Case 2:99-cv-14288-JCP Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/1999 Page 1 of 7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT PIERCE DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

)

COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

v.

)

)

SUN AG, INC.,

)

)

Defendant.

)

8
.. \ : ·~. CIVIL ACTIONvNQ.h.' '· ·, .•.:. ,;w1..1ui..
iL\fNCH
COMPLAINT JURY TRIAL DEMAND
nabv.

NATURE OF THE ACTION

SEP 3 () 1999

Rights Act of 1991 to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of race, and to provide appropriate relief to Alvin B. Davis, Fred Lewis and other similarly situated individuals who were adversely affected by such practices. As stated with greater particularity in paragraph 7, the Commission alleges that Mr. Davis and Mr. Lewis, black males, and other similarly situated individuals were and are forced to endure a hostile environment while employed at Defenda111's place of business. Furthermore, Fred Lewis was constructively discharged.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 451, 1331, 1337, 1343 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Section 706(t)(l) and (3) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(t)(1) and (3) ("Title VII"), and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981A.

Case 2:99-cv-14288-JCP Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/1999 Page 2 of 7
2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Fort Pierce Division.
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "Commission"), is the agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title VII, and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Section 706(f)(l)and (3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(l) and (3). 4. At all relevant times, Defendant Sun Ag, Inc. (the "Employer"), a Florida corporation, has continuously been doing business in the State of Florida and the City of Fellsmere, and has continuously had at least 15 employees. 5. At all relevant times, Defendant Sun Ag, Inc., has continuously been an employ-er engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 70l(b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(b), (g) and (h).
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 6. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Alvin B. Davis filed a charge with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by Defendant Employer Sun A..g, Inc. This charge was investigated on behalf of Alvin Davis, Fred Lewis and other similarly situated individuals. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled.
1

Case 2:99-cv-14288-JCP Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/1999 Page 3 of 7
7. Since at least 1990, Defendant Employer has engaged in unlawful employment practices at its place of business in Fellsmere, Florida in violation of Section 703(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a).
(A) Alvin B. Davis, Fred Lewis and other similarly situated individuals were subjected to racial harassment by their co-workers and by management on a daily basis. The harassment included verbal abuse and the displaying of a noose. This unwelcome racial harassment created an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment which was sufficien1:ly severe and pervasive to affect the terms and conditions oftheir employment. Defendant Emplo;rer was placed on notice about the harassment, but Defendant Employer failed to exercise reasonable care in preventing or correcting the racially harassing behavior. Additionally, Defendant Employer failed to take prompt remedial action when it knew or should have known of the racial harassment of its employees, including the harassment of Alvin Davis, Fred Lewis, and any ott:J.er similarly situated individuals.
(B) Fred Lewis was subjected to working conditions so intolerable that he felt compelled to resign. Moreover, a reasonable person in Mr. Lewis's shoes would have felt the same.
8. The effect of the conduct complained of in paragraph 7 above has been to deprive Alvin B. Davis, Fred Lewis and other similarly situated individuals of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees because of race.
2

Case 2:99-cv-14288-JCP Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/1999 Page 4 of 7
9. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 7 above were intentional.
10. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 7 above were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Alvin B. Davis, Fred Lewis and other similarly situated individuals.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant Sun Ag, Inc., its officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in racial harassment and any other employment practice which discriminates on the basis of race. B. Order Defendant Sun Ag, Inc. to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for blacks, and which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices. C. Order Defendant Sun Ag, Inc. to make whole Alvin B. Davis, Fred Lewis and other similarly situated individuals by providing appropriate back pay with prejudgment interest, if any, in amounts to be determined at trial, and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices. D. Order Defendant Sun Ag, Inc. to make whole Alvin B. Davis, Fred Lewis and other similarly situated individuals by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses
3

Case 2:99-cv-14288-JCP Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/1999 Page 5 of 7
resulting from the unlawful employment practices described in paragraph 7 above, including but not limited to, out of pocket losses in amounts to be determined at trial.
E. Order Defendant Sun Ag, Inc. to make whole Alvin B. Davis, Fred Lewis and other similarly situated individuals by providing compensation for past and future non-pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices described in paragraph 7 above, including but not limited t:o, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, humiliation, and loss of enjoyment of life, in amounts to be determined at trial.
F. Order Defendant Sun Ag, Inc., to pay Alvin B. Davis, Fred Lewis and otlier similarly situated individuals punitive damages for its malicious and reckless conduct descri!) ed in paragraph 7 above, in amounts to be determined at trial.
G. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the pllb lie interest.
H. Award the Commission its costs of this action. JURY TRIAL DEMAND
The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its complaint. C. GREGORY STEWART General Counsel Designate GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel DELNER FRANKLIN-THOMAS Regional Attorney EVE LOWE Supervisory Trial Attorney
4

Case 2:99-cv-14288-JCP Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/1999 Page 6 of 7
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Miami District Office Two South Biscayne Boulevard One Biscayne Tower, 271h Floor Miami, Florida 33131 (305) 530-6006 (305) 536-4494 fax
5

JS -44 Case 2:99-cv-14288-JCP Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/1999 Page 7 of 7

(Rev. 12196)

CIVIL COVER SHEET

The JS-44 civil cover sheet and the information eotlllilled herein neither replaCe nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as l1lqUirea
by law. except as provided by local rules of court. Ttis foml. approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974. is required tc.r 1'111 La
cA the Clerk of Court for the purpose of inrtiating the cMI docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON THE REVERSE OF THE FORM.)

1. (a) PLAINTIFFS E~JAL EMPIDYME.W OPffiRTUNITY CXM1ISSION
99~14288 •. (b) COUNTY Of RESIDENCE OF FIRST LISTED PLAINTIFF
(EXCEPT IN US PLAINTIFF CASES)
(C) aTTORNfY.S (FlAM NAAIE.AQDAESS ANp TELE~ ~R) Jenn1ter Zaw1a, Sen1or Tr1al. Attorney
One Biscayne Tower, Suite 2700

DEFENDANTS SUN AG, INC.

MAGISTRATE JUDGt

LYNCH

COUN1Y Of RESIDENCE OF FIRST LISTED DEFENDANT Indian RiVer

(IN U.S PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)

... IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES. USE THE LOCATION OF 11-€
TRACT OF LAND NVOLVEO

ATIORIIIEYS (IF I<NOWN) Kevin ,,..;r. Shaughnessy

:~:.,( L~:

.... "t:"-j

- - _,..

.J

(d) CIRCLE COUNTY WHERE ACTION AROSE: DADE. IIOIROE,

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION !PlACE AH "X' .. ONE BOX ONLY)

10 1 U.S. Government Plaintiff

D 3 Federal Question
(U S Govemmenl Not a Party)

Ill. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINC
(For Diversity Cases Only) PTF DEF
Citizen of This State

ARTIES (PlACE ANT AN() ONE BOX FOR DEFENo.wT) PTf DEJ
Incorporated or Principal Place D • D • of Business In This Stale

D 2 US. Government Defendant

D c Diversity (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item Ill)

Citizen of Another State D 2 D 2
Citizen or Subject of a D 3 D 3 Foreign Country

Incorporated and Prindpel Place D 5 D s of Business In Anotlw Stat~

Foreign Nation

De De

IV. ORIGIN
~ t Original
Proceeding

D 2 Removed from State Court

(PLACE AN "X" IN ONE BOX ONLY)

D , Remanded from D • Reinstated or

Appellate Court

Reopened

Transferred from
D 5 another district (specify)

D 1 Multidistrict
Litigation

V. NATURE OF SUIT (PLACE AN "X" IN ONE BOX ONLY)

A CONTRACT

A TORTS

FORFEITURE/PENALTY A BANKRUPTCY

A OTHER STATUTES

D ttl Insurance D 121 Manne D , . Miller Act
D t4t Negol~ lnsuument 0 ,,. ~ ct O..rpay,.,.m
& Enforcement ol Ju<lgmenl
D t5t Ued~U<a Act
I t t52 Rec011ery of Delau"ed
Student Loans ·Excl veterans!

PERSONAL IM.IUR't

D 3to A1rplar>e

D 3t5 AirplaM ProdUC1

Liability

no D

Assaun lJtlel &

Slander

0 330 F-ral Emp~ayeB
LJ;ablllti

D MO Manne D MS Maune P'i:x1UC1

P£RIC*AL IM.IUR'I' D Jl2 ~Injury -
Wed Malpractice
D Jl5 ~Injury Proclucl LlaDillly

110 110 AQrtcunure
liD 120 01ner Food & Drug
110 125 Drug Relaled Seizure ct Property 21 usc 881
liD a . lJQUOf l.kNs

D-~~

IIO 140 R R & Truck

lnrurt PrcctUC1 Liability liD 150 Airline Flags

PERIOIIAL PROPERTY

ID 110 Occupa!IOI\AI
~ety~

D 370 Oilier Fraud

BD Ito Otner

0 U2 Appnl 28 usc , 58
OUJWIII>Oraw.l
28 usc !57
A PROPERTY RIGHTS
0 120 Col)yng~ 0 Ul Patem
OMI Tr-.nart<

D - Sl.lle ANPilO!IIol omen!
D .,. Anllllllsl
IDIO- UI~B/anIkCs Can.d.a....t.in_g...c D•~ 0 .11 ~ lnlluenoecl and ~ Orgmtll..,.
D ltl Setecl~ Set'lllce 0 111 s.cum... 'Commod~lesl
Exc~a

II 0 ISJ ~tcOIIery ol Overpayment ol Veteran s Benel!ls
0 tiO S!ockholdeB Su•ts D til OIMr COntract C tiS Cvntract Product L•all•lity
A REAL PROPERTY
0 l11 Land Cone~emna110n 110 Z2l Foreclosure
::::J 2JO Rent Lease & E1ectment
o 241 ron, to Land
D 245 Tort ProdUC1 LJ;ablllly D :Ill Ail Otner Real Property

L•at>olrty
I 0 J50 Motor ve~"'"'

I D JSS Motor lla"oe>e

!

PrOduC1 L<ac,.r1ty

i D 310 Otner Pe~ 1n1ur;

D 37t Tr.-. m Landing D 310 Oilier~
Propetty Damage
D 315 Ptopefty Damage ProOucl LJabtllly

A LABOR

B SOCIAL SECURITY

i I D 710 Fa11 LaDe' Slandards Ac1

0
D

Mt 112

>~~lAk, 13L9u5n1g!;1923•

D 720 Lill>Or "-lgml Re1a11ons 0 113 OfWC,'OlWW 1405(g11

A CIVIL RIGHTS 1PRISONER PETITIONS

. D 114 SSID Tille lM

xi:I tct Yotmg

!IO StO WOIJOnS 10 vacate

D 730 Lat>o• "-lgmt Repon•nc;J ! 0 MS qSl,405(gn
& OrsciOSure Acl

t42 Employmer<J D t43 1-iOU!.fng,
AccommoaaJoor>s
c.,., D 444 W.Ware
D teO Otne• Rrgl'lls

Slnlencle HAIIEAS CORPUS: •Duo~
•oAD 535 Dull'l Pltnally Ml . . . . _... & 01ner
II D 510 CMI Righls
II D 555 Pnsori COndition

D 7~ Ailliway l.allo< Ac:t
D 710 Olner Labor LJ1•ga!lon
.t.D 111 Empl ~ InC SecuriTy Act

FEDERAL TAX SUITS
"(J 171 Tues IU S Plalnllll 01 o.tendanl)
"0 171 IRS - Thlrll Pal1y 2e usc 70

0 175 CUSiomer CllallanQe
12 usc 3410
D 111 AQnculural Acts 0 112 Econorr..c St~lil~oon Acl 0 113 Envrronmenlal UalteB
0 . . Enargv Aii0Call0f1 Ad 0115 F_..,ct
~rOn Act 0 . . Appeal r:l. Fee O..arm•natiOr
~EQual Acceu to JUSI•.
0 lSI Conslnutron&JIIy r11 S1.11e SWIMs
0 . . Olher SWutory Ac110r4 AOI'II

VI. CAUSE OF ACTION (CQIQTNEcTiH)ETCuJsTCEIJVUILISIWIS\OJTI'CETUINODNEARJ.WSHTIC~HTVYTOEUsUARfEiLFEUSNSG~±"l~iD'lW'mRsITE B1RsIEF aSTnATEaMcEItI(:f1OFoCnAUSuEnd er T1. t le VII, of t he Civil Rights Act of l9b4, as amenaea, and T1tle of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of race and to provide appropriate relief to LENGntOFTRtAL Alvin favi!';" Frei'l Lewis and otl'Er similarly situated individuals.
VII. lillys estrnale<f(G'DOIIsldes to try erffi caieT - -

VII. REQUESTED IN
COMPLAINT:

CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION D UNDER F.R.C.P 23

DEMAND $

CHECK YES only if demanded in complairr

JURY DEMAND: ~ Vl:S

o NO

VIII.RELATED CASE(S) (See instructions):

IF ANY

~E __________________~--------~~- DOCKET NUMBER _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

tfo ret~1YLNG RECEPT 11--"'1ti"-"l!A'""*.J..--- AMOUNT

IFF>:___ _ _ _ J U O G E - - - - - - - - - - MAG J U D G E - - - - - - - - - - -

 
 ) Case 2:99-cv-14288-JCP Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/04/2000 Page 1 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE N0.99-14288-CIV-PAINE
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff, vs. SUN AG, INC.,
Defendant,
_____________________________!

FILED ty---L.S-=-li__ D.C.
.'~N 3 - 2000
~L-'.RLNCE M,&DOOX ClERK''<;. Dl~·. rT. S.D. Of fl A. • W.I'.B.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S EMERGENCY MOTIONS FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
This matter is before the court upon the Plaintiff's Emergency Motion for Protective Order filed on November 23, 1999 and Supplemental Emergency motion for Protective Order filed on December 30, 1999. Upon review of the motions, the responses thereto, and the applicable authority, the court enters the following order denying emergency relief.
First Emergency Motion for Protective Order In the first emergency motion, the Plaintiff seeks an
q order from the court enjoining the Defendant from conducting
an investigation of fact witnesses who are not named-parties (

tC::2

)
Case 2:99-cv-14288-JCP Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/04/2000 Page 2 of 6
to the action and who may have information relevant to the issues raised by the Plaintiff in the present case. The court finds that unless and until these "witnesses" seek representation and joinder in the present law suit, there is no legal basis to prohibit the Defendant from interviewing fact witnesses. The court further finds that such an order would unduly limit the Defendant's ability to properly investigate the factual basis of the claims alleged against it for the dual purposes of evaluating the merits of the claims for assessment of settlement with the Plaintiff, and for issuing possible remedial measures, if warranted.
The Plaintiff commenced this action in federal court. Once litigation on a claim is commenced, the Plaintiff must expect that the Defendant will engage in expeditious factual investigation and discovery in preparation for trial. Had the Plaintiff intended that further pre-trial investigation on its part was required prior to filing suit, in order to determine whether there were additional Plaintiffs involved, the Plaintiff should have delayed the filing of the case until it was satisfied that the Defendant's investigation of the merits of the claim would not jeopardize joinder of additional
2

Case 2:99-cv-14288-JCP Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/04/2000 Page 3 of 6
Plaintiffs. The court will not enjoin the Defendant from conducting its own factual investigation of the claims alleged against it. Further, the court will not limit discovery or otherwise delay this case. Finally, the court will not require the Defendant to disclose to the Plaintiff the status of its own internal investigation. The Plaintiff has at its disposal the same means of discovery and can obtain relevant information from the Defendant (or factual witnesses) through the proper channels. Accordingly, all relief requested by the Plaintiff in the original Motion for Protective Order is denied.
Supplemental Emergency Motion for Protective Order The Plaintiff first resists the taking of the depositions of Alvin Davis and Fred Lewis on January 4 and 5, respectively, on the grounds that the Defendant should not be entitled to proceed with discovery until the court rules on the earlier motion. That aspect of the motion is now moot. Therefore, the only remaining basis for resisting the taking of the depositions is a scheduling conflict. Notwithstanding the fact that Plaintiff received notice for the subject depositions on December 1,1999, the EEOC did not
3

Case 2:99-cv-14288-JCP Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/04/2000 Page 4 of 6
file the present motion until the afternoon of December 30, 1999, the day prior to the holiday weekend.
This court is compelled to note that this case, which has been pending for less than 90 days, has already generated considerably more discovery litigation than similar cases and the court admonishes both parties that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure impose a duty upon the parties to attempt in good faith to resolve such discovery disputes without the need for judicial intervention. The court is hopeful that in the future the parties will have better success in resolving discovery disputes without the need for judicial intervention. Furthermore, it should be a very rare event indeed when the court is called upon to resolve scheduling conflicts in discovery because the parties are unable to work together to set the date and time of depositions.
The Plaintiff's most recent emergency motion for protective order raises no legal issue to be addressed by the court and only cites the inability of the parties to agree to scheduling dates and times. It does not appear that the parties have attempted earnestly and in good faith to resolve the present motion predicated upon a mere scheduling conflict.
4

Case 2:99-cv-14288-JCP Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/04/2000 Page 5 of 6
However, in light of the fact that these depositions were set on December 1, 1999, and that had the Plaintiff had a conflict, it could have cooperated with the Defendant to schedule the depositions for an earlier date when the Plaintiff was available, the court finds that the Plaintiff has not complied with the good faith requirement of the applicable rules in this instance. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Supplemental Motion for Protective Order will be denied. The depositions of Alvin Davis and Fred Lewis, scheduled to take place on January 4 and 5, 2000, shall proceed as scheduled.
Finally, the parties are admonished that an emergency does not arise merely because a party has delayed seeking redress from the court. In the future, if either party seeks to file an "emergency motion," that party shall also file a sworn affidavit stating 1) why the matter must be ruled upon on an emergency basis and 2) that no action on the party's part could have avoided seeking of emergency relief. Absent some real, irreparable harm, this court will not entertain motions on an emergent basis without affording the opposing party the opportunity to respond in the time afforded by the applicable rules.
5

Case 2:99-cv-14288-JCP Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/04/2000 Page 6 of 6

In view of the foregoing, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Plaintiff's Emergency Motion
for Protective Order filed November 23, 1999 is DENIED and Plaintiff's Second Motion for Protective Order filed December 30, 1999 is also DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED at West Palm Beach, Florida, this ~vd_
day of January, 2000.

c: Kevin Shaughnessy, Esq. Jennifer Zawid, EEOC

DISTRICT JUDGE

6

 
 Case 2:99-cv-14288-JCP Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/26/2000 Page 1 of 6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE N0.99-14288-CIV-PAINE/LYNCH
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff, vs. SUN AG, INC.,
_____D__ef_e_n_d_a_n_t_, _________________/
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER AND MOTION TO QUASH DEFENDANT'S SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM
This matter is before the court upon the Plaintiff's, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"), Motion for a Protective Order and Motion to Quash Defendant's Subpoena Duces Tecum (D.E. 20) . Upon review of the Motion, the Response thereto, and the applicable authority, the Court enters the following order Granting the requested relief.
On February 17, 2000, Defendant served a Notice of Deposition upon EEOC trial attorney, Jennifer Zawid. Following the Notice, Defendant served Ms. Zawid with a Subpoena Duces Tecum, requesting that Ms. Zawid bring various documents to her deposition. The requested documents include: all documents that relate to any communications, including conversations, regarding the EEOC

Case 2:99-cv-14288-JCP Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/26/2000 Page 2 of 6
investigation of this case; the entire investigation file (including notes, diaries, records of phone conversations, etc.); Ms. Zawid's personnel file, personnel files of any other individuals involved in the EEOC investigation; and any correspondence between Plaintiffs and EEOC attorneys. See D. E. 20,
Ex. A.
In the present Motion, the EEOC seeks a Protective Order to prevent the deposition of Ms. Zawid. It further asks this Court to quash the subpoena described above. In opposition to the present Motion, Defendant Sun Ag argues that deposing Ms. Zawid is the only way that it can obtain the identity of all potential witnesses and a summary of their intended testimony, and the amount of back pay damages claimed by EEOC. Sun Ag further wants to depose Ms. Zawid, who it claims is a fact witness, to find support for its contention that the EEOC pressured one of the Plaintiffs into initiating this lawsuit.
Deposition of EEOC Attorney Jennifer Zawid Although Rule 30(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits a party to take the deposition of "any person," the practice of deposing opposing counsel in a case is a disfavored practice. Shelton v. American Motors Corporation, 805 F.2d 1323
2

Case 2:99-cv-14288-JCP Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/26/2000 Page 3 of 6
(8th Cir. 1986); West Peninsular Title Company v. Palm Beach County, 132 F.R.D. 301 (S.D. Fla. 1990). Depositions of opposing counsel create the opportunity for harassment, increase the costs of litigation, and, moreover, threaten the attorney-client and attorney work product privileges. The Eighth Circuit has proposed a 3-part standard for determining when an opposing trial counsel can be deposed. This standard requires a Defendant to show that: (1) no other means exist to obtain the information sought; (2) the information sought is relevant and non-privileged; and (3) the information is crucial to the preparation of the case. Shelton, 805 F.2d 1323, 1327; see West Peninsular Title Co., 132 F.R.D. 301, 302-03. After considering these factors, the Court finds that Defendant has not made the requisite showing that a deposition of Plaintiffs' counsel, Ms. Zawid, is warranted.
First, the Defendant seeks to discover the identity of all potential witnesses and a summary of their intended testimony, and the amount of back pay damages claimed by EEOC. Defendant argues that it cannot obtain this information by any other means than to depose EEOC counsel. To the contrary, the Court finds that other less intrusive means, such as written interrogatories, are readily available.
3

Case 2:99-cv-14288-JCP Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/26/2000 Page 4 of 6
Nonetheless, Defendant complains that, while it originally requested the information by means of written interrogatories, Plaintiff's answers to the interrogatories were incomplete. Despite this contention, Defendant never moved before this Court to compel the Plaintiff to fully answer those interrogatories. The Court finds that moving to compel the information would be a much more appropriate and less disruptive technique for obtaining any relevant, non-privileged information believed to have been withheld by the opposing party.
In addition, Defendant seeks to question Ms. Zawid regarding the EEOC's communications with one of the Plaintiffs in this case. However, this information, to the extent that it is not privileged, can be obtained by questioning the Plaintiff, himself. The fact that Defendant is unable to elicit a favorable response from this Plaintiff does not permit Defendant to question the Plaintiff's attorney in the matter.
Further, with respect to the second prong of the analysis, Defendant's line of questioning regarding Ms. Zawid's communications with the Plaintiffs places the attorney-client privilege in jeopardy. The Court recognizes that Defendant states that it seeks to learn the fact of communications, rather than the
4

Case 2:99-cv-14288-JCP Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/26/2000 Page 5 of 6

subject of such communications. However, the Court finds that, in

light of the existence of alternative means to obtain this

information, and its tenuous relationship to the merits of the

case, such interrogation would be inappropriate.

Subpoena Duces Tecum of EEOC Attorney Jennifer Zawid Since the Defendant has not met its burden for deposing EEOC

counsel, the subpoena duces tecum is hereby quashed. The Court

need not address the Plaintiff's claims of privilege in detail at

this time. However, the Court notes that the subpoena strongly

implicates the attorney-client and governmental deliberative

process privileges.

Whereas Defendant contends that these

privileges do not apply because it seeks ~facts" and not

"communications," Defendant's contention hardly comports with the

plain language of the subpoena. 1 In addition, the request for Ms.

Zawid' s personnel file, which the Defendant now claims was an

1 As an example, Paragraph 1 requests the following:
[a]ll documents that relate to any communication between you and any other person, including conversations with any other investigator or representative of the EEOC, the subject of which, in whole or in part, was your investigation of Mr. Davis' charge of discrimination
See D.E. 20, Ex. A.
5

Case 2:99-cv-14288-JCP Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/26/2000 Page 6 of 6
"oversight," was clearly intended to harass Plaintiffs, rather than to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This Court has already admonished counsel on both sides for their combative behavior in the past and, once again, urges them to cooperate with one another to the extent practicable in the future.
In accordance with the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Plaintiff's Motion for a Protective Order and Motion to Quash Defendant's Subpoena Duces Tecum are GRANTED.
DONE and ORDERED at West Palm Beach, Florida, this 2~~ay of
May, 2000.
JAM C. PAINE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
cc: Kevin Shaughnessy, Esq. Akerman Senterfitt 255 S. Orange Ave. Orlando, FL 32802
Jennifer Zawid, Esq. Eve G. Lowe, Esq.
EEOC, Miami District Office
6

 
 Case 2:99-cv-14288-JCP Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/27/2000 Page 1 of 13

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

FORT PIERCE DIVISION

S'"ft

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 99-14288-CV-PAINE

SUN AG; INC.

Defendants. I

CONSENT DECREE

l. This Consent Decree (the "Decree") is made and entered into by and between

Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("the Commission" or "EEOC") and

Defendant Sun Ag, Inc. ("Sun Ag"). The Commission and Sun Ag are collectively referred to

herein as "the Parties."

2. The EEOC initiated this action by filing its Complaint against Sun Ag alleging a

racially hostile working environment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as

amended, including but not limited to, amendments authorized by the Civil Rights Act of 1991,

42 U.S.C. Section 2000e et seq. ("Title VII"). The Complaint was filed on behalf of Alvin Davis,

Fred Lewis and other similarly situated employees and arose out of an EEOC Charge filed by

Alvin Davis.

3. Sun Ag denies that a hostile environment has existed at its workplace and further

denies that it discriminated in any way against any employee.

OR318424;2

Case 2:99-cv-14288-JCP Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/27/2000 Page 2 of 13
4. In the interests of resolving this matter, to avoid costs of litigation, and as a result of having engaged in comprehensive settlement negotiations, the Parties have agreed that this action should be finally resolved by the entry of this Decree. The settlement of this matter does not constitute an admission of liability or wrongdoing by Sun Ag regarding Davis' employment or any allegations in the complaint regarding any other current or former employee of Sun Ag. This Decree is final and binding upon the Parties.
5. The Parties agree that this Decree resolves all claims against Sun Ag arising out of EEOC Charge Number 150982642 and the Complaint filed in this action, and constitutes a complete resolution of all claims under Title VII that were made by the Commission or that existed against Sun Ag in this action. The EEOC represents that it currently is unaware of any other charges of discrimination pending against Sun Ag.
6. This Decree constitutes the complete agreement between the EEOC and Sun Ag with respect to the matters referred to herein. No representations or inducements to compromise this action have been made, other than those recited or referenced in this Decree. 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 filed by the parties, it is
ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED THAT:
7. This Court has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this act ion and over the parties for the purposes of entering and enforcing this Decree. Venue is proper.

OR318424;2

2

Case 2:99-cv-14288-JCP Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/27/2000 Page 3 of 13

GENERAL INJUNCTIVE PROVISIONS

8. The term ofthis Decree shall be three years.

9. Defendant, its officers, managers, employees, and agents are enjoined from

engaging in conduct which constitutes harassment on the basis of race or creating an intimidating,

hostile or offensive working environment violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as

amended. Defendant is further enjoined from adversely affecting the terms and conditions of any

individual's employment or by discharging (or constructively discharging) an employee in

violation of Title VII.

10. Defendant, its officers, managers, employees, agents and partners, are enjoined

from discriminating against any employee who in good faith opposes any of Defendant's practices

which the employee believes to be a violation of Title VII; who files a charge of discrimination

with the EEOC alleging violation(s) of such statute; who cooperates with the EEOC in the

investigation and/or prosecution of any charge of discrimination; or who cooperated in the

investigation or prosecution of this case.

TRAINING

11. Defendant has established and distributed to all employees a written anti-harassment

policy (attached as Exhibit "A" to this Consent Decree).

12. In order to further insure the effective implementation of Defendant's anti-

discrimination policies, it will conduct two hour training sessions for all of its managers and

supervisory personnel on all aspects of Title VII, with special emphasis on racial harassment and

retaliation. Such training will be conducted by the law firm of Akerman, Senterfitt & Eidson,

P. A. ("Akerman") within three months of the entry of this Decree.

OR318424;2

3

Case 2:99-cv-14288-JCP Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/27/2000 Page 4 of 13
13. On or before December 1, 2000, the Defendant shall arrange a two hour training session for its employees, to be conducted by Akerman, that will cover the requirements of Title VII and the Florida Civil Rights Act as they relate to racial harassment and retaliation, and how to complain internally about problems in the workplace. On or before September 1, 2001, the Defendant shall arrange an additional two hour training session for its employees that will cover the requirements of Title VII and the Florida Civil Rights Act as they relate to racial harassment and retaliation, and how to complain internally about problems in the workplace. This session will be done by videotape. Each employee will be given a copy of the internal complaint procedures and anti-harassment policy at both sessions. Copies will be available in English, Spanish, and French Creole.
14. The Defendant shall arrange one hour of diversity training for all management officials, supervisory personnel and employees of Sun Ag. Such training will be conducted by former Judge Joseph Hatchett and other members of the law firm of Akerman, Senterfitt & Eidson. P.A ("Akerman") within three (3) months of the entry of this Decree.
15. The Defendant will provide the EEOC with the date and location of the trainings, copies of all training materials to be used at the training sessions (two weeks before such training) and the name of the individual(s) who will be providing the training.
16. Defendant will post within seven (7) business days from the date of entry of this Consent Decree the notice attached hereto as Exhibit "B". Said notice shall be posted for the term of this Consent Decree on Defendant's employee bulletin boards.

OR318424;2

4

Case 2:99-cv-14288-JCP Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/27/2000 Page 5 of 13

MONITORING

17. Defendant will certify to the EEOC by December 31, 2000, September 30, 2001,

and January 31, 2003, that it is in compliance with all aspects of this Consent Decree. These

certifications will include (a) the number and names of employees trained, (b) posting places and

condition of notice, and (c) verification that the Defendant has complied with this Decree.

18. Defendant will retain all internal racial harassment and/or retaliation complaints

for the duration of this Decree.

19. The Defendant shall submit written reports to the Commission on February 1,

2001, August 1, 2001, February 1, 2002, November 1, 2002, and August 1, 2003. Each report

shall contain a description of any complaints of race discrimination received and the Defendant's

efforts to resolve the complaints, including, but not limited to, the date of the complaint, a copy

of the complaint (if written), Defendant's prompt remedial action, and the name, current home

address and home phone number of the complaining individual. If the Commission reasonably

believes the Defendant's response has be~n inadequate, the Commission shall contact the

Defendant's coordinating official as identified in paragraph 20, and identify the Commission's

concern. The absence of contact by the Commission does not indicate that the Defendant is in

compliance. The parties agree that this Decree is intended to bring closure to this litigation and

any contact initiated under this paragraph shall be made with this goal in mind and with the goal

of assisting the Defendant in the proper handling of internal complaints.

The reports shall be submitted to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission at the

Miami District Office to Delner Franklin-Thomas, Regional Attorney.

20. Defendant will appoint one individual who shall be responsible for coordinating its

OR318424;2

5

Case 2:99-cv-14288-JCP Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/27/2000 Page 6 of 13

compliance with this Consent Decree and for providing reports to the EEOC. This person shall

be appointed and the EEOC notified of his or her identify no later than October 31, 2000.

LETTER OF REFERENCE

21. Sun Ag will provide a letter of reference to Mr. Davis, on or before October 31,

2000, which is attached as Exhibit "C" to this Consent Decree. Should any reference check be

made to Sun Ag regarding Alvin Davis, Sun Ag will not divulge any information other than what

is contained in Exhibit "C", absent Alvin Davis' written consent.

MONETARY RELIEF

22. Defendant, Sun Ag, Inc., agrees to pay the total amount of $249,000 in damages.

The monetary amount will be divided amongst the identified class members: Alvin Davis, Fred

Lewis, Joseph Huggins, and James Taylor, and their private legal counsel, Robert Taylor. No

later than ten business days after the entry of the Decree, Defendant will mail checks to Alvin

Davis, Fred Lewis, Joseph Huggins and James Taylor, at the addresses provided by the

Commission, certified mail return receipt, and at the same time copy the EEOC on the mailings

and the certified return receipts. Said copies shall be forwarded to the attention of Eve Lowe,

EEOC Trial Attorney, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2 South Biscayne

Boulevard, Suite 2700, Miami, Florida 33131. Sun Ag will issue IRS forms W-2 and 1099 as

required by law. With respect to monies paid by Sun Ag to Alvin Davis, one-half will be for

compensatory damages and the other half will be for the gross backpay less lawful withholding

deductions for federal income tax and employee contributions for Social Security tax. A paycheck

stub setting forth the amount paid and the amounts withheld shall accompany each check.

With respect to monies paid by Sun Ag to Joseph Huggins and James Taylor, Sun Ag will

OR318424;2

6

Case 2:99-cv-14288-JCP Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/27/2000 Page 7 of 13

pay 50% of damages for compensatory damages and the other one-half will be for the gross back

pay less lawful withholding deductions for federal income tax and employment contributions for

Social Security tax. Paycheck stubs setting forth the amount paid and the amounts withheld for

Joseph Huggins and James Taylor shall accompany each check.

With respect to Fred Lewis, Sun Ag will pay one hundred percent (100%) of the monies

for compensatory damages.

23. If the Defendant fails to tender the above-mentioned payments, it shall pay interest

on the defaulted payment at the rate calculated pursuant to 26 U.S.C. Section 6621(b) until the

same is paid, and bear any additional costs incurred by the EEOC due to the non-compliance or

delay of the Defendant.

DISPUTE RESOLUTION

24. In the event that any of the Parties to this Decree believes that a party has failed

to comply with any provisions(s) of this Decree, the complaining party shall notify the alleged

non-wmplaining party in writing of such non-compliance and afford the alleged non- complaining

party twenty (20) business days to remedy the non-compliance or satisfy the complaining party

that it has complied. If the dispute is not resolved within twenty (20) business days the

complaining party may apply to the Court for appropriate relief.
ENFORCEMENT OF DECREE

25. The Commission shall have independent authority to seek the judicial enforcement

of any aspect, term or provision of this Decree.

26. The Court will take whatever measures it deems appropriate to effect the

enforcement of the terms of this Decree.

OR318424;2

7

Case 2:99-cv-14288-JCP Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/27/2000 Page 8 of 13
EFFECT OF DECREE AND COSTS 27. This Consent Decree will operate as a full and final resolution of this action. Each party shall bear its own costs and attorney's fees.
DURATION OF CONSENT DECREE 28. The duration of this Decree shall be three 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 such orders as may he required to effect its purposes. This Decree expires three years from the date set forth below.
SO ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED, this.-..:.4H day of G). t ttof1~~ 2000.
/~ United States District Judge

OR318424;2

8

Case 2:99-cv-14288-JCP Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/27/2000 Page 9 of 13

AGREED TO:
FOR THE PLAINTIFF, UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

By: Delner Franklin-Thomas Regional Attorney U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower, Suite 2700 2 South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131
AGREED TO:
FORTH/ DE~~NDANT
By: IC-· t~.. - , -= KEVIN W~NESSY, ~SQ. CAROLYN K. ALVAREZ, ESQ. Akerman, Senterfitt & Edison, P.A. Attorney for Defendant Sun Ag, Inc. 255 South Orange Ave. P. 0. Box 231 Orlando, Florida 32802-0231 407-843-7860 407-843-6610 FAX

2-j Date: 1()/ t 00
Date: !L.t/ l I 1o o

OR318424;2

9

Case 2:99-cv-14288-JCP Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/27/2000 Page 10 of 13

No Harassment Polley
1. Policy Statement
Sun Ag Is committed to providing a workplace free from harassment. We strongly diSapprove of and will not tolerate harassment of employees by Managers, Supervisors, co-workers1 or non-employees and INIII take pro-active steps to stop lt.
II. Purpose
The Intent of this policy is to provide guidelines relatlng to the discovery and remedy of harassment In our workplace.
Ill. Definition
Harassment Is any behavior which could be considered unwelcome and personally offensive by a reasonable person.
Harassment can be comments or other personally offensive and unwelcome behavior based on a person's race, color, religion, sex. national origin, age, marital status, disabUity, veteran or cttlzenship status or eny other basis prohibited by law that results In the loss of tangible job benefrts or creates a hostile, offensive, or Intimidating wor1< atmosphere. Such
behavior can be reasonably detennlnecl to be illegal If:
A. Submlsslon to the conduct Is either an explidt or implicit term or condition of employment
B. Submission to or rejection of the conduct Is used as a basis for employment decisions effecting 1he recipient.
C. The conduct has the purpose or effect of subStanUally Interfering with work perfonnanee or creating an Intimidating, hostile or offensive work. environment.

A.ny employee who feets he or she has been a victim of harassment is encouraged to immediately confront the person responsible and infonn the Individual that his or her behavior is offensive-and ask him or her to stop.

If the offensive behavior continues, the employee Is expected to report It directly to one of the fonowtng: his or her Foreman, Supervisor, Manager, any other Supervisor or Manager, the Safety and SeoJrity Manager, the Personnel Manager, or the company General Manager. From there:
A. The Safety and Securtty Manager and/or Personnel Manager wm confer with the
complainant as soon as possible. Under no dreumstances wtll the conference be delayed more than five (5) we~ days from 1he Initial reoelpt of the harassment complaint.

,, EXHIBIT
f(

March 1, 1998

Case 2:99-cv-14288-JCP Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/27/2000 Page 11 of 13
B. The employee will be allowed to place their complaint in writing and the complaint will be transcribed to written form by the Personnel Manager. The Safety and Security
Manager and/or the Personnel Manager will conduct an investigation to determine the
facts pertinent to the complaint. The investigation will be handled as confidentially as possible. Recognizing, however, that the investigation may require disclosing information to certain individuals on a needto--know basis. C. No employee will be disciplined or otherwise retaliated against for reporting offensive behavior. D. All complaints are to be taken seriously and will be fully investigated by Management to determine the facts. The results of all investigations will be fully documented and maintained by the Personnel Manager. V. Sanctions Sun Ag will take whatever steps are necessary to eliminate harassment in the workplace-up to and including termination of the offending party.
-40-

Case 2:99-cv-14288-JCP Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/27/2000 Page 12 of 13

llx17 POSTER EXHIBIT "B" NOTICE NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES POSTED PURSUANT TO AN ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
This Notice is being posted pursuant to a Consent Decree entered by the Court in EEOC v. Sun Ag. Inc., Civil Action No. 99-14288-CV-PAINE. As part of the Consent Decree, Sun Ag has agreed that it will not discriminate against employees because of race and other protected provisions of Title Vll of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"). Title VII protects individuals from employment discrimination because of their race, religion, color, national origin, or sex.
Furthermore, Sun Ag assures its employees that it supports Title VII and will not take any action against an individual because he/she has exercised his/her rights under the law to oppose discriminatory acts or to file charges with the EEOC.
This notice shall remain posted for three years from the date signed. Employees or applicants for employment who have questions about their rights under Title VII or any other federal anti-discrimination law may telephone the Miami District Office of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission at 1-800-669-4000, (305) 530-6001 or (305) 530-6006.

Signed this _ _ day of

2000.

MARK SANCHEZ, Executive Vice President of SUN AG, INC. (To Be Signed)

OR318424;2

L""- L ~ l~~-t.~
,_ r~··

Case 2:99-cv-14288-JCP Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/27/2000 Page 13 of 13
[SUN AG LETTERHEAD]
To Whom It May Concern:
Alvin Davis was employed by Sun Ag, Inc., from September 13, 1990 until September 1, 2000, when he resigned to seek other employment opportunities. He has held the positions of general laborer, equipment operator, field service mechanic, and grounds maintenance foreman. His duties included operation of various types of farm equipment, fueling and service work on farm and construction equipment, repair and maintenance of farm equipment, construction equipment, and light trucks and automobiles, and landscape maintenance. In fact, I hired Alvin to perform landscaping a.'ld lawn maintenance work at my home and he did so for approximately 18 months. Mr. Davis received several salary increases during his employment, and his last rate of pay was $9.45/hr.
Sincerely,
Mark J. Sanchez Executive Vice President and General Manager
MJS/sl

OR305648;1

.EXHIBIT
~c

 
 CM/ECF - Live Database - flsd - Docket Report

https://ecf.flsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?879086550496229-L_92...

U.S. District Court Southern District of Florida (Ft. Pierce) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:99-cv-14288-JCP

CLOSED

Equal Employment v. Sun Ag, Inc. Assigned to: Judge James C. Paine Demand: $0 Cause: 42:2000 Job Discrimination (Race) Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
V. Defendant Sun Ag, Inc.

Date Filed: 09/30/1999 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff
represented by Eve G. Lowe Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office 2 S Biscayne Boulevard 2700 One Biscayne Tower Miami, FL 33131-2483 305-530-6008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Carolyn K. Alvarez Akerman Senterfitt 420 S Orange Avenue Suite 1200 Orlando, FL 32801 407-423-4000 Fax: 843-6610 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kevin William Shaughnessy Baker & Hostetler 200 S Orange Avenue Suite 2300 PO Box 112 Orlando, FL 32802-0112 407-649-4000 Fax: 841-0168 Email: kshaughnessy@bakerlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

1 of 4

5/25/2007 12:08 PM

CM/ECF - Live Database - flsd - Docket Report

https://ecf.flsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?879086550496229-L_92...

Date Filed 09/30/1999 09/30/1999 09/30/1999 11/08/1999 11/08/1999
11/23/1999 11/24/1999 11/24/1999 12/03/1999 12/08/1999 12/08/1999 12/16/1999
12/16/1999 12/17/1999 12/17/1999 12/27/1999
12/30/1999

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT filed; FILING FEE waived; FJL; A-7 (cg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/30/1999)
Magistrate identification: Magistrate Judge Lynch (cg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/30/1999)
2 SUMMONS(ES) issued for Sun Ag, Inc. (cg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/30/1999)
3 NOTICE of filing waiver of service of summons by Equal Employment (cg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/09/1999)
4 Waiver of service executed by Sun Ag, Inc. (Attorney Carolyn K. Alvarez), 10/1/99 Answer due by 11/30/99 for Sun Ag, Inc. (cg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/09/1999)
6 Answer and affirmative defenses by Sun Ag, Inc. (Attorney Kevin William Shaughnessy), (cg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/30/1999)
5 OBJECTION by Sun Ag, Inc. to the Plaintiff's Characterization of the Motion for Protective Order as "Emergency" (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/30/1999)
7 Emergency MOTION by Equal Employment for protective order (cg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/30/1999)
8 MOTION by Equal Employment for leave to conduct ex parte interviews of Alvin Thomas and Johnny Smith (cg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/03/1999)
9 MEMORANDUM by Sun Ag, Inc. in opposition to [7-1] Emergency Motion for Protective Order (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/09/1999)
10 REQUEST by Sun Ag, Inc. for Oral Argument on [7-1] motion for protective order (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/09/1999)
12 OPPOSITION by Sun Ag, Inc. to [8-1] motion for leave to conduct ex parte interviews of Alvin Thomas and Johnny Smith (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/20/1999)
13 REPLY by Equal Employment to response to [7-1] emergency motion for protective order (cg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/20/1999)
11 PROPOSED Joint Scheduling Report of Scheduling Meeting by Equal Employment, Sun Ag, Inc. (go, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/20/1999)
14 RESPONSE by Equal Employment to objection to characterization of [7-1] motion for protective order (cg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/20/1999)
15 REPLY by Equal Employment to response to [8-1] motion for leave to conduct ex parte interviews of Alvin Thomas and Johnny Smith (wj, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/27/1999)
16 EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION by Equal Employment for protective order referring to: [7-1] motion for protective order (wj, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/30/1999)

2 of 4

5/25/2007 12:08 PM

CM/ECF - Live Database - flsd - Docket Report

https://ecf.flsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?879086550496229-L_92...

12/30/1999 12/30/1999 01/03/2000
03/07/2000 03/21/2000 03/28/2000 03/30/2000 05/01/2000 05/05/2000 05/26/2000
05/26/2000 05/31/2000
10/26/2000

17 DECLARATION under local rule 26.1(I) by Equal Employment Re: [16-1] supplemental motion for protective order (wj, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/30/1999)
18 RESPONSE by Equal Employment in opposition to [16-1] supplemental motion for protective order (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/30/1999)
19 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S EMERGENCY MOTIONS FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER: denying [7-1] motion for protective order, denying [16-1] supplemental motion for protective order (Signed by Judge James C. Paine on 01/03/00) CCAP [EOD Date: 1/4/00] (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/04/2000)
20 MOTION with memorandum in support by Equal Employment for protective order , and to quash Defendant's Subpoena Duces Tecum (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/08/2000)
21 MEMORANDUM by Sun Ag, Inc. in opposition to [20-1] motion for protective order, [20-2] motion to quash Defendant's Subpoena Duces Tecum (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/22/2000)
22 NOTICE of scrivener's error, by Sun Ag, Inc. (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/28/2000)
23 REPLY by Equal Employment to response to [20-1] motion for protective order, [20-2] motion to quash Defendant's Subpoena Duces Tecum (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/31/2000)
24 FINAL report of Mediator. Disposition: Impasse (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/02/2000)
25 ORDER denying [8-1] motion for leave to conduct ex parte interviews of Alvin Thomas and Johnny Smith ( Signed by Judge James C. Paine on 5/5/00) CCAP [EOD Date: 5/8/00] (go, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/08/2000)
26 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER AND MOTION TO QUASH DEFENDANT'S SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM: ORDER granting [20-1] motion for protective order, granting [20-2] motion to quash Defendant's Subpoena Duces Tecum ( Signed by Judge James C. Paine on 5/26/00) CCAP [EOD Date: 5/26/00] (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/26/2000)
27 ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER:ORDER [10-1] motion for Oral Argument on [7-1] motion for protective order (Signed by Judge James C. Paine on 5/26/00) CCAP [EOD Date: 5/26/00] (Former Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/26/2000)
28 ORDER SETTING TRIAL AND DIRECTING PRETRIAL PROCEDURES Jury Trial set for 9:30 a.m. on 5/21/01 at 300 South Sixth Street, Fort Pierce, Florida; Pretrial Stipulation due on or before 5/7/01; Calendar Call set for 9:00 a.m. on 5/10/01 at 701 Clematis Street, WPB, Florida. Please refer to Order for further pretrial scheduling procedures. (Signed by Judge James C. Paine on 5/26/00) CCAP [EOD Date: 6/1/00] CCAP (at, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/01/2000)
29 CONSENT DECREE Defendant, Sun Ag, Inc., agrees to pay the total amount of $249,000 in damages. This Consent Decree will operate as a full and final

3 of 4

5/25/2007 12:08 PM

CM/ECF - Live Database - flsd - Docket Report

https://ecf.flsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?879086550496229-L_92...

10/26/2000

resolution of this action. Each party shall bear its own costs and attorney's fees.(see decree for further details)( Signed by Judge James C. Paine on 10/24/00) CCAP [EOD Date: 10/27/00] (go, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/27/2000)
CASE CLOSED. Case and Motions no longer referred to Magistrate. [20-1] motion for protective order, [20-2] motion to quash Defendant's Subpoena Duces Tecum, [16-1] supplemental motion for protective order, [10-1] motion for Oral Argument on [7-1] motion for protective order, [8-1] motion for leave to conduct ex parte interviews of Alvin Thomas and Johnny Smith, [7-1] motion for protective order (go, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/27/2000)

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

05/25/2007 13:04:34

PACER Login:

hs0328

Client Code:

Description:

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

Billable Pages: 2

Cost:

eeoc 2:99-cv-14288-JCP 0.16

4 of 4

5/25/2007 12:08 PM

 
 EEOC SETTLES RACIAL HARASSMENT SUIT FOR $249,000 AG...

http://www.eeoc.gov/press/10-30-00.html

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Monday, October 30, 2000

CONTACT: Delner Franklin-Thomas (305) 530-7999 Federico Costales (305) 530-6000
TTY: (305) 536-5721

EEOC SETTLES RACIAL HARASSMENT SUIT FOR $249,000 AGAINST FLORIDA CITRUS GROWER SUN AG, INC.

Egregious Discrimination Included Hangman's Noose and Racial Slurs At Workplace
MIAMI - The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) today announced a quarter-million-dollar settlement of a racial harassment lawsuit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 against Sun Ag, Inc., a major citrus grower based in Fellsmere, Fla. The suit charged the company with subjecting African-American employees to a racially hostile work environment over a number of years, which included threatening remarks, displaying of a hangman's noose, and racial slurs by supervisors and co-workers.
"This case exemplifies a growing and disturbing trend of racial harassment, where black workers face threats to their lives and emotional well being," said EEOC Chairwoman Ida L. Castro. "Employers are well advised to review their workplace policies and practices and train their workforce from top to bottom."
Ms. Castro added: "The Commission will vigorously prosecute employers who tolerate the intolerable through their indifference to racial slurs, the presence of hangman's nooses, or similar acts of harassment at the workplace. Such graphic displays of racial hatred and bigotry are meant to intimidate and threaten minority workers, which is unlawful and hideously immoral."
A Consent Decree settling the case was approved October 24, 2000, by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Fort Pierce Division. The monetary benefits will be divided among Alvin Davis, who filed the initial charge with EEOC, and three other African- American workers who were discriminated against due to their race. In addition, the agreement requires Sun Ag to distribute a written anti-harassment policy to all employees, conduct extensive EEO and diversity training for all supervisors and workers, submit reports to the EEOC on subsequent bias complaints, provide a letter of reference to Mr. Davis, and post a notice on employee bulletin boards regarding the company's commitment to a discrimination-free workplace. EEOC will monitor compliance with the Consent Decree, which will remain in effect for three years.
According to the suit, filed on September 30, 1999, a hangman's noose was prominently displayed as early as 1992 in the company's stockroom, a busy area where it was clearly visible to workers and management. Despite its conspicuous location, the noose remained in place until being removed by Mr. Davis, who had been employed as a laborer and groundskeeper at Sun Ag since 1990. On one occasion, a co-worker told Mr. Davis that the noose was used to hang black people and that he was going to take down the noose and hang him personally.
In addition to the hangman's noose, Mr. Davis was subjected to racial slurs and intimidation, which included being called "nigger." Another African-American worker was derisively called "boy" on a regular basis by management and co-workers.
"The settlement is significant not only for the monetary relief obtained for the victims, but also for the extensive training of Sun Ag's workforce and policy changes that will take place as a result of EEOC's action,"said Delner Franklin-Thomas, Regional Attorney of the agency's Miami District Office. "This case is among several racial harassment suits involving nooses in the workplace which have been filed by EEOC against Florida employers in the past two years."
Federico Costales, Director of EEOC's Miami office said, "Subjecting workers to harassment because of their race can be costly to businesses, not only in monetary terms, but also in terms of increased absenteeism and health care costs, and lower productivity and employee morale. It is imperative for employers to implement effective anti-discrimination policies and procedures to prevent discrimination and to address and remedy it when it occurs."
Charges of racial harassment filed with EEOC have more than doubled over the past decade from 2,849 charge filings in Fiscal Year 1991 to approximately 6,550 charge filings in FY 2000, about 8% of all charges filed with the agency. Racial harassment is a form of race discrimination which includes racial jokes, ethnic slurs, offensive or derogatory comments, or other verbal or physical conduct based on an individual's race or color. Such conduct

1 of 2

5/25/2007 12:17 PM

EEOC SETTLES RACIAL HARASSMENT SUIT FOR $249,000 AG...

http://www.eeoc.gov/press/10-30-00.html

may create an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment, or interferes with the individual's work performance, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 .
In addition to enforcing Title VII, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin, EEOC enforces the Age Discrimination in Employment Act; the Equal Pay Act; Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits employment discrimination against people with disabilities in the private sector and state and local governments; prohibitions against discrimination affecting individuals with disabilities in the federal government; and sections of the Civil Rights Act of 1991. Further information about the Commission is available on the agency's Web site at www.eeoc.gov.
This page was last modified on October 30, 2000.

Return to Home Page

2 of 2

5/25/2007 12:17 PM