Case 2:04-cv-01349-LRL-LRL Document 1 Filed 09/29/2004 Page 1 of 7
Cn)IGINA~D

1 Anna Y. Park Sue J. Noh
2 U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
3 255 East Temple Street, 4th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90012
4 Telephone: (213) 894-1082 FaCSImile: (213) 894-1301
5 Attorneys for Plaintiff
6 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
7 UNITED STA.....- - -
8 DISTRI
9

-,,~,,-
• ,<' .

0- '-DCH

,:-_:1: "',_ :__

~·~D

Eull SEP 2'1 P \2: 08

I o.

CV -S-04-1349-RCJ-I,RI,

10 U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT 11 OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

GOLD RIVER OPERATING CORPORATION, d/b/a RIVER

15

PALMS RESORT and CASINO, COLUMBIA SUSSEX

16

CORPORATION d/b/a RIVER PALMS RESORT and CASINO, and

17 DOES 1-10, Inclusive,

18

Defendants.

COMPLAINT-CIVIL RIGHTS
Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended, 29 U.S.c. § 621 et seq. and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended 42 U.S.c. § 2000e, et seq.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

19

20

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

21

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

22 1337, 1343 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to: (a) Section

23 706(f)(l) and (3) ofTitIe VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.c. §

24 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3) ("Title VII") and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42

25 U.S.c. § 1981 a; and (b) Section 7(b) of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of

26 1967, as amended, 29 U.S.c. § 626(b) (the "ADEA"), which incorporates by reference

27 Sections 16(c) and 17 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (the "FLSA"), as amended,

28 29 U.S.c. §§ 216(c) and 217.

-1-
I

Case 2:04-cv-01349-LRL-LRL Document 1 Filed 09/29/2004 Page 2 of 7

Case 2:04-cv-01349-LRL-LRL Document 1 Filed 09/29/2004 Page 3 of 7

1

2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were and are now being

2 committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the District of

3 Nevada, Southern Division.

4

NATURE OF THE ACTION

5

3. This is an action under Title VII and the ADEA to correct unlawful

6 employment practices on the basis of sex (female) and/or age (over 40), to provide

7 appropriate relief to Toni Purdy ("Purdy") and other similarly situated employees

8 (collectively "claimants") who were adversely affected by such practices. As alleged with

9 more particularity in paragraphs 8-11 below, the claimants were subjected to harassment

10 based on sex and/or age. The harassment altered the terms and conditions of employment

11 for the claimants with Defendants Gold River Operating Corporation, dba River Palms

12 Resort and Casino, Columbia Sussex Corporation, dba River Palms Resort and Casino,

13 and Does 1-10 (collectively "Defendants".) When the claimants engaged in a protected

14 activity by complaining about the harassment, Defendants subjected them to retaliation.

15

PARTIES

16

4. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the

17 "Commission"), is the agency of the United States of America charged with the

18 administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title VII and the ADEA, and is

19 expressly authorized to bring this action by Section 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII, 42

20 U.S.c. § 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3) and by Section 7(b) of the ADEA, 29 U.S.c. § 626(b), as

21 amended by Section 2 of Reorganization Plan No.1 of 1978, 92 Stat. 3781, and by Public

22 Law 98-532 (1984), 98 Stat. 2705.

23

5. Plaintiff alleges that, at all relevant times, Defendants have continuously

24 been doing business in the State of Nevada, County of Clark, and the City of Laughlin, and

25 have continuously had at least 20 employees.

26

6. At all relevant times, Defendants have continuously been employers engaged

27 in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701 (b), (g) and (h) of

28 III

-2-

Case 2:04-cv-01349-LRL-LRL

Document 1

Filed 09/29/2004
--

Page 4 of 7

1 Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(b), (g) and (h) and within the meaning of Sections 11 (b), (g)

2 and (h) of the ADEA, 29 U.S.c. §§ 630(b), (g) and (h).

3

7. It is further alleged on infonnation and belief that the unnamed Defendants

4 in the complaint are alter egos, joint employers, and/or integrated enterprises of Defendant

5 Republic Services, Inc.

6

8 More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Purdy filed a

7 charge with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII and the ADEA by

8 Defendants. The Commission issued a Letter of Detennination finding that a class of

9 persons was subjected to discrimination and harassment based on sex (female) and/or age

10 forty (40) or above, in violation of Title VII and the ADEA. The Commission found that

11 Defendants disciplined, tenninated, or constructively discharged the claimants in this

12 action in violation of Title VII and the ADEA. Defendants also retaliated against the

13 claimants who engaged in a protected activity in violation of Title VII and the ADEA. All

14 conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled.

15

STATEMENT OF CLAIMS

16

9. Since at least on or about 2001, and continuing through the present,

17 Defendants engaged in unlawful employment practices at their Laughlin, Nevada location

18 in violation of Section 703 of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2 and Section 4 of the ADEA,

19 29 U.S.C. § 623, by creating and maintaining a hostile, intimidating, and offensive work

20 environment, which impacted the tenns and conditions of employment of the claimants

21 because of sex (female) and/or age (forty and above). The claimants were subjected to

22 unwanted and repeated sexually explicit, lewd, and sexually derogatory remarks as well as

23 sexual images and behavior by their supervisor. The claimants were also subjected to

24 unwanted and repeated derogatory comments based on age (forty and over). The

25 claimants were subjected to a tangible employment action in the fonn of, among other

26 things, discipline, constructive discharge, or tennination. Despite that the claimants

27 repeatedly complained of the harassment to Defendants' management, including their

28 supervisors and human resources, their complaints were rebuffed or ignored, and the

-3-

Case 2:04-cv-01349-LRL-LRL Document 1 Filed 09/29/2004 Page 5 of 7

1 harassment continued. Defendants failed to take immediate and appropriate corrective

2 action to eliminate the harassment.

3

10 With respect to the sex and/or age harassment perpetrated by coworkers

4 against the claimants, Defendants knew or should have known of the harassment and

5 failed to take immediate and appropriate corrective action to eliminate the harassment.

6

11. Defendant also subjected the claimants to retaliation for engaging in

7 activities protected under Title VII and the ADEA, including but not limited to

8 complaining about and opposing harassment based on sex and/or age. The adverse

9 retaliatory actions included, but were not limited to unwarranted discipline, constructive

10 discharge, and termination.

11

12. The effect of the practices complained of above has been to deprive the

12 claimants of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as

13 employees, because of sex (female) and/or age (forty and over).

14

DAMAGES

15

13. The unlawful employment practices complained of above were intentional

16 within the meaning of Title VII.

17

14. The unlawful employment practices complained of above were done with

18 malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of the claimants

19 within the meaning of Title VII.

20

15. The unlawful employment practices complained of above were willful

21 within the meaning of Section 7(b) of the ADEA, 29 U.S.c. § 626(b).

22

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

23

Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court:

24

A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendants, their officers,

25 successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from

26 engaging in sexual, sex-based and/or age-based harassment and any other employment

27 practice which discriminates on the basis of sex and/or age.

28 III

-4-

Case 2:04-cv-01349-LRL-LRL

Document 1

Filed 09/29/2004
-

Page 6 of 7

1

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

2 which provide equal employment opportunities for women and for all individuals over 40

3 years of age, and which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment

4 practices.

5

C. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendants, their officers,

6 successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from

7 engaging in any employment practice which results in retaliation for engaging in protected

8 activity under Title VII and the ADEA.

9

D. Order Defendants to make whole the claimants by ordering other affirmative

10 relief necessary to eradicate the effects of Defendants' unlawful employment practices.

11

E. Order Defendants to make whole the claimants by providing compensation

12 for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices

13 described above in amounts to be determined at trial.

14

F. Order Defendants to make whole the claimants by providing compensation

15 for past and future nonpecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices complained of

16 above, including pain and suffering, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life, and

17 humiliation, in amounts to be determined at trial.

18

G. Order Defendants to pay to the claimants punitive damages for their

19 malicious and reckless conduct described above, in amounts to be determined at trial.

20

H. Order Defendants to make whole the claimants by providing appropriate

21 relief available under the ADEA, 29 U.S.c. § 621 et seq., as necessitated by the unlawful

22 practices complained of above in amounts to be determined at trial.

23

I. Grant a judgment requiring Defendants to pay liquidated damages to the

24 claimants with prejudgment interest, as available under the ADEA, 29 U.S.c. § 621 et seq.,

25 for Defendants' willful violations as described above.

26

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

27 public interest.

28

K. Award the Commission its costs of this action.

-5-

Case 2:04-cv-01349-LRL-LRL Document 1 Filed 09/29/2004 Page 7 of 7

1

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

2

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

3

4

Respectfully submitted,

5 Dated: September 28, 2004 6 7

ERIC S. DREIBAND General Counsel
JAMES LEE Deputy General Counsel

8

GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS

Associate General Counsel

9

10

BY:~'(:§

11

ANNA Y. PARK

12

Regional Attorney

13

SUEJ. NOH

Trial Attorney

14

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

15

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-6-

 
 Case 2:04-cv-01349-LRL-LRL Document 2 Filed 10/05/2004 Page 1 of 7

; ' ~'

1 Anna Y. Park

,:,',

Sue J. Noh

2 U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

3 255 East Temple Street, 4th Floor

Los Angeles, CA 90012

4 Telephone: (213) 894-1082

Facsimile: (213) 894-1301

5

Attorneys for Plaintiff

6 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

9

10 1 1 12 13 14 15 16
«-.I 17 18
~ 19
(_ ! ) 20
oc::: 21 22

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION.
Plaintiff,
v.
GOLD RIVER OPERATING CORPORATION, d/b/a RIVER PALMS RESORT and CASINO, COLUMBIA SUSSEX CORPORATION d/b/a RIVER PALMS RESORT and CASINO, and DOES 1-10, Inclusive,
Defendants.

CASE NO. CV-S-04-1349-RCJ-LRL
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT -CIVIL RIGHTS
Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

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: (a) Section

23 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §

24 2000e-5(f)(l) and (3) ("Title VII") and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42

25 U.S.C. § 1981a; and (b) Section 7(b) of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of

26 1967, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 626(b) (the "ADEA"), which incorporates by reference

27 Sections 16(c) and 17 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (the "FLSA"), as amended,

28 29 U.S.c. §§ 216(c) and 217.

-1·

Case 2:04-cv-01349-LRL-LRL Document 2 Filed 10/05/2004 Page 2 of 7
L»s-:
-Q.)
-o:0

Case 2:04-cv-01349-LRL-LRL Document 2 Filed 10/05/2004 Page 3 of 7

1

2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were and are now being

2 committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the District of

3 Nevada, Southern Division.

4

NATURE OF THE ACTION

5

3. This is an action under Title VII and the ADEA to correct unlawful

6 employment practices on the basis of sex (female) and/or age (over 40), to provide

7 appropriate relief to Toni Purdy ("Purdy") and other similarly situated employees

8 (collectively "claimants") who were adversely affected by such practices. As alleged with

9 more particularity in paragraphs 8-11 below, the claimants were subjected to harassment

10 and/or discrimination based on sex and/or age. The harassment and/or discrimination

11 altered the terms and conditions of employment for the claimants with Defendants Gold

12 River Operating Corporation, dba River Palms Resort and Casino, Columbia Sussex

13 Corporation, dba River Palms Resort and Casino, and Does 1-1 0 (collectively

14 "Defendants".) When the claimants engaged in a protected activity by complaining about

15 the harassment, Defendants subjected them to retaliation.

16

PARTIES

17

4. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the

18 "Commission"), is the agency of the United States of America charged with the

19 administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title VII and the ADEA, and is

20 expressly authorized to bring this action by Section 706(t)(1) and (3) of Title VII, 42

21 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(t)(I) and (3) and by Section 7(b) of the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. § 626(b), as

22 amended by Section 2 of Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1978, 92 Stat. 3781, and by Public

23 Law 98-532 (1984), 98 Stat. 2705.

24

5. Plaintiff alleges that, at all relevant times, Defendants have continuously

25 been doing business in the State of Nevada, County of Clark, and the City of Laughlin, and

26 have continuously had at least 20 employees.

27

6. At all relevant times, Defendants have continuously been employers engaged

28 in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701(b), (g) and (h) of

-2-

Case 2:04-cv-01349-LRL-LRL Document 2 Filed 10/05/2004 Page 4 of 7

I Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(b), (g) and (h) and within the meaning of Sections II(b), (g)

2 and (h) of the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 630(b), (g) and (h).

3

7. It is further alleged on information and belief that the unnamed Defendants

4 in the complaint are alter egos, joint employers, and/or integrated enterprises of Defendant

5 Republic Services, Inc.

6

8 More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Purdy filed a

7 charge with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII and the ADEA by

8 Defendants. The Commission issued a Letter of Determination finding that a class of

9 persons was subjected to discrimination and harassment based on sex (female) and/or age

10 forty (40) or above, in violation of Title VII and the ADEA. The Commission found that

II Defendants disciplined, terminated, or constructively discharged the claimants in this

12 action in violation of Title VII and the ADEA. Defendants also retaliated against the

13 claimants who engaged in a protected activity in violation of Title VII and the ADEA. All

14 conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled.

15

STATEMENT OF CLAIMS

16

9. Since at least on or about 2001, and continuing through the present,

17 Defendants engaged in unlawful employment practices at their Laughlin, Nevada location

18 in violation of Section 703 of Title VII, 42 U.S.c. § 2000e-2 and Section 4 of the ADEA,

19 29 U.s.c. § 623 by subjecting the claimants to discrimination on the basis of sex (female)

20 and/or age (forty and above). Defendants also created and maintained a hostile,

21 intimidating, and offensive work environment, which impacted the claimants' terms and

22 conditions of employment on the basis of sex (female) and/or age (forty and above). The

23 claimants were subjected to unwanted and repeated sexually explicit, lewd, and sexually

24 derogatory remarks as well as sexual images and behavior by their supervisors. The

25 claimants were subjected to tangible employment actions including, but not limited to,

26 discipline, constructive discharge, and/or termination. The claimants were also subjected

27 to unwanted and repeated derogatory comments based on age (forty and over). Despite

28 that the claimants repeatedly complained of the harassment and/or discrimination to

-3-

Case 2:04-cv-01349-LRL-LRL Document 2 Filed 10/05/2004 Page 5 of 7

1 Defendants' management, including their supervisors and human resources, their

2 complaints were rebuffed or ignored, and the harassment and/or discrimination continued.

3 Defendants failed to take immediate and appropriate corrective action to eliminate the

4 harassment.

5

10 With respect to the sex and/or age harassment perpetrated by the claimants'

6 coworkers, Defendants knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to take

7 immediate and appropriate corrective action to eliminate the harassment.

8

11. Defendant also subjected the claimants to retaliation for engaging in

9 activities protected under Title VII and the ADEA, including but not limited to

10 complaining about and opposing harassment and/or discrimination based on sex and/or

11 age. The adverse retaliatory actions included, but were not limited to, unwarranted

12 discipline, constructive discharge, and termination.

13

12. The effect of the practices complained of above has been to deprive the

14 claimants of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as

15 employees, because of sex (female) and/or age (forty and over).

16

DAMAGES

17

13. The unlawful employment practices complained of above were intentional

18 within the meaning of Title VII.

19

14. The unlawful employment practices complained of above were done with

20 malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of the claimants

21 within the meaning of Title VII.

22

15. The unlawful employment practices complained of above were willful

23 within the meaning of Section 7(b) of the ADEA, 29 U.S.c. § 626(b).

24

FRAYER FOR RELIEF

25

Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court:

26

A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendants, their officers,

27 successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from

28 engaging in sex and/or age discrimination, sexual, sex-based and/or age-based harassment,

-4-

Case 2:04-cv-01349-LRL-LRL Document 2 Filed 10/05/2004 Page 6 of 7

1 and any other employment practice which discriminates on the basis of sex and/or age.

2

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

3 which provide equal employment opportunities for women and for all individuals over 40

4 years of age, and which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment

5 practices.

6

C. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendants, their officers,

7 successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from

8 engaging in any employment practice which results in retaliation for engaging in protected

9 activity under Title VII and the ADEA.

10

D. Order Defendants to make whole the claimants by ordering other affirmative

11 relief necessary to eradicate the effects of Defendants' unlawful employment practices.

12

E. Order Defendants to make whole the claimants by providing compensation

13 for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices

14 described above in amounts to be determined at trial.

15

F. Order Defendants to make whole the claimants by providing compensation

16 for past and future nonpecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices complained of

17 above, including pain and suffering, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life, and

18 humiliation, in amounts to be determined at trial.

19

G. Order Defendants to pay to the claimants punitive damages for their

20 malicious and reckless conduct described above, in amounts to be determined at trial.

21

H. Order Defendants to make whole the claimants by providing appropriate

22 relief available under the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq., as necessitated by the unlawful

23 practices complained of above in amounts to be determined at trial.

24

I. Grant a judgment requiring Defendants to pay liquidated damages to the

25 claimants with prejudgment interest, as available under the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq.,

26 for Defendants' willful violations as described above.

27

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

28 public interest.

-5-

Case 2:04-cv-01349-LRL-LRL Document 2 Filed 10/05/2004 Page 7 of 7

1

K. Award the Commission its costs of this action.

2

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

3

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

4

5

Respectfully submitted,

6 Dated: October 4, 2004 7

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

8

? BY:' 2~C

9

I

ANNA Y. PARK

10

Regional Attorney

11

SUE J. NOH

Trial Attorney

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-6-

 
 Case 2:04-cv-01349-LRL-LRL Document 54 Filed 03/13/2006 Page 1 of 7

1 Anna Y. Park, CA SBN 164242 Connie Liem, TX SBN 791113
2 Dana C. Johnson, CA SBN 187341 Victor Viramontes, CA SBN 214158
3 U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
4 255 East Temple Street, 4th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90012
5 Telephone: (213) 894-1079 Facsimile: (213) 894-1301
6 LADO.Legal@eeoc.gov

7 Attorneys for Plaintiff EQUAL EMPLOYMENT
8 OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

11

12

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

) CASE NO. 2:04 cv-01349-LRL )

13

Plaintiff,

) SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT ) –CIVIL RIGHTS

14

v.

) ) Age Discrimination in Employment Act of

15 GOLD RIVER OPERATING

) 1967, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. ) and

16

CORPORATION, d/b/a RIVER PALMS RESORT and CASINO,

) Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, ) as amended 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq.

17

COLUMBIA SUSSEX CORPORATION d/b/a RIVER

) ) DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

18

PALMS RESORT and CASINO, and )

DOES 1-10, Inclusive,

)

19

)

Defendants.

)

20

21

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

22

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

23 1337, 1343 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to: (a) Section

24 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §

25 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3) ("Title VII") and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42

26 U.S.C. § 1981a; and (b) Section 7(b) of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of

27 1967, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 626(b) (the "ADEA"), which incorporates by reference

28 ///

-1-

Case 2:04-cv-01349-LRL-LRL Document 54 Filed 03/13/2006 Page 2 of 7

1 Sections 16(c) and 17 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (the "FLSA"), as amended,

2 29 U.S.C. §§ 216(c) and 217.

3

2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were and are now being

4 committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the District of

5 Nevada, Southern Division.

6

NATURE OF THE ACTION

7

3. This is an action under Title VII and the ADEA to correct unlawful

8 employment practices on the basis of sex (female) and/or age (over 40), to provide

9 appropriate relief to Barbara Bowers-Hughes (“Bowers-Hughes”) and other similarly

10 situated employees (collectively “claimants”) who were adversely affected by such

11 practices. As alleged with more particularity in paragraphs 8-11 below, the claimants were

12 subjected to harassment and/or discrimination based on sex and/or age. The harassment

13 and/or discrimination altered the terms and conditions of employment for the claimants

14 with Defendants Gold River Operating Corporation, dba River Palms Resort and Casino,

15 Columbia Sussex Corporation, dba River Palms Resort and Casino, and Does 1-10

16 (collectively “Defendants”.) When the claimants engaged in a protected activity by

17 complaining about the harassment, Defendants subjected them to retaliation.

18

PARTIES

19

4. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the

20 “Commission”), is the agency of the United States of America charged with the

21 administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title VII and the ADEA, and is

22 expressly authorized to bring this action by Section 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII, 42

23 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3) and by Section 7(b) of the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. § 626(b), as

24 amended by Section 2 of Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1978, 92 Stat. 3781, and by Public

25 Law 98-532 (1984), 98 Stat. 2705.

26

5. Plaintiff alleges that, at all relevant times, Defendants have continuously

27 been doing business in the State of Nevada, County of Clark, and the City of Laughlin, and

28 have continuously had at least 20 employees.

-2-

Case 2:04-cv-01349-LRL-LRL Document 54 Filed 03/13/2006 Page 3 of 7

1

6. At all relevant times, Defendants have continuously been employers engaged

2 in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701(b), (g) and (h) of

3 Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(b), (g) and (h) and within the meaning of Sections 11(b), (g)

4 and (h) of the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 630(b), (g) and (h).

5

7. It is further alleged on information and belief that the unnamed Defendants

6 in the complaint are alter egos, joint employers, and/or integrated enterprises of

7 Defendants.

8

8 More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Bowers-Hughes

9 filed a charge with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII and the ADEA by

10 Defendants. The Commission issued a Letter of Determination finding that a class of

11 persons was subjected to discrimination and harassment based on sex (female) and/or age

12 forty (40) or above, in violation of Title VII and the ADEA. The Commission found that

13 Defendants disciplined, terminated, or constructively discharged the claimants in this

14 action in violation of Title VII and the ADEA. Defendants also retaliated against the

15 claimants who engaged in a protected activity in violation of Title VII and the ADEA. All

16 conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled.

17

STATEMENT OF CLAIMS

18

9. Since at least on or about 2001, and continuing through the present,

19 Defendants engaged in unlawful employment practices at their Laughlin, Nevada location

20 in violation of Section 703 of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2 and Section 4 of the ADEA,

21 29 U.S.C. § 623 by subjecting the claimants to discrimination on the basis of sex (female)

22 and/or age (forty and above). Defendants also created and maintained a hostile,

23 intimidating, and offensive work environment, which impacted the claimants’ terms and

24 conditions of employment on the basis of sex (female) and/or age (forty and above). The

25 claimants were subjected to unwanted and repeated sexually explicit, lewd, and sexually

26 derogatory remarks as well as sexual images and behavior by their supervisors. The

27 claimants were subjected to tangible employment actions including, but not limited to,

28 discipline, constructive discharge, and/or termination. The claimants were also subjected

-3-

Case 2:04-cv-01349-LRL-LRL Document 54 Filed 03/13/2006 Page 4 of 7

1 to unwanted and repeated derogatory comments based on age (forty and over). Despite

2 that the claimants repeatedly complained of the harassment and/or discrimination to

3 Defendants’ management, including their supervisors and human resources, their

4 complaints were rebuffed or ignored, and the harassment and/or discrimination continued.

5 Defendants failed to take immediate and appropriate corrective action to eliminate the

6 harassment.

7

10 With respect to the sex and/or age harassment perpetrated by the claimants’

8 coworkers, Defendants knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to take

9 immediate and appropriate corrective action to eliminate the harassment.

10

11. Defendant also subjected the claimants to retaliation for engaging in

11 activities protected under Title VII and the ADEA, including but not limited to

12 complaining about and opposing harassment and/or discrimination based on sex and/or

13 age. The adverse retaliatory actions included, but were not limited to, unwarranted

14 discipline, constructive discharge, and termination.

15

12. The effect of the practices complained of above has been to deprive the

16 claimants of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as

17 employees, because of sex (female) and/or age (forty and over).

18

DAMAGES

19

13. The unlawful employment practices complained of above were intentional

20 within the meaning of Title VII.

21

14. The unlawful employment practices complained of above were done with

22 malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of the claimants

23 within the meaning of Title VII.

24

15. The unlawful employment practices complained of above were willful

25 within the meaning of Section 7(b) of the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. § 626(b).

26 ///

27 ///

28 ///

-4-

Case 2:04-cv-01349-LRL-LRL Document 54 Filed 03/13/2006 Page 5 of 7

1

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

2

Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court:

3

A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendants, their officers,

4 successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from

5 engaging in sex and/or age discrimination, sexual, sex-based and/or age-based harassment,

6 and any other employment practice which discriminates on the basis of sex and/or age.

7

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

8 which provide equal employment opportunities for women and for all individuals over 40

9 years of age, and which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment

10 practices.

11

C. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendants, their officers,

12 successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from

13 engaging in any employment practice which results in retaliation for engaging in protected

14 activity under Title VII and the ADEA.

15

D. Order Defendants to make whole the claimants by ordering other affirmative

16 relief necessary to eradicate the effects of Defendants’ unlawful employment practices.

17

E. Order Defendants to make whole the claimants by providing compensation

18 for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices

19 described above in amounts to be determined at trial.

20

F. Order Defendants to make whole the claimants by providing compensation

21 for past and future nonpecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices complained

22 of above, including pain and suffering, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life, and

23 humiliation, in amounts to be determined at trial.

24

G. Order Defendants to pay to the claimants punitive damages for their

25 malicious and reckless conduct described above, in amounts to be determined at trial.

26

H. Order Defendants to make whole the claimants by providing appropriate

27 relief available under the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq., as necessitated by the unlawful

28 practices complained of above in amounts to be determined at trial.

-5-

Case 2:04-cv-01349-LRL-LRL Document 54 Filed 03/13/2006 Page 6 of 7

1

I. Grant a judgment requiring Defendants to pay liquidated damages to the

2 claimants with prejudgment interest, as available under the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et

3 seq., for Defendants’ willful violations as described above.

4

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

5 public interest.

6

K. Award the Commission its costs of this action.

7

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

8

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

9 Complaint.

10

11

Respectfully submitted,

12 Dated: March 13, 2006 13 14 15

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Anna Y. Park Connie Liem Dana C. Johnson Victor Viramontes

16

17

BY:__________/s/______________________

ANNA Y. PARK

18

Attorneys for Plaintiff EEOC

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-6-

Case 2:04-cv-01349-LRL-LRL Document 54 Filed 03/13/2006 Page 7 of 7

1

DECLARATION OF MAILING

2

3

I am, and was at the time the herein mentioned mailing took place, a citizen of

4 the United States, over the age of eighteen (18) years and not a party to the above-

5 entitled cause.

6

I am employed in the Legal Unit of the Los Angeles District Office of the

7 United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

8

My business address is Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Los

9 Angeles District Office, 255 East Temple Street, Fourth Floor, Los Angeles, CA

10 900l2.

11

On the date that this declaration was executed, as shown below, I served the

12 foregoing PLAINTIFF EEOC’S INITIAL DISCLOSURES by United Parcel

13 Service mail, postage prepaid, at Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles, State of

14 California to:

15

16

Norman Kirshman

KIRSHMAN HARRIS ROSENTHAL

17

411 E. Bonneville Ave., Suite 300

Las Vegas, NV 89101

18

Linda Claxton

19

Herbert C. Ehrhardt

Leslie E. Wallis

20

LEWIS FISHER HENDERSON CLAXTON & MULROY, LLP

21

12100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 730 Los Angeles, CA 90025

22

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
23

Executed on March 13, 2006 at Los Angeles, California.
24

25
_____________/s/________________
26
Thomas E. Profit
27

28

-7-

 
 Case 2:04-cv-01349-LRL-LRL Document 58 Filed 03/24/2006 Page 1 of 2

1

2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

4

* * *

5 U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
6 Plaintiff,
7
8 v.
9 GOLD RIVER OPERATING CORP., et al.,

2:04-cv-01349-LRL ORDER

10

Defendants.

11

12

Before the court is plaintiff’s Motion to Quash Defendants’ Irrelevant and Improperly Served

13 Subpoenas (# 27). The court has considered the motion, defendants’ Opposition (# 32), plaintiff’s

14 Reply (# 34), and the accompanying documents (## 28, 35, 36, 37). A hearing was held on February

15 27, 2006, at the conclusion of which the parties were directed to submit a proposed order for the court’s

16 consideration. The Proposed Order (# 55) was filed on March 17, 2006. Based thereon, and for good

17 cause shown,

18

IT IS ORDERED that the EEOC’s Motion to Quash Defendants’ Irrelevant and Improperly

19 Served Subpoenas (# 27) is GRANTED to the following extent:

20

(1) The subpoenas to the Nevada Department of Employment, Training & Rehabilitation for the

21 records of Jeannine Barela, Tammy Harris, Valerie Heckart, Carolyn Hultz, Lynda Page, Larry

22 Ramsdale, Valerie Roessing, Ruth Rozas, Shirley Stewart, and Patricia “Sullie” Tibbets are hereby

23 quashed. The Nevada Department of Employment, Training & Rehabilitation shall not produce records

24 for these individuals;

25

(2) The subpoenas to the Nevada Department of Employment, Training & Rehabilitation for the

26 records of Christina Barnes, Barbara Bowers-Hughes, Carl Karsgor, Brenda LaFond, Laura Lancaster,

Case 2:04-cv-01349-LRL-LRL Document 58 Filed 03/24/2006 Page 2 of 2

1 Penny Marshall, and Toni Purdy are modified as follows:

2

The Nevada Department of Employment, Training & Rehabilitation shall

provide its complete file regarding [NAME]’s employment with the

3

River Palms Resort & Casino, Gold River Operating Corporation d/b/a

River Palms Resort & Casino, and/or Columbia Sussex Corporation

4

d/b/a River Palms Resort & Casino. Any document, recording, or record

regarding [NAME]’s employment with any other employer is not subject

5

to this subpoena and shall be withheld or redacted.

6

DATED this 23rd day of March, 2006.

7

8

LAWRENCE R. LEAVITT

9

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

 
 Case 2:04-cv-01349-LRL-LRL Document 59 Filed 03/24/2006 Page 1 of 2

1

2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

4

* * *

5 U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
6 Plaintiff,
7
8 v.
9 GOLD RIVER OPERATING CORP., et al.,

2:04-cv-01349-LRL ORDER

10

Defendants.

11

12

Before the court is plaintiff’s Motion to Quash Defendants’ Misrepresented, Irrelevant, and Late-

13 Served Subpoenas (# 29). The court has considered the motion, defendants’ Opposition (# 33), and the

14 accompanying documents (## 28, 35, 36, 37). A hearing was held on February 27, 2006, at the

15 conclusion of which the parties were directed to submit a proposed order for the court’s consideration.

16 The Proposed Order (# 56) was filed on March 17, 2006. Based thereon, and for good cause shown,

17

IT IS ORDERED that the EEOC’s Motion to Quash Defendants’ Misrepresented, Irrelevant,

18 and Late-Served Subpoenas (# 29) is GRANTED to the following extent:

19

(1) The following subpoenas are quashed:

20

(I) the subpoena to Harrah’s for the employment file of Carolyn Hultz;

21

(ii) the subpoena to the Edgewater Hotel & Casino for the employment file of Carolyn

22

Hultz, and;

23

(iii) the subpoena to the Avi Hotel & Casino for the employment file of Tammie Harris;

24

(2) If any of the listed employers have responded to the subpoenas, defendants shall forthwith

25 provide any and all copies of the subpoenaed materials to the EEOC for destruction;

26

(3) The subpoenas to the Flamingo Hilton, Harrah’s, and the Riverside Casino for the

Case 2:04-cv-01349-LRL-LRL Document 59 Filed 03/24/2006 Page 2 of 2

1 employment file of Christina Barnes are modified as follows:

2

Christina Barnes’s employment application, performance evaluations,

documents generated in the course of any internal investigation into

3

performance and/or misconduct by Barnes, disciplinary documents, and

employment separation/termination documents are all subject to this

4

subpoena. Any documents not listed above are not subject to this

subpoena and shall be withheld or redacted.

5

6

DATED this 23rd day of March, 2006.

7

8

LAWRENCE R. LEAVITT

9

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

 
 Case 2:04-cv-01349-LRL-LRL Document 65 Filed 05/16/2006 Page 1 of 1

1

2

3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5

* * *

6

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

)

7 OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

)

)

8

Plaintiff,

)

9 v.

) 2:04-cv-01349-LRL )

10 GOLD RIVER OPERATING CORP., et al.,

) ORDER )

11

)

Defendants.

)

12

)

13

Before the court is non-party Toni Ann Purdy’s Motion to Quash (#63). The court has

14 considered the motion and defendant Gold River’s Opposition (#64). The court finds that Ms. Purdy

15 has failed to demonstrate good cause to quash the deposition subpoena. Accordingly,

16

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Quash (#63) is denied.

17

DATED this 15th day of May, 2006.

18

19

LAWRENCE R. LEAVITT

20

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21

22

23

24

25

26

 
 Case 2:04-cv-01349-LRL-LRL Document 125 Filed 04/25/2008 Page 1 of 12

1 Anna Y. Park, CA SBN 164242
2 Derek W. Li, CA SBN 150122 Dana C. Johnson, CA SBN 187341
3 Peter Laura, CA SEN 116426 EQUAL P.\.fPl.0YMEi'iT OPPORTU}llTY COMMISSION
4 255 East Temple Street, 4th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90012
5 Telephone: (213) 894-1079 Facsimile: (2131894-1301
6 lado.l~l',d(ij!ee\)c,g:pv
7 Attorneys tor PlaintitT
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
8
J\orman KirslmulIl. SBN 002733 9 PEEL BRIJVILEY LLP
3333 E. Serene Ave., Ste 200 10 Henderson, NY 89074-6571
Telephone: (702) 990-7272 11 Facsimile: (702) 9907273
.t11LirsJunaIlfqlpccl be il11lcv .COln
12
13 8i')LDYRlV'Jl~~I,1rR'ATING CORPORAnON

14
(Recitation of Coun:>el continued on next page)
15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
16 DISTRICT OF NEVADA
17

18 U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

) DOCKFTNO. 2:04-cv-OI349-LRL-LRL

19 OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

) )

20

Plaintiff.

) [PROPOSED] CONSENT DECREE )

21

v.

) )

22

GOLf) RIVER OPERl,TII'G

)

CORPORATION. dlb/a RIVER l'ALMS )

23

RESORT and CASINO, COLLJMl3lA SUSSEX CORPORATION d/b/a

) )

24

RIVER PALMS RESORT and CASINO, and f)OES 1-10. Inclusive,

) )

25

Defendants.

) )

26

27

Case 2:04-cv-01349-LRL-LRL Document 125 Filed 04/25/2008 Page 2 of 12

Linda Claxton, SBN 125729

OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART, P,C.

2 633 West fifth Street. Suite 5lUO

.

Los Angeles, CA 90071

3 Te)(:phone: (213) 239-9800

Facsimile: (213)239-9045

4 1jnda.~lf}.SJf!n@ogletreedeakins,com

5 Attorneys for Defendant COLL:MBIA SUSSEX CORPORATIO>l
6

7

8

9

10

II

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

Case 2:04-cv-01349-LRL-LRL Document 125 Filed 04/25/2008 Page 3 of 12
II

1

PlaintiffCS. Equal Employntent 0ppol1unity Commission ("EEOC") and Ddcmlants

2 Gold River Operating Corporation d/b/a River Palms Resort & Casim) ("Gold River"') and

3 Columbia Sussex Corporation d/b/a River Palms Resort & Casino ("Columbia Sussex'')

4 (cullectively "River Palms"). hereby stipulate and agree to entry of this Consent Decree to

5" resolve the EEOC's Complaint, filed under Sections 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VI! ofthc Civil

" "
6

Rights Act of

1964, as amended,

42

t l,g,C,

§ 200{jc-5(t)( 1) and

(3); Srction

102 o!'lhe Civil

* 7 Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C, 1981a; and Scdiun 7(b) of the Age Discrimination in

g Employment Act of 1967, as amended 29 U,S,C, Section 626(h). The EEOC's Complaint

9 alleges that River Palms (1) discriminated against a group of employees in tenru; and cunditions 10 of employment because of age and/or sex, (2} ~ubjected them to a hostile environment bt.~use

11 of age and/or sex, and (3) retallat\:d against those who engaged in protected activity in violation

12 orTitle VII andlor the ADEA, River Palms denies liability,

13 1.

JURISmCTlON

14

The Court h.:ls jurisdiction over the partie;; and the subject matter of this la\\'suit,

15 PUf>uant to 28 U,g,C, Sections 45 L I n L 1337, 1343.1345. 1367 and 42 U,S,c' 2000e-5(1)'

16 The Court shall retal!) jurisdiction of this action during the duration of the Oecree for the I 7 purpo~s of entering aU oHiers, judgments and decrees which may he necessary to implement

18 and/or enforce the relief provil.h;d ht'Tein or to otherwise effectuate the purposes of lhe Decree.

19 Il. PURPOSES A"D SCOPE OF THE CONSENT DECREE

21)

A, The parties to this Consent Decree ("Decree") are lhe EEOC, Uuld River and

21 Columhia Sussex (collectively the "Patties"). This Decree shaH be binding on and enforceable

22 against the EEOC. Gold River, Columhia Sussex, and eitht:r of their officers, directors, agents,

23 succ(:ssor~ and assigns.

24

B As a result of having engag0d in I.:umprehensive settlement negotiations the

25 Parties have agreed that this action shoukl be HnaHy resol'ved hy entry of this Decree for the

26 following purposes:

27

3-

Case 2:04-cv-01349-LRL-LRL Document 125 Filed 04/25/2008 Page 4 of 12

1. To avoid expensive and protracted costs incident to litigatiun;

2

2. To provide a final and binding: :>ettlement upon the Parties as to all claims

3 alleged in the Cumplaint;

4

3. To provide monetary and injunctive relief:

5

4. To ensuee that Columhia Sussex's employment policies and procedures at

6 the River Palms comply with TiHe VII and the AUEA;

7

5. To ensure training tor River Palms' employees v.'ith te~pect to their

8 obligations under Title VII and the ADEA; and

9

6. To provide effective responses to harassment. retaliation and

10 discrimination complaints.

II 111. EFfECTIVE DATE AND DURATION Of DECREE

12

A. The provisions and agreements contained herein are elleclive immediately upon

13 the date on which this Decree is entered by the Court ("the Effective Date").

14

B. Exec-pim; otherwise provided herein, the Decree shall remain in effect for thfCC

15 (3) yea" after the Effective Date.

16 IV. FE'-IDINGS

17

Having examined the terms and provisions ofthis Decree and based on the pleadings,

18 rccord and stipulation of the Parties. the Court finds the following:

19

A. The Court ha~ jurisdiction over the Parties and the subject matter of this action.

20 The Complaint af;,scrts claims that, if proven, ',."Quld authorize the Court to grout the relief set

21 fonh in this Decree.

22

B. The terms and provisions oftbi'> Decree are adequate. fair, reasonable, equitabie

23 and just The rights of the Pru1ies and the publil: interest for which the EEOC sceks redre~) are

24 protected adequately hy this Decrcc.

25

C. This De<:ree confomls with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Title VII

26 and the ADEA and is not in derogation of the rights and privileges of any pcrsun. The entry of

27

-4-

Case 2:04-cv-01349-LRL-LRL Document 125 Filed 04/25/2008 Page 5 of 12

1 this lkcrce will further the objcctlvl~S: of Tille VII and the ADEA and wiU be in the best interest

2 {)f the PQItJe::;,

3 V. RESOLl'TION OF CLAIMS

4

r\, The Parties agree that this Decree constitutes a complete resolution of EEOC

5 Charge Nos. 340-2003-10738 (Barnes), 3413-2002-01700 and 34B-2003-01217 (Bowers-

6 Hughes), 3413-2002-01575 (Karsgor), 34B-2003-00184 (Lafond), 340-2002-01674 (Lancaster),

7 340-2002-01675 (Marshall). 340201669 and 340-2003-0933 (Purdy) and the Complaint filed in

8 this action, The Decree does not, however, resolve any charges of discrimination that may be

9 pending \\lth or hrought in the future before the EEOC oilier than the charges specifically

10 rcierred to in this pardgr&ph.

11

B. Nothing in thil; Oecree shaH be constmcd to limit or r.;duce RiveT Palms's

12 obligation to comply fuBy with l'itlc VII. the ADEA or any other federal employment statute.

13

C. This Decree in no way affects the EEOC's right fO hring, process, investigate or

14 litigate other charges that may be in existence or may later arise against River Palms in

15 a.ccordance with standard EEOC procedures.

16 VI. MONETAR Y RELIEF

17

Deiendants shall pay a total of$200,OOO,OO in settlement of aU monetary claims of

18 Plaintiff-ln-lmerventton Toni Purdy and fhe identiii<d claimants V.c., Christina Barnes. Barbam

19 Bowers-Hughes, Cad Karsgor. Brenda LaFond. Laura Lancaster and Penciopc Marshall

2U (collective1y"C1aimants")}. This monetary settlement shall be allocated as follow:;: $5,000.00

21 to Tonj Purdy amI. $195,000.00 to be divided amongst the Claimants as directed by the EROe

and at the EEOC's sole discretion. Monetary ~(;'Ukments are for compensatory damagei> ior

23 emotional distress sustained by Purdy and each of the Ctaimants as a result of the conduct 24 complained-of in the Cornpl3int. Accordingly. 110 FICAiFUTA or other emploY111ent-l'clnted 25 withholdings shall be maue from any of the ahove payments. Defendants shaH issue checks 26 made payable to Toni Purdy and each ofthe Claimants by: {a) ten (10) days from the date that 27

-5-

Case 2:04-cv-01349-LRL-LRL Document 125 Filed 04/25/2008 Page 6 of 12

the EEOC provides River Palms with settlement allocation.arnoun1s for the Claimants and the

2 Claimants' addresses, or (hI March 7, 2008, whichever is lateL Defendants shall submit a copy

3 of each eheck and related correspondence to the Regional Attomey, United States E~lw;tl

4 Employment Opportunity Commission, 255 Ea~l Temple Str<;;,,;-t, 4th Floor, Los Angeles. CA

5 90012, within three (3) days of issuing the checks. At the end 0[2008. Defendants shall issue

6 1099 forms to Toni Purdy and each of the claimants reflecting payment of the settlement

7 amounts" Defendants shaH submit a copy of each 1099 Hmn and r,:lal~d correspondence to the

8 Regional Attorney, United Stales Equal Employment Opportunity Commi::mion, 255 Ra"t

9 Temple Street. 4th Vloor, Los Atigeles, CA 90012, within three (3j days ofjssuing the 1099

10 forms.

II VI!. INJUNCTIVE RJoUEF

12

A. Non-Discrimination

13

Columhia Sussex, its officers, agents, managcm~':nt, sw..:cessors, a~sign:>, and all tht)~e in

14 active concert or parlkipation with any of them, hereby agree (1) not to engage in sexual

15 harassment or otht.'r lorms of sex discrimination; (2) 110t to engage in age harassment or other

16 fonus of age discrimination; and (3) to prevent and correct any harassment or other

17 discrimination on the basis of sex or age,

18

B.

Anli~Rctaliation

19

Columbia Sussex. its officers, agents. management, succc!>wrs., assigns, and all those in

20 activc com:ert or participation with them, or any of them, lll;'reby agree not to retaliate against

21 any currclit or fornier employee of River Palms for: (a) engaging in protected activity under

22 Title Vll and/or the ADEA; (b) participating in any manner in any inve~tigation (induding any

23 Internal investigation undertaken by River Palms) or proceeding relating to ony alkgcd "J'itle VlI

24 or ADEA violation: (e) heing identified as a pussible v,itness or claimant pertaining to any

25 alkged Tille VII or ADEA violation; (d) assCTting any rights under this: Decree; or (0) rccdving 26 any relief under th1s Decree,
27

-6-

Case 2:04-cv-01349-LRL-LRL Document 125 Filed 04/25/2008 Page 7 of 12

C. Training

2

1. Within forty-five days of the E1Icctive Date. Colwnbia Sussex shaH

3 submit its polic.ies, proceJurt'.'i and training materials on discrimination. harassment and

4 retaliation at River Palms 10 the EEOC.

5

2. For the Tenn of the Decree, Columbia Sussex shall contiuue to require its

6 managerial find floll-managerial employees at River Palms to attend annual live trdining on thejr
7 obligations and responsibilities under Title vn and the ADEA. All River Palms' employees'

8 trainilig shall include coverage of the subjects of equal employment opportunity right::> and

9 responsibilities, h.arassment, discriminatimt, retallatkm, ;;md Columbia Sussex's policies and

I(J pcoC('dures for n:porting and bandling complaints of harassment and discrimination.

11

D. Record Keeping and Rep0!1il1g

12

1. Record Keeping

13

Culumbia Sussex shall establish a record keeping procedure at River Palms tI1Zlt provides

or 14 for the centralized tracking of eOJnplaints of discrimination and the monitoring such

15 compiaints to prevent retaliation. The records to be maintained during the Term of this Consent

16 Decree shall include:

17

a. All documents generated in connection with any complaint of

18

discrimination or retaliation for (he Juration of the Decree. including

19

documents related to the investigation into and resolution of each

20

(;omplaint;

21

b. The identities: of the piH1ies involved in each such complaint:

22

c.

All forms acknowledging River Palms' employees' receipt ofCohunbia

2)

Sussex's: discrimination and llnti~rctaliation pulie)', including any

24

revisions thereto. Where rhe rck:vant policy is distributed or made known

25

to employees electmnicaHy. C(llumbia Sussex "via maintain a sample

26

nutice to employees of the avnilability of tbe policy in electronic tummt;

27

·7·

Case 2:04-cv-01349-LRL-LRL Document 125 Filed 04/25/2008 Page 8 of 12

AU documents vcrif).-ing the occurrence or all training ~eljsion). and names

2

and p!):s:ilions ofall attendees for each session as required under this

3

Decree; and

4

Documents tracking and analyzing complaints failed against 1he same

5

employee,

6

Reporling

7

Colwnbia Sussex shall provide, without assertion of the nttorney-dic-nt prJvilcgc or

8 attomey work product. the tollowing reports to the EEOC in writing. by mail or facsimile:

9

Within lOTty-five (45) days after the Effectlve Date, Columbia Sussex

10

shall suhmit its policies, procedures and training materials on

11

discrimination, harassment amI retaliation at River Palms, pursuant to

12

P;;rragraph VII(C)(l). In the event that Columbia Sussex modifies its

13

policies, procedures or training materials at River Palms during the tenn

14

of the Decree, it will within fOrly~nve (45} days- of the modification.

i5

submit the new material to the EEOC~

16

h. Within twelve (12) months ufthe Eflectivc Date. and annually lhereaUer

17

during: the terrn of the Dccr\.~c, Columbia Sussex shall report the dates of

18

trainings to nOll-managerial and managerial employees at Rh'er Palms

19

undertaken plU"Suant to Paragraph VII(C)(2) and provide a statement that

20

attendance records and l"'1Ilploycc lists are available for inspection;

21

c. Within six (6) months of the Etlective date" and semi-annually thereafter

22

during the teml of the Decree, Columbia Sussex shan rep..')rt any and all

23

internal complaints ofdiS(',fimmation, harassment or retaliation at River

24

Palms for the applicable reporting period. For each internal complaint,

25

the semi-annual reports shall

26

L Summarize the nalun: of the complaint;

27

-8-

Case 2:04-cv-01349-LRL-LRL Document 125 Filed 04/25/2008 Page 9 of 12

ii. List the date the complaint WH!i re.:eived;

2

tiL Lis\. the date the complaint was resolved;

3

lV. Summari7£ Columbia S1L'~sex's findjngs, and

4

Y. Summari7.e any correctjve nction and/or discipline taken in

5

response to th1".~ complaint.

6

The semi-annual reports shall enable the tracking of multiple complaints

7

by or against a single employee. Tn conjunction with each semj~anllual

8

report! an Employee Rciatlons representative at the Direttor level or

9

higher shall audit each illternal comp1aint investigatio11 to ensme that

10

such complaints: \vere handled ill accordance with Colmubia Sussex's

II

internal polky for handling complainl';l of h3nl-ssrnenl, discrimination and

12

retaliation, et>pedally with respect to multiple complaints received

13

regarding the s:ame individual. The semi-annual report shall include

14

information on the results of the audit Dana Johnson, Peter Laura, Derek

15

U or, in the cvenl uf their unavailability, another member ofthe EEOC's

16

Icgalunil, shall review the semi-annual reports on behalf ofthe EEOC.

17

If: after fe'\iewing any semi-annual report. the EEOC has Cuncerns that

18

Columbia Sussex may have failed to appropriately investigate or respond

1')

to an internal complaint. then it may request and review particular

20

documents. related to such internal complaint. If Columhia Sussex

21

objects to all or part crany such documents request, then the parties shall

22

utjjjzc- the dbpute resolution process set forth in Paragraph IX, below.

23 VlII. MODIFICATION AND SEVERAFlfLITY

24

A. This Decree constitmes the complete undl:rstanding of the Parries witli respect to

25 the matters contained herein, ~o waiver, modification Of amendment of any Pl'OViSJOll of this

26 Decree will be ct1(x:Live unless made in 'writing and signed by an authorized repre~entativc of

27

-9-

Case 2:04-cv-01349-LRL-LRL Document 125 Filed 04/25/2008 Page 10 of 12

1 each ofthe Parties effected by the waiver, modification or amendment.

2

If one or mOI'e provisions of the Decree are rendered llnJa"\dul or unenforceable,

3 the Parties shall make good faith efforts to agree upon appropriate amendments to this Decree in

4 order to effectuate the purposes uf the Decree. In auy event, the remaining provisions will 5 remain in full force and effect unless the purposes of the Decree cannot, despite the Parties' hest

6 efforts. be achieved.

7

By mutual agreement of the PaI1ic;.., this D(."t;ree may be amended ur modified in

8 the interests Oi'jlC5tice and laimes~ in order to effectuate the provisions: of this Decree,

9 IX, 10

COMPLIANCE AND DISPUTE RESOLlJTION A, The Parties cxprcssJy agree that any party may bring an action before this Court

11 to t:nforcc the Decree ifl! has reason to believe that the other party has failed to comply with 12 any provision of this Decree. Prior to initiating such petition, ~uch party will notify the other 13 party and/or its legal cotmscl of record, in writing, of the nature of the dispute. This notice shall 14 speci()' lh~ particular provision(s) that the party believes has!l13ve been breached.

15

The Parties agree to cooperate with each other and usc their best ellbr1s 10

16 resolve any dispute referenced in the abovl.~ notice.

17

After lorty-five days have passed with no resolution or agreement to extend the

18 time further, either party may petition this Court for resolution of the Jispuu:, st:eking aU

19 available reliet: including. but not limited to. the imposition of attorneys! fees and C()5t!i and an 20 extension of the term of the Oec.fcc fOf such period of time as such party is shown to be in 21 breach oftht..~ Decree.

22 X. COSTS Of ADMINlSTRA'l10N AND IMPLEMENTATION OF CONSENT DECREE

23

Gold River and Columbia Su~cx shall bear all costs associak-u with their obligations

24 under this Consent Decree.

25 XL COSTS AND ATI'ORNI, YS' FEES

26

Each Party shall bear its own costs uf suit and attorneys' fees.

27

-10-

Case 2:04-cv-01349-LRL-LRL Document 125 Filed 04/25/2008 Page 11 of 12

XII. r.OUNTERPARTS AND FACSIMILE SID ATURES

2

This Dccree llIay be signed in counlerparts. A facsimile signature ~hall have the same

3 force and t:n~cl of an original signature or copy thereof.

4

IT IS SO OIUlERED.

5

6

HOIl. Lnwrence R. Leavitt

7

United States Magistrate Judge

8

Oaled: _ _44--2_ 245--00_ 88 __ __

9
10
1I
12
IJ
Date: 14

Respectfully Submitted,

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Anna Y. Park

Dana C. Johns;;o:;;n~_ _

AE?~ Byf" Anna Y. Park

~-

15

AUomeys for Plaintiff

EOUAL EM PLOYMENT

16

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

17
18
IJI .b i" I~ 0.10: 3 0 ~
20
21

PEEL BRIMLEY LLP Norman H. Kir~hman
By h--f/-. /4-sz Norman H. Kirshman Attorneys for DefemJanL GOLI) RJVER OPERATING CORP.

22

OGLETREE OEAKINS NASH SMOAK &

STEW T, P.C.

23

'laXlon

24
25 Date: g/:;'S-/og
26 27

, By: .aJ~~~~~::1 a C axton Attorneys fur De1endant COLUMBIA SUSSEX CORP.
-" -

Case 2:04-cv-01349-LRL-LRL Document 125 Filed 04/25/2008 Page 12 of 12

PROOF OF SERVICE VIA ELECTRONIC FILL'IG SYSTEM
I

2

[ am, and was at the time the herein mentioned mailing took place, a citizen

3 of the United States, over the age of eighteen (18) years and not a party to the

4 above-entitled cause.

s

Tam employed in lhe Legal Unit of the Los Angeles District Office of the

Ii United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

7

My business address is Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Los

8 Angeles District Office, 255 East Temple Street, Fourth Floor, Los Angeles, CA

9 90012.

l O O n lhe dale that this declaration was executed, as shown below, I served the

II foregoing [PROPOSED] CONSE!\, DECREE via the Case

12 ManagementlElectronic Case Filing (CMlECF) system at Los Angeles, County of

13 Los Angeles, California to:

14

Nonnan H. Kirshman

15

l'EEL BRIMLEY LLP 3333 E. Serene Avenue, Suite 200

16

Henderson, Nevada 89074-6571

17

OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.c.

18

Linda Claxton 633 West 5'h Street, Suile 5300

19

Los Angeles, CA 90071

20

21

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

22 Executed on March 28, 2008, at Los AngCle~

23

/ V

24

LINA G. WILLIAMS

26
27
28
.,.

 
 E.E.O.C. v. Gold River Operating Corp., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2007)

2007 WL 983853 United States District Court,
D. Nevada.
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v.
GOLD RIVER OPERATING CORP., et al., Defendants.
No. 2:04-cv-01349-LRL. | March 30, 2007.
Attorneys and Law Firms
Anna Park, Connie Liem, Dana C. Johnson, Sue J. Noh, Victor Viramontes, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff.
Herbert C. Ehrhardt, Lewis Fisher Henderson Claxton & Mulroy LLP, Jackson, MS, Kristina Pickering, Rex Garner, Morris Pickering Peterson & Trachok, Norman H. Kirshman, Parsons Behle & Latimer, Las Vegas, NV, Leslie E. Wallis, Linda Claxton, Lewis, Fisher, Henderson, Claxton & Mulroy, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants.
Opinion
ORDER
LAWRENCE R. LEAVITT, United States Magistrate Judge.
*1 Before the court is plaintiff EEOC’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (# 81), defendants’ Opposition (# 90), and the EEOC’s Reply (# 93). Also before the court is defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (# 85), the EEOC’s Opposition (# 86), and defendants’ Reply (# 95). The court has also considered Barbara Bowers-Hughes’ Declaration in Support of Plaintiff EEOC’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (# 82), Dana Johnson’s Declaration in Support of Plaintiff EEOC’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (# 83), Christine Park-Gonzalez’s Declaration in Support of Plaintiff EEOC’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (# 84), the Declaration of Dana C. Johnson in Support of Plaintiff EEOC’s Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (# 87), the Declaration of EEOC Chairperson Cari M. Dominguez in Support of Plaintiff EEOC’s Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (# 88), Plaintiff EEOC’s Lodgment of Additional Authorities in Support of its Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (# 89), the Declaration of Lynn A. Vlahos in Support of Opposition

to Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (# 91), the Declaration of Linda Claxton in Support of Opposition to Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (# 92), and the Declaration of Dana C. Johnson in Support of Plaintiff EEOC’s Reply Brief in Connection with its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (# 94).
The EEOC asks this court to find that it met the statutory conditions precedent prior to commencing this action. It also asks the court to rule that defendants are not entitled to invoke the Ellerth/Faragher affirmative defense. Defendants contend that the EEOC has not met the conditions precedent to suit and that a genuine issue of material fact exists as to the reasonableness of its investigation. In their Motion to Dismiss defendants seek an order dismissing the action on the ground that the EEOC’s investigation was flawed and based on fraudulent information. In the alternative, defendants request the court to stay the proceedings and “remand” the matter back to the EEOC. The defendants also request the court to reconvene the deposition of the EEOC investigator, Park-Gonzalez, and compel her to answer questions previously objected to under the deliberative process privilege.
BACKGROUND
This case involves allegations of gender and age discrimination at the River Palms Resort and Casino. Plaintiff alleges that Ed Ortiz, the then beverage department manager, instituted a campaign to eliminate older female servers. Plaintiff alleges that in or about April, 2002, Ortiz began to implement changes that discriminated against the older waitresses with seniority. It is alleged that initially Ortiz began to talk to cocktail servers about awarding shifts based on factors other than seniority. Ortiz then allegedly instructed a subordinate to hire only cocktail servers who were under the age of twenty-five. As part of the alleged discrimination, it is asserted that Ortiz administered the schedules so that the older servers were not placed in the most lucrative stations and that the heavier servers were scheduled during the graveyard shift. As a backdrop to this stated shift to younger, thinner servers, Ortiz is accused of keeping posters of scantily clad women in his office, commenting on servers’ bottoms and breasts, and in one instance slapping a server on her bottom.
*2 Ten complaints by seven different employees were made to the Nevada Equal Rights Commission (“NERC”) and the EEOC beginning August 6, 2002 and continuing through July 11, 2003. The EEOC conducted an investigation and concluded that reasonable cause exists to believe that River Palms violated Title VII of the Civil
1

E.E.O.C. v. Gold River Operating Corp., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2007)

Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., (“Title VII”) and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq., (“ADEA”). The instant litigation followed.

efforts. EEOC v. Pierce Packing Co., 669 F.2d 605, 607 (9th Cir.1982). Defendants contend that the EEOC’s investigation was inadequate, its cause determinations flawed, and that it did not reasonably attempt to conciliate.

DISCUSSION
I. Motion for Summary Judgment
A. Legal Standard Summary judgment is proper when “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56©. An issue is “genuine” only if there is a sufficient evidentiary basis on which a reasonable fact finder could find for the nonmoving party, and a dispute is “material” only if it could affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248-49 (1986); Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). The party moving for summary judgment has the burden of showing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact, and the court must view all facts and draw all inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Zoslaw v. MCA Distrib. Corp., 693 F.2d 870, 883 (9th Cir .1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1085 (1983).
Once the moving party satisfies the requirements of Rule 56, the burden shifts to the party resisting the motion to “set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 256; Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986). The nonmoving party “may not rely on denials in the pleadings but must produce specific evidence, through affidavits or admissible discovery material, to show that the dispute exists,” Bhan v. NME Hosp., Inc., 929 F.2d 1404, 1409 (9th Cir.1991), and “must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd., 475 U.S. at 586.
B. Conditions Precedent Title VII allows the EEOC to commence civil suits in its own name. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1). There are four conditions precedent, however, which the agency must satisfy before it may bring suit. First, a charge of discrimination must be filed. The EEOC must then inform the alleged wrongdoer of the charge, conduct an investigation, and determine whether reasonable cause exists to believe that the charges are true. If reasonable cause is found, the agency must engage in conciliation

1. Charge and Notice of Unlawful Employment Practice *3 The EEOC established that it received ten charges of discrimination and provided notice to River Palms of each, in compliance with 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(b). (See Park-Gonzalez Dec. (# 84) Exs. 1-20.)

2. Conduct an Investigation and Determine Whether Reasonable Cause Exists to Believe That the Charge Is True The EEOC contends that these two conditions precedent were satisfied. It argues that the EEOC need only conduct some investigation. (Mot.(# 81) 19 (citing EEOC v. The Nestle Co., 1982 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12373, 1982 WL 234, at * 1 (E.D.Cal.1982)).) After concluding the investigations, the EEOC determined that there was reasonable cause to believe that River Palms had violated Title VII and the ADEA. Thereafter, the EEOC issued Letters of Determination to the charging parties and River Palms. (Park-Gonzalez Dec. (# 84) Exs. 21-27.)
Defendants argue that the EEOC’s investigation was inadequate and the cause determination flawed, which is the basis for defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. For the reasons that follow, the court finds that the EEOC has satisfied these two conditions precedent.

(I) Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (# 85)1

1

Although the Motion to Dismiss was filed a day late,

the court will deem it timely filed inasmuch as the court

accepts at face value defendants’ explanation that there

was a problem filing the Motion due to technical

difficulties with CM/ECF.

Plaintiffs argue that the “egregious course of misconduct” during the EEOC’s investigation into defendants’ alleged violations of Title VII and the ADEA mandates a dismissal of this action. The defendants also suggests a “remand” for further investigation by the EEOC, in the event the court declines to dismiss the case.

(a) Legal Standard Defendants have offered several exhibits in support of
2

E.E.O.C. v. Gold River Operating Corp., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2007)

their Motion to Dismiss. The court therefore will treat the motion as one for summary judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b) and 56.
(b)The EEOC’s Investigation Defendants state that they have found no precedent that addresses the specific facts of this case. (Defs.’ Mot. (# 85) 2.) Defendants nevertheless believe that the court has inherent authority to fashion a remedy to redress the prejudice to which they have allegedly been subjected.
The court need not address the various allegations of EEOC misconduct made by defendants because an employer may not litigate the adequacy of the EEOC’s investigation and determination, see EEOC v. KECO Indus., Inc., 748 F.2d 1097, 1100 (6th Cir.1984), unless a plaintiff enters the EEOC’s letter of determination as evidence, in which case the defendant is free to point out deficiencies in the investigation. See Plummer v. W. Int’l Hotels Co. Inc., 656 F.2d 502, 505 n. 9 (9th Cir.1981) (noting that defendants may introduce evidence to refute the EEOC’s reasonable cause determination and such evidence would go to the weight to be given by the trier of fact to the EEOC determination). Nothing in the legislative history of Title VII indicates that Congress intended such a challenge. See KECO Indus., Inc., 748 F.2d at 1100 (citing EEOC v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 373 F.Supp. 1321, 1338 (D.Del.1974)).

determination.... [This determination] would effectively make every Title VII suit a two-step action: First, the parties would litigate the question of whether EEOC had a reasonable basis for its initial finding, and only then would the parties proceed to litigate the merits of the action.
Id. (quoting with approval EEOC v. Chicago Miniature Lamp Works, 526 F.Supp. 974, 975 (N.D.Ill.1981) (emphasis in original).

© Due Process Defendants argue that their due process rights are violated by being forced to defend an action allegedly initiated because of felonious and fraudulent conduct during the course of the EEOC’s investigation. The law is squarely against defendants’ claim in this regard.2

2

The case law cited by defendants is inapposite to the

present issue.

There can be no due process violation when the Commission’s findings are not binding on the employer. See EEOC v. Gen. Elec. Co., 532 F.2d 359, 370 (4th Cir.1976).

The Ninth Circuit has not directly addressed this issue. Other courts that have considered the subject are in agreement that an employer may not litigate the adequacy of the EEOC’s investigation or determination. See e.g., EEOC v. Walner & Assocs., 91 F.3d 963, 968 n. 3 (7th Cir.1996) (“This determination of reasonable cause is only an administrative prerequisite to a court action and has no legally binding significance in subsequent litigation.”) (citation omitted); EEOC v. St. Anne’s Hosp., 664 F.2d 128, 131 (7th Cir.1981) (“A reasonable cause determination is not to adjudicate a claim but to notify an employer of the Commission’s findings.”); EEOC v. Chicago Miniature Lamp Works, 526 F.Supp. 974, 975 (N.D.Ill.1981) (“no pre-merits judicial inquiry into the basis for EEOC’s investigation findings is proper in the ensuing Title VII action.”); EEOC v. KECO Indus., Inc., 748 F.2d 1097, 1100 (6th Cir.1984) (“It was error for the district court to inquire into the sufficiency of the Commission’s investigation.”).
*4 That line of inquiry would deflect the efforts of both the court and the parties from the main purpose of this litigation: to determine whether [the defendant] has actually violated Title VII. Acceptance of [the defendant’s] theory would entitle every Title VII defendant to litigate as a preliminary matter whether EEOC had a reasonable basis for its

(d) Stay of Proceedings and “Remand” to the EEOC The remedy for an alleged defect in the EEOC’s investigation and reasonable cause determination is a trial on the merits of the complaint in the district court. See KECO Indus., Inc., 748 F.2d at 1100. “Remand” is not the proper remedy.
3. Conciliation The threshold issue before the court concerns the standard of review to apply to the agency’s conciliation process. Plaintiff argues that the “good faith conciliation requirement is properly limited to a good faith effort to allow an out of court settlement, rather than a good faith effort to meet the defendant on its own terms.” (Mot.(# 81) 21 (citing United States v. California Dept. of Corr., 1990 WL 145599, at *7 (E.D.Cal.1990); EEOC v. KECO Indus., Inc., 748 F.2d 1097, 1102 (6th Cir.1984)).) This view, expressed by the Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, and Tenth Circuits, instructs that the 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 of the issues. See EEOC v. Zia Company, 582 F.2d 527, 533 (10th Cir.1978); see also KECO Indus., Inc., 748 F.2d at 1102 (“The district court should only determine whether the EEOC made an
3

E.E.O.C. v. Gold River Operating Corp., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2007)

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.”).
Defendants argue that the court should apply the Fifth and Eleventh Circuit’s legal standard to determine whether the EEOC was reasonable during the conciliation process. (Defs.’ Opp’n (# 90) 12 (citing EEOC v. Asplundh Tree Expert Co., 340 F.3d 1256, 1259 (11th Cir.2003) (adopting the Fifth Circuit’s standard for satisfying the statutory requirement of conciliation)).) Such an approach requires the EEOC to “(1) outline to the employer the reasonable cause for its belief that Title VII has been violated; (2) offer an opportunity for voluntary compliance; and (3) respond in a reasonable and flexible manner to the reasonable attitudes of the employer.” Asplundh Tree Expert Co., 340 F.3d at 1259 (citing EEOC v. Klingler Elec. Corp., 636 F.2d 104, 107 (5th Cir .1981)). Using this standard, defendants request the court to find the EEOC’s conciliation efforts unreasonable. Defendants argue that the EEOC failed to outline to the employer the reasonable cause for its belief that the law was violated. Additionally, it asked for make-whole relief, back pay, and compensatory damages, rather than coming to the table with a negotiable compliance offer.
*5 There is no binding Ninth Circuit authority on this issue. The statutory scheme provides that the EEOC should continue with the process of conciliation until such time as it is “unable to secure from the respondent a conciliation acceptable to the Commission....” 42 U.S.C.2000e-5(f)(1). Further, “[a]n effort by the Senate in 1972 to require judicial review of the Commission’s determinations of acceptable agreements was soundly rejected as unworkable.” EEOC v. Sears, Roebuck, 504 F.Supp. 241, 262 (N.E.Ill.1980) (citing 188 Cong. Rec. 3807 (Feb. 14, 1972)) (internal quotations omitted). Finally, federal courts generally accord deference to an agency’s administrative decision if it is reasonable and not in conflict with the expressed intent of Congress. United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes, Inc., 474 U.S. 121, 131 (1985) (citations omitted). For these reasons the court concludes that it was intended that substantial discretion in conciliation efforts be vested in the EEOC and the court should not examine the substance of the parties’ negotiations. Cf. EEOC v. Canadian Indemnity Co., 407 F.Supp. 1366, 1367 (C.D.Cal.1976) (finding that acceptance or rejection of the defendant’s counteroffer was within the Commission’s discretion).

notice as to the type of monetary and injunctive relief sought by the EEOC. (Vlahos Dec. (# 91) Ex. C.) In response, River Palms indicated it was willing to participate in conciliation but believed it was premature to do so. (See id., Letter, September 22, 2003.) River Palms chose not to make a counteroffer and was subsequently notified that the EEOC determined that further conciliation efforts would be futile or nonproductive. (See Park-Gonzalez Dec. (# 84) Exs. 28-30.)
On August 2, 2004 River Palms was again invited to participate in conciliation by the EEOC, prompted by a reasonable cause determination as to four additional charges. (See Vlahos Dec. (# 91) Ex. C.) In the interim between invitations, Gold River Operating Corporation sold River Palms to the Columbia Sussex Corporation. (See id., Letter, August 31, 2004.) The parties exchanged additional information, but Gold River ultimately informed the EEOC it would not be submitting a counterproposal. (See id., Letter, October 18, 2004.) Similarly, Sussex denied liability and did not issue a counterproposal. (See Park-Gonzalez Dec. (# 84) Ex 31, Letter, August 6, 2004.) The EEOC again determined that further conciliation efforts would be futile or nonproductive, and sent defendants notices to that effect. (See id. Exs. 33-37.) This evidence supports a finding that the EEOC complied with its conciliation obligations by providing defendant with an opportunity to confront the discrimination related charges.
C. The Ellerth/Faragher Affirmative Defense *6 The EEOC contends that defendants are not entitled to assert the Ellerth/Faragher defense. The defense, first announced by the Supreme Court in Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998) and Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998), relieves the employer of liability for claims of harassment where the alleged harassment was perpetrated by a supervisor, but the harassment did not result in a tangible employment action against the harassee.3 The EEOC asserts that the defense comprises two necessary elements: 1) that the employer exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any sexually harassing behavior; and 2) that the plaintiff employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventative or corrective opportunities provided by the employer or to avoid harm otherwise. Ellerth, 524 U.S. at 765; Faragher, 524 U.S. at 807.

Applying a deferential standard of review to the EEOC’s conciliation efforts in this case, there is evidence to support a finding that the EEOC satisfied the condition precedent of conciliation. The record indicates that the EEOC invited the defendants to conciliate the charges of discrimination. The first invitation was made by letter on September 9, 2003, wherein defendants were provided

3

Neither party addresses the fact that a defendant may

assert the Ellerth/Faragher affirmative defense only if

no tangible employment action was taken against the

charging parties. Dennis v. Nevada State Dep’t of

Prisons, 282 F.Supp.2d 1177,1182 (D.Nev .2003). For

the purposes of this discussion only, the court will

assume no tangible employment action was taken.

4

E.E.O.C. v. Gold River Operating Corp., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2007)

The EEOC argues that as a matter of law defendants have not satisfied the first prong of the defense. First, the EEOC asserts that the investigation was not prompt as a matter of law. The EEOC alleges that River Palms began receiving notices of the discrimination charges in August, 2002 and by November, 2002 had received at least six charge notices. (Park-Gonzalez Dec. (# 84) Exs. 2-12.) The EEOC alleges that River Palms did not initiate an investigation into the allegations until late January, 2003, five months after receipt of the first charge. (Johnson Dec. (# 83) Ex. 2, Patksan Dep.70:4-8.) Second, the EEOC claims that the investigation itself was a sham.
Defendants deny that the investigation was not timely and was unreasonable. In support of their position, defendants provided the court with tables prepared by Lynn A. Vlahos that summarize the date of each charge, the date River Palms received notice, the date each charging party’s employment with River Palms terminated, dates of any further correspondence, the date the EEOC’s determination was received, the determination, and the EEOC’s settlement demand. (See Vlahos Dec. (# 91) Ex. A at 1-10.) The charts themselves are not admissible under the best evidence rule as defendants failed to provide all of the records upon which the charts were based and failed to otherwise explain their absence. See United States v. Bennett, 363 F.3d 947, 953 (9th Cir.2004). The court will consider only those records which the defendants produced.
The first element of the affirmative defense comprises two parts; reasonable care to prevent sexual harassment and reasonable care to correct sexual harassment. The EEOC argument speaks to whether defendants took reasonable care to correct the sexual harassment. The first issue is whether the investigation was prompt as a matter of law. The Ninth Circuit has observed that “[t]he most significant immediate measure an employer can take in response to a sexual harassment complaint is to launch a prompt investigation to determine whether the complaint is justified.” Swenson v. Potter, 271 F.3d 1184, 1193 (9th Cir.2001).
*7 It is undisputed that an investigation by River Palms Human Resources Manager, Jeanne Patskan, was not undertaken until January 2003, when she was personally informed of the alleged discrimination. (Johnson Dec. (# 83) Ex. 2, Patksan Dep.70:4-8.) The question is whether the investigation undertaken by River Palms, upon notice of the claims by the EEOC, was sufficient to satisfy this prong of the defense. The evidence submitted by defendants, though far from convincing, does raise a genuine issue as to a material fact. (See Vlahos Dec. (# 91) Ex. A.) Similarly, in light of the record, (defs.’ Opp’n (# 90) 5-11), the determination of whether River Palms’

failed to interview the appropriate witnesses, skewed or made omissions from its report, or turned the investigation into an indictment against Bowers-Hughes and Purdy, must be left to the trier of fact.
On this record, the EEOC has not demonstrated as a matter of law that defendants failed to promptly correct the harassment once it was reported. There are triable issues of fact as to whether River Palms began an investigation promptly, and whether it failed to properly investigate the allegations. Accordingly, this portion of the Motion will be denied.
II. Discovery Request Defendants seek an order compelling the EEOC’s investigator, Park-Gonzalez, to answer the following two questions:
1. “Were these documents, any of the documents tagged by you as being problems?”
2. Were these three documents submitted as evidence in this case?
(Defs.’ Mot. (# 85) Ex. E, Park-Gonzalez Dep. 38:14-15, 39:2-3.)
At Park-Gonzalez’s deposition, the EEOC invoked the deliberative process privilege and instructed Park-Gonzalez not to answer these two questions. Defendants contend that the deliberative process privilege does not apply. Defendants argue that there are three documents that were contrived by one of the original charging parties, Toni Purdy. Defendants extrapolate that because the EEOC decided to no longer represent Toni Purdy, the EEOC must have considered the three allegedly fraudulent documents when making their reasonable cause determination. (Defs.’ Mot. (# 85) 9.)
Alternatively, defendants argue that the deliberative process privilege should be rejected in the face of governmental misconduct. (Defs.’ Mot. (# 85) 11-12 (citing Alexander v. FBI, 186 F.R.D. 170 (D.D.C.1999) (citation omitted)).) Defendants assert that Park-Gonzalez, under color of her official position, solicited private individuals to submit affidavits that had not been sworn. Park-Gonzalez testified that it was her general practice to sign the jurats before sending the documents to the witnesses she interviewed telephonically for review and execution. She said, however, that she would sometimes sign the jurat upon receiving the executed affidavit from the interviewee. (See Pl.’s Opp’n (# 86) Ex. E, Park-Gonzalez Dep. 47:16-48:16; 49:20-51:1.) Based in part on this testimony, defendants allege governmental misconduct on the part of Park-Gonzalez. Defendants argue that this alleged
5

E.E.O.C. v. Gold River Operating Corp., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2007)

misconduct is significant because affidavits are given more weight than witness statements. (Defs.’ Mot. (# 85) 10.) Defendants make other allegations against Park-Gonzalez that are not pertinent to this discovery issue. (See Defs.’ Mot. (# 85) 4-5, 7-8; see also discussion supra Part I(B)(2)(i)(b).)
*8 The court need not address whether or not the affidavits taken in this matter by Park-Gonzalez were properly obtained. The questions that the defendants request Park-Gonzalez to answer pertain to documents generated by the alleged felonious conduct of Toni Purdy, not Park-Gonzalez. Therefore, governmental misconduct is not an issue, and the governmental misconduct exception does not apply.
The matter to be decided is whether the deliberative process privilege forecloses defendants from deposing Park-Gonzalez on the issues of whether the allegedly fraudulent documents were marked as potentially troublesome and whether they were considered in the EEOC’s reasonable cause determination.
The federal deliberative process privilege permits the government to withhold documents or prevent testimony that reflect advisory opinions, recommendations, and deliberations comprising part of a process by which government decisions are made. See Federal Trade Comm’n v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 742 F.2d 1156, 1161 (9th Cir.1984) (citations omitted); see also North Pacifica, LLC v. City of Pacifica, 274 F.Supp.2d 118, 1121 n. 1 (N.D.Cal.2003) (noting that the privilege applies to deposition testimony as well as written documents) (citations omitted). For the privilege to apply, the subject of the testimony must be both predecisional and deliberative. See Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 742 F.2d at 1161. Even if applicable, the deliberative process privilege is a qualified one. “A litigant may obtain deliberative materials if his or her need for the materials and the need for accurate fact-finding override the government’s interest in non-disclosure.” Id.
There is no question that the questions relate to the EEOC deliberations. Defendants wish to learn whether, predetermination, the EEOC considered the documents potentially problematic; and if the documents were considered during the course of the reasonable cause determination. Thus, the privilege applies. The court must therefore determine whether the defendants’ need for the information outweighs the EEOC’s need to protect it.
“Among the factors to be considered in making this determination are: 1) the relevance of the evidence; 2) the availability of other evidence; 3) the government’s role in

the litigation; and 4) the extent to which disclosure would hinder frank and independent discussion regarding contemplated policies and decisions.” Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 742 F.2d at 1161.
The first and threshold factor is whether the information is relevant. Relevance within the meaning of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) is considerably broader than relevance for trial purposes. For discovery purposes, relevance means only that the materials sought are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. See Oppenhemier Fund v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 (1978) (citation omitted); Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1). Inasmuch as the sufficiency of the EEOC’s investigation is not litigable, the answers to these questions are not relevant. (See discussion supra Part I(B)(2)(i)(b).)
III. Sanctions *9 A district court may in its discretion award fees and costs in a Title VII case upon a finding that the plaintiff’s action was frivolous, unreasonable, vexatious, or meritless, even though not brought in subjective bad faith. See Vernon v. City of Los Angeles, 27 F.3d 1385, 1402 (9th Cir.1994). An action becomes frivolous when the result appears obvious or the arguments are wholly without merit. See Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U.S. 412, 422 (1978). A defendant can recover if the plaintiff violates this standard at any point during the litigation. See id . at 422. Here, given the EEOC’s current claims and documentation, defendants have made no showing that the EEOC has violated this standard during the course of the instant litigation.
Accordingly and for good cause shown,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff EEOC’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (# 81) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The court finds that the EEOC has met the statutory conditions precedent to filing suit. All other requests are denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (# 85) is DENIED.
Parallel Citations
100 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 995
	  

6

 
 Case: 2:04-cv-01349-LRL-LRL As of: 10/13/2009 02:08 PM PDT 1 of 11
CLOSED, ENE
United States District Court District of Nevada (Las Vegas) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:04−cv−01349−LRL−LRL

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission VS Gold River Operating Corporation, etal Assigned to: Magistrate Judge Lawrence R. Leavitt Referred to: Magistrate Judge Lawrence R. Leavitt
Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen (Settlement) Cause: 42:2000
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 09/29/2004 Date Terminated: 05/06/2008 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by Anna Park U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 255 East Temple Street 4th Floor Los Angeles , CA 90012− 213−894−1083 Email: anna.park@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Connie Liem U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Legal Unit 555 West Beech, Suite 504 San Diego , CA 92101 619 557−7282 Fax: 619 557−7274 Email: connie.liem@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dana C. Johnson United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Legal Unit 255 East Temple Street 4th Floor Los Angeles , CA 90012− (213) 894−1000 Fax: 213−894−1118 Email: dana.johnson@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sue J. Noh United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Legal Unit 255 East Temple Street 4th Floor Los Angeles , CA 90012− (213) 894−1082 Fax: 213−894−1118 Email: sue.noh@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Victor Viramontes

Case: 2:04-cv-01349-LRL-LRL As of: 10/13/2009 02:08 PM PDT 2 of 11
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Legal Unit 255 East Temple Street 4th Floor Los Angeles , CA 90012− Email: victor.viramontes@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Casino Columbia Sussex Corporation

represented by Herbert C. Ehrhardt . 100 Concourse; 1052 Highland Colony Parkway Suite 950 Ridgeland , MS 39157 601−360−8444 Email: bert.ehrhardt@odnss.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kristina Pickering Morris Peterson 900 Bank Of America Plaza 300 S. Fourth Street Las Vegas , NV 89101− 702−474−9400 Fax: 702−474−9422 Email: kp@morrislawgroup.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Leslie Erin Wallis Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak &Stewart, P.C. 633 West Fifth Street Suite 730 Los Angeles , CA 90071 213−239−9800 Fax: 213−239−9045 Email: leslie.wallis@odnss.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Linda Claxton Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak &Stewart, P.C. 633 West Fifth Street, Suite 5300 Suite 730 Los Angeles , CA 90071 213−239−9800 Fax: 213−239−9045 Email: linda.claxton@odnss.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rex Garner Morris Peterson 900 Bank Of America Plaza 300 S. Fourth Street Las Vegas , NV 89101−

Case: 2:04-cv-01349-LRL-LRL As of: 10/13/2009 02:08 PM PDT 3 of 11

Email: fmi@morrislawgroup.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Gold River Operating Corporation

represented by Norman H. Kirshman Norman H. Kirshman PC 3800 Howard Hughes Parkway Suite 500 Las Vegas , NV 89169 702−262−6899 Fax: 702−597−5503 Email: kirshmanlaw@yahoo.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Toni Ann Purdy

represented by Toni Ann Purdy 202 Gold Road Ave. Kingman, AZ 86401 928−377−3300 Email: 928−897−9087 PRO SE

Date Filed 09/29/2004 09/29/2004 10/05/2004 11/24/2004 12/03/2004 12/03/2004 12/03/2004 12/08/2004 01/06/2005 01/11/2005 01/20/2005
01/20/2005 01/20/2005
01/20/2005

# Docket Text
SUMMONS ISSUED to P (1) (Entered: 10/15/2004)
1 COMPLAINT w/JD obo P (nss) (Entered: 10/15/2004)
2 COMPLAINT w/JD amended obo P (nss) (Entered: 10/15/2004)
3 WAIVER OF SERVICE EXECUTED by D/Gold River Operating Corp obo P (m) (Entered: 12/03/2004)
4 CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PARTIES obo D/Columbia Sussex Corporation (m) (cpy RCJ/LRL) (Entered: 12/06/2004)
5 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT obo Columbia Sussex Corporation (m) (Entered: 12/06/2004)
6 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT obo D/Gold River Operating Corporation (m) (Entered: 12/06/2004)
7 CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PARTIES obo D/Gold River Operating Corporation (m) (cpy RCJ/LRL) (Entered: 12/08/2004)
MISCELLANEOUS DOCUMENT vp &designation of out/state cnsl Herbert C. Ehrhardt &Linda Claxton for D. Sub to RCJ. (Entered: 01/13/2005)
MISCELLANEOUS DOCUMENT vp &Designation of cnsl for out/state cnsl Leslie E. Wallis. Sub to RCJ. (Entered: 01/13/2005)
8 VERIFIED PETITION FOR PERMISSION TO PRACTICE PRO HAC VICE of Leslie E. Wallis (ptnr) as out/state cnsl for D/Columbia Sussex Corp. cpys dist. (Entered: 01/24/2005)
9 DESIGNATION OF LOCAL COUNSEL obo Mary Kristina Pickering, local cnsl for D/Columbia Sussex Corp (Leslie E. Wallis). cpys dist. (Entered: 01/24/2005)
10 VERIFIED PETITION FOR PERMISSION TO PRACTICE PRO HAC VICE of Linda Claxton (ptnr) as out/state cnsl for D/Columbia Sussex Corp. cpys dist. (Entered: 01/24/2005)
11 DESIGNATION OF LOCAL COUNSEL obo Mary Kristina Pickering, local cnsl for D/Columbia Sussex Corp (Linda Claxton). cpys dist. (Entered: 01/24/2005)

Case: 2:04-cv-01349-LRL-LRL As of: 10/13/2009 02:08 PM PDT 4 of 11

01/20/2005
01/20/2005 01/21/2005 01/24/2005 02/03/2005 02/10/2005 02/22/2005 02/24/2005 05/16/2005 07/28/2005 08/01/2005 08/05/2005 10/14/2005 10/14/2005 10/14/2005 10/14/2005 10/14/2005 10/14/2005 10/17/2005 10/17/2005 10/21/2005 10/31/2005 11/02/2005

12 VERIFIED PETITION FOR PERMISSION TO PRACTICE PRO HAC VICE of Herbert C. Ehrhardt (ptnr) as out/state cnsl for D/Columbia Sussex Corp. cpys dist. (Entered: 01/24/2005)
13 DESIGNATION OF LOCAL COUNSEL obo Mary Kristina Pickering, local cnsl for D/Columbia Sussex Corp (Herbert C Erhardt). cpys dist. (Entered: 01/24/2005)
MISCELLANEOUS DOCUMENT stip disc plan/sked. Sub to LRL (Entered: 01/21/2005)
14 ORDER ON STIPULATION ORD DISC due 1/13/06; MTNS due 3/20/06; JTPTO due 5/15/06; (see doc). cpys dist. (Entered: 01/24/2005)
15 MAIL RETURNED re #14 mailed to Ds cnsl returned marked "Attempted not Known", snt to new address. (Entered: 02/04/2005)
MISCELLANEOUS DOCUMENT consent to proceed bfr US Magistrate Judge (LRL). Sub to LRL (Entered: 02/14/2005)
16 ORDER ORD consent to proceed bfr a US Magistrate is GRANTED, (see doc). cpys dist. (Entered: 02/24/2005)
17 MAIL RETURNED re #8 − #13 mailed to Ds cnsl returned marked "Attempted not Known", snt to new address. (Entered: 02/25/2005)
18 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE of govt atty Connie Liem as cnsl obo P (m) (Entered: 05/17/2005)
19 MISCELLANEOUS DOCUMENT Ntc of errata to paragraph 7 of 1st amndd complaint. (nss) (Entered: 07/29/2005)
MISCELLANEOUS DOCUMENT stip to ext time to resp to disc − LRL (Entered: 08/01/2005)
20 ORDER ON STIPULATION (1st req) To ext time to resp to disc requests ext to 8/29/05. (cps dist) (Entered: 08/05/2005)
21 SUBPOENA RETURNED EXECUTED (17) subpoenas as to Birgit K. Baker, Director Nevada Dept of Employment on 9/30/05 obo D (Entered: 10/19/2005)
22 SUBPOENA RETURNED EXECUTED as to Custodian of Records; Edgewater Hotel &Casino on 10/7/05 obo D (Entered: 10/19/2005)
23 SUBPOENA RETURNED EXECUTED as to Custodian of Records; Flamingo Hilton on 10/7/05 obo D (Entered: 10/19/2005)
24 SUBPOENA RETURNED EXECUTED as to Custodian of Records; Riverside Casino on 10/7/05 obo D (Entered: 10/19/2005)
25 SUBPOENA RETURNED EXECUTED as to Custodian of Records; Avi Hotel &Casino on 10/7/05 obo D (Entered: 10/19/2005)
26 SUBPOENA RETURNED EXECUTED (2) as to Custodian of Records; Harrah's on 10/7/05 obo D (Entered: 10/19/2005)
27 MOTION TO QUASH Ds improperly served subpoenas obo P (m) (DISPO: declaratn #28; order #30; oppo #32; (Entered: 10/24/2005)
28 DECLARATION of Dana Johnson in supt of mtn to quash (#27) obo P (m) (Entered: 10/24/2005)
29 MOTION TO QUASH late served subpoenas obo P (m) (FLD SEP) (DISPO: order #30; oppo #32; (Entered: 10/24/2005)
MISCELLANEOUS DOCUMENT stip to ext time to resp to disc. Sub to LRL (Entered: 11/01/2005)
30 ORDER ON STIPULATION ORD entension of time to 11/4/05 to file oppo, and 11 dys for Ps to file reply to mtns to quash (#27/#29) is GRANTED (Entered: 11/03/2005)

Case: 2:04-cv-01349-LRL-LRL As of: 10/13/2009 02:08 PM PDT 5 of 11

11/03/2005 11/04/2005 11/08/2005 11/16/2005 11/17/2005 11/17/2005
11/22/2005
12/19/2005 12/21/2005 12/21/2005
12/21/2005
12/21/2005
12/23/2005 12/23/2005 01/06/2006 01/06/2006 01/11/2006
01/11/2006
02/06/2006
02/27/2006

31 ORDER ON STIPULATION ORD extension of time to 11/28/05 to resp to disc req is GRANTED; (see doc). cpys dist. (Entered: 11/03/2005)
32 RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION to mtn to quash (#27) and mtn to quash (#29) obo Ds (m) (Entered: 11/04/2005)
33 RESPONSE to 29 Motion to Quash; filed by Defendant Casino Columbia Sussex Corporation. (MAJ, ) (Entered: 11/10/2005)
35 JOINDER to 32 Opposition to 29 Motion to Quash, 27 Motion to Quash; filed by Defendant Gold River Operating Corporation. (MJZ ) (Entered: 12/02/2005)
34 REPLY to Response to 27 Motion to Quash; filed by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (GEW) (Entered: 11/23/2005)
36 DECLARATION of Herbert C. Ehrhardt in support of 32 Response in Opposition to Motion, re 27 Motion to Quash, 29 Motion to Quash; by Defendant Casino Columbia Sussex Corporation. (MJZ ) (Entered: 12/02/2005)
37 DECLARATION of Victor Viramontes in support of 29 Motion to Quash, 27 Motion to Quash; by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (MJZ ) (Entered: 12/02/2005)
38 Submission of PROPOSED ORDER filed by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (AXM, ) (Entered: 12/21/2005)
39 MOTION for Extension of Time for discovery (part 1 of 2) by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (AXM, ) (Entered: 12/21/2005)
40 MOTION For leave to take additional depositions (part 2 of 2) by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Responses due by 1/8/2006. (AXM) (Entered: 12/21/2005)
41 DECLARATION of Dana Johnsons re 40 MOTION For leave to take additional depositions; filed by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (AXM, ) (Entered: 12/21/2005)
42 DECLARATION of Victor Viramontes re 40 MOTION For leave to take additional depositions; filed by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (AXM ) (Entered: 12/21/2005)
43 STIPULATION for time to take depositions, by Defendant Casino Columbia Sussex Corporation. (AXM, ) (Entered: 12/23/2005)
44 RESPONSE to 40 MOTION For leave to take additional depositions; filed by Defendant Gold River Operating Corporation. (MJZ ) (Entered: 12/28/2005)
45 ORDER ON STIPULATION re 43 Stipulation for extending depositions. Signed by Judge Lawrence R. Leavitt on 1/6/06. (AXM, ) (Entered: 01/10/2006)
48 ORDER ON STIPULATION re 43 Stipulation to Take Depositions. Signed by Judge Lawrence R. Leavitt on 1/5/06. (MJZ) (Entered: 01/12/2006)
46 ORDER granting 39 Motion for Extension of Time. Discovery is extended 90 days. Discovery due by 4/11/2006. Signed by Judge Lawrence R. Leavitt on 01/11/06. (MBS, ) (Entered: 01/11/2006)
47 ORDER granting 40 Motion for Leave to Take Additional Depostions, to the extent the plaintiffs may now take 25 total depositions. Signed by Judge Lawrence R. Leavitt on 01/11/06. (MBS, ) (Entered: 01/11/2006)
49 ORDER Setting Hearing on 27 Motion to Quash, 29 Motion to Quash: Motion Hearing set for 2/27/2006 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Lawrence R. Leavitt. Signed by Judge Lawrence R. Leavitt on 2/6/06. (AXM, ) (Entered: 02/06/2006)
51 MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS − Motion Hearing held on 2/27/2006 before Judge Lawrence R. Leavitt. Crtrm Administrator: K. Goetsch; Pla Counsel: Victor Viramontes; Def Counsel: Linda Claxton for Casino Columbia Sussex Corp; and Norman Kirshman for Gold River; Court Reporter/FTR #: 10:09:37−12:05:13; Time of Hearing: 10:00am. RE: 29 Motion to Quash filed by Equal Employment

Case: 2:04-cv-01349-LRL-LRL As of: 10/13/2009 02:08 PM PDT 6 of 11

03/01/2006 03/01/2006 03/09/2006
03/13/2006 03/13/2006 03/17/2006
03/17/2006
03/22/2006 03/24/2006 03/24/2006 03/30/2006 04/05/2006 04/21/2006 05/12/2006

Opportunity Commission,, 27 Motion to Quash filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, The Court hears arguments of counsel. The Court directs counsel to submit their respective proposed orders for the Court's consideration if, following today's hearing, counsel are unable to come to a resolution of this matter. Additionally, discussion is held with regard to a concern raised by Mr. Kirshman relating to some allegedly altered documents. The Court directs the EEOC to investigate the matter and to report its findings to the Court at a status conference. (SEE ATTACHED MINUTES) Telephonic Status Conference set for 3/9/2006 11:00 AM in LV Courtroom 3C before Magistrate Judge Lawrence R. Leavitt. (KXG, ) (Entered: 03/06/2006)
Set/Reset Hearings: Telephonic Status Hearing set for 3/9/2006 11:00 AM in LV Courtroom 3C before Magistrate Judge Lawrence R. Leavitt. (KXG, ) (Entered: 03/01/2006)
50 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney Rex Garner on behalf of Defendants Casino Columbia Sussex Corporation, Gold River Operating Corporation. (Garner, Rex) (Entered: 03/01/2006)
52 MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS − Status Conference held on 3/9/2006 before Judge Lawrence R. Leavitt. Crtrm Administrator: K. Goetsch; Pla Counsel: Dana Johnson and Victor Viramontes; Def Counsel: Linda Claxton for Casino Columbia Sussex Corporation; and Norman Kirshman for Gold River Operating Corporation; Court Reporter/FTR #: 11:01:22−11:53:00; Time of Hearing: 11:00am. Court makes inquiry and hears representations of counsel. Deadlines are extended as follows (SEE ATTACHED MINUTES FOR DETAILS): Discovery due by 7/14/2006. Motions due by 8/14/2006. Proposed Joint Pretrial Order due by 9/13/2006. Submission of Proposed Orders re Motions to Quash (nos. 27 and 29) due by 3/17/2006. (KXG, ) (Entered: 03/09/2006)
53 ERROR: Wrong image attached; CORRECTION: Counsel advised to re−file Amended Complaint with correct image. (MJZ) (Entered: 03/13/2006)
54 AMENDED COMPLAINT with Jury Demand against all defendants, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.(Park, Anna) (Entered: 03/13/2006)
55 Submission of PROPOSED ORDER filed by Defendant Casino Columbia Sussex Corporation. ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF EEOC?S MOTION TO QUASH DEFENDANTS? SUBPOENAS AND ORDER MODIFYING REMAINING SUBPOENAS, MOTION AT DOCKET 27 (Claxton, Linda) (Entered: 03/17/2006)
56 Submission of PROPOSED ORDER filed by Defendant Casino Columbia Sussex Corporation. ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF EEOC?S MOTION TO QUASH DEFENDANTS SUBPOENAS AND ORDER MODIFYING REMAINING SUBPOENAS, MOTION AT DOCKET 29 (Claxton, Linda) (Entered: 03/17/2006)
57 MOTION to Intervene, filed by Intervenor Toni Ann PurtdyResponses due by 4/9/2006. (RFJ) (Entered: 03/23/2006)
58 ORDER granting 27 Motion to Quash. Signed by Judge Lawrence R. Leavitt on 3/23/06. (AXM, ) (Entered: 03/24/2006)
59 ORDER granting 29 Motion to Quash. Signed by Judge Lawrence R. Leavitt on 3/23/06. (AXM, ) (Entered: 03/24/2006)
60 EXHIBIT(s) re: phone records filed by Defendant Toni Ann Purdy. (RFJ) (Entered: 03/30/2006)
61 Mail Returned as Undeliverable re 52 Status Conference, addressed to Linda Claxton. (re−mld to new suite #) (MAJ) (Entered: 04/05/2006)
62 ORDER no action take at this time: re 57 MOTION to Intervene filed by Toni Ann Purdy; The putative intervenor has until May 17, 2006 to correct this deficiency. Signed by Judge Lawrence R. Leavitt on 4/20/06. (AXM, ) (Entered: 04/21/2006)
63 EMERGENCY MOTION to Quash subpoena by Defendant Toni Ann Purdy. (AXM, ) (Entered: 05/12/2006)

Case: 2:04-cv-01349-LRL-LRL As of: 10/13/2009 02:08 PM PDT 7 of 11

05/12/2006 05/15/2006 05/16/2006 05/18/2006 05/19/2006 05/22/2006 05/25/2006 05/31/2006 05/31/2006
06/08/2006
06/09/2006 06/16/2006 06/26/2006 06/30/2006
07/11/2006
07/19/2006
08/07/2006
08/14/2006
08/14/2006
08/14/2006

66 MOTION for Extension of Time for deposition, by Defendant Toni Ann Purdy. (AXM, ) (Entered: 05/18/2006)
64 RESPONSE to 63 MOTION to Quash; filed by Defendant Gold River Operating Corporation. (Kirshman, Norman) (Entered: 05/15/2006)
65 ORDER denying 63 Motion to Quash. Signed by Judge Lawrence R. Leavitt on 5/15/06. (AXM) (Entered: 05/16/2006)
68 LETTER from Toni A. Purdy. (AAB) (Entered: 05/22/2006)
67 ORDER denying as moot 66 Motion for Extension of Time. Signed by Judge Lawrence R. Leavitt on 05/19/06. (MBS, ) (Entered: 05/19/2006)
69 ORDER DENYING without prejudice 57 Motion to Intervene. Signed by Judge Lawrence R. Leavitt on 5/22/06. (RFJ) (Entered: 05/24/2006)
70 AFFIDAVIT of Toni Purdy to motion 57 to intervene. (AXM) (Entered: 05/25/2006)
71 LETTER from Toni Purdy. (AXM) (Entered: 05/31/2006)
72 MOTION to Reconsider Magistrate Judge Order re 69 Order on Motion to Intervene by Defendant Toni Ann Purdy. Responses due by 6/18/2006. (AXM) (Entered: 05/31/2006)
73 ORDER establishing deadlines re 57 MOTION to Intervene filed by Toni Ann Purdy. Responses due by 6/22/2006. Replies due by 7/3/2006. Signed by Judge Lawrence R. Leavitt on 6/8/06. (RFJ) (Entered: 06/09/2006)
74 NON−OPPOSITION to 57 MOTION to Intervene; filed by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Johnson, Dana) (Entered: 06/09/2006)
75 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Intervenor Toni Ann Purdy as to Motion to reverse decision and motion for intervention. (AXM) (Entered: 06/16/2006)
76 NOTICE by Defendant Casino Columbia Sussex Corporation Notice of Correction of Firm Address (Claxton, Linda) (Entered: 06/26/2006)
77 REPLY to Response to 72 MOTION to Reconsider Magistrate Judge Order re 69 Order on Motion to Intervene; filed by Intervenor Toni Ann Purdy. (AXM) (Entered: 06/30/2006)
78 STIPULATION REGARDING THE CONTINUATION OF THE DEPOSITION OF JEANNE PATSKAN by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Johnson, Dana) (Entered: 07/11/2006)
79 ORDER ON STIPULATION re 78 Stipulation to continue deposition of Jeanne Patskan. Signed by Judge Lawrence R. Leavitt on 7/18/06. (AXM) (Entered: 07/19/2006)
80 ORDER granting 72 Motion to Reverse Decision. Signed by Judge Lawrence R. Leavitt on 8/7/06. (MJZ) Docket Text Modified on 8/18/2006 (MJZ). (Entered: 08/10/2006)
81 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Responses due by 9/1/2006. (Johnson, Dana) (Entered: 08/14/2006)
82 DECLARATION of Barbara Bowers−Hughes in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Johnson, Dana) (Entered: 08/14/2006)
83 DECLARATION of Dana C. Johnson in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Index Index of Exhibits to Declaration of Dana C. Johnson in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment# 2 Exhibit Exhibits 1 to 3 − Part 1# 3 Exhibit Johnson Exhibits 1−3 Part 2# 4 Exhibit Johnson Exhibits 1−3, Part 3# 5 Exhibit Johnson Exhibits 4 − 12)(Johnson, Dana) (Entered: 08/14/2006)

Case: 2:04-cv-01349-LRL-LRL As of: 10/13/2009 02:08 PM PDT 8 of 11

08/14/2006 08/15/2006 08/29/2006 08/29/2006 08/29/2006 08/29/2006
09/01/2006 09/01/2006 09/01/2006 09/11/2006 09/11/2006

84 DECLARATION Declaration of Christina Park−Gonzalez in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Index Index of Exhibits to Declaration of Christina Park−Gonzalez# 2 Exhibit Exhibits 1 − 19 of Declaration of Christina Park−Gonzalez# 3 Exhibit Exhibits 20 − 41 to Declaration of Christina Park−Gonzalez)(Johnson, Dana) (Entered: 08/14/2006)
85 MOTION to Dismiss OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE:REMAND TO EEOC FOR RECONSIDERATION OF DETERMINATION; COMPEL FURTHER ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS POSED DURING DEPOSITION, PURSUANT TO FED.R.CIV.P.37; AND SANCTIONS by Defendant Gold River Operating Corporation. Responses due by 9/2/2006. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits# 2 Exhibit)(Kirshman, Norman) (Entered: 08/15/2006)
86 RESPONSE to 85 MOTION to Dismiss OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE:REMAND TO EEOC FOR RECONSIDERATION OF DETERMINATION; COMPEL FURTHER ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS POSED DURING DEPOSITION, PURSUANT TO FED.R.CIV.P.37; AND SANCTIONS; filed by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Replies due by 9/12/2006. (Johnson, Dana) (Entered: 08/29/2006)
87 DECLARATION of Dana C. Johnson re 85 MOTION to Dismiss OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE:REMAND TO EEOC FOR RECONSIDERATION OF DETERMINATION; COMPEL FURTHER ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS POSED DURING DEPOSITION, PURSUANT TO FED.R.CIV.P.37; AND SANCTIONS; filed by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Johnson, Dana) (Entered: 08/29/2006)
88 DECLARATION of EEOC Chairperson Cari M. Dominguez re 85 MOTION to Dismiss OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE:REMAND TO EEOC FOR RECONSIDERATION OF DETERMINATION; COMPEL FURTHER ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS POSED DURING DEPOSITION, PURSUANT TO FED.R.CIV.P.37; AND SANCTIONS; filed by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Johnson, Dana) (Entered: 08/29/2006)
89 NOTICE by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 85 MOTION to Dismiss OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE:REMAND TO EEOC FOR RECONSIDERATION OF DETERMINATION; COMPEL FURTHER ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS POSED DURING DEPOSITION, PURSUANT TO FED.R.CIV.P.37; AND SANCTIONS. Plaintiff EEOC's Lodgment of Additional Authorities In Support of its Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Lodgment of Additional Authorities)(Johnson, Dana) (Entered: 08/29/2006)
90 RESPONSE to 81 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment; filed by Defendant Casino Columbia Sussex Corporation. and Defendant Gold River Operating Corporation Replies due by 9/15/2006. (Claxton, Linda) (Entered: 09/01/2006)
91 DECLARATION of Lynn A. Vlahos re 90 Response to Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; by Defendant Casino Columbia Sussex Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A part 1# 2 Exhibit A part 2# 3 Exhibit A part 3# 4 Exhibit B# 5 Exhibit C)(Claxton, Linda) (Entered: 09/01/2006)
92 DECLARATION of Linda Claxton re 90 Response to Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; by Defendant Casino Columbia Sussex Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 # 2 # 3 # 4 # 5 # 6 # 7 # 8 # 9 # 10 # 11 # 12)(Claxton, Linda) (Entered: 09/01/2006)
93 REPLY to Response to 81 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment; filed by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Reply in Support of EEOC's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Johnson, Dana) (Entered: 09/11/2006)
94 DECLARATION of Dana C. Johnson re 81 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment; filed by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Declaration of Dana C. Johnson in Support of Plaintiff EEOC's Reply Brief in Connection with Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Attachments: # 1 Index Index of Exhibits# 2 Exhibit Exhibit 1 Part 1# 3 Exhibit Exhibit 1 Part 2# 4 Exhibit Exhibit 1 Part 3# 5 Exhibit Exhibit 2 Part 1# 6 Exhibit Exhibit 2 Part 2# 7 Exhibit Exhibits 3 to 5)(Johnson, Dana) (Entered: 09/11/2006)

Case: 2:04-cv-01349-LRL-LRL As of: 10/13/2009 02:08 PM PDT 9 of 11

09/12/2006
09/20/2006 11/17/2006 02/13/2007 03/30/2007 04/13/2007 04/17/2007
04/17/2007 04/19/2007 05/11/2007 05/14/2007 06/19/2007 06/21/2007 07/10/2007 07/11/2007 07/23/2007

95 REPLY to Response to 85 MOTION to Dismiss OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE:REMAND TO EEOC FOR RECONSIDERATION OF DETERMINATION; COMPEL FURTHER ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS POSED DURING DEPOSITION, PURSUANT TO FED.R.CIV.P.37; AND SANCTIONS; filed by Defendant Gold River Operating Corporation. (Kirshman, Norman) (Entered: 09/12/2006)
96 NOTICE of Change of Address by Intervenor Toni Ann Purdy. (AXM) (Entered: 09/20/2006)
97 NOTICE of Change of Address by Intervenor Toni Ann Purdy. Address previously updated. (MMM) (Entered: 11/20/2006)
98 NOTICE by Defendant Gold River Operating Corporation NOTICE OF CHANGE OF FIRM AFFILIATION (Kirshman, Norman) (Entered: 02/13/2007)
99 ORDER Granting in part and Denying in part 81 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Court finds that the EEOC has met the statutory conditions precedent to filing suit. All other requests are denied. Denying 85 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Lawrence R. Leavitt. (AXM) (Entered: 03/30/2007)
100 STIPULATION and [Proposed] Order Extending Deadline for Lodging of Proposed Joint Pretrial Order (First Request) by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # Appendix Signature Pages)(Johnson, Dana) Corrected image added on 4/17/07. (MJZ) (Entered: 04/13/2007)
NOTICE of Docket Correction to 100 Stipulation: ERROR: Attachment should have been filed as one document; CORRECTION: Attorney Dana Johnson advised to refile corrected PDF using "Notice of Corrected Image/Document" event under the "Notices" category and link to 100 Stipulation. (no image attached)(MJZ) (Entered: 04/17/2007)
101 NOTICE of Corrected Image/Document re 100 Stipulation by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Service of corrected image is attached). (Johnson, Dana) (Entered: 04/17/2007)
102 ORDER ON STIPULATION granting 100 Stipulation, Extending Deadline for Lodging of Proposed Joint Pretrial Order. Proposed Joint Pretrial Order due by 5/25/2007. Signed by Judge Lawrence R. Leavitt on 4/17/07. (AXM) (Entered: 04/19/2007)
103 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINE FOR LODGING OF PROPOSED JOINT PRETRIAL ORDER by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Johnson, Dana) (Entered: 05/11/2007)
104 ORDER ON STIPULATION granting 103 Stipulation for Extension of Time to File Proposed Joint Pretrial Order. Proposed Joint Pretrial Order due by 6/22/2007. Signed by Judge Lawrence R. Leavitt on 5/14/07. (AAB) Modified clerical order on 5/17/2007. (AAB) (Entered: 05/16/2007)
105 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINE FOR LODGING OF PROPOSED JOINT PRETRIAL ORDER (Third Request) by Defendant Gold River Operating Corporation. (Kirshman, Norman) (Entered: 06/19/2007)
106 ORDER ON STIPULATION Granting 105 Stipulation for time. Proposed Joint Pretrial Order due by 7/23/2007. Signed by Judge Lawrence R. Leavitt on 6/20/07. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF − AXM) (Entered: 06/21/2007)
107 NOTICE of Change of Address by Linda Claxton. (Claxton, Linda) (Entered: 07/10/2007)
NOTE: Attorneys Linda Claxton and Leslie Wallis advised to update their CM/ECF account information re 107 Notice of Change of Firm Affiliation. (MJZ) (Entered: 07/11/2007)
108 PROPOSED Pretrial Order [Proposed] Joint Pretrial Order by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A to [Proposed] Joint Pretrial Order)(Noh, Sue) (Entered: 07/23/2007)

Case: 2:04-cv-01349-LRL-LRL As of: 10/13/2009 02:08 PM PDT 10 of 11

07/27/2007
07/27/2007 08/02/2007 08/07/2007 11/28/2007
12/12/2007 12/18/2007
12/19/2007 12/19/2007
12/21/2007
01/07/2008 02/06/2008

109 PRETRIAL ORDER: Jury Trial set for 2/12/2008 08:30 AM in LV Courtroom 3C before Magistrate Judge Lawrence R. Leavitt.,Calendar Call set for 2/6/2008 01:30 PM in LV Courtroom 3C before Magistrate Judge Lawrence R. Leavitt.,Proposed Jury Instructions due by 1/30/2008.,Proposed Voir Dire due by 1/30/2008. Signed by Judge Lawrence R. Leavitt on 7/27/07. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF − AXM) (Entered: 07/27/2007)
110 ORDER for Clerk to assign Magistrate Judge for a settlement conference. Signed by Judge Lawrence R. Leavitt on 7/27/07. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF − AXM) (Entered: 07/27/2007)
111 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Roger L. Hunt, U.S. District Judge, on 8/2/2007. By Deputy Clerk: Michael Zadina. IT IS ORDERED that this case is assigned to Judge Peggy A. Leen for the purposes of a settlement conference. (no image attached) (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF − MJZ) (Entered: 08/02/2007)
112 ORDER Scheduling Settlement Conference: Settlement Conference set for 12/13/2007 09:30 AM in Chambers before Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen. Signed by Judge Peggy A. Leen on 8/6/07. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF − AXM) (Entered: 08/07/2007)
113 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Peggy A. Leen, U.S. Magistrate Judge, on 11/28/2007. By Deputy Clerk: Carol A. Knight. Settlement Conference set for 12/18/2007 09:30 AM in Chambers before Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen. Confidential Settlement Statements due in Chambers by 12/11/2007. 12/13/2007 Settlement Conference is VACATED. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF − ASB) (Entered: 11/28/2007)
114 ORDER− Parties have until 12/14/07 to file desired objection to request of Plaintiff Toni Purdy. Signed by Judge Peggy A. Leen on 12/12/07. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF − AXM) (Entered: 12/12/2007)
116 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Peggy A. Leen, U.S. Magistrate Judge, on 12/18/2007. By Deputy Clerk: Carol A. Knight. The parties are to cal Chambers by 4:00 PM, 12/19/07 to schedule a second session of the Settlement Conference during the week of 01/07/08. Plaintiff Toni Purde may participate telephonically. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF − SRK) (Entered: 12/27/2007)
115 STIPULATION Stipulation and [Proposed] Order to Continue the Trial Date and Related Dates by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Johnson, Dana) (Entered: 12/19/2007)
117 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Peggy A. Leen, U.S. Magistrate Judge, on 12/19/2007. By Deputy Clerk: Carol A. Knight. Second Session of the Settlement Conference set for 1/7/2008 09:30 AM in Chambers before Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen. Confidential settlement statements are due in Chambers by 12/31/07 4:00 PM. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF − SRK) (Entered: 12/27/2007)
118 ORDER ON STIPULATION Granting 115 Stipulation to Continue the Trial Date and Related Dates. Proposed Voir Dire due by 3/26/2008. Trial Briefs due by 3/26/2008. Calendar Call set for 4/2/2008 01:30 PM in LV Courtroom 3C before Magistrate Judge Lawrence R. Leavitt. Jury Trial set for 4/8/2008 08:30 AM in LV Courtroom 3C before Magistrate Judge Lawrence R. Leavitt. Signed by Judge Lawrence R. Leavitt on 12/20/07. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF − SRK) (Entered: 01/03/2008)
120 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Peggy A. Leen, U.S. Magistrate Judge, on 1/7/2008. Settlement was reached. Telephonic status hearing set for 2/6/08 at 4:30 pm. Settlement documents due 3/7/08. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF − AXM) (Entered: 01/10/2008)
121 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen, on 2/6/2008. ( Status Conference set for 3/6/2008 04:30 PM before Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen.) (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF − AXM) (Entered: 02/12/2008)

Case: 2:04-cv-01349-LRL-LRL As of: 10/13/2009 02:08 PM PDT 11 of 11

03/06/2008 03/14/2008 03/28/2008 04/25/2008 04/29/2008 04/30/2008
04/30/2008 04/30/2008 05/05/2008 05/06/2008

122 MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS − Status Conference held on 3/6/2008 before Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen. Telephonic Status Conference set for 4/10/2008 04:30 PM before Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF − AXM) (Entered: 03/10/2008)
123 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Magistrate Judge Lawrence R. Leavitt, on 3/14/2008. By Deputy Clerk: V. Hayes. IT IS ORDERED that Calendar Call currently set for April 2, 2008 and Jury Trial set for April 8, 2008 are vacated. (no image attached) (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF − VHM) (Entered: 03/14/2008)
124 STIPULATED/CONSENT JUDGMENT [Proposed] Consent Decree by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Johnson, Dana) (Entered: 03/28/2008)
125 CONSENT JUDGMENT in favor of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Toni Ann Purdy and against Casino Columbia Sussex Corporation and Gold River Operating Corporation. Signed by Magistrate Judge Lawrence R. Leavitt on 4/25/08. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF − ASB) (Entered: 04/25/2008)
126 MOTION to Dismiss With Prejudice by Defendant Gold River Operating Corporation. Responses due by 5/17/2008. (Kirshman, Norman) (Entered: 04/29/2008)
127 ERROR: Wrong order action entered by Court. (MJZ) MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS Regarding the Requirements of Klingele v. Eikenberry and Rand v. Rowland as to 126 MOTION to Dismiss With Prejudice : Opposition due fifteen (15) days from the date of this Minute Order, and reply due eleven (11) days after the filing of the opposition. Signed by Magistrate Judge Lawrence R. Leavitt on 4/30/08. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF − ES) (Entered: 04/30/2008)
NOTICE of Docket Correction to 127 Klingele Minute Order : ERROR: Wrong order action entered by Court; CORRECTION: Document is withdrawn. (no image attached)(MJZ) (Entered: 04/30/2008)
128 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Magistrate Judge Lawrence R. Leavitt, on 4/30/2008. Responses to Motion to Dismiss 126 due by 5/7/2008. A courtesy copy shall be faxed or hand delivered to chambers. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF − ES) (Entered: 04/30/2008)
129 NON−OPPOSITION to 126 MOTION to Dismiss With Prejudice ; filed by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Plaintiff EEOC's Notice of Non−Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss With Prejudice (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service of Plaintiff EEOC's Notice of Non−Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss With Prejudice)(Johnson, Dana) (Entered: 05/05/2008)
130 ORDER GRANTING 126 Motion to Dismiss with prejudice. The court will retain jurisdiction for the sole purpose of administering the Consent Decree. Signed by Magistrate Judge Lawrence R. Leavitt on 5/5/08. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF − ES) (Entered: 05/07/2008)