IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SouUthneirtned_Sftat~esOCo'ulT'II_
FILED
SEP 29 2004 ~

HOUSTON DIVISION EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY §

~'
M"II_8; NI IIfIr,._...,_"-lin

COMMISSION,

§

§

Plaintiff,

§

3788 ..

§

v.

§ CIVIL ACTION NO.

§

U-HAUL CO. OF TEXAS, d/b/a U-HAUL CO. §

OF NORTH HOUSTON and U-HAUL

§

INTERNATIONAL, INC.

§

§

Defendants.

§ JURY TRIAL DEMAND

ORIGINAL COMPLAINT OF THE
UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

TO THE HONORABLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT:

NATURE OF THE ACTION

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

Rights Act of 1991 to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of sex, and to provide

appropriate relief to Telesha Whitaker, Tammy Jones, Crystal Cotton, and other women who were

adversely affected by such practices. As alleged with greater particularity in paragraphs 10-14

below, women employed by Defendants as Customer Service Representatives at U-Haul Center 56,

in Houston, were subjected to unlawful sex discrimination, including sexual harassment.

Additionally, Defendants unlawfully retaliated against Ms. Jones, and failed to comply with

applicable record-keeping laws.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§451, 1331, 1337, 1343

1

and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Section 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 V.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3), and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991,42 V.S.C. § 1981a ("Title VII").
2. The unlawful employment practices alleged in this complaint were committed within the jurisdiction of the Vnited States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division. Venue is appropriate in this court.
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "Commission"), is the agency of the Vnited States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title VII, and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Section 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.c. § 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3). 4. At all relevant times, Defendant V-Haul Co. of Texas, d/b/a V-Haul Co. of North Houston ("V-Haul Texas"), has continuously been a Texas corporation doing business in the State of Texas and the City of Houston, and has continuously had at least 15 employees. 5. At all relevant times, V-Haul Texas has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701(b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 V.S.C. §§ 2000e(b), (g) and (h). V-Haul Texas may be served with process by serving its registered agent, CT Corp. System, which may be found at 350 N. St. Paul Street, Dallas, TX 75201. 6. At all relevant times, Defendant V-Haul International, Inc. ("V-Haul International"), has continuously been a Nevada corporation, and has continuously had at least 15 employees. 7. At all relevant times, V-Haul International has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701(b), (g) and (h) of
2

Title VII, 42 V.S.C. §§ 2000e(b), (g) and (h). STATEMENT OF CLAIMS
8. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Telesha Whitaker, Tammy Jones, and Crystal Cotton filed charges with the Commission alleging violations ofTitle VII by Defendants. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled.
9. Since at least November 2003, Defendants have engaged in unlawful employment practices at U-Haul Center 56, in Houston, Texas, in violation of Sections 703(a)(I), 703(k), and 704 of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2(a)(1), (k), and 2000e-3.
10. While working for Defendants at V-Haul Center 56, female Customer Service Representatives were subjected to an unlawful, sexually hostile environment. They also were subjected to sex discrimination by not being paid, unlike males, for time they worked.
11. Whitaker, Jones, and Cotton reported the discrimination to management officials in Houston, and to V-Haul International employees in Defendants' corporate headquarters. They reported that their supervisor at U-Haul Center 56 engaged in the following conduct: asked if they could go out on dates; asked for oral sex (offering payment for this intimate act); touched Whitaker's breast, put his hands between her legs, and rubbed her behind; and threatened to fire women for rejecting his sexual advances. Although Whitaker reported this conduct to management by December 9, 2003, Defendants took no action for weeks and permitted this conduct to continue.
12. Defendants fired the harassing supervisor on January 21, 2004, for "NOT FOLLOWING CASH MANAGEMENT POLICIES AND PROCEDURES. UNAPPROPRIATE [sic] BEHAVIOR TOWARDS EMPLOYEES."
13. After she filed a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC, Defendants fired Jones.
3

This firing, allegedly for her not showing up for work on a day Defendants contend she was scheduled to work, was retaliatory.
14. Since at least June 2004, Defendants have failed, in violation of Section 709(c) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-8(c), to make and preserve records relevant to the determination of whether unlawful employment practices have been or are being committed. Specifically, Defendants have failed to retain a copy of the work schedule which would indicate whether Jones was indeed scheduled to work the day for which she was fired for not reporting to work.
15. The effect of the practices complained of in paragraphs 10-14 above has been to deprive Telesha Whitaker, Tammy Jones, Crystal Cotton, and other female Customer Service Representatives of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees, because of their sex, and to deprive Tammy Jones of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect her status as an employee by unlawfully retaliating against her.
16. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs 10-14 above were intentional.
17. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs 10-14 above were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights ofTelesha Whitaker, Tammy Jones, Crystal Cotton, and other female Customer Service Representatives.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendants V-Haul Co. of Texas, d/b/a VHaul Co. of North Houston, and V-Haul International Inc., their officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with them, from engaging in sexual harassment and any
4

other employment practice which discriminates on the basis of sex, and from engaging in unlawful retaliation against employees who complain about sexual harassment and other unlawful employment practices.
B. Order Defendants to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for women and employees who complain of employment practices prohibited by Title VII, and which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices.
C. Order Defendants to make whole female Customer Service Representatives who were not appropriately compensated for their work, because oftheir sex, by providing appropriate backpay with prejudgment interest, in amounts to be determined at trial, and other affirmative reliefnecessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices, including but not limited to their reinstatement.
D. Order Defendants to make whole Tammy Jones who lost her jobs as a result of the unlawful retaliation by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from
,~
the unlawful employment practices described in paragraphs 10-14 above, including job search expenses and medical expenses not covered by Defendants' employee benefit plan, in amounts to be determined at trial.
E. Order Defendants to make whole Telesha Whitaker, Tammy Jones, Crystal Cotton, and other female Customer Service Representatives by providing compensation for past and future nonpecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices complained ofin paragraphs 10-14 above, including emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life, and humiliation, in amounts to be determined at trial.
5

F. Order Defendants to pay Telesha Whitaker, Tammy Jones, Crystal Cotton, and other female Customer Service Representatives punitive damages for their malicious and reckless conduct described in paragraphs 10-14 above, in amounts to be determined at trial.
G. Order Defendants to make and preserve all records, in accordance with the provisions of Section 709(c) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,42 U.S.c. § 2000e-8(c), relevant to the determination of whether unlawful employment practices have been or are being committed.
H. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public interest.
I. Award the Commission its costs of this action.
Respectfully submitted,
Eric S. Dreiband General Counsel James L. Lee Deputy General Counsel Gwendolyn Young Reams Associate General Counsel Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 1801 L Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20507
Timothy M. Bo ne Senior Trial At orney Attorney-in-Charge Texas Bar No. 00793371 Southern Dist. of Texas No. 20023
6

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
1919 Smith Street, 7th Floor Houston, Texas 77002 (713) 209-3395 (713) 209-3402 [facsimile]
OF COUNSEL: Jim Sacher Regional Attorney Rose Adewale-Mendes Supervisory Trial Attorney Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 1919 Smith Street, 7th Floor Houston, Texas 77002
7

~!e:~ 07/89)

H- 0 4 3 7 8 8 ~~' -\~~( \

CIVIL COVER SHEET

The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the infonnatlOn contained herem neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadmgs or other papers 8S required by law, except as proVIded by local rules of court. This fonn,

approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States 10 September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON THE REVERSE

OF THE FORM.)

I(a) PLAINTIFFS
m EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION@
(b) COUNTY OF RESIDENCE OF FIRST LISTED PLAINTIFF
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES)
(c) ATTORNEYS (FIRM NAME, ADDRESS, AND TELEPHONE NUMBER)
Timothy M. Bowne, Trial Attorney EEOC-Houston District Office 1919 Smtth Street, 7th Floor Houston, Texas 77002 713 209-3395

DEFENDANTS
V-Haul Co. of Texas" d/b/a U-Haul Co. of North Houston and U-Haul International, Inc.
COUNTY OF RESIDENCE OF FIRST LISTED DEFENDANT: Harris (IN U.S PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
NOTE IN LAND CONDEMNATION C.UE£ USIi..TijE LQCATION OF THE
TRACT OF LAND INVOLV Un/TeO ~lates (;ouns

ATTORNEYS (IF KNOWN)

FILED

SEP 292004

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION

(PLACE AN x TN ONE BOX ONtY)

[x) I U.S. Government Plaintiff
[] 2 U.S. Government Defendant

[] 3 Federal Question (U.S. Government Not a Party)
[] 4 Diversity (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III)

1lI. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (pLACEANxINONEBOX

(For Diversity Cases Only)

FOR PLAINTIFF AND ONE BOX FOR DEFENDANt)

PTF DEF

PTF DEF

Citizen ofThis State []I [] I Incorporated or Principal Place [] 4 [] 4

of Business in This State

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

of Business in Another State

Citizen or Subject of a [] 3 [] 3 Foreign Nation

[]6 []6

Foreign Count

IV. CAUSE 0 FACTION (CITE nill US clvn. STATUTE UNDER WI UCH YOU ARE FILING AND WRnb ABRIEF STATEMENT OF CAU.E DO NOT CITE JURISDICTIONAl. STATUTES UNLESS DIVERSITy)
Defendants have engaged in unlawful employment practices in violation of Sections 703 and 704 of Title VII, and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991. The practices include sex discrimination, SUbjecting women to an unlawfully hostile work environment, retaliation, and record-keeping violations.

V NATURE OF SUIT (PLACEANxINONEBOXONLy)

CONTRACT

TORTS

[] II 0 b"wun~ [] 120 M=n, [] 130 M,II" Aot
[] 140 Negotlabh: lrtlltrument
[] ~9o=c::;;;=;ent &
[] lSI Mod,,,,,,, Aot
[] J~~I::7E:~~::~')
[] ~et!:~e~~<M:tpa~enl or
[] 160 Stockholders' SUII! [] 190 Other Conlntct [] 195 Contract Product Liability
REAL PROPERTY
[] 210 lAnd Cond~'t1U18tlon [) 220 ForeclwUTc [] 230 R~...t Lease & EJectm~...t
[] 240 Turu '0 uond
[] 245 Tort Product Llablhty
[] 290 All Othof Ral Property

PERSONAL INJURY [] 310 Aupl...
[] 315 Auphme Product Llllblhty

[] 320 ABsault, Libel & Slander

[] 330 Federal employen' Liability
[] 340 M.nn,
[] 345 Mnnne Product Llllblhty

[] 350 Molor Vehicle
[] 355 M""" V,hod, Prod"",
Llubility

[] 360 Other PenollDl Injury

-

CIVIL

RIGHTS

[]PERSONAL INJURY 36~~ers=;~:t:-
[] 36t::I;a1 Injury-Product
[] 36~~;~~Il::;lUlllnJury PERSONAL PROPERTY [] 370 O\hcr F..ud
[] 371 Truth In Lending [] 380 Other PersolUli Property lJaOll1gc
[] ~.!~II~Operty Damage Product
PRISONER PETITIONS

[] 441 Voung [X] 442 Employmm'
[] 443 HowmglAcconunodutlOns
[] 444 Welf,,.
[] 440 Other CIVIl RIghts

[] 510 Molions to Vacate Sentence Habeas Corpus'
[] 530°"",,1 [] 535 Doath P"",I,y
[] 540 Mllndnmus & Other
[] 550 O\h"

FORFEITUREIPENALTY
[] 610 Agn,uh= [] 620 O'h~ Food &Drug
[] ~25 Drug R,I.1<d ""we of
roperty 21 USC 881 [] 630 Liquor IAwlI
[] 640 RR&T=k
(] 650 Alrhnc Rcgl [] 660 OccuputlOlUlI SafetylHcahh
[] 690 O\h" LABOR
[] 710 "al! Labor Standards Act
[] 720 LobmlMgm' R,I.""",
[] 7iBI~I::::tt Reportltlg
[] 740 RailwllY Labor Act [] 790 Other Labor I.lligatloo
[] 79l,~PI Rot 100 ""unIY

BANKRUPTCY [] 422 Appeol28 usc 158 [] 423 W,thdm~.128IJSC 157
PROPERTY RIGHTS
[] 820 Copyngh~ [] 830 P,ten' [] 840 T..d"",,,l<
SOCIAL SECURITY
[] 861 IIIA(139Sm [] 862 m"kLung (923) [] 863 DIWCJI)IWW ('OS(s) [] 864 SSID Till, XVI [] 865 RSI ('OS(g)
FEDERAL TAX SUITS
[] r!:7~~~:)ell (U S Plamtlff or
n871 IRS··TIllrd Party 26 USC 7609

OTHER STATUTES
[] 400 Slate ReapportlOruncnt [] 410 An",,""
[] 430 Banks Ilnd Banking
[] 450 Comm=diCC R.""'" [] 460 Do."",,"on [] 4~a:;:t::: Influenced and Corrupt
[] 810 Selective &Moe [] e~t:unu~-sJCommO(htle31
[] 87~2~u;~m;~~~hallen8e [] 891 Agri,ul'wal A,,,
[] 892 Econonuo StablhZll.lmtl Act [] 893 EnVIronmental Matters [] 894 Energy Allocation Act [] 895 Fn::aJom orlnronnatlon Acl
[] YJJ~.AEV:II ~~:sr:::ll:tlOn
[] 950 ConstltUIIOfUlltty of Slate Stututes [] 890 Other Statutory Actions

VI. ORIGIN
[X] I Original Proceeding

(PLACE AN x IN ONE BOX ONLY)

[] 2 Removed from

[] 3 Remanded from

State Court

Appellate Court

TransfelTed from

[] 4 Reinstated or

[] 5 another dIStrict

Reopened

(specify)

Appeal to Dlstnct

[] 6 Muilldistrict

[] 7 Judge from

Litigation

MagIStrate Judgment

VII. REQUESTED IN

CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT:

[] UNDER F.R C P 23

DEMAND $

Check YES only If demanded in complamt:
JURY DEMAND, [X] YES [] NO

VIII. RELATED CASE(S) IF ANY (Soo,nsuuc"o",)

JUDGE

DATIi9 / d.'1 /0 L I

SIONATURIiUFA~R~ • ~ .•

DOCKET NUMBER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 
 United States Courts Southern District of Texas
ENTERED

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT APR 1 4 Z005

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

HOUSTON DIVISION

Mil:hael N. Milbv, Clerk of CoUri

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

§

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, §

§

Plaintiff,

§

§

v.

§

§

U-HAUL CO. OF TEXAS, d/b/a U- §

HAUL CO. OF NORTH HOUSTON §

and U-HAUL INTERNATIONAL, §

INC.,

§

§

Defendants.

§

Civil Action No. H-04-3788

ORDER

Pending before the Court is U-Haul International's Motion to Dismiss (Instrument No. 25). Having considered the motion, submissions, and applicable law, the Court determines the motion should be denied. Accordingly, the Court hereby
ORDERS that U-Haul International's Motion to Dismiss (Instrument No. 25) is DENIED.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this 12- day of April, 2005.

United States District Judge

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
vs.
U-HAUL CO. OF TEXAS, d/b/a U-HAUL CO. OF NORTH HOUSTON AND U-HAUL INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION H-04-3788

§

§

§

§

§

§

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Before the court1 is plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s

(EEOC) motion to compel documents (Dkt. 48) from defendant U-Haul Co. of Texas,

d/b/a U-Haul Co. of North Houston. The EEOC seeks an order compelling responses

to its requests for production number 3 and 5 pertaining to Dedric Johnson, a former general manager for U-Haul at its Center 56 in Houston.2 The EEOC’s motion is

granted.

Request number 3 seeks “a copy of any documents relating to customer

complaints about Dedric Johnson.” Dkt. 48, Ex. 1. U-Haul objects on grounds of

1 This motion was referred to this magistrate judge for determination p ursuan t to 28 U.S.C. § 6 36(b)(1 ) (Dk t. 49).
2 That portion of the motion seeking answers to interrogatories has been withdrawn. See Dkt. 50.

relevancy and overbreadth. Johnson worked for U-Haul from November of 2002, until January 21, 2004, or slightly more than one year. He became a general manager for U-Haul around June 10, 2003. Thus, the request is not overly broad. Nor is the information sought irrelevant. The EEOC’s allegations against U-Haul pertain to Johnson’s actions as an employee and supervisor for U-Haul. Documentation of his behavior during the relatively short period of time appears reasonably calculated to the discovery of admissible evidence. FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(1). U-Haul’s objections are therefore overruled.
Request for production number 5 asks for a copy of all applications for the position of Customer Service Representative at U-Haul Center 56. The EEOC has since limited its request to those applications submitted from June 10, 2003, through January 21, 2004. See Dkt. 48. U-Haul again objects to the request as overly broad and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. See Dkt. 48, Ex. 1. U-Haul’s objections are again overruled. The request covers a short and well-defined period of time Dedric Johnson was a general manager for U-Haul and is alleged to have used his supervisory position to sexually discriminate against those he supervised, as well as those who applied for positions at Center 56. One of the EEOC’s central contentions is that Johnson would hire women as trainees, but would not pay them or hire them for full-time employment if they rebuked his sexual
2

advances. If applicants to the Customer Service Representative position were denied employment for refusing the sexual advances of a supervisor, such evidence is clearly relevant and discoverable. To address U-Haul’s concerns about the privacy of these applicants, it may redact personal identifiers and other sensitive information, such as Social Security numbers or bank accounts, but its objections are otherwise overruled.
Accordingly, U-Haul must produce documents responsive to the EEOC’s requests for production number 3 and 5 within ten days of entry of this order.
Signed on September 20, 2005, at Houston, Texas.
3

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION

So,}knited ~at~s Courts erenNDrE/sRtrElcDt of Texas
OCT 2 5 2005

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

§

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, §

§

Plaintiff,

§

§

v.

§

§

U-HAUL CO. OF TEXAS, d/b/a U- §

HAUL CO. OF NORTH HOUSTON §

and U-HAUL INTERNATIONAL, §

INC.,

§

§

Defendants.

§

Michael N. Milby, Clerk of Coun CIVIL ACTION NO. H-04-3788

ORDER

Pending before the Court is EEOC's Motion for Summary Judgment

(Document No. 57). Having considered the motion, submissions, and applicable law, the Court determines the motion should be denied. Accordingly the Court hereby
ORDERS that EEOC's Motion for Summary Judgment (Document No. 57) is

DENIED.

'ttf SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this the

day of October, 2005.

~~flh=- • DAVID HITTNER United States District Judge

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

HOUSTON DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

§

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

§

United States Courts Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
NOV 3 0 2005

§

Plaintiff,

§

Michael N. Milby, Clerk of Court

§

v.

§ CIVIL ACTION NO. H-04-3788

§

U-HAUL CO. OF TEXAS, d/b/a

§

U-HAUL CO. OF NORTH HOUSTON §

and U-HAUL INTERNATIONAL, INC. §

§

Defendants.

§ JURY TRIAL

CONSENT DECREE

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("Commission" or

"EEOC") has alleged that Defendants V-Haul Co. of Texas, d/b/a V-Haul Co. of

North Houston and V-Haul International, Inc., engaged in unlawful sex

discrimination, including sexual harassment, retaliation, and failed to comply with

record-keeping laws and regulations, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights

Act of 1964, as amended, and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991. Defendants

have denied these allegations. Defendant V-Haul International, Inc. has been

dismissed from this action and, as such, is not a party to this Consent Decree. The

term "Defendant" refers to V-Haul Co. of Texas.

The parties wish to avoid the risks, uncertainties, and expenses of trial.

Accordingly, the parties have agreed to settle this lawsuit. The parties agree that

this Consent Decree is being entered into for the purpose of compromising disputed claims. It is not and should not be interpreted as an admission of liability by Defendant.
The Commission and Defendant stipulate to the jurisdiction of the Court and to satisfaction of all administrative prerequisites. The parties further waive hearing and entry of findings of fact and conclusions of law on all issues.
It is therefore ORDERED that: 1. This Consent Decree is entered in full and complete compromise of any and all claims and counterclaims arising out of or asserted in Civil Action No. H-04-3788, and arising out of EEOC Charge Nos. 330-2004-01955, 330-200401957, and 330-2004-05356. 2. Defendant contends that they do not engage in any illegal or improper employment practices. As such, Defendant agrees to continue to not engage in any employment practices which have the purpose or effect of discriminating against any individual with respect to compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment because of such individual's sex, as prohibited by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and will not retaliate against any individual who has opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice under Title VII or who has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding or hearing under Title VII.
2

3. Defendant agrees to distribute or make available to its management employees, including general managers, its anti-sexual harassment policy bulletin (currently Policy Bulletin 687) during the pendency of this Consent Decree.
4. In accordance with 42 U.S.c. § 2000e-8(c) and 29 C.F.R. § 1602.14, U-Haul Co. of Texas shall retain for at least one (l) year a copy of each employment application it receives for Customer Service Representative positions at any of its U-Haul Centers in 745 and 746 (Houston) Marketing Companies. While this Consent Decree is in effect, the Commission may monitor U-Haul Texas's compliance with this provision by providing twenty (20) calendar days' notice of its intent to inspect the retained applications. However, the Commission may not exercise this right more than two (2) times in any calendar year. Upon receipt of such notice, U-Haul Texas must either provide the Commission's Houston District Office with copies of the requested applications, or permit a Commission employee to inspect electronic copies retained by U-Haul Texas. The provision of hard copies would be at the expense of U-Haul Texas; an inspection of electronic copies could be performed at U-Haul Texas's premises, or by U-Haul Texas's electronically transmitting the applications to the Commission.
5. Should any U-Haul Co. of Texas District 745 or 746 employee, former employee, or applicant for employment file a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC or the Texas Workforce Commission's Division of Human Rights
3

while this Consent Decree is in effect, Defendant shall retain copies, to the extent they exist, of all personnel records relevant to the charge -- including all employment applications, Payroll Action forms, and letters of resignation or termination pertaining to such individual -- until the later of the final disposition of the charge or the action, as defined by 29 C.F.R. § 1602.14, or one year after the challenged personnel decision was made.
6. Defendant agrees to pay the total sum of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000.00) in full and final settlement of the Commission's lawsuit. Within five (5) calendar days of entry of the Consent Decree, the Commission shall notify Defendant of the sum to be paid to each Charging Party and class member, and the address to which each check will be mailed. Said sums shall be paid within twenty (20) calendar days from the date of entry of the Consent Decree. A copy of the checks disbursed to each of them shall be mailed to the Commission's counsel of record on the same day the checks are mailed.
7. Defendant agrees to provide prospective employers of Telesha Whitaker, Tammy Jones, and Crystal Cotton their names, dates of employment with U-Haul Texas, and last position held, and to make no negative comments regarding Telesha Whitaker, Tammy Jones, and Crystal Cotton to any prospective employer. Telesha Whitaker, Tammy Jones, and Crystal Cotton, however, shall not apply for employment at any U-Haul Co. of Texas location.
4

8. Each party to this action shall bear its own costs and attorney's fees.

9. This Consent Decree shall remain in effect for two (2) years from the

date of signing.

10. The parties agree that, should either choose to issue a press release, it

will be in an agreed upon form with the content being agreed to by both parties.

Nothing herein shall be construed as a requirement that a press release be issued.

11. During the period this Consent Decree shall remain in effect, the

Court shall retain jurisdiction to assure compliance with this Consent Decree and

to permit entry of such further orders or modifications as may be appropriate. The

EEOC is specifically authorized to seek Court-ordered enforcement of this Consent

Decree in the event of a breach of any provisions herein. Nothing in this Consent

Decree shall be construed to preclude the Commission from filing a separate action

under Title VII or any other statute which the Commission enforces in the future

for any alleged violations by Defendants not raised in the Commission's Complaint

or resolved by this Consent Decree.

t Signed this 2.-

day of

~ , 2005 at Houston, Texas.
~(J;H-.
DAVID HITTNER United States District Judge

5

 
 E.E.O.C. v. U-Haul Co. of Texas, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)

2005 WL 2860987 United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Houston Division.
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v.
U-HAUL CO. OF TEXAS, d/b/a U-Haul Co. of North Houston and U-Haul International, Inc.,
Defendants.
No. Civ.A. H-04-3788. | Nov. 1, 2005.
Attorneys and Law Firms
Timothy M. Bowne, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff.
Michael P. Cash, Winstead Sechrest et al., Houston, TX, for Defendants.
Opinion
ORDER
HITTNER, J.
*1 Pending before the Court is EEOC’s Motion to Exclude Testimony of Defendant U-Haul Texas’s Designated Expert Witness (Document No. 56). Having considered the motion, submissions, and applicable law, the Court determines the motion should be granted.
BACKGROUND
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) filed the instant suit on September 29, 2004 asserting hostile work environment, sexual harassment, and retaliation claims against U-Haul Co. of Texas (“U-Haul”) and U-Haul International (“International”). These claims were brought on behalf of three women who allege a former U-Haul manager acted inappropriately toward them on a number of occasions during the women’s course of employment with U-Haul.
On March 31, 2005, U-Haul filed its expert witness designation with this Court. In its designation, U-Haul designated Leticia Flores (“Flores”) as its only expert. Flores is an investigator employed by the EEOC, and was involved in the investigation of the allegations that form the basis of the instant lawsuit. In its designation, U-Haul

indicates that Flores has expertise in the investigation of discrimination claims and indicates that Flores’s “opinions can be found in her deposition....”
On September 1, 2005, EEOC filed a motion seeking to exclude Flores’s expert witness testimony. EEOC argues that Flores has no specialized knowledge that would assist the trier of fact in understanding the evidence or determining a fact issue. EEOC further argues that even if Flores qualifies as an expert, her testimony is impermissible under Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. In response, U-Haul contends that Flores’s duties as an EEOC investigator qualify her as an expert. Moreover, U-Haul avers that Flores’s testimony is relevant because she investigated the alleged discrimination in this case and ostensibly later changed her opinion about whether U-Haul engaged in culpable conduct.

LAW AND ANALYSIS
EEOC challenges U-Haul’s designation of Flores as an expert witness on the grounds that, inter alia, Flores’s testimony does not comply with the requirements of Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Rule 702 provides “[i]f scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise....” FED.R.EVID. 702. Thus, the testifying individual must both qualify as an expert and her testimony must assist the jury in resolving a fact issue or understanding evidence. Id.; see Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 591, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993). The Court will first analyze whether Flores’s testimony will assist the jury in resolving a fact issue or understanding the evidence.
The parties spend little time informing the Court how Flores’s testimony will assist the jury as required by Rule 702.1 U-Haul appears to designate Flores as an expert so that she can opine that insufficient evidence exists indicating wrongdoing by U-Haul. Indeed, U-Haul avers that Flores’s deposition testimony makes clear “that the person entrusted by the EEOC to investigate this matter found no evidence of sexual or gender discrimination.” Essentially, U-Haul asks the Court to allow Flores to opine on the sufficiency of the evidence.

1

In its expert designation, U-Haul does not provide the

Court with the expert opinions held by Flores but rather

instructs the Court that a copy of her opinions can be

1

E.E.O.C. v. U-Haul Co. of Texas, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)

found in her deposition. In its response to the motion to strike, however, U-Haul clarifies by directing the Court to Flores’s deposition testimony wherein Flores indicates that the facts of the case before the Court might not indicate wrongdoing on the part of U-Haul. Moreover, U-Haul does not directly address the issue of whether or how Flores’s testimony will assist the jury.
*2 As other courts have noted, specialized knowledge, without a showing that such knowledge will assist the trier of fact, is insufficient to meet the requirements of Rule 702. See Adkins Adjustment Serv., Inc. v. Blumhof, No. Civ. A. 3:98-CV-2789-H, 2001 WL 456352, at *4 (N.D.Tex. April 27, 2001). The Court finds the Texas Supreme Court’s analysis in the case of K-Mart Corp. v. Honeycutt, 24 S.W.3d 357 (Tex.2000) persuasive on the issue of whether Flores should be permitted to testify. There, the Texas court, in analyzing Texas Rule of Evidence 702, which employs nearly identical language to Federal Rule 702, noted that expert testimony should be excluded if the testimony is within common knowledge of the trier of fact. Id. at 360. The Court recognized
Expert testimony assists the trier-of-fact when the expert’s knowledge and experience on a relevant issue are beyond that of the average juror and the testimony helps the trier-of fact understand the evidence or determine a fact issue. When the jury is equally competent to form an opinion about the ultimate fact issues or the expert’s testimony is within the common knowledge of the jury, the trial court should exclude the expert’s testimony.
Id. (citations omitted).
Here, assuming, arguendo, Flores qualifies as an expert, the Court determines her testimony would not assist the trier of fact in either resolving the fact issues in this case or understanding the evidence.2 The issue here is whether U-Haul engaged in discriminatory activities, and the jury is qualified and able to make its own determination as to the sufficiency of the facts underlying this action.3

2

U-Haul appears to argue the Flores’s testimony is

relevant to International’s counterclaim for attorney’s

fees. However, Flores was designated only as an expert

for U-Haul, not International. International failed to

timely designate Flores as its expert.

3

As the Court has determined Flores’s testimony will

not assist the jury, the Court need not determine

whether Flores qualifies as an expert.

Alternatively, the Court notes that allowing Flores to testify as an expert witness would violate Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Rule 403 provides that “[a]lthough relevant, evidence may be excluded it its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury....” FED.R.EVID. 403. Even if Flores’s opinion testimony is relevant, allowing her to opine on the sufficiency of the evidence or her belief as to whether the EEOC should have brought this action would confuse the issues in the case.4 The issue here is whether U-Haul is liable for its alleged unlawful activities, not whether the EEOC investigator believes EEOC should be liable. Accordingly, the relevance of Flores’s opinion testimony is substantially outweighed by its misleading effect and should therefore be excluded. See id. Given the foregoing, the Court hereby

4

Although U-Haul has urged alternative theories for

allowing Flores to testify, the Court will not at this time

address the issue of whether Flores may be called as a

fact witness.

ORDERS that EEOC’s Motion to Exclude Testimony of Defendant U-Haul Texas’s Designated Expert Witness (Document No. 56) is GRANTED. The Court will not permit Flores to testify as an expert witness in the instant action.

Parallel Citations
68 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 846
	  

2

 
 DC CM/ECF LIVE- US District Court-Texas Southern - Docket Report

Page 1 of 9

CLOSED, MOTREF
U.S. District Court SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (Houston) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:04-cv-03788

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. U-Haul Co of Texas et al Assigned to: Judge David Hittner Cause: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

Date Filed: 09/29/2004 Date Terminated: 11/28/2005 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by Timothy M Bowne EEOC 1919 Smith 7th Fl Houston, TX 77002 713-209-3395 Fax: 713-209-3402 fax Email: timothy.bowne@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant U-Haul Co of Texas d/b/a U-Haul Co of North Houston
Defendant U-Haul International Inc
Defendant Dedric Johnson Counter Claimant U-Haul International Inc

represented by Michael Patrick Cash Winstead Sechrest & Minick PC 919 Milam Ste 2400 Houston, TX 77002 713-650-8400 Fax: 713-650-2400 Email: mcash@winstead.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Michael Patrick Cash (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.txsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?354256413834692-L_353_0-1

5/16/2007

DC CM/ECF LIVE- US District Court-Texas Southern - Docket Report

Page 2 of 9

V.
Counter Defendant
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by Timothy M Bowne (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 09/29/2004
09/29/2004
09/29/2004 10/08/2004 10/15/2004 10/25/2004 11/04/2004 11/10/2004
11/10/2004 11/17/2004 11/17/2004
11/17/2004 11/17/2004

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT against U-Haul Co of Texas, U-Haul International Inc filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.(vhulsey, ) (Entered: 10/01/2004)

2 ORDER for Initial Pretrial and Scheduling Conference and Order to Disclose Interested Persons Initial Conference set for 11/18/2004 02:00 PM in Courtroom 702 before Magistrate Judge Stephen Smith. Parties notified.(vhulsey, ) (Entered: 10/01/2004)

Summons Issued as to U-Haul Co of Texas, U-Haul International Inc , filed.(vhulsey, ) (Entered: 10/01/2004)

3 CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PARTIES by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, filed.(Bowne, Timothy) (Entered: 10/08/2004)

4 Summons Issued as to U-Haul International Inc , filed.(psmith, ) (Entered: 10/19/2004)

5 RETURN of Service Executed as to U-Haul Co of Texas on 10/18/04 , filed.(psmith, ) (Entered: 10/28/2004)

6 RETURN of Service Executed as to U-Haul International Inc on 10/26/04 , filed.(psmith, ) (Entered: 11/05/2004)

7 MOTION for More Definite Statement, by U-Haul International Inc, filed. Motion Docket Date 11/30/2004. (Attachments: # 1)(psmith, ) (Entered: 11/16/2004)

8 ANSWER to Complaint, by U-Haul Co of Texas, filed.(psmith, ) (Entered: 11/16/2004)

9 REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, filed.(Bowne, Timothy) (Entered: 11/17/2004)

10 ORDER, MOTIONS REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Stephem Wm Smith: 7 MOTION for More Definite Statement.( Signed by Judge David Hittner ) Parties notified.(ealexander, ) (Entered: 11/18/2004)

13 CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PARTIES by U-Haul Co of Texas, U-Haul International Inc, filed.(psmith, ) (Entered: 11/22/2004)

14 RETURN of Service Executed as to U-Haul International Inc on

https://ecf.txsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?354256413834692-L_353_0-1

5/16/2007

DC CM/ECF LIVE- US District Court-Texas Southern - Docket Report

Page 3 of 9

11/18/2004 11/18/2004
11/30/2004 12/09/2004 12/20/2004 12/20/2004 12/20/2004 12/20/2004 12/21/2004 12/22/2004 12/27/2004 12/27/2004

10/27/04 , filed.(psmith, ) (Entered: 11/22/2004)
11 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Stephen Wm Smith. SCHEDULING CONFERENCE held on 11/18/2004. Scheduling Order to follow. Appearances: Timothy M Bowne f/Plf, Michael P Cash f/Def. (ERO:R.Konieczny), filed.(rkonieczny, ) (Entered: 11/18/2004)
12 SCHEDULING ORDER: Trial Term: November/December 2005. ETT: 5 days. Jury trial Amended Pleadings due by 4/1/2005 Joinder of Parties due by 1/3/2005 Pltf Expert Witness List due by 3/1/2005 Deft Expert Witness List due by 4/1/2005 Discovery due by 8/1/2005 Dispositive Motion Filing due by 9/1/2005 Non-Dispositive Motion Filing due by 9/1/2005 Joint Pretrial Order due by 10/28/2005.( Signed by Judge Stephen Wm Smith ) Parties notified.(rkonieczny, ) (Entered: 11/18/2004)
15 RESPONSE to U-Haul Intl's Inc's 7 MOTION for More Definite Statement filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(sguevara, ) (Entered: 12/01/2004)
16 MEMORANDUM and ORDER denying 7 Motion for More Definite Statement .( Signed by Judge Stephen Wm Smith ) Parties notified. (rkonieczny, ) (Entered: 12/10/2004)
17 MOTION to Dismiss Pursuant to FRCP 12(b), by U-Haul International Inc, filed. Motion Docket Date 1/10/2005. (Part 1 of 2)(psmith, ) (Entered: 12/21/2004)
ANSWER to Complaint, Affirmative Defenses and COUNTERCLAIM against Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, by U-Haul International Inc, filed.(psmith, ) (Entered: 12/21/2004)
18 ***DOCUMENT STRICKEN, AS PER ORDER #21*** MOTION for Leave to File Amended Pleading, by U-Haul Co of Texas, filed. Motion Docket Date 1/10/2005. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(psmith, ) Modified on 12/23/2004 (jrichards, ). (Entered: 12/21/2004)
19 AMENDED ANSWER to Complaint, by U-Haul Co of Texas, filed. (psmith, ) (Entered: 12/21/2004)
20 SUPPLEMENT to its 17 MOTION to Dismiss, by U-Haul International Inc, filed.(psmith, ) (Entered: 12/21/2004)
21 ORDER striking 18 MOTION for Leave to File Amended Pleading. ( Signed by Judge David Hittner ) Parties notified.(jrichards, ) (Entered: 12/23/2004)
22 AMENDED ORIGINAL ANSWER to Complaint, by U-Haul Co of Texas, filed. (mbergara, ) (Entered: 12/28/2004)
23 Defendant U-Haul International, Inc.'s SUPPLEMENT to its 17 MOTION to Dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b), filed.(kwallace, 6) (Entered: 12/28/2004)

https://ecf.txsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?354256413834692-L_353_0-1

5/16/2007

DC CM/ECF LIVE- US District Court-Texas Southern - Docket Report

Page 4 of 9

12/27/2004
12/27/2004
12/29/2004 12/30/2004
01/05/2005 01/10/2005 01/14/2005 01/20/2005 02/03/2005 02/04/2005 03/31/2005 04/12/2005 05/03/2005 05/03/2005 05/16/2005

24 Defendant U-Haul Co. of Texas d/b/a U-Haul Co. of North Houston's Unopposed MOTION to for Leave to File Amended Pleadings, filed. Motion Docket Date 1/18/2005. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (kwallace, 6) (Entered: 12/28/2004)
25 MOTION to Dismiss Pursuant to FRCP 12(b)and subject thereto, original answer, affirmative defenses and counterclaim by U-Haul International Inc, filed. Motion Docket Date 1/18/2005. (sguevara) Modified on 12/28/2004 (sguevara). (Entered: 12/28/2004)
26 ORDER granting 24 Motion for Leave to Amend Pleading.( Signed by Judge David Hittner ) Parties notified.(ealexander, ) (Entered: 12/30/2004)
27 MOTION to Quash Notice of Intent to Take Oral Deposition of EEOC Investigator, by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, filed. Motion Docket Date 1/19/2005. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (psmith, ) (Entered: 01/04/2005)
28 ORDER, MOTIONS REFERRED to Magistrate Judge 27 MOTION to Quash.( Signed by Judge David Hittner ) Parties notified.(ealexander, ) (Entered: 01/06/2005)
29 RESPONSE to U-Haul International's 25 MOTION to Dismiss, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(psmith, ) (Entered: 01/11/2005)
30 RESPONSE to Pltfs 27 MOTION to Quash, filed by U-Haul Co of Texas. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(psmith, ) (Entered: 01/14/2005)
31 REPLY to Defts Response to 27 MOTION to Quash, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (psmith, ) (Entered: 01/21/2005)
32 ANSWER to Counterclaim by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, filed.(Bowne, Timothy) (Entered: 02/03/2005)
33 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Denying 27 MOTION to Quash. ( Signed by Judge Stephen Wm Smith ) Parties notified.(rkonieczny, ) (Entered: 02/07/2005)
34 DESIGNATION OF EXPERT WITNESSES by U-Haul Co of Texas, filed.(dkelly, ) (Entered: 04/05/2005)
35 ORDER denying 25 Motion to Dismiss .( Signed by Judge David Hittner ) Parties notified.(ealexander, ) (Entered: 04/14/2005)
36 INITIAL DISCLOSURES by U-Haul International Inc, filed.(rroberts, ) (Entered: 05/04/2005)
37 INITIAL DISCLOSURES by U-Haul Co of Texas, filed.(rroberts, ) (Entered: 05/04/2005)
38 UNOPPOSED APPLICATION for an Order to Show Cause Why the Subpoena Served on Dedric Johnson Should Not Be Enforced by Equal

https://ecf.txsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?354256413834692-L_353_0-1

5/16/2007

DC CM/ECF LIVE- US District Court-Texas Southern - Docket Report

Page 5 of 9

05/17/2005
06/01/2005 06/01/2005 06/01/2005
06/09/2005 06/21/2005 06/22/2005 06/23/2005 07/21/2005 07/25/2005 08/01/2005 08/02/2005

Employment Opportunity Commission, filed. Motion Docket Date 6/6/2005. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(sguevara, ) (Entered: 05/16/2005)
39 ORDER 38 MOTION for Order to Show Cause as to Why the Subpoena Served on Dedric Johnson Should Not Be Enforced Show Cause Hearing set for 6/1/2005 at 09:45 AM in Courtroom 8A before Judge David Hittner.( Signed by Judge David Hittner ) Parties notified.(ealexander, ) (Entered: 05/18/2005)
40 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge David Hittner. SHOW CAUSE HEARING held on 6/1/2005. Hearing reset to 6/15/05 at 9:45 a.m. Order to issue. Appearances:Rudy Sustaita, Tanya Dodd.(Court Reporter: Gayle Dye), filed.(ealexander, ) (Entered: 06/01/2005)
***Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Show Cause Hearing set for 6/15/2005 at 09:45 AM in Courtroom 8A before Judge David Hittner (ealexander, ) (Entered: 06/01/2005)
41 ORDER Setting Hearing on Motion Motion Hearing on the show cause why Dedric Johnson should not be held in contempt of court set for 6/15/2005 at 09:45 AM in Courtroom 8A before Judge David Hittner. ( Signed by Judge David Hittner ) Parties notified.(ealexander, ) (Entered: 06/02/2005)
42 ORDER, Set Deadlines/Hearings for the Show Cause Hearing. Motion Hearing set for 7/21/2005 at 09:30 AM in Courtroom 8A before Judge David Hittner.( Signed by Judge David Hittner ) Parties notified. (ealexander, ) (Entered: 06/10/2005)
43 NOTICE of Firm Change and Change of Address by Winstead Sechrest & Minick PC, counsel for U-Haul Co of Texas, filed. (mewilliams, ) (Entered: 06/21/2005)
44 Return of Service Unexecuted as to Dedric Johnson re: Order to appear, filed.(mewilliams, ) (Entered: 06/22/2005)
45 RETURN of Service Executed as to Dedric Johnson on 6/16/05 re: Amended Order to Show Cause, filed.(bgoolsby, ) (Entered: 06/23/2005)
46 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge David Hittner. Show Cause Hearing held on 7/21/2005. Bench Warrant to issue as to Dedric Johnson. Appearances:Kathy Boutchee.(Court Reporter: Gayle Dye), filed.(ealexander, ) (Entered: 07/22/2005)
47 ORDER (See order for details).( Signed by Judge David Hittner ) Parties notified.(ealexander, ) (Entered: 07/25/2005)
48 MOTION to compel production of documents and answers to Plaintiff's discovery by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, filed. Motion Docket Date 8/22/2005. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(cpeebles) (Entered: 08/02/2005)
49 ORDER, MOTIONS REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Stephen Wm

https://ecf.txsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?354256413834692-L_353_0-1

5/16/2007

DC CM/ECF LIVE- US District Court-Texas Southern - Docket Report

Page 6 of 9

08/05/2005 08/05/2005 08/15/2005 08/23/2005 08/25/2005 08/26/2005 09/01/2005 09/01/2005 09/19/2005 09/20/2005 09/28/2005 10/04/2005

Smith: 48 MOTION to Compel production of documents and answerw to Plaintiff's discovery.( Signed by Judge David Hittner ) Parties notified. (ealexander, ) (Entered: 08/03/2005)
50 SUPPLEMENT to 48 MOTION to Compel production of documents and answerw to Plaintiff's discovery by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, filed.(Bowne, Timothy) (Entered: 08/05/2005)
51 Defendant U-Haul International Inc.'s RESPONSE to the EEOC's 48 MOTION to Compel production of documents and answerw to Plaintiff's discovery, filed by U-Haul International Inc. (rroberts, ) (Entered: 08/05/2005)
52 Reply to Response to 48 MOTION to Compel production of documents and answerw to Plaintiff's discovery, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Bowne, Timothy) (Entered: 08/15/2005)
53 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge David Hittner. HEARING on the issuance of bench warrant as to Dedric Johnson held on 8/23/2005. Appearances: Timothy M Bowne, Michael P Cash.(Court Reporter: Fred Warner), filed.(ealexander, ) (Entered: 08/24/2005)
54 SUPPLEMENT to 48 MOTION to Compel production of documents and answerw to Plaintiff's discovery by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, filed.(Bowne, Timothy) (Entered: 08/25/2005)
55 RETURN of Service Executed as to Dedric Johnson on 08/23/05 re: Warrant for Arrest - Civil. Subject taken to USMS Lockup at 515 Rusk, Houston.(kmurphy, ) (Entered: 08/30/2005)
56 Opposed MOTION to Exclude Expert Witness by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, filed. Motion Docket Date 9/21/2005. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declaration of Leticia Flores# 2 Proposed Order)(Bowne, Timothy) (Entered: 09/01/2005)
57 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, filed. Motion Docket Date 9/21/2005. (Attachments: # 1 Continuation # 2 Proposed Order)(rroberts, ) (Entered: 09/02/2005)
58 RESPONSE to 56 Opposed MOTION to Exclude Expert Witness, filed by U-Haul International Inc. (mkadlubowski, ) (Entered: 09/20/2005)
59 MEMORANDUM and ORDER granting 48 Motion to Compel .( Signed by Judge Stephen Wm Smith ) Parties notified.(rkonieczny, ) (Entered: 09/21/2005)
60 RESPONSE to the EEOC's 57 MOTION for Summary Judgment, filed by U-Haul Co of Texas, U-Haul International Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Continuation # 2 Continuation # 3 Continuation # 4 Continuation # 5 Continuation)(psmith, ) (Entered: 09/30/2005)
61 MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Response by U-Haul Co of Texas, U-Haul International Inc, filed. Motion Docket Date 10/24/2005. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(espencer, ) (Entered: 10/05/2005)

https://ecf.txsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?354256413834692-L_353_0-1

5/16/2007

DC CM/ECF LIVE- US District Court-Texas Southern - Docket Report

Page 7 of 9

10/04/2005 10/06/2005 10/07/2005 10/14/2005 10/24/2005 10/24/2005 10/24/2005 10/28/2005
10/28/2005 10/28/2005 10/28/2005 10/28/2005 10/28/2005 10/28/2005 11/01/2005

62 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE to 57 MOTION for Summary Judgment, filed by U-Haul Co of Texas, U-Haul International Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit # 2 Exhibit)(espencer, ) (Entered: 10/05/2005)
63 ORDER, Pretrial Conference set for 11/14/2005 at 09:45 AM in Courtroom 8A before Judge David Hittner.( Signed by Judge David Hittner ) Parties notified.(ealexander, ) (Entered: 10/07/2005)
64 ORDER that the parties are to exchange all trial exhibits on 10/28/05. ( Signed by Judge David Hittner ) Parties notified.(ealexander, ) (Entered: 10/11/2005)
65 Reply to Response to 56 Opposed MOTION to Exclude Expert Witness, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Bowne, Timothy) (Entered: 10/14/2005)
66 RESPONSE to 61 MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Response, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Bowne, Timothy) (Entered: 10/24/2005)
67 ORDER denying 57 Motion for Summary Judgment .( Signed by Judge David Hittner ) Parties notified.(ealexander, ) (Entered: 10/25/2005)
68 Reply to Response to 57 MOTION for Summary Judgment, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (ltien, ) (Entered: 10/27/2005)
69 Proposed Pretrial Order by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Plaintiff's Witness List# 2 Defendants' Witness List# 3 Plaintiff's Exhibit List# 4 Defendants' Exhibit List)(Bowne, Timothy) (Entered: 10/28/2005)
70 Proposed Jury Instructions by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, filed.(Bowne, Timothy) (Entered: 10/28/2005)
71 MOTION in Limine by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, filed. Motion Docket Date 11/17/2005. (Bowne, Timothy) (Entered: 10/28/2005)
72 PRETRIAL MEMORANDUM by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, filed.(Bowne, Timothy) (Entered: 10/28/2005)
73 Voir Dire Questions, filed.(Bowne, Timothy) (Entered: 10/28/2005)
75 MOTION in Limine; by U-Haul Co of Texas, U-Haul International Inc, filed. Motion Docket Date 11/17/2005. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(mkadlubowski, ) (Entered: 11/02/2005)
76 Defendants'Proposed Voir Dire Questions, filed.(espencer, ) (Entered: 11/02/2005)
74 ORDER granting 56 Motion to Exclude Testimony of Defendant U-Haul Texas's Designated Expert Witness.( Signed by Judge David Hittner ) Parties notified.(ealexander, ) (Entered: 11/01/2005)

https://ecf.txsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?354256413834692-L_353_0-1

5/16/2007

DC CM/ECF LIVE- US District Court-Texas Southern - Docket Report

Page 8 of 9

11/03/2005 11/03/2005 11/03/2005 11/11/2005 11/13/2005 11/14/2005
11/14/2005 11/16/2005 11/23/2005 11/23/2005 11/28/2005 11/28/2005

77 PROPOSED ORDER: Granting Defendants' Motion for Leave to Amend, Motion to Enlarge Time and Motion for Continuance; , filed. (mkadlubowski, ) (Entered: 11/09/2005)
78 AFFIDAVIT of Tonja K. Doddy , filed.(ltien, ) (Entered: 11/09/2005)
81 MOTION to Continue, MOTION for Extension of Time, MOTION for Leave to Amend File by U-Haul Co of Texas, U-Haul International Inc, filed. Motion Docket Date 11/23/2005. (mharrison, ) (Entered: 11/14/2005)
79 RESPONSE to Defendants' 81 Motion for Leave to Amend, Enlarge Time and Continue, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Bowne, Timothy) Modified on 11/18/2005 - linked to #81 (ltien, ). (Entered: 11/11/2005)
80 RESPONSE to 75 MOTION in Limine, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Bowne, Timothy) (Entered: 11/13/2005)
82 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge David Hittner. Final PRETRIAL CONFERENCE held on 11/14/2005 granting in part and denying in part as stated on the record71 MOTION in Limine, granting in part and denying in part as stated on the record 75 MOTION in Limine, denying 81 MOTION to Continue MOTION for Extension of Time MOTION for Leave to File. Jury Seletion and Trial set for November 29, 2005 at 10:00 a.m. ETT: 4 days. Appearances: Timothy M Bowne, Michael Patrick Cash.(Court Reporter: Bruce Slavin), filed.(ealexander, ) (Entered: 11/15/2005)
83 OBJECTIONS to Defendants' Trial Exhibits, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (jmarchand, ) (Entered: 11/15/2005)
84 TRANSCRIPT of pretrial conference held on 11/14/05 before Judge David Hittner. Court Reporter: Bruce Slavin, filed. (cpeebles) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/12/2006 (tthompson, ). (Entered: 11/17/2005)
85 STIPULATION of Dismissal by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Bowne, Timothy) (Entered: 11/23/2005)
86 Agreed MOTION for Entry of Order Consent Decree by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, filed. Motion Docket Date 12/13/2005. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Consent Decree)(Bowne, Timothy) (Entered: 11/23/2005)
87 ORDER that U-Haul International, Inc. is hereby dismissed as a partydefendant and as a counter-plaintiff, and EEOC is dismissed as a counterdefendant.( Signed by Judge David Hittner ) Parties notified. (ealexander, ) (Entered: 11/30/2005)
88 CONSENT DECREE.( Signed by Judge David Hittner ) Parties notified. (ealexander, ) (Entered: 11/30/2005)

https://ecf.txsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?354256413834692-L_353_0-1

5/16/2007

DC CM/ECF LIVE- US District Court-Texas Southern - Docket Report

Page 9 of 9

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt

PACER Login: Description: Billable Pages:

05/16/2007 16:34:19

hs0328

Client Code:

Docket Report Search Criteria:

5

Cost:

eeoc 4:04-cv-03788 0.40

https://ecf.txsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?354256413834692-L_353_0-1

5/16/2007