Defendant will provide two reports to the Commission. The first report will be submitted within twelve (12) months of entry of the Decree. The second report will be submitted within twenty-four (24) months of entry of the Decree. Each report will describe all complaints, from the date of the entry of this Decree through the date of the report (including relevant litigation and administrative charges) of race discrimination based on failure to promote within District 66 and 310 logged through Family Dollar's Alertline; describe the investigation conducted by Defendant in response to each complaint; and indicate how the complaint was resolved. Each report will describe Defendant's training of supervisors, managers, and hourly employees in the requirements of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, as set forth herein. Each report will also include a list of employees either hired or promoted to store manager and the race of the successful candidate. 2. Each report will be forwarded to Pamela B. Dixon, Senior Trial Attorney, at the Commission's Little Rock Area office. IX. EXPUNGEMENT The Defendant shall expunge from the personnel files of Debra Terry any reference to the charge of discrimination or the litigation of the matter. 5

Case 4:07-cv-00603-JLH Documents Filed 06/30/2008 Page 6 of 10 X. NEUTRAL REFERENCE Defendant agrees to give a neutral reference to any potential employers of Debra Terry who request a job reference. In order to receive the neutral reference, Ms. Terry shall provide the prospective employer with The Work Number, the Family Dollar Code, and her social security number. Any such neutral reference shall be identical to the form demonstrated in Exhibit B. No mention of the Commission's charge of discrimination or this action will be made as part of the neutral reference. XI. COSTS Each party shall bear that party's own costs, attorneysvjfees, and expenses. J. LEO^J HOLMES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE DATE: %OQP IO/ZM/ 6

Case 4:07-cv-00603-JLH Document 14 Filed 06/30/2008 Page 7 of 10 FOR THE COMMISSION: RONALD S. COOPER General Counsel JAMES LEE Deputy General Counsel GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel FA^E A. WILLIAMS Regional Attorney EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 1407 Union Avenue, Suite 901 lis, Tennessee 38104 (9\O1)544-0p88 JF Supervisory Trial Aftofney AR # 880&1 PAMELA B. DIXON Senior Trial Attorney AR # 95085 Little Rock Area Office 820 Louisiana, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 324-5539, 324-5065

Case 4:07-cv-00603-JLH Documents Filed 06/30/2008 Page 8 of 10 FOR DEFENDANT: A ^-z*--m^>^^^v- R. SCOTT SUMMERS / Littler Mendelson A Professional Corporation 3608 N. Steele Blvd., Ste. 214 Fayetteville, AR 72703 _2^K>~ J. MODLA iuty General Counsel imily Dollaystores of Arkansas, Inc. 10401 Monroe Rd. Matthews, NC 28105 8

Case 4:07-cv-00603-JLH Documents Filed 06/30/2008 Page 9 of 10 NOTICE 1. This Notice to all employees of Family Dollar Stores of Arkansas, Inc. is being posted as part of an agreement between Family Dollar and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in settlement of a complaint of employment discrimination. 2. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, is a federal law that provides that it shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer discriminate against any individual because of such individual's race or color. 3. Family Dollar supports and will comply with Title VII in all respects and will not take any action against employees because they have opposed employment practices made illegal by Title VII or exercised their rights under the law by filing charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, or because they testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in any investigation, proceeding, or hearing under Title VII. Family Dollar Stores of Arkansas, Inc. Date EXHIBIT A 9

Case 4:07-cv-00603-JLH Documents Filed 06/30/2008 Page 10 of 10 To Whom It May Concern: This letter is in response to your inquiry regarding the employment of while employed at Family Dollar Stores of Arkansas, Inc. concerning worked at Family Dollar as a from through. Company policy does not permit us to give out any more information 's employment. Very truly yours, Family Dollar Stores of Arkansas, Inc. EXHIBIT B 10