(~ase 3:O(~-cv~02150-J M-J MA Document 1 Filed 09/29/2006 Page 1 of 8

1 ANNA Y. PARK (CA SBN 164242) U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT
2 OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 255 E. Te_mple Street, Fourth Floor
3 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Telephone: (213) 894-1083
4 Facsimile:(213) 894-1301 E-Mail: lado.legal@eeoe.gov
5

2 &5 SE? 29 Pil 2:38
L,~,;b;, ,:F,:, L,;.LI ’ " ,~. C ~.i .....

6 Attorneys for Plaintiff U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT
7 OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 souTHERN DISTRICT OF ~. ALIFORNIA
10

11 U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT
12 OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

13
14
V.
15

Plaintiff,

16 HOMETOWN BUFFET, INC. and
17 DOES 1 -10, inclusive,

18

Defendants.

COMPLAINT - CIVIL RIGHTS / EMP~O~NT .. DISC~MINATION ..........
Sexual Harassment
(42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq.) JURY TRIAL DEMAND

19

20

NATURE OF THE ACTION

21

This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and: Title I of

22 the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to correct unlawful employment practices. Plaintiff

23 United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("Plaintiff’ or

24 "Commission") alleges that Defendants HomeTown Buffet, Inc. and Does 1 - 10

25 ("Defendants") subjected Charging Parties Yesica Owen, Eliza Navarette, and other

26 similarly situated individuals to sexual harassment / hostile work environment on the

27 basis of sex, female.
28 ///

COMPLAINT

Case 3:06-cv-02150-JM-JMA Document 1 Filed 09/29/2006 Page 2 of 8

1

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2

1. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 451, 1331,

3 1337, 1343, and 1345.

4

2. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Section 706(f)(1) and

5 (3) and Section 707 of Title VII of the Civil.Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42

6 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3) ("Title VII") and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of

7 1991,42 U.S.C. § 1981a,

8

3. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed within

9 the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Southern District of

10 California.

11

PARTIES

12

4. Plaintiff, United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, is

13 the federal agency charged with the administration, interpretation, and enforcement of

14 Title VII, and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Section 706(f)(1) and (3)

15 and Section 707 of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3).

16

5. At all relevant times, Defendants have continuously been doing business

17 nationwide, including in the State of California and in the jurisdiction of the United

18 States District Court of the Southern District of California. At all relevant times,

19 Defendants have continuously employed fifteen (15)or more persons.

20

6. At all relevant times, Defendants have continuously engaged in an

21 industry affecting commerce within the.meaning of Sections 701C0), (g), and (h) of

22 Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §. 2000e(b), (g), and (h).

23

7. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of Defendants sued

24 as Does 1 through 10, inclusive. Therefore, Plaintiff sues said Defendants by such

25 fictitious names. Plaintiff reserves the right to amend the complaint to name the Doe

26 Defendants as they become known. Plaintiff alleges that each of the Defendants

27 named as Doe Defendants was in some manner responsible for the acts and omissions

28 ///

COMPLAINT

Case 3:06-cv-02150-JM-JMA Document 1 Filed 09/29/2006 Page 3 of 8

1 alleged herein and Plaintiff will amend the complaint to allege such responsibility

2 when Plaintiff has ascertained the identity of the Doe Defendants.

3

8. All of the acts and failures to act alleged in this complaint were duly

4 performed by and attributable to all Defendants, each acting as successor, agent,

5 employee, or under the direction and control of the others, except as otherwise

6 specifically alleged. The alleged acts and failures to act were within the scope of such

7 agency and/or employment, and each Defendant participated in, approved and/or

8 ratified the other Defendants’ unlawful acts and omissions~alleged in this complaint.

9 Whenever and wherever reference is made in this Complaint to any act by a Defendant

10 or Defendants, such allegations and reference shall also be deemed to mean the acts

11 and failures to act of each Defendant acting individually, jointly, and/or severally.

12

STATEMENT OF CLAIMS

13

9. More than thirty days prior to the filing of this lawsuit, Yesica Owen and

14 Eliza Navarette filed charges with the Commission alleging that Defendants violated

15 Title VII. The Commission investigated and issued a Letter of Determination for each

16 of the charge. The Commission found that Defendants subjected Yesica Owen, Eliza

17 Navarette, and other similarly situated employees to sexual harassment / hostile work

18 environment on the basis of sex, female. All conditions precedent to the filing of this

19 lawsuit have been fulfilled.

20

10. Since at least October 2002, Defendants have engaged in unlawful

21 employment practices in violation of Section 703(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-

22 2(a)(1) at one of HomeTown Buffet’s restaurants located in E1 Cajon, California.

23 Defendants subjected Yesica Owen, Eliza Navarette, and other similarly situated

24 employees to sexual harassment / hostile work environment on the basis of sex,

25 female. The sexual harassment included, but not limited to, unwanted physical

26 touching and/or sexually charged and/or suggestive speech and/or conduct.

27 ///

28 ///

3
COMPLAINT

Case 3:06-cv-02150-JM-JMA, Document 1 Filed 09/29/2006 Page 4 of 8

1

11. Even after receiving complaints of sexual harassment, Defendants failed

2 to take immediate and effective corrective action to prevent or to correct the sexual

3 harassment.

4

12. The effect of the practices complained as described in paragraphs 10 and

5 11 has been to deprive Yesica Owen, Eliza Navarette, and other similarly situated

6 employees of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their

7 status as employees, because of their sex, female.

8

13. The unlawful employment practices described above were intentional.

9

14. The unlawful employment practices described above were done with

10 malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Yesica Owen,

11 Eliza Navarette, and the similarly situated employees.

12

15. As a direct and proximate result of the acts of Defendants as described

13 above, Yesica Owen, Eliza Navarette, and the similarly situated employees have

14 suffered pain and suffering, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life, humiliation and

15 damages, all to be proven at trial.

16

16. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ acts as described above,

17 Yesica Owen, Eliza Navarette, and the similarly situated employees suffered a loss of

18 earnings in an amount to be proven at trial.

19

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

20

¯Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court:

21

A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendants, their respective

22 officers, successors, assigns, agents, and all persons in active concert or participation

23 with them, from engaging in any employment practice which discriminates or creates a

24 hostile environment on the basis of sex;

25

B. Order Defendants to institute and carry out policies, practices, and

26 programs which provide equal employment opportunities, and which eradicate the

27 effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices;
28 ///

COMPLAINT

Case 3:06-cv-02150-JM-JMA Document 1 Filed 09/29/2006 Page 5 of 8

1

C. Order Defendants to make whole Yesica Owen, Eliza Navarette, and the

2 similarly situated employees by providing the appropriate back pay with prejudgment

3 interest, and front pay in amounts to be determined at trial, and/or other affirmative

4 relief necessary to eradicate the effects of Defendants’ unlawful employment

5 practices;

6

D. Order Defendants to make whole Yesica Owen, Eliza Navarette, and the

7 similarly situated employees by providing compensation for past and future non-

8 pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices complained as described above,

9 including, but not limited to pain and suffering, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of

10 life, and humiliation, in amounts to be determined at trial;

11

E. Order Defendants to pay Yesica Owen, Eliza Navarette, and the similarly

12 situated employees punitive damages for its malicious and/or reckless conduct as

13 described above, in amounts to be determined at trial.

14

F. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the

15 public interest; .and

16

G. Award the Commission its costs of this action.

17 ///

18 ///

19 ///

20 ///

21 ///

22 ///

23 ///

24 ///

25 ///

26 ///

27 ///

28 ///

5 COMI~LAINT

Case 3:06-cv-02150-JM-JMA Document 1 Filed 09/29/2006 Page 6 of 8 I

1

.,IURY TRIAL DEMAND

2

The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its

3 Complaint.

4

5 Dated: September 29, 2006 6 7 8 9 10

Respectfully Submitted
RONALD COOPER, General Counsel
JAMES LEE, Deputy General Counsel
GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS, Associate General Counsel

11

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

12

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 1801 "L" Street, N.W.

13

Nashin gto,~l~211,~~

14

15

ANNA Y. PARK R, egional Attorney

16

17

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

18

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

19

2O

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6
COMPLAINT

’ " :~Case 3:06-cv-02150-JM-JMA Document 1 Filed 09/29/2006 Page 7 of 8

l(a) PLAINTIFFS U~S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

CIVIL COVER SHEET DEFENDANTS Hometown Buffet, Inc.. and Does 1-10’iriclasive

(b) COUNTY OF RESIDENCE OF FIRST LISTED PLAINTIFF Los Angeles ( EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES)
(c) ATTORNEYS (FIRM NAME, ADDRESS AND TELEPHONE NUMBER)

.

(IN U.S. PLAINTIFF’CAS’ES’ONEY")’’..................

" ~

,’~

A~ORNEYS (IF KNOWN)

,¯,

+"’,

................’,l~~’~4,.~.v

.....

!*. =?

" 3 i’ ’."

Anna Y. Park U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 255 East Temple Street, 4th Floor Los AnReles, CA90012 213-894-1080

’06C¥ Z 150 JR

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (PLACE AN x IN ONE BOX ONLY)

M I U.S. Government Plaintiff
[] 2 U.S. Government Defendant

n 3 Federal Question
(U.S. Government Not a Party) ra 4 Diversity
(indicate Citizenship of Parties In Item Ill)

[II. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (PLACEAN x INONEBOX ~

(Fo(II~,/ve,lty Cases O~ly)

FOR PLAINTIFF AND ONE FOR DEFENDAN~[

~

PTF DEF

Citizen of This State D I D 1

PTF VElVet Incorporated or Principal Place of Business In This State

D4 D4

Citizen of Another State [] 2 [] 2 Incorporated and Principal Place of [] 5 [] 5 Business In Another State

Citizen or Subject era C3 3 D 3 Foreign Country

Foreign Nation

[] 6 13 6

IV. ORIGIN O’LSCe,~N~, /N ONe sOX ONLD

I I Original n 2 Removed from [] 3 Remanded from

Proceeding

State Court

Appellate Coal

V. REQUESTED IN COMPLAINT: 13 CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION UNDER F.R,C.P, 23 DEMAND $

Reinstated or Reopened

0 5 Transfer~d from another district (specif~)

O 6 Multi-district Litigation

13 7 Appeal to District Judge from Magistrate jqdgmem

Check YES only if ckmanded in complaint: JURY DEMAND: M YES [] NO

VI. CAUSE OF ACTION (cn’E T~e U.S. CiViL STATUT~ UNPEg WmC~ YOU ^aE F~LtN6 AND W~TE A ~mE~ ST^TEM~qT OF C^~SE. DO NOT CITE JUKISDICTION AL STATUTES UNLESS DIVEKSITY,)
Action under Title VII of the Civil Right~ Act of 1964 and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to correct unlawful employment practices.

VII. NATURE OF SUIT (PLACE AN x lN ONE BOX ONL F)

OTHER STATUTES; [] 400 State
Reapportionment [] 410 Antitrust
[] 430 Banks and Banking [] 450 Commerce/ICC Rates/ere [] 460 D~ortation [] 470 Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations [] 810 Selecti’~ Service
[] 850 Securities/Commodities~ Exchange
[] g75 Customer Challenge 12 USC 3410
[] 89i AgriculturaIAct
[] 892 Economic Stabilization
Act
[] 893 Environmental Matters [] 894 Energy Allocation Act [] 895 Freedom of InformS:ion
Act
[] 900 Appeal of Fee Determination Under Equal
Access to Justice [] 950 Constitutionality of
State Statutes [] 890 Other Statutory Actions

13 110 Insurance n 120 Marine
[] 130 Miller Act [] 140 Negotiable In~ument [] 150 Recovery of Overpaym~t
& Enforcement of Judgment [] 151 Medicare Act r~ 152 Recovery of De&ulted
Student Loan (Excl. Veterans) [] 153 Recovery~fOverpaymmt of Vetera~4s Benefits [] 160 Stockholders’ Suits ~ 190 Other Contract [] 195 Contract Product Liability
REAL PROPERTY [] 210 Land Condemnation [] 220 Foreclosure [] 230 Rent Lease & Ejcctment [] 240 Tons to Land [] 245 Tort Product Liability [] 290 All Other Real Property

T( P,.TS

PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY

[] 310 Airplane ~ 315 Airplane Product
Liability

[] 362 Personal InjuryMed Malpractice
n 365 Personal Injury-

D 320 Assault, Libel &

Product Liability

Slander

[] 368 Asbestos Personal

[] 330 Fed. Employc~s"

Injury Product

Liability [] 340 Marine

Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY

[] 345 Marine Product Liability

[] ~70 Other Fraud n 371 Truth in Ldnding

[] 350 Motor Vehicle [] 380 Other Personal

[] 355 Motor Vehicle

Property Damage

Product Liability [] 385 Property Damage

[] 360 Other Personal

Product Liability

Injury

CW[L RIGHTS

PRISONER PETITIONS

[] 441 Voting [] 442 Employment [] 443 Housing/

[] 510 Motions to Vacate Sentence Habeas Corpus

Accommodations [] 530 General

[] 444 WelPam

[] 535 Death Penalty

[] 440 OtherCivil Rights [] 540 Mandamus/Other

[] 550 Civil Rights

[] 555 Prison Condition

:ORFEITURE / PENALT’ n 610 Agriculture
[] 620 Other [] 625 Drug Related
Seizure o f Proport,j 2[ USC 881 ~ 630 Liquor Laws [] 640 R.R. & Truck: ’[] 650 Airline Rags 13 660 ’Occupational Safety/Health 13 690 Other
LABOR. 0710 Fair Labor
Standards Act [] 720 Labor/Mgmt.
Relations [] 730 Lebor/Mgmt.
Reporting & Disclosure Act [] 740 Railway Labor Act n 790 Other Labor Litigation [] 791 Empl. Rct. Inc. Security Act

BANKRUPTCy D 422 Appeal
28 USC 158 [] 423 Withdrawal
28 USC 157
PROPERTY RIGHTS [] 820 Copyrights D g30 Patent [] 840 Trademark
SOCIAL SECURITY [] 861 HIA (1395ff) [] 862 Black Lung (923) C3 863 DIWC/DIWW
(40S(g)) t3 864 SSID Title XVI ~ 865 RSI (405(g))
FEDERAL TAX SUITS ~ 870 Taxes (U.S.
Plaintiffor Defendant) [] 871 IRS-Third Party 26 USC 7609

VIII(a). IDENTICAL CASES: Has this action been previously filed and dismissed, remanded or closed? rlYES DNO

If yes, list case number(s):

’

CV-71 /10/01) FOR OFFICE USE ONLY:

El Pro Hac Vice fee: Applying IFP

[] paid

CIVIL COVER SHEET [] not paid
Judgd

Mag. Judge

Page I of 2

Case 3:06-cv-02150-JM-JMA Document 1 Filed 09/29/2006 Page 8 of 8
~

CIVIL COVER SHEET (Reverse Side)
AFTER COMPLETING THE FRONT SIDE OF FORM JS..44C, COMPLETE THE INFORMATION REQUESTED BELOW.
VIii(b). RELATED CASES: Have any cases been previously filed that are related to the present case.’? DYeS SINe If yes, list case numbe~(s):
CIVIL CASES ARE DEEMED RELATED IF A PREVIOUSLY FILED CASE AND THE PRESENT CASE: (CHECK ALL BOXES.THAT APPLY) El A. Appear to arise from the same or substantially identical transactions, happenings, or events.,
El B. Involve the same or substantially the same parties or property; El C. Involve the same patent, trademark or copyright; El D.’ Call for determination of the same or substantially identical questions of law, or El E. Likely for other reasons may entail unnecessary duplication of labor if heard by different judges.
IX. VENUE: List the California County, or State if other than California, in which EACH named plaintiffresides (Use an additional sheet if necessary) CHECK HERE IF THE US GOVERNMENT, ITS AGENCIES OR EMPLOYEES IS A NAMED PLAINTIFF.

List the California County, or Sta~e if other than California, in which EACH named defendant resides. (use an additional sheet if necessary). El CHECK HERE IF THE US GOVERNMENT, ITS AGENCIES OR EMPLOYEES IS A NAMED DEFENDANT.
San Diego

List the California County, or State if other than California, in which EACH claim arose. (Use an additional sheet if necessary) NOTE: In land condemnation cases, use the location 0fthe tract of land involved.

San Diego

’.

_ /.

X. SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY (OR PRO P,ER~! -~ ~ ~

September 1974, is required pursuant to Local Rule 3-1 is not filed but is used by the Clerk of the Court for the purpose of statistics, venue and initiating the civil docket sheet. (For more detailed instructions, see separate instructions sheet.)

Key to Statistical codes relating to Social Security Cases:

NATURE OF SUIT CODE ABBREVIATION SUBSTANTIVE STATEMENT OF CAUSE OF ACTION

861

HIA

All claims for health insurance benefits (Medicare) under Title 18, Part A, of the Social

Security Act, as amended. Also, include claims by hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, etc.,

for certification as providers of services under the program. (42 U.S.C. 1935FF(b))

862

BL

All claims for "Black Lung" benefits under Title 4, Part B, of the Federal Coal Mine Health

and Safety.Act of 1969. (30 U.S.C. 923)

863

DIWC

All claims filed by insured workers for disability insurance benefits under Title 2 of

Social Security Act, as amended; plus all claims filed for child’s insurance benefits based on

disability. (42 U.S.C.

863

DIWW All claims filed for widows or widowers insurance benefits based on disability under Title

2 of the Social Security Act, as amended. (42 U.S.C. 405(g))

864

SSID

All claims for supplemental security income payments based upon disability filed under Title

16 of the Social Security Act, as amended...

865

RSI

All claims for retirement (old age) and survivors benefits under Title 2 ofthe Social Security

Act, as amended. (42 U.S.C. (g))

CV-71 (10/01)

CIVIL COVER SHEET

Page 2 of 2

 
 481 F.Supp.2d 1110 (2007)
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v.
HOMETOWN BUFFET, INC., Defendant.
No. 06cv2150 JM(JMA).
United States District Court, S.D. California.
March 6, 2007.
1111 *1111 Anna Y. Park, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff.
Charles T. Hoge, Kirby Noonan Lance and Hoge, San Diego, CA, for Defendant.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY ADJUDICATION; GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S CROSS MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
MILLER, District Judge.
Defendant Hometown Buffet ("HTB") moves for summary judgment, or partial summary adjudication, on the issue of whether Plaintiff United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") satisfied its statutory obligation to conciliate prior to commencing this action. Plaintiff EEOC opposes the motion and separately moves for a finding that the EEOC met the condition precedent of conciliation. For the reasons set forth below, the court finds that the EEOC discharged its statutory obligation to conciliate prior to filing the present action. Accordingly, the court denies HTB's motion for partial summary adjudication and grants EEOC's cross motion for partial summary adjudication.
BACKGROUND
On September 29, 2006 the EEOC commenced this action alleging that HTB subjected Charging Parties Yesica Owen, Eliza Navarette, and other similarly situated individuals, to sexual harassment/hostile work environment on the basis of sex, female. (Compl. at p. 1). The EEOC alleges that HTB engaged in unlawful employment practices since October 2002, in violation of Section 703(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). The sexual harassment included "unwanted physical touching and/or sexually charged and/or suggestive speech and/or conduct." (Compl. ¶ 10). The effect of the allegedly wrongful conduct adversely affected the Charging Parties status as employees, because of their sex. (Compl. ¶ 12). The EEOC also alleges that it satisfied "[a]ll conditions precedent to the filing of this action." (Compl. ¶ 9).
On January 28, 2005 the EEOC received a charge of discrimination from Yesica Owen against HTB. Following an investigation into the Owen charge, which included requesting information from HTB, on October 3, 2005 HTB received a determination letter from the EEOC, finding reasonable cause to believe that Owen, and similarly situated individuals, were subject to sexual harassment and sex-based harassment while employed at HTB. (Def.Exh.8). On or about December 9, 2005 HTB received' a conciliation proposal front the EEOC. (Def.Exh.9). Among other things, the proposal sought maximum statutory penalties of $300,000 per individual impacted by 1112 HTB's alleged discriminatory practices, lost wages for the employees, and injunctive relief to remedy the *1112 perceived alleged discriminatory practices. (Def.Exh.E).
Mr. Hanneman, in-house counsel for HTB, carried out discussions with the EEOC regarding the conciliation proposal. Mr. Hanneman explained that his investigation failed to reveal an evidentiary basis for the award to the putative plaintiffs. (Hanneman Decl. ¶ 20). Mr. Hanneman requested specific facts supporting the charge but was informed that the EEOC was not in a position to comply with this request. Id. During a conversation between Mr. Hanneman and counsel for the EEOC on January 17, 2006, Mr. Hanneman was again informed that the EEOC had concluded that "egregious discrimination" had taken place at HTB but that it was unable to provide more

specific information regarding the claims. (Hanneman Decl. ¶ 21). At that time, Mr. Hanneman noted that "due to the EEOC stance, it did not appear [the charges] could be resolved through conciliation." Id.
On June 12, 2006 HTB received another determination letter regarding Navarette and, on July 17, 2006, HTB received a conciliation proposal, similar to the proposal received with respect to Ms. Owen. Shortly thereafter, on August 2, 2006, HTB received another letter from the EEOC indicating that unless a counter proposal were submitted within ten business days, the EEOC would assume that attempts at conciliation had failed. (Def.Exh.12).
On August 28, 2006, HTB's outside counsel, Mr. Hoge, contacted the EEOC and informed the EEOC that HTB required additional information to rationally assess the discrimination charges. (Hoge Decl. ¶ 3). When asked by Mr. Hoge whether a relatively small conciliation amount such as $500 would have been sufficient to keep the case in the conciliation process, the EEOC did not directly respond but indicated that the matter would be referred to the EEOC's legal department. Id. On September 29, 2006, the EEOC commenced the present action.
HTB now moves for partial summary adjudication on the issue of whether the EEOC satisfied its duty to conciliate prior to commencing this action. The EEOC opposes the motion and separately moves for summary adjudication in its favor.
DISCUSSION
Legal Standards
A motion for summary judgment shall be granted where "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and . . . the moving party is entitled to judgment as, a matter of law." FED.R.CIV.P. 56(c); British Airways Bd. v. Boeing Co., 585 F.2d 946, 951 (9th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 981, 99 S.Ct. 1790, 60 L.Ed.2d 241 (1979). The moving party bears the initial burden of informing the court of the basis for its motion and identifying those portions of the file which it believes demonstrates the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). There is "no express or implied requirement in Rule 56 that the moving party support its motion with affidavits or other similar materials negating the opponent's claim." Id. (emphasis in original). The opposing party cannot rest on the mere allegations or denials of a pleading, but must "go beyond the pleadings and by [the party's] own affidavits, or by the `depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file' designate `specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.'" Id. at 324, 106 S.Ct. 2548 (citation omitted). The opposing party also may not rely solely on conclusory allegations unsupported by factual data. Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir.1989).
1113 *1113 The court must examine the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. United States v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 664, 655, 82 S.Ct. 993, 994, 8 L.Ed.2d 176 (1962). Any doubt as to the existence of any issue of material fact requires denial of the motion. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986).
The Motion
Under Title VII, the EEOC has a statutory duty to conciliate prior to instituting an action against an employer for discriminatory practices.
If the Commission determines after such investigation that there is reasonable cause to believe that the charge is true, the Commission shall endeavor to eliminate any such alleged unlawful employment practice by conference, conciliation, and persuasion.
42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(b). Conciliation is a condition precedent that the EEOC must satisfy before filing suit. EEOC v. Pierce Packing Co., 669 F.2d 605, 607 (9th Cir. 1982). In the event the court finds that the EEOC failed to adequately conciliate the claims, the remedy is to stay the action in order to allow the EEOC an opportunity to comply with its statutory conciliation duties. EEOC v. Zia Company, 582 F.2d 527, 533 (10th Cir.1978) (in the event court finds conciliation efforts inadequate, district court should stay the proceedings pending "further conciliation efforts"); EEOC v. California Teachers' Ass'n, 534 F.Supp. 209, 213 n. 3 (N.D.Cal.1982) ("sufficiency

of a conciliation effort does not present a jurisdictional question, so long as a conciliation attempt has been made").[1]
The threshold issue before the court concerns the standard of review applied to the agency's conciliation process. HTB generally argues that the court should apply the Fifth Circuit's legal standard to determine whether the EEOC was reasonable in its stance during the conciliation process. See EEOC v. Klingler Electric Corp., 636 F.2d 104, 107 (5th Cir.1981) ("The fundamental question is the reasonableness and responsiveness of the EEOC's conduct under all the circumstances."); EEOC v. Asplundh Tree Expert Co., 340 F.3d 1256, 1259 (11th Cir. 2003). The other view, expressed by the Sixth and Tenth Circuits, instructs that the district court should not consider the details of the parties' negotiations, but, rather should focus on whether the EEOC provided the employer an opportunity to confront all the issues. See Zia, 582 F.2d at 533; California Teachers' Ass'n, 534 F.Supp. at 212; EEOC v. Keco Ind., 748 F.2d 1097, 1102 (6th Cir.1984) ("The district court should only determine whether the EEOC made an attempt at conciliation. The form and substance of those conciliations is within the discretion of the EEOC as the agency created to administer and enforce our employment discrimination laws and is beyond judicial review.").
The plain language of the statute does not identify a standard of review to be applied to the EEOC's administrative conduct, procedures, and determinations. In the absence of binding Ninth Circuit authority, the court concludes that relevant legislative history intended substantial discretion to be vested in the EEOC. The statutory scheme provides that the EEOC should continue with the process of conciliation until such times as it is "unable to secure from the respondent a conciliation acceptable to the Commission. . . ." 42 U.S.C.2000e-5(f)(1). 1114 Further, an effort by the Senate in 1972 to require judicial review *1114 of the EEOC's determinations of "acceptable" agreements was soundly rejected as unworkable. 118 Cong.Rec 3807 (Feb. 14, 1972); EEOC v. Sears, Roebuck, 504 F.Supp. 241, 262 (N.D.Ill.1980). Federal courts also generally accord deference to an agency's administrative decisions, rulemaking, and operating procedures, as well as to their interpretations of the governing statute. See, e.g., United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes, Inc., 474 U.S. 121, 106 S.Ct. 455, 88 L.Ed.2d 419 (1985) ("[a]n agency's construction of a statute it is charged with enforcing is, entitled to deference if it is reasonable and not in conflict with the expressed intent of Congress"); American Trucking Assoc. v. I.C.C., 722 F.2d 1243, 1248 (5th Cir.1984) (stating that "[e]ven if an agency's interpretation would not be the one we would adopt if looking at a statute completely afresh, we ordinarily accept that agency's interpretation of its own statute if the interpretation `has a reasonable basis in law'"); Chemical Mfrs. Ass'n v. Natural Resources Defense Council Inc., 470 U.S. 116, 125, 105 S.Ct. 1102, 84 L.Ed.2d 90 (1985) (The view of the agency charged with administering the statute is entitled to considerable deference; and to sustain it, we need not find that it is the only permissible construction that the agency might have adopted but only that the agency's understanding of this very "complex statute" is a sufficiently rational one to preclude a court from substituting its judgment for that of the agency.). Finally, deference to the EEOC's determinations is consistent with the Administrative Procedures Act which provides that an agency's actions, findings, and conclusions should be set aside if found to be "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law." 5 U.S.C. § 706.
Here, applying a deferential standard of review to the EEOC's conciliation efforts, there is substantial evidence to support a finding that the EEOC satisfied the statutory condition precedent of conciliation.[2] The record indicates that the EEOC invited HTB to conciliate both the Owen and Navarette charges of discrimination over an eight month period of time, (DUF, 3, 14-18, 22, 24); HTB received letters from the EEOC providing notice that it had found reasonable cause to believe that the Charging Parties were subjected to sexual harassment and sexbased harassment while employed at the El Cajon restaurant, (DUF 11, 25); HTB was provided with an opportunity to conciliate the charges of discrimination, (DUF 13, 27); HTB was provided notice of the type of monetary and injunctive relief sought by the EEOC, (DUF 9, 12, 13, 27); and HTB was notified, on or about August 21, 2006, that it deemed conciliation efforts futile. (DUF 30). This evidence supports the court's finding that the EEOC complied with its conciliation obligations by providing HTB with an opportunity to confront the discrimination related charges.
HTB contends that the EEOC's position in seeking the maximum statutory, limits and nationwide injunctive relief was unreasonable because, among other things, the EEOC failed to provide sufficient specific facts to support the discrimination determination and the information provided to HTB failed to provide insight into the identity of

the supposed similarly situated employees. The court is sympathetic to HTB's arguments that the EEOC could have done more to facilitate conciliation. The court notes that the EEOC's rigid and preemptive attitude (i.e. 1115 requesting maximum statutory penalties of $300,000 per employee based solely upon conclusory *1115 and unidentified evidence) did not serve as an effective conciliation technique. The court is also mindful, however, that in the period of several months following the parties' initial efforts at conciliation in January 2006 until the failure of the conciliation efforts in August 2006, HTB never presented a counter proposal to resolve the EEOC's charges. Notwithstanding, it is not the role of this court to assess the reasonableness of the EEOC's efforts. This court's role is limited to reviewing whether the EEOC's efforts afforded the employer an opportunity to confront the issues. The form and substance of the EEOC's conciliation efforts "is within the discretion of the EEOC as the agency created to administer and enforce our employment discrimination laws and is beyond judicial review." Keco, 748 F.2d at 1102. As set forth above, the EEOC minimally complied with its conciliation obligations.
Finally, HTB's arguments fail to establish that the EEOC acted in bad faith or otherwise failed to discharge its statutory duties. Furthermore, to the extent that the discrimination claims are not sufficiently flushed out, HTB is entitled to conduct discovery to defend itself against the EEOC's charges.
In sum, the court denies HTB's motion for partial summary adjudication and grants EEOC's motion for partial summary adjudication on whether the EEOC satisfied the conciliation requirement of Title VII.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
[1] At the time of oral argument the court questioned both parties whether further conciliation efforts would likely prove fruitful. Given the tenor of counsel's responses, the court concludes that further conciliation efforts would not likely prove productive.
[2] The court notes that HTB alternatively argues that even if the deferential standard is employed by the court, the EEOC still did not adequately conciliate.
Save trees - read court opinions online on Google Scholar.

 
 Case 3:06-cv-02150-MMA-JMA Document 70-1 Filed 07/21/09 Page 1 of 25

I Anna Y. Park (164242)

Connie Liem (791113}

2 Lorena Garcia (234091)

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

3 OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

255 East Temple Street, 4th Floor

4

Los Angeles CA 900 12 Telephone: (213) 894-1083

5

Facsimile: (213) 894-1301 E-Mail: lado.legal(W,eeoc.gov

6 Attorneys for Plaintiff EQUAL EMPLOYMENT
7 OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

8
Charles T. Hoge (110696) 9 Lauren Butz (246668)
KIRBY NOONAN LANCE & HOGE LLP I0 600 West Broadway, Suite 11 00
San Diego, CA 92101-3387 II Telephone (619) 231-8666
Facsimile (619) 231-9593 I2 Email: chogera!knlh.com

13
Attorneys for Defendant I4 HOMETOWN BUFFET, INC., et. al.

I5

I6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

I7

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

I8

I9 U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
20

2I

Plaintiff,

22

v.

23

HOMETOWN BUFFET, INC., and DOES 1-10, inclusive,

24

25

Defendants.

Case No. 06 CV 2150
fPROPOSED] CONSENT DECREE; ORDER

26

27

28

Case 3:06-cv-02150-MMA-JMA Document 70-1 Filed 07/21/09 Page 2 of 25

1

I.

2 INTRODUCTION
3

4

Plaintiff U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "EEOC" or

5 "Commission") and Hometown Buffet, Inc., and its affiliates ( collectively
6
"Defendant" or "Joint Debtors") hereby stipulate and agree to entry of this Consent
7
8 Decree to resolve the Commission's Amended Complaint, filed under Title VII of

9 the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. ("Title VII").
10
A. In September 2006, the Commission filed this action with case number Civil
11
12 Action No. 06 CV 2150 ("Lawsuit"), alleging that Yesica Owen, Eliza Navarrette

13 aka Ana Luisa Arimendiz, and other similarly situated individuals (Julia Lopez,
14
Eva Chavez, Amy Dwyer, Samantha Sisk, and Vanessa. Sisk) (hereafter "Charging
15
16 Parties") were subjected to sexual harassment. Specifically, the EEOC alleges that

17 since at least 1999 and continuing through the present, Defendant has been
18
subjecting a class of female employees including Yesica Owen, Eliza Navarrette
19
20 aka Ana Luisa Arimendiz, Julia Lopez, Amy Dwyer, Eva Chavez, Samantha Sisk,

21 Vanessa Sisk, and other similarly-situated individuals, to harassment that is verbal, 22
physical, and visual that were sexual in nature in violation of Section 703(a) of
23
24 Title VII. Defendant denies the allegations.

25 B. On January 22, 2008, Defendant and its affiliates commenced cases under 26
Chapter 11 and Title 11 ofthe United States Bankruptcy Code in the United States 27

28

2

[PROPOSED] CONSENT DECREE; ORDER

Case 3:06-cv-02150-MMA-JMA Document 70-1 Filed 07/21/09 Page 3 of 25

1 Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware ("Bankruptcy Court") and are
2
pending under the caption Buffets Holdings, Inc., et al., case no. 08-10141 (MFW)
3
4 ("Bankruptcy Case" or "Bankruptcy Proceeding" ). The Claimants and the EEOC

5 have filed proofs of claims in the Bankruptcy proceeding for the monetary portions

6
of the case.
7

8

II.

9

PURPOSES AND SCOPE OF THE CONSENT DECREE

10
A.
11

The parties to this Consent Decree ("Decree") are the EEOC and Defendant

12 Hometown Buffet, Inc. The EEOC and Defendant wish to avoid the risks,

13 uncertainties and expenses of continued litigation. Accordingly, the Parties have
14
agreed to settle this Action. Nothing herein shall be construed as an admission by
15
16 Defendant.

17 B. This Decree shall encompass Defendant's restaurant located in El Cajon,
18
California.
19
20 C. This Decree shall be binding on and enforceable against Defendant and

21 its affiliates, officers, directors, agents, successors and assigns in interest. If,
22
however, Defendant sells all or substantially all of the restaurant located at 390
23
24 West Main St. in El Cajon, CA., to a person or entity not affiliated with

25 Defendant during the duration of this Decree, Defendant shall provide written 26
notice to the EEOC of any transfer of ownership within (30) days after the
27

28

3

[PROPOSED] CONSENT DECREE; ORDER

Case 3:06-cv-02150-MMA-JMA Document 70-1 Filed 07/21/09 Page 4 of 25

execution of a definitive agreement for the sale of the business or the actual
2 date of the sale, whichever occurs first.
3
4 F. Except as otherwise provided herein, this Decree shall remain in effect for

5 two (2) years after the Effective Date.

6
IV.
7

8

RELEASE OF CLAIMS

9 A. This Decree fully and completely resolves all issues, claims and allegations
10
by the EEOC against Defendant that were raised in the Complaint and any
11
12 subsequent amendments filed in the United States District Court, Southern District

13 of California, captioned U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. 14
Hometown Buffet, Inc., et. al., Case No. 06-CV-2150 (the "Complaint").
15
16 B. Nothing in this Decree shall be construed to preclude from the EEOC

17 from bringing suit to enforce this Decree in the event that defendant fails to
18
perform the promises and representations contained herein.
19
20 c. Nothing in this Decree shall be construed to limit or reduce Defendant's

21 obligation to comply fully with Title VII or any other federal employment statute.

22 D.
23

This Decree in no way affects the EEOC's right to bring, process,

24 investigate or litigate other charges that may be in existence or may later arise

25 against Defendant in accordance with standard EEOC procedures. 26

27

28

4

[PROPOSED] CONSENT DECREE; ORDER

Case 3:06-cv-02150-MMA-JMA Document 70-1 Filed 07/21/09 Page 5 of 25

1
2 3 4 A.

v.
JURISDICTION The EEOC and Defendant stipulate to the jurisdiction of the Court for the

5 purposes of approving this Decree and the enforcement of the terms of this Decree.
6
The date this Court approves this Decree shall be referred to herein as "the
7
8 Effective Date."

9 10 11
12 A.

VI. MODIFICATION AND SEVERABILITY This Decree constitutes the complete understanding of the parties with

13 respect to the matters contained herein. No waiver, modification or amendment
14
of any provision of this Decree will be effective unless made in writing and
15
16 signed by an authorized representative of each of the parties.
17 B. If one or more provisions of the Decree are rendered unlawful or
18
unenforceable, the parties shall make good faith efforts to agree upon appropriate
19
20 amendments to this Decree in order to effectuate the purposes of the Decree. In
21 any event, the remaining provisions will remain in full force and effect unless the 22
purposes of the Decree cannot, despite the parties' best efforts, be achieved.
23
24 c. By mutual written agreement of the parties, this Decree may be

25 amended or modified in the interests ofjustice and fairness in order to
26 effectuate the provisions of this Decree.
27

28

5

[PROPOSED] CONSENT DECREE; ORDER

Case 3:06-cv-02150-MMA-JMA Document 70-1 Filed 07/21/09 Page 6 of 25

2 3
4 A.

VII. COMPLIANCE AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION The parties expressly agree that if the Commission has reason to believe that

5 Defendant has failed to comply with any provision of this Consent Decree relating
6
to injunctive or equitable relief, the Commission may bring an action before this
7
8 Court to enforce the Decree. Prior to initiating such action, the Commission will
9 notify Defendant and its legal counsel of record, in writing, of the nature of the
10
dispute. This notice shall specify the particular provision(s) that the Commission
11
12 believes Defendant has breached. Absent a showing that the delay will cause

13 irreparable harm, Defendant shall have sixty (60) days to attempt to resolve or cure
14
the breach.
15
16 B. The Parties agree to cooperate with each other and use their best efforts to

17 resolve any dispute referenced in the EEOC notice.

18
C.
19

After sixty (60) days have passed with no resolution or agreement to extend

20 the time further, the Commission may petition this Court for resolution of the

21 dispute, seeking all available relief, including an extension of the term of the
22
Decree for such period of time as Defendant is shown to be in breach of the
23
24 Decree.

25

26

27

28

6

[PROPOSED] CONSENT DECREE; ORDER

Case 3:06-cv-02150-MMA-JMA Document 70-1 Filed 07/21/09 Page 7 of 25

1

VIII.

2
MONETARY RELIEF
3

4

A. In settlement of the Actions, Defendant shall compensate the

5 Charging Parties and class members, or heirs and assigns in the event of an

6
individual's death, as follows:
7

8

a. Charging Party Yesica Owen ("Owen")

9

In full and final satisfaction of arty and all amounts due to Owen, the

10
Defendant and Plaintiffs hereby agree that all claims asserted or that could have
11

12 been asserted in the Actions against Defendant shall be fully and finally resolved

13 as follows: Owen shall have an allowed unsecured nonpriority claim in the
14
Defendant's chapter 11 Bankruptcy Case in the amount of twenty-five thousand
15
16 dollars ($25,000) (the "Owen Allowed Claim"), which will be an unsecured, non-

17 priority claim for alleged compensatory damages, and shall be paid as a
18
"Convenience Claim" pursuant to the confirmed Plan. Other than the Owen
19
20 Allowed Claim, any and all claims filed in the Defendant's chapter 11 Bankruptcy

21 Case by Owen or on Owen's behalf shall be deemed disallowed and expunged by
22 agreement of the Parties without further order of the Bankruptcy Court.
23

24

b. Charging Party Eliza Navarrette aka Ana Luisa Arimendiz

25

("Navarrette")

26

In full and final satisfaction of any and all amounts due to Navarrette, the
27

28

7

[PROPOSED] CONSENT DECREE; ORDER

Case 3:06-cv-02150-MMA-JMA Document 70-1 Filed 07/21/09 Page 8 of 25

1 Defendant and Plaintiffs hereby agree that all claims asserted or that could have
2 been asserted in the Actions against Defendant shall be fully and finally resolved
3
4 as follows: Navarrette shall have an allowed unsecured nonpriority claim in the

5 Defendant's chapter 11 Bankruptcy Case in the amount oftwenty-five thousand
6
dollars ($25,000) (the "Navarrette Allowed Claim"), which will be an unsecured,
7
8 non-priority claim for alleged compensatory damages, and shall be paid as a

9 "Convenience Claim" pursuant to the confirmed Plan. Other than the Navarrette
10
Allowed Claim, any and all claims filed in the Defendant's chapter 11 Bankruptcy
11
12 Case by Navarrette or on Navarrette's behalf shall be deemed disallowed and

13 expunged by agreement of the Parties without further order of the Bankruptcy
14
Court.
15

16

c. Charging Party Julia Lopez ("Lopez")

17

In full and final satisfaction of any and all amounts due to Lopez, the

18
Defendant and Plaintiffs hereby agree that all claims asserted or that could have
19

20 been asserted in the Actions against Defendant shall be fully and finally resolved

21 as follows: Defendant will pay Lopez $35,000 for alleged personal injury incurred 22
after Defendant commenced the Bankruptcy Proceeding. During the duration of
23
24 this Decree, Defendant agrees that it will provide up to twenty (20) counseling

25 sessions to Lopez to address alleged harm occurring after the commencement of 26
Defendant's Bankruptcy Proceeding through Defendant's Employee Assistance
27

28

8

[PROPOSED] CONSENT DECREE; ORDER

Case 3:06-cv-02150-MMA-JMA Document 70-1 Filed 07/21/09 Page 9 of 25

1 Program at Defendant's expense. Prior to receiving the above described
2
compensation, Lopez will sign a Separate Release to which the EEOC is not a
3
4 party. Lopez was advised to consult an attorney and an attorney shall be provided

5 to her up to one hour of consultation to be paid by the Defendant.

6
d. Charging Party Eva Chavez ("Chavez")
7

8

In full and final satisfaction of any and all amounts due to Chavez, the

9 Defendant and Plaintiffs hereby agree that all claims asserted or that could have
10
been asserted in the Actions against Defendant shall be fully and finally resolved
11
12 as follows: Chavez shall have an allowed unsecured nonpriority claim in the

13 Defendant's chapter 11 Bankruptcy Case in the amount oftwenty-five thousand
14
dollars ($25,000) (the "Chavez Allowed Claim"), which will be an unsecured, non-
15
16 priority claim for alleged compensatory damages, and shall be paid as a

17 "Convenience Claim" pursuant to the confirmed Plan. Other than the Chavez
18
Allowed Claim, any and all claims filed in the Defendant's chapter 11 Bankruptcy
19
20 Case by Chavez or on Chavez's behalf shall be deemed disallowed and expunged

21 by agreement of the Parties without further order of the Bankruptcy Court.
22
e. Charging Party Amy Dwyer ("Dwyer")
23

24

In full and final satisfaction of any and all amounts due to Dwyer, the

25 Defendant and Plaintiffs hereby agree that all claims asserted or that could have
26 been asserted in the Actions against Defendant shall be fully and finally resolved
27

28

9

[PROPOSED] CONSENT DECREE; ORDER

Case 3:06-cv-02150-MMA-JMA Document 70-1 Filed 07/21/09 Page 10 of 25

1 as follows: Dwyer shall have an allowed unsecured nonpriority claim in the
2 Defendant's chapter 11 Bankruptcy Case in the amount oftwenty-five thousand
3
4 dollars ($25,000) (the "Dwyer Allowed Claim"), which will be an unsecured, non-

5 priority claim for alleged compensatory damages, and shall be paid as a
6
"Convenience Claim" pursuant to the confirmed Plan. Other than the Dwyer
7
8 Allowed Claim, any and all claims filed in the Defendant's chapter 11 Bankruptcy

9 Case by Dwyer or on Dwyer's behalf shall be deemed disallowed and expunged by

10
agreement of the Parties without further order of the Bankruptcy Court.
11

12

f. Charging Party Vanessa Sisk ("V. Sisk")

13

In full and final satisfaction of any and all amounts due to V. Sisk, the

14
Defendant and Plaintiffs hereby agree that all claims asserted or that could have
15

16 been asserted in the Actions against Defendant shall be fully and finally resolved

17 as follows: V. Sisk shall have an allowed unsecured nonpriority claim in the
18
Defendant's chapter 11 Bankruptcy Case in the amount oftwenty-five thousand
19
20 dollars ($25,000) (the "V. Sisk Allowed Claim"), which will be an unsecured, non-

21 priority claim for alleged compensatory damages, and shall be paid as a 22
"Convenience Claim" pursuant to the confirmed Plan. Other than the V. Sisk
23
24 Allowed Claim, any and all claims filed in the Defendant's chapter 11 Bankruptcy

25 Case by V. Sisk or on V. Sisk's behalf shall be deemed disallowed and expunged
26 by agreement of the Parties without further order of the Bankruptcy Court.
27

28

10

[PROPOSED] CONSENT DECREE; ORDER

Case 3:06-cv-02150-MMA-JMA Document 70-1 Filed 07/21/09 Page 11 of 25

1

g. Charging Party Samantha Sisk ("S. Sisk")

2
In full and final satisfaction of any and all amounts due to S. Sisk, the
3

4 Defendant and Plaintiffs hereby agree that all claims asserted or that could have

5 been asserted in the Actions against Defendant shall be fully and finally resolved
6
as follows: S. Sisk shall have an allowed unsecured nonpriority claim in the
7
8 Defendant's chapter 11 Bankruptcy Case in the amount of twenty-five thousand
9 dollars ($25,000) (the "S. Sisk Allowed Claim"), which will be an unsecured, non-
10
priority claim for alleged compensatory damages, and shall be paid as a
11
12 "Convenience Claim" pursuant to the confirmed Plan. Other than the S. Sisk

13 Allowed Claim, any and all claims filed in the Defendant's chapter 11 Bankruptcy
14
Case by S. Sisk or on S. Sisk's behalf shall be deemed disallowed and expunged by
15
16 agreement of the Parties without further order of the Bankruptcy Court.

17

h. EEOC Class Fund

18
In full and final satisfaction of any and all amounts due to EEOC or class of
19

20 similarly situated individuals identified by EEOC, the Defendant and EEOC

21 hereby agree that all claims asserted or that could have been asserted in the Actions
22
against Defendant shall be fully and finally resolved as follows: The EEOC shall
23
24 have an allowed unsecured nonpriority claim in the Defendant's chapter 11

25 Bankruptcy Case in the amount of five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) (the 26
"EEOC Allowed Claim"), which allowed, unsecured nonpriority claim shall be
27

28

11

[PROPOSED] CONSENT DECREE; ORDER

Case 3:06-cv-02150-MMA-JMA Document 70-1 Filed 07/21/09 Page 12 of 25

1 satisfied pursuant to the confirmed Plan. Other than the EEOC Allowed Claim, 2
any and all claims filed in the Defendant's chapter 11 Bankruptcy Case by the
3
4 EEOC or on the EEOC's behalf relating to the Actions, shall be deemed

5 disallowed and expunged by agreement of the Parties without further order of the
6
Bankruptcy Court. The EEOC's Allowed Claim will be disbursed and allocated
7
8 by Defendant as follows: $200,000 assigned to Julia Lopez; $100,000 assigned to

9 Yesica Owen; $100,000 assigned to Ana Luisa Arimendiz aka Eliza Navarrette;
10
$50,000 assigned to Eva Chavez; and $50,000 assigned to Amy Dwyer
11
12 ("Assignments"). All Assignments are subject to the provisions of the Plan

13 regarding the Debtors' obligations regarding de minimis distributions and
14
distributions of fractional shares.
15

16 B.

All settlement proceeds for the Charging Parties shall be characterized as

17 non-wage compensatory damages because the EEOC has not asserted any wages in
18
its action against the Defendant in its First Amended Complaint. Defendant shall
19
20 prepare and distribute 1099 tax reporting forms to the Charging Parties and class

21 members referenced above, and shall make appropriate reports to the Internal 22
Revenue Service and other tax authorities if appropriate.
23
24 c. Each of the Charging Parties is solely responsible for any and all taxes on

25 any settlement proceeds if appropriate.

26

D.
27

Within fifteen (15) business days of the issuance the settlement checks and

28

12

[PROPOSED] CONSENT DECREE; ORDER

Case 3:06-cv-02150-MMA-JMA Document 70-1 Filed 07/21/09 Page 13 of 25

the EEOC Allowed Claims, Defendant shall submit a copy of each check and
2 related correspondence to the Regional Attorney, Anna Y. Park, U.S. Equal
3
4 Employment Opportunity Commission, 255 East Temple Street, 4th Floor, Los

5 Angeles, CA 90012.

6
E.
7

Any Charging Party identified as having an allowed claim who did not file a

8 claim shall be deemed to have timely filed a claim which will be allowed in the

9 amount of $25,000 as set forth above.

10
IX.
11

12

INDIVIDUAL INJUNCTIVE REMEDIES

13

Defendant agrees that if the Charging Parties or class members apply for

14
employment with Defendant in the future, they will be treated the same as any
15

16 other applicant and that their participation in this Action shall in no way be a factor

17 in the decision as to whether Defendant offers them employment.
18
Defendant agrees to segregate in separate, confidential folders all documents
19
20 related to the EEOC's Charge of Discrimination and the EEOC's lawsuit as to each

21 Charging Party and class member. These documents shall not be a part of the 22
personnel file. Further, Defendant agrees not to reference any of the foregoing to
23
24 any potential employers of the Charging Parties or class members.

25

Upon request, Defendant agrees to provide prospective employers her dates

26

of employment and last position held and each Charging Party and class member
27

28

13

[PROPOSED] CONSENT DECREE; ORDER

Case 3:06-cv-02150-MMA-JMA Document 70-1 Filed 07/21/09 Page 14 of 25

1 agrees to direct such requests to Defendant's corporate office located at 1460

2 Buffet Way, Eagan, Minnesota 55121 with telephone number 651-365-2591.
3

4

X.

5
6
A.
7
8

GENERAL INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Non-Discrimination 1. Title VII Discrimination Based on Sex

9

Defendant, its officers, agents, management (including all supervisory

10
employees), successors, assigns, and all those in active concert or participation
11

12 with them, or any of them, are hereby enjoined from: (a) harassing or tolerating

13 harassment against persons on the basis of sex in the terms and conditions of
14
employment; (b) engaging in or being a party to any action, policy or practice that
15
16 is intended or is known to them to have the effect of harassing or intimidating any

17 employee on the basis of sex; and (c) creating, facilitating or permitting the

18
existence of a work environment that is hostile to female employees.
19

20

2. Retaliation

21

Defendant, its officers, agents, management (including all supervisory

22 employees), successors, assigns, and all those in active concert or participation
23

24 with them, or any of them, hereby are enjoined from engaging in, implementing or

25 permitting any action, policy or practice with the purpose of retaliating against any
26 current or former employee or applicant of Defendant, or either of them, because
27

28

14

[PROPOSED) CONSENT DECREE; ORDER

Case 3:06-cv-02150-MMA-JMA Document 70-1 Filed 07/21/09 Page 15 of 25

1 he or she has in the past, or during the term of this Decree: (a) opposed any
2 practice made unlawful under Title VII; (b) filed a charge of discrimination
3
4 alleging such practice; (c) testified or participated in any manner in any
5 investigation (including without limitation, any internal investigation undertaken
6
by Defendant), proceeding in connection with this case and/or relating to any claim
7
8 of a Title VII violation; (d) was identified as a possible witness or claimant in this

9 action; (e) asserted any rights under this Decree; or (f) sought or received any relief
10
in accordance with this Decree.
11
12 B. Posting

13

Within ten (1 0) business days after the Effective Date and throughout the

14
term of this Decree, Defendant shall post notice in the form attached as Exhibit
15

16 "A", in a clearly visible location frequented by employees. The notice shall be

17 posted in both English and Spanish, and remain posted for the duration of this
18
Decree.
19
20 c. Annual Title VII Training

21

Within ninety (90) days after the Effective Date, all of Defendants'

22 managerial/supervisory employees shall be required to attend an intensive in-
23

24 person training program of at least two (2) hours conducted on Title VII and the

25 Defendant's policies and procedures relating to Title VII discrimination,
26.
retaliation, Defendant's workplace expectations, Defendant's Respectful
27

28

15

[PROPOSED] CONSENT DECREE; ORDER

Case 3:06-cv-02150-MMA-JMA Document 70-1 Filed 07/21/09 Page 16 of 25

1 Workplace policy, and Defendant's procedures and policy regarding how to handle

2 complaints of Title VII discrimination and sexual harassment.
3

4

All staff/hourly employees shall be required to attend an in-person training

5 program of at least one (1) hour conducted on Title VII and the Defendant's
6
policies and procedures relating to discrimination, retaliation, Defendant's
7
8 workplace expectations, Defendant's Respectful Workplace policy, and

9 Defendant's policies and procedures for reporting and handling complaints of

10
discrimination, harassment and retaliation.
11

12

1. The training shall be mandatory and occur once every year for the

13 term of this Decree. Any manager, supervisor, or employee who failed to attend
14
scheduled training shall be trained within (30) days of the live training set forth
15
16 above and can be done via videotape.

17

2. At least one training session each year shall be conducted in Spanish

18
for any employee, manager, or supervisor whose primary language is Spanish.
19

20

3. All employees' training shall include coverage of the subjects of

21 equal employment opportunity rights and responsibilities, Title VII 22
discrimination, harassment, retaliation, Defendant's workplace expectations,
23
24 Defendant's Respectful Workplace policy, and Defendant's policies and

25 procedures for reporting and handling complaints of Title VII discrimination,
26 harassment and retaliation.
27

28

16

[PROPOSED] CONSENT DECREE; ORDER

Case 3:06-cv-02150-MMA-JMA Document 70-1 Filed 07/21/09 Page 17 of 25

4. The training for supervisors and managers shall additionally include
2 training on how to properly handle and investigate complaints of Title VII
3
4 discrimination and/or harassment in a neutral manner, how to take preventive and

5 corrective measures against discrimination and/or retaliation, and how to

6
recognize and prevent discrimination and/or retaliation.
7

8

5. For the remainder of the term of this Decree, all new managerial and

9 supervisory employees and all employees recently promoted from a staff/hourly to
10
a managerial position shall receive the managerial training within thirty (30) days
11
12 of hire or promotion.

13

6. After the initial training as specified above, all managerial and

14
supervisory employees shall receive the training at least annually thereafter for
15

16 the remainder of the term of this Decree.

17

7. All employees required to attend such training shall verify their

18
annual attendance in writing.
19

20

8. Within ten (1 0) days after the completion of the training, validation

21 that the training has been completed will be provided to Anna Park of the EEOC
22 (or some other designated representative) by Senior Employee Relations Manager,
23

24 Megan Lunsford (or some other designated representative) during the term of the

25 Decree. 26
27

28

17

[PROPOSED] CONSENT DECREE; ORDER

Case 3:06-cv-02150-MMA-JMA Document 70-1 Filed 07/21/09 Page 18 of 25

1 D. Policies Concerning Discrimination and Harassment
2 Defendant shall, within ten (1 0) business days after the Effective Date,
3
4 provide a copy to the Commission of its policies and procedures, in both English

5 and Spanish, prohibiting Title VII discrimination and sexual harassment that shall

6
include:
7

8

1. A clear explanation of prohibited conduct;

9

2. Assurance that employees who make complaints of Title VII

10
harassment/ discrimination or provide information related to such complaints will
11

12 be protected against retaliation;

13

3. A clearly described complaint process that provides accessible and

14
confidential avenues of complaint with contact information including name (if
15

16 applicable), address, and telephone number of persons both internal (i.e.,

17 managers) and external to Defendant (i.e., Corporate Human Resources) to whom
18
employees may report Title VII discrimination and retaliation, including that the
19
20 employee may report the discriminatory behavior to designated persons outside

21 their chain of management; 22
4. Assurance that the employer will protect the confidentiality of
23
24 Title VII harassment/discrimination complaints to the extent possible;

25

5. A complaint process that provides a prompt, thorough, and impartial

26

investigation; 27

28

18

[PROPOSED] CONSENT DECREE; ORDER

Case 3:06-cv-02150-MMA-JMA Document 70-1 Filed 07/21/09 Page 19 of 25

6. Assurance that bilingual staff in Spanish and English are available

2 for making complaints;
3

4

7. Assurance that Defendant will take immediate and appropriate

5 corrective action when it determines that Title VII prohibited

6
harassment/discrimination and/or retaliation has occurred; and
7

8

8. Assurance that Defendant's disciplinary policies hold employees and

9 managers accountable for failing to take appropriate action or for engaging in

10
conduct prohibited under this Decree.
11

12

The EEOC shall have the right to reasonably comment on the policies and

13 procedures within forty-five (45) days ofreceipt1• Defendant shall review the
14
EEOC's comments and have the discretion to decide whether to incorporate the
15
16 suggested changes. If the EEOC and Defendant agree that the reviewed policies

17 and procedures require revision, Defendant shall distribute and confirm
18
distribution of the revised policies and procedures at the training provided for in
19
20 this Decree. The revised policies and procedures shall be distributed to all

21 employees, including management/supervisory staff, and shall be included in any 22
relevant policy or employee manuals distributed to Defendant's employees.
23
24 Defendant shall maintain acknowledgments from each employee who receives the

25 revised policy. Throughout the term of this Decree, Defendant shall also post the
26
1 The EEOC shall differentiate between stylistic comments and legally required components and identify what
27 suggestions it believes are legally required.

28

19

[PROPOSED] CONSENT DECREE; ORDER

Case 3:06-cv-02150-MMA-JMA Document 70-1 Filed 07/21/09 Page 20 of 25

1 revised policy, in both English and Spanish, at a place that is clearly visible to all
2 employees at each of its facilities covered by this Decree in a legible font at least
3
4 16 points in size.

5 E. Performance Evaluations
6
For the upcoming review cycle, Defendant shall ensure that performance
7
8 evaluations for mangers and supervisors include compliance with Defendant's

9 Title VII Anti-Discrimination and Retaliation Policies and Procedures.

10
F.
11

Complaint Procedure

12

Within ninety (90) days of the Effective Date, Defendant shall

13 ensure that it has publicized an internal complaint procedure in both
14
English and Spanish to provide for the reporting, investigation and, if
15
16 appropriate, remedying of complaints of Title VII discrimination and/or

17 retaliation. Defendant shall reaffirm it's established toll-free number
18
relating to EEO complaints and shall disseminate it to all of its
19
20 employees. The employees shall be informed that a complaint can be

21 logged at any time in either English or Spanish.
22
G. Reporting Requirements
23

24

Defendant agrees that during the Consent Period, Megan Lunsford

25 (or some other designated representative), shall report to Anna Park (or some
26 other designated representative) of the EEOC any and all charges or complaints
27

28

20

[PROPOSED] CONSENT DECREE; ORDER

Case 3:06-cv-02150-MMA-JMA Document 70-1 Filed 07/21/09 Page 21 of 25

1 alleging violation of Title VII concerning the restaurant located at 390 West Main
2
Street in El Cajon, California of which Defendant is aware of. The report shall be
3
4 made on an annual basis from the Effective date. The report shall describe the

5 discrimination and/or retaliation complaints made from the Effective date. This
6
description shall include the names of the individuals alleging harassment or
7
8 retaliation, the nature of the harassment or retaliation, the names of the alleged

9 perpetrators of harassment or retaliation, the dates of the alleged harassment or
10
retaliation, a brief summary of how each complaint was resolved, and the identity
11
12 of Defendant's employee(s) who investigated or resolved each complaint. If no

13 results have been reached as of the time of the report, the result shall be included

14
in the next report.
15

16

The report shall also confirm the following:

17

a. confirmation of the establishment or review of performance

18
evaluation measures for supervisors/managers;
19

20

b. confirmation of dissemination of the policies and procedures

21

and the toll free hotline number to all employees; and

22
c. confirmation of the training set forth in the Decree.
23

24

25

26

27

28

21

[PROPOSED] CONSENT DECREE; ORDER

Case 3:06-cv-02150-MMA-JMA Document 70-1 Filed 07/21/09 Page 22 of 25

1

XI.

2 COSTS OF ADMINISTRATION AND IMPLEMENTATION
3

4

OF CONSENT DECREE

5

Defendant shall bear all costs associated with its administration and

6
implementation of its obligations under this Consent Decree.
7

8

XII.

9

COSTS AND ATTORNEYS' FEES

10
Each party shall bear its own costs of suit and attorneys' fees.
11

12

XIII.

13

MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

14
A. Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary in the Plan or the Order
15

16 confirming the Plan, nothing shall discharge the EEOC's right to enforce any

17 injunctive and equitable relief remedies under this Decree, provided, however, that
18
liquidation of any monetary claim is subject to the Plan, the Order confirming the
19
20 Plan, and the jurisdiction of the Bankruptcy Court.

21 B. During the term of this Consent Decree, Defendant shall provide any 22
potential successor-in-interest or prospective purchaser with a copy of this Consent
23
24 Decree within a reasonable time of not less than thirty (30) days prior to the

25 execution of any agreement for acquisition or assumption of control of any or all of
26 Defendant's facilities, or any other material change in corporate structure, and shall
27

28

22

[PROPOSED] CONSENT DECREE; ORDER

Case 3:06-cv-02150-MMA-JMA Document 70-1 Filed 07/21/09 Page 23 of 25

simultaneously inform the EEOC of same.

2 C.
3

During the term of this Consent Decree, Defendant and its successors shall

4 assure that each of its affiliates, officers, managers and supervisors is aware of

5 any term(s) of this Decree which may be related to his/her job duties.

6
D. 7

Unless otherwise stated, all notices, reports and correspondence required

8 under this Decree shall be delivered to the attention ofthe Regional Attorney,

9 Anna Y. Park, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Los Angeles
10
District Office, 255 E. Temple St., 4tn Fl., Los Angeles, CA. 90012.
11

12

13

14

15

16

By:

17

a .

Connie K. Liem

18

Lorena Garcia

Attorneys for Plaintiff

19

20

21
22

# . Dated:

2009

23

24

25

26

27

28

23

[PROPOSED] CONSENT DECREE; ORDER

Case 3:06-cv-02150-MMA-JMA Document 70-1 Filed 07/21/09 Page 24 of 25

[PROPOSED ORDER]
2 GOOD CAUSE APPEARING:
3
4 The Court has reviewed the terms of this Consent Decree and hereby deems the

5 provisions set forth herein are fair and serves the public interest. The Court shall
6
retain jurisdiction of this matter for the term of the Decree. Compliance with all
7
8 provisions therefore are approved is HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND

9 DECREED. 10
IT SO ORDERED.
11
12

13
14 Dated:
15

Omted States District Court Judge

16 17

18 19

20 21

22

23 24

25 26 27

28

24

[PROPOSED] CONSENT DECREE; ORDER

Case 3:06-cv-02150-MMA-JMA Document 70-1 Filed 07/21/09 Page 25 of 25
NOTICE T O T HE EMPLOYEES OF HOMETOWN BUFFET, INC.
TillS NOTI CE IS POSTED P URSUANT TO A CO NSENT DECR EE ENTERE D INTO BET WEEN THE EEOC AND HOMETOW N BUFFET , INC.
I. Federal law requires that there be no discrimination against any employee or applicant for employment because of the employee·s sex. including pregnancy or pregnancy related condition, race, color, religion, national origin, age, or disability with respect to compensation, hiring, or other terms. conditions or privileges of employment. 2. HomeTown Buffet, Inc. supports and wi ll comply with such l'ederallaw in all respects and will not take any action against employees because they have exercised their ri ghts under the law by fil ing charges with the Equal Em ployment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), providing infonnat ion to the EEOC, and/or receiving compensation for the settlement of any employment discrimination claim. 3. An employee has the right, and is encouraged to exercise that right, to report allegations of employment discriminati on in the workplace. An employee may contact the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for the purpose of filing a charge of employment discrim ination.
HomeTown Buffet, Inc.
Q uestions concern ing this notice may be add ressed to: U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPP O RTUN ITY COI\IMISS ION
555 West Beech St., Sui te 504 Sa n Diego, CA. 92101 (800) 669-4000
EXHIBIT A

 
 Case: 3:06-cv-2150 As of: 10/23/2016 07:59 PM PDT 1 of 7
CLOSED,PROTO
U.S. District Court Southern District of California (San Diego) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:06−cv−02150−MMA−JMA

U S Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Hometown Buffet Inc et al Assigned to: Judge Michael M. Anello Referred to: Magistrate Judge Jan M. Adler Cause: 42:2000e
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 09/29/2006 Date Terminated: 07/22/2009 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

U S Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by Anna Y Park US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 255 East Temple Street Fourth Floor Los Angeles, CA 90012 (213)894−1083 Fax: (213)894−1301 Email: anna.park@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Connie K Liem US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 555 West Beech Street Suite 504 San Diego, CA 92101 (619)557−7282 Fax: (619)557−7274 Email: connie.liem@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lorena Garcia United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 255 East Temple Street 4th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90012 (213)894−1108 Fax: (213)894−1301 Email: lorena.garcia@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Karen E Nutter United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 255 East Temple Street 4th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90012 (213)894−1716 Email: karen.nutter@eeoc.gov TERMINATED: 03/05/2008 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant

Case: 3:06-cv-2150 As of: 10/23/2016 07:59 PM PDT 2 of 7

Hometown Buffet Inc

represented by Charles T Hoge Kirby Noonan Lance and Hoge 350 Tenth Avenue Suite 1300 San Diego, CA 92101 (619)231−8666 Fax: (619)231−9593 Email: choge@knlh.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lauren E Litteken Kirby, Noonan, Lance and Hoge LLP 350 Tenth Avenue Suite 1300 San Diego, CA 92101−8700 (619)231−8666 Email: lbutz@knlh.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant DOES 1−10

Date Filed 09/29/2006 09/29/2006 09/29/2006 11/20/2006
12/29/2006 01/17/2007 02/08/2007
02/15/2007 02/22/2007 02/23/2007 03/02/2007

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against Hometown Buffet Inc; jury trial demand, filed by U S Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.(tkl, ) Modified fee record on 10/3/2007 (kmm). (Entered: 10/03/2006)
2 NOTICE of Party With Financial Interest by U S Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (tkl, ) (Entered: 10/03/2006)
3 Summons Issued (tkl, ) (Entered: 10/03/2006)
4 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by U S Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Hometown Buffet Inc waiver sent on 11/2/2006, answer due 1/1/2007. (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service executed waiver of service of summons)(Liem, Connie) (Entered: 11/20/2006)
5 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Hometown Buffet Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Jim Hanneman)(Hoge, Charles) (Entered: 12/29/2006)
6 NOTICE by Hometown Buffet Inc Re−Notice of Motion for Summary Judgment (Hoge, Charles) (Entered: 01/17/2007)
7 RESPONSE in Opposition re 5 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by U S Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Memo of Points and Authorities # 2 Statement of Facts EEOC's# 3 Exhibit A−E# 4 Exhibit F−J# 5 Supplement EEOC's Objections and Request to Strike Defendant's Evidence)(Liem, Connie) (Entered: 02/08/2007)
8 REPLY to Response to Motion re 5 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Hometown Buffet Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Defendant's Objections to Evidence)(Hoge, Charles) (Entered: 02/15/2007)
9 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 5 MOTION for Summary Judgment: Motion Hearing set for 2/23/2007 11:00 AM before Judge Jeffrey T. Miller. (llb, ) (Entered: 02/22/2007)
10 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment: Motion Hearing reset for 3/2/2007 11:00 AM in Courtroom 6 before Judge Jeffrey T. Miller. (llb, ) (Entered: 02/28/2007)
11 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jeffrey T. Miller : Motion Hearing held on 3/2/2007 re 5 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Hometown Buffet

Case: 3:06-cv-2150 As of: 10/23/2016 07:59 PM PDT 3 of 7

03/06/2007 03/16/2007 03/20/2007 04/16/2007 04/16/2007 06/01/2007 06/04/2007
10/02/2007 10/02/2007 10/25/2007 11/29/2007 12/03/2007 12/06/2007 12/14/2007 12/14/2007

Inc,. Motion submitted. (Court Reporter Melinda Settermen).(Plaintiff Attorney Karen Nuttert).(Defendant Attorney Charles Hoge, Lauren Butz). (llb, ) (Entered: 03/06/2007)
12 ORDER denying dft's motion for partial summary adjudication; granting pla's cross motion for partial summary adjudication 5 . Signed by Judge Jeffrey T. Miller on 3/6/07. (tkl, ) (Entered: 03/07/2007)
13 ANSWER to Complaint by Hometown Buffet Inc.(Hoge, Charles) (Entered: 03/16/2007)
14 ORDER signed by Judge Jan M. Adler on 3/19/07. Early Neutral Evaluation set for 4/16/2007 10:00 AM in Courtroom D before Magistrate Judge Jan M. Adler.(tkl, ) (Entered: 03/20/2007)
15 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jan M. Adler: Early Neutral Evaluation Conference held on 4/16/2007. Court to issue order. (Plaintiff Attorney Anna Y Park/Connie Liem/Karen Nutter).(Defendant Attorney Charles T Hoge/Laura Butz). (hh) (Entered: 04/16/2007)
16 ORDER signed by Judge Jan M. Adler on 4/16/07. The Court convened ENE Conf on 4/16/07 at 10:00AM. Telephonic Case Management Conference set for 6/1/2007 09:00 AM in Courtroom D before Magistrate Judge Jan M. Adler.(tkl, ) (Entered: 04/17/2007)
17 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jan M. Adler: Case Management Conference held on 6/1/2007. Court to issue Order. (Plaintiff Attorney Karen Nutter).(Defendant Attorney Charles T Hoge). (hh) (Entered: 06/01/2007)
18 Case Management Conference ORDER Regulating Discovery and Other Pretrial Proceedings. Telephonic case Management Conference held 06/01/07. Telephonic Case Management Conference set for 10/2/2007 09:30 AM before Magistrate Judge Jan M. Adler. Mandatory Settlement Conference set for 6/5/2008 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Jan M. Adler. Final Pretrial Conference set for 7/11/2008 08:30 AM in Courtroom 6 before Judge Jeffrey T. Miller. Jury Trial set for 8/11/2008 10:00 AM in Courtroom 6 before Judge Jeffrey T. Miller. Signed by Judge Jan M. Adler on 06/04/07. (jcj) (Entered: 06/04/2007)
19 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jan M. Adler: Case Management Conference held on 10/2/2007. Court to issue Order. (Plaintiff Attorney Karen Nutter). (Defendant Attorney Lauren Butz). (hh) (Entered: 10/02/2007)
20 ORDER re telephonic Case Managment Conferences. On October 2, 2007, the Court held a telephonic Case Management Conference. A telephonic Case Management Conference set for 12/14/2007 09:30 PM in Courtroom D before Magistrate Judge Jan M. Adler. Signed by Judge Jan M. Adler on 10/2/07 (tkl)(mam). (Entered: 10/03/2007)
21 Joint MOTION to Strike Portions of Plaintiff's Complaint by U S Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Nutter, Karen) (Entered: 10/25/2007)
22 ORDER re discovery.The Court hereby orders that Randy Young shall be excluded from attendance at the deposition of Julia Lopez. Signed by Judge Jan M. Adler on 11/29/07. (tkl)(bar ). (Entered: 11/29/2007)
23 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery by U S Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Nutter, Karen) (tkl, ). (Entered: 12/03/2007)
24 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 23 Plaintiffs and Defendants joint motion to continue discovery cut−off dates and the motion−filing deadline. Signed by Judge Jan M. Adler on 12/6/07. (tkl)(mam). (Entered: 12/06/2007)
25 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jan M. Adler: Case Management Conference held on 12/14/2007. Court to issue Order. (Plaintiff Attorney Karen Nutter).(Defendant Attorneys Charles T Hoge & Lauren Butz). (hh) (Entered: 12/14/2007)
26 ORDER. Telephonic Case Management Conference was held on 12/14/2007. Telephonic Case Management Conference set for 3/5/2008 09:30 AM in Courtroom D before Magistrate Judge Jan M. Adler. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jan M. Adler on

Case: 3:06-cv-2150 As of: 10/23/2016 07:59 PM PDT 4 of 7

01/23/2008 02/08/2008 02/11/2008 02/26/2008
02/27/2008 03/05/2008 03/31/2008 05/20/2008 05/29/2008 06/09/2008
06/09/2008 07/04/2008

12/14/2007. (jah) (Entered: 12/14/2007)
27 NOTICE by Hometown Buffet Inc OF FILING CHAPTER 11 REORGANIZATION AND AUTOMATIC STAY PURSUANT TO 11 U.S.C. SECTION 362 (Hoge, Charles) (tkl, ). (Entered: 01/23/2008)
28 NOTICE by U S Equal Employment Opportunity Commission EEOC'S POSITION REGARDING DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF FILING CHAPTER 11 REORGANIZATION AND AUTOMATIC STAY PURSUANT TO 11 U.S.C. §362 (Liem, Connie) (tkl, ). Emailed atty. Capitalization should not be used. (Entered: 02/08/2008)
29 Joint MOTION for Order (to Process Stipulation) and Rescheduling Dates by Hometown Buffet Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Stipulation to Continue Pre−Trial and Related Trial Dates and Proposed Order)(Hoge, Charles). Modified on 2/12/2008 (tkl, ). Emailed atty. Proposed orders should be emailed to Chambers. (Entered: 02/11/2008)
31 Stipulation and order to continue Pre−trial and related trial dates.Mandatory Settlement Conference set for 10/2/2008 10:00 AM in Courtroom D before Magistrate Judge Jan M. Adler; Trial set for 12/8/2008 10:00 AM in Courtroom 16 before Judge Jeffrey T. Miller; Pretrial Conference set for 11/7/2008 08:30 AM in Courtroom 16 before Judge Jeffrey T. Miller. Signed by Judge Jan M. Adler on 2/27/08.(tkl) (av1, ). (Entered: 02/27/2008)
30 ORDER re telephonic CMC. The Court will conduct a telephonic Case Management Conference set for 6/11/2008 09:30 AM in Courtroom D before Magistrate Judge Jan M. Adler. Signed by Judge Jan M. Adler on 2/27/08. (tkl) (av1, ). (Entered: 02/27/2008)
32 NOTICE by U S Equal Employment Opportunity Commission of Withdrawal for Government Attorney Karen Nutter; Certificate of Service (Park, Anna) (tkl, ). (Entered: 03/05/2008)
33 NOTICE of Appearance by Anna Y Park on behalf of U S Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Park, Anna) (tkl, ). (Entered: 03/31/2008)
34 ORDER rescheduling telephonic CMC. Due to a change in the Courts calendar, the telephonic Case Management Conference previously scheduled to be held on 6/11/08 at 9:30 a.m. is vacated and reset to 6/9/08 at 2:30 p.m. in Courtroom D before Magistrate Judge Jan M. Adler. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jan M. Adler on 5/20/08. (tkl) (kaj). (Entered: 05/21/2008)
35 Stipulated PROTECTIVE ORDER on Medical and personnel records. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jan M. Adler on 5/29/08. (lao)(kaj). (Entered: 05/29/2008)
36 MOTION for Summary Adjudication by Hometown Buffet Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Notice Motion for Summary Adjudication, # 2 Memo of Points and Authorities in support of Motion for Summary Adjudication, # 3 Statement of Facts in support of Motion for Summary Adjudication, # 4 Declaration of Randall Young in support of Motion for Summary Adjudication, # 5 Declaration of Lauren E. Butz in support of Motion for Summary Adjudication, # 6 Declaration of Lauren E. Butz in support of Motion for Summary Adjudication, # 7 Proof of Service of Motion for Summary Adjudication and supporting documents)(Hoge, Charles) (tkl). (Entered: 06/09/2008)
37 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Jan M. Adler:Case Management Conference held on 6/9/2008. (Plaintiff Attorneys Connie K Liem & Derrick Lee).(Defendant Attorneys Charles T Hoge & Lauren Butz).(hh) (Entered: 06/09/2008)
38 RESPONSE in Opposition re 36 MOTION for Summary Adjudication − EEOC's Notice of Opposition to Def. Motion for Summary Judgment on Julia Lopez' Claim filed by U S Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Memo of Points and Authorities, # 2 EEOC's Statement of Facts in Opposition to Def. MSJ, # 3 EEOC's Response & Obj. to Def. Statement of Facts, # 4 Declaration of EEOC Counsel re: Exhibits, # 5 Exhibits 26, and 30−39 (Part 1 of 3), # 6 Exhibits 40−42 (Part 2 of 3), # 7 Exhbits 43 to 49 (Part 3 of 3))(Park, Anna). Modified on 7/7/2008 (tkl). Emailed atty re S/. (Entered: 07/04/2008)

Case: 3:06-cv-2150 As of: 10/23/2016 07:59 PM PDT 5 of 7

07/04/2008 07/10/2008 07/10/2008
07/11/2008
07/11/2008
07/11/2008 07/11/2008 08/04/2008 08/06/2008 09/02/2008 09/02/2008 09/03/2008 09/03/2008

39 RESPONSE in Opposition re 36 MOTION for Summary Adjudication − EEOC's Certificate of Service of Pleadings Filed in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment on Julia Lopez' Claims filed by U S Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Park, Anna) (Entered: 07/04/2008)
40 NOTICE by U S Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re Joint Notice on the Status of Case and Hearing Dates on Dispositive Motions (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service of Joint Notice On the Status of Case and Hearing Dates on Dispositive Motions)(Liem, Connie) (tkl). (Entered: 07/10/2008)
41 MOTION for Summary Adjudication on Defendant's First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Tenth, Thirteenth, Twenty−third, and Twenty−fourth Affirmative Defenses by U S Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Memo of Points and Authorities, # 2 Statement of Facts, # 3 Declaration Connie Liem, # 4 Exhibit 1, # 5 Exhibit 6, # 6 Certificate of Service)(Liem, Connie) (Entered: 07/10/2008)
42 MOTION for Summary Adjudication of Issues Related to Vanessa Sisk Claims by Hometown Buffet Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Memo of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for Summary Adjudication re Vanessa Sisk, # 2 Statement of Facts in Support of Summary Adjudication re Claims of Vanessa Sisk, # 3 Declaration of Charles T. Hoge, # 4 Exhibit A and B to Hoge Declaration, # 5 Proof of Service)(Hoge, Charles) (tkl). (Entered: 07/11/2008)
43 MOTION for Summary Adjudication of Issues Related to Samantha Sisk Claims by Hometown Buffet Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Memo of Points and Authorities in Support of Summary Adjudication of Issues related to Samantha Sisk, # 2 Statement of Facts in Support of Summary Adjudication re Samantha Sisk, # 3 Declaration in Support of Summary Adjudication re claims of Samantha Sisk, # 4 Exhibit to Declaration of Charles T. Hoge, # 5 Proof of Service)(Hoge, Charles) (tkl). (Entered: 07/11/2008)
44 REPLY to 38 RESPONSE in Opposition to 36 MOTION for Summary Adjudication re Rape Allegations of Julia Lopez, filed by Hometown Buffet Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Lauren Butz in Support of Reply, # 2 Exhibit to Lauren Butz Declaration, # 3 Proof of Service)(Hoge, Charles) Modified to correct document description (pdc). (tkl). (Entered: 07/11/2008)
45 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment & Notice of Motion by U S Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Memo of Points and Authorities, # 2 Statement of Facts, # 3 Declaration, # 4 Exhibits 26, 30−40 (Pt. 1 of 3), # 5 Exhibits 41−45, 47−49 (Pt. 2 of 3), # 6 Exhibits 50−56 (Pt. 3 of 3), # 7 Proof of Service)(Park, Anna) (tkl). (Entered: 07/11/2008)
46 ORDER granting 21 Joint Motion to Strike Portions of Complaint. The court hereby grants the parties joint motion striking portions of Plaintiffs complaint. Signed by Judge Jeffrey T. Miller on 8/4/08. (asw)(kaj). (Entered: 08/04/2008)
47 ORDER denying 36 dft's Motion for Partial Summary Adjudication. Signed by Judge Jeffrey T. Miller on 8/6/08. (tkl) (Entered: 08/07/2008)
48 NOTICE by U S Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 41 MOTION for Summary Adjudication on Defendant's First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Tenth, Thirteenth, Twenty−third, and Twenty−fourth Affirmative Defenses EEOCs Amended Notice of Motion (Liem, Connie) (tkl). (Entered: 09/02/2008)
49 NOTICE by U S Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 45 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment & Notice of Motion EEOC's Amended Notice of Motion (Liem, Connie) (tkl). (Entered: 09/02/2008)
50 MOTION for Summary Adjudication RE−SET by Hometown Buffet Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(Hoge, Charles) (tkl). Modified on 4/3/2009 to term motion, document is a renotice of the motion hearing (nsp). (Entered: 09/03/2008)
51 MOTION for Summary Adjudication Re−Set by Hometown Buffet Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(Hoge, Charles) (tkl). (Entered: 09/03/2008)

Case: 3:06-cv-2150 As of: 10/23/2016 07:59 PM PDT 6 of 7

09/04/2008 09/08/2008 09/09/2008 09/12/2008
09/12/2008 10/15/2008 10/27/2008 11/03/2008 11/04/2008 11/04/2008
11/04/2008 12/19/2008

52 ORDER Rescheduling Mandatory Settlement Conference. (Mandatory Settlement Conference continued to 10/20/2008 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Jan M. Adler.) Signed by Magistrate Judge Jan M. Adler on 9/4/08. (lao) (av1). (Entered: 09/04/2008)
53 Joint MOTION to Continue Pre−Trial and Trial Dates by Hometown Buffet Inc. (Hoge, Charles) (tkl). (Entered: 09/08/2008)
54 NOTICE of Hearing:Telephonic Status Conference set for 9/12/2008 11:45 AM in Courtroom 16 before Judge Jeffrey T. Miller. (llb) (Entered: 09/09/2008)
55 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jeffrey T. Miller:Status Conference held on 9/12/2008. Court will set a date for all dispositive motions. Court allows counsel to reach global resolution to the case. Counsel to file motion re: Remedies available to resolve claims. All pending dates before Judge Miller are vacated. Mandatory Settlement conference date of 10/20/2008 set before Magistrate Judge Adler is confirmed. (Court Reporter Debra Henson).(Plaintiff Attorney Connie Liem, Anna Park (Telephonically)).(Defendant Attorney Charles Hoge).(llb) (Entered: 09/12/2008)
56 NOTICE of Hearing: Status Conference set during hearing held on 9/12/2008 for 11/21/2008 11:00 AM in Courtroom 16 before Judge Jeffrey T. Miller. (llb) (Entered: 09/12/2008)
57 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Jan M. Adler: For good cause shown, the Mandatory Settlement Conference set to be held October 20, 2008 at 10:00 a.m. is hereby VACATED. (hh) (Entered: 10/15/2008)
58 ORDER rescheduling mandatory settlement conference. Mandatory Settlement Conference set for 12/19/2008 10:00 AM in Courtroom D before Magistrate Judge Jan M. Adler. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jan M. Adler on 10/27/08. (tkl) (Entered: 10/28/2008)
59 Order of Transfer; case is transferred from the case list of Judge Jeffrey T. Miller to the case list of Judge Michasel M. Anello; all pending dates on the calendar of Judge Miller are vacated and shall be rescheduled by Judge Anello; hearings calendared before the magistrate judge remain as scheduled; new case number 06cv2150−MMA(JMA); Signed by Judge Jeffrey T. Miller on 10/30/08. (kaj) (Entered: 11/03/2008)
60 ORDER granting 53 Motion to Continue: Pending before the Court is the joint motion of the parties requesting that the Court continue pretrial dates in order to accommodate the dispositive motion hearing date. The Court finds good cause to GRANT the joint motion 53 . Accordingly, the Pretrial Conference is hereby SET for March 6, 2009 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 05 before Judge Michael M. Anello. Signed by Judge Michael M. Anello on 11/4/08. (amk) (Entered: 11/04/2008)
61 ORDER Setting Hearing on Motions: Pending before the Court in this matter are Plaintiff EEOC's motions for summary judgment, and Defendant Hometown Buffet's motions for summary judgment: 45 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment & Notice of Motion, 43 MOTION for Summary Adjudication of Issues Related to Samantha Sisk Claims, 41 MOTION for Summary Adjudication on Defendant's First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Tenth, Thirteenth, Twenty−third, and Twenty−fourth Affirmative Defenses, 42 MOTION for Summary Adjudication of Issues Related to Vanessa Sisk Claims. The previously scheduled November 21, 2008 hearing date on the motions is vacated subsequent to the transfer of this case to presiding District Judge Anello. Accordingly, the Motions Hearing Date is hereby SET for January 16, 2009 at 2:30 PM in Courtroom 05 before Judge Michael M. Anello. Signed by Judge Michael M. Anello on 11/4/08. (amk) (Entered: 11/04/2008)
62 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Michael M. Anello: The previously scheduled December 8, 2008 trial date is hereby vacated subsequent to the transfer of this case to presiding District Judge Anello. The trial date shall be reset during or before the March 6, 2009 Pretrial Conference. (amk) (Entered: 11/04/2008)
63 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Jan M. Adler: Mandatory Settlement Conference held on 12/19/2008. (Plaintiff Attorneys Connie Liem, Anna Park, Lorena Garcia). (Defendant Attorneys Charles Hoge, Lauren Butz, Sara

Case: 3:06-cv-2150 As of: 10/23/2016 07:59 PM PDT 7 of 7

12/22/2008 12/23/2008 02/13/2009 02/17/2009
05/22/2009 05/22/2009 07/21/2009 07/22/2009
07/22/2009

Reindel). (ale) (Entered: 12/19/2008)
64 Joint MOTION to Continue All Pre−Trial Dates; and Certificate of Service by U S Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Garcia, Lorena) (jpp). (Entered: 12/22/2008)
65 ORDER granting Joint Motion for continuance on all pre−trial dates. Hearing date on the Parties' dispositive motions is reset to 03/20/09 at 2:30pm, and Pre−Trial Conference reset to 05/08/09 at 2:30pm in Courtroom 05Signed by Judge Michael M. Anello on 12/23/08. (jpp) (Entered: 12/23/2008)
66 Joint MOTION to Continue Hearing Dates by Hometown Buffet Inc. (Butz, Lauren) (leh). (Entered: 02/13/2009)
67 ORDER granting 66 Joint Motion to Continue Pre−Trial Dates. For good cause being shown, the Joint Motion is granted. Accordingly, the motions hearing date is reset to 6/26/2009 at 2:30 PM, and the Final Pretrial Conference is reset for 8/7/2009 02:30 PM in Courtroom 05. Signed by Judge Michael M. Anello on 2/13/2009. (leh) (Entered: 02/17/2009)
68 Joint MOTION to Continue All Pre−Trial−dates by U S Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Liem, Connie)(leh). (Entered: 05/22/2009)
69 ORDER granting 68 Joint Motion to Continue: Motions Hearing Date reset for August 31, 2009 at 2:30 PM in Courtroom 5. Final Pretrial Conference reset for October 5, 2009 at 2:30 PM in Courtroom 5 before Judge Michael M. Anello. Signed by Judge Michael M. Anello on 5/22/2009. (amk) (Entered: 05/22/2009)
70 NOTICE of Settlement ;Prop. Consent Decree and Order, Cert. of Service by U S Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Consent Decree)(Liem, Connie) Modified on 7/22/2009, atty contacted re: proposed orders not to be filed in ecf system (leh). (Entered: 07/21/2009)
71 ORDER on Consent Decree re: 70 Notice of Settlement filed by U S Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The Court has reviewed the terms of the Consent Decree and hereby deems the provisions set forth herein are fair and serves the public interest. The Court shall retain jurisdiction of this matter for the term of the Decree. Compliance with all provisions therefore is hereby ordered, adjudged and decreed. Signed by Judge Michael M. Anello on 7/22/2009. (leh) (Entered: 07/22/2009)
72 CLERK'S JUDGMENT: IT IS SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Court has reviewed the terms of the Consent Decree and hereby deems the provisions set forth are fair and serves the public interest. Compliance with all provisions therefore is hereby ordered, adjudged and decreed. (leh) (av1). (Entered: 07/22/2009)