2:13-cv-15229-PDB-MAR Doc # 1 Filed 12/24/13 Pg 1 of 7 Pg ID 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )

COMMISSION,

)

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

vs.

)

)

GUARDSMARK, LLC,

)

)

Defendant.

)

_________________________________________/

Case No. HON.
Complaint and Jury Demand

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 retaliation and to provide

appropriate relief to Christopher Smith who was adversely affected by

such practices. As alleged with greater particularity in paragraphs 7-12

below, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleges that

Defendant, Guardsmark, LLC, retaliated against Christopher Smith by

discharging him in response to Smith’s opposing sexually inappropriate

conduct in the workplace.

2:13-cv-15229-PDB-MAR Doc # 1 Filed 12/24/13 Pg 2 of 7 Pg ID 2
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 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3) (“Title VII”), and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a. 2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division.
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(the “Commission”), is the agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title VII, and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Section 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3). 4. At all relevant times, Defendant, Guardsmark LLC,
2

2:13-cv-15229-PDB-MAR Doc # 1 Filed 12/24/13 Pg 3 of 7 Pg ID 3
(“Defendant Employer”) has continually been a Delaware corporation doing business in the State of Michigan and the city of Troy, and has continuously had at least fifteen (15) employees. 5. At all relevant times, Defendant Employer 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 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(b), (g), and (h).
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 6. More than 30 days prior to the institution of this lawsuit,
Christopher Smith filed a charge with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by Defendant Employer. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled. 7. In or about June 2012, Defendant Employer engaged in an unlawful employment practice at its Troy, Michigan facility in violation of Section 704 of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a) by discharging Smith because he opposed sexually inappropriate conduct in the workplace.
3

2:13-cv-15229-PDB-MAR Doc # 1 Filed 12/24/13 Pg 4 of 7 Pg ID 4
8. Smith worked as a security guard for Defendant Employer at General Dynamic’s Warren, Michigan facility.
9. On a number of occasions, Smith observed a co-worker using the security cameras to zoom in on women’s private parts.
10. Smith complained to the co-worker to no avail. Thereafter, on or about June 4, 2012, Smith informed a female victim, who complained.
11. Two days later, on June 6, 2012, Defendant Employer removed Smith from his position at General Dynamics.
12. Defendant Employer essentially discharged Smith by removing Smith from his General Dynamics assignment, and failing to reassign him to another position.
13. The effect of the practices complained of in paragraphs 7 through 12 above, has been to deprive Smith of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee.
14. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs 7-12 above, were and are intentional.
4

2:13-cv-15229-PDB-MAR Doc # 1 Filed 12/24/13 Pg 5 of 7 Pg ID 5
15. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs 7-12 above, were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Smith. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. GRANT a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant Employer, its officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in sex discrimination, perpetuating a sexually hostile work environment, and retaliating against any individual who opposes sex discrimination and/or a sexually hostile work environment. B. ORDER Defendant Employer to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for all of its employees and which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices. C. ORDER Defendant Employer to make whole Smith by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described in
5

2:13-cv-15229-PDB-MAR Doc # 1 Filed 12/24/13 Pg 6 of 7 Pg ID 6
paragraphs 7-12, above, in amounts to be determined at trial. D. ORDER Defendant to make whole Smith by providing compensation for past and future nonpecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices complained of in paragraphs 7-12, above, in amounts to be determined at trial. E. ORDER Defendant Employer to pay punitive damages for its malicious or reckless conduct described in paragraphs 7-12, above, in amounts to be proven at trial. F. GRANT such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public interest. G. AWARD the Commission its costs for this action.
JURY TRIAL DEMAND The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its Complaint.
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Respectfully submitted,
6

2:13-cv-15229-PDB-MAR Doc # 1 Filed 12/24/13 Pg 7 of 7 Pg ID 7
/s/ Laurie A. Young LAURIE A. YOUNG Regional Attorney
/s/ Kenneth L. Bird KENNETH L. BIRD Supervisory Trial Attorney
/s/ Nedra D. Campbell NEDRA D. CAMPBELL (P58768) Trial Attorney DETROIT FIELD OFFICE Patrick V. McNamara 477 Michigan Avenue, Room 865 Detroit, Michigan 48226 nedra.campbell@eeoc.gov Tel. No. (313) 226-3410
Dated: December 24, 2013
7

 
 2:13-cv-15229-VAR-MKM Doc # 14 Filed 06/10/14 Pg 1 of 7 Pg ID 58

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 2:13-cv-15229-PDB-MAR

and CHRISTOPHER SMITH Plaintiff -- Intervenor
v.

Hon. Victoria A. Roberts

GUARDSMARK, LLC, and GENERAL DYNAMICS, CORP.,

Defendants.

Nedra D. Campbell (P58768) Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 865 Patrick V. McNamara Building 477 Michigan Ave. Detroit, MI 48226 (313) 226-5673 nedra.campbell@eeoc.gov
Jennifer B. Salvatore (P66640) Edward A. Macey (P72939) NACHT, ROUMEL, SALVATORE BLANCHARD & WALKER, P.C. Attorneys for Plaintiff, Smith 101 N. Main Street, Ste. 555 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 (734) 663-7550 jsalvatore@nachtlaw.com emacey@nachtlaw.com

Stephen E. Glazek (P23186) Melonie L.M. Stothers (P65344) BARRIS, SOTT, DENN & DRIKER, P.L.L.C. Attorneys for Defendant Guardsmark, LLC 211 West Fort Street, 15th Floor Detroit, MI 48226-3281 (313) 965-3281 sglazek@bsdd.com mstothers@bsdd.com

COMPLAINT OF INTERVENING PLAINTIFF CHRISTOPHER SMITH

NOW COMES Plaintiff, CHRISTOPHER SMITH, by and through his attorney, NACHT,

ROUMEL, SALVATORE, BLANCHARD & WALKER, P.C., and hereby complains of

Defendants GUARDSMARK, LLC and GENERAL DYNAMICS, CORP., as follows:

2:13-cv-15229-VAR-MKM Doc # 14 Filed 06/10/14 Pg 2 of 7 Pg ID 59
NATURE OF THE CASE This is an action for retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and for various violations of the Elliot Larson Civil Rights Act. Plaintiff Christopher Smith was working as a security guard for Guardsmark, LLC (“Guardsmark”), where he was placed in a position as front desk security at General Dynamics’ (“GD”) Warren, Michigan facility and then transferred to GD’s Sterling Heights facility. While working at General Dynamics' Sterling Heights facility, Smith witnessed a male co-worker using the security cameras to zoom in on women’s breasts as they entered the facility. Smith complained to the co-worker, who refused to stop the offensive conduct. Smith then informed a female victim of the co-worker’s conduct and the victim complained about it. Two days later, Guardsmark removed Christopher Smith from his position at General Dynamics.
PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE 1. Plaintiff Christopher Smith worked for Guardsmark as a security guard from October of 2006 to June 6, 2012. In approximately 2008, Guardsmark placed Smith at General Dynamics’ Warren facility, where he was paid $15.00 an hour. In approximately 2011, Christopher Smith was transferred to General Dynamics’ Sterling Heights facility. 2. Guardsmark, LLC is a security company that provides security guards to corporate clients. Guardsmark is a Delaware Corporation doing business in the State of Michigan and the City of Troy. Guardsmark has more than 15 employees. At all relevant times, Guardsmark was Plaintiff’s employer pursuant to section 701(b) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. 2000e(h) and M.C.L. § 37.2201(a).
2

2:13-cv-15229-VAR-MKM Doc # 14 Filed 06/10/14 Pg 3 of 7 Pg ID 60
3. General Dynamics Corp. is a defense contractor based in Falls Church, Virginia. General Dynamics has a land systems division with operations in Michigan. General Dynamics contracts with Guardsmark for security services at its facilities in Warren and Sterling Heights, Michigan. At all relevant times, Plaintiff worked as a security guard at General Dynamics’ Warren and Sterling Heights facilities. General Dynamics had the ability to control terms and conditions of Plaintiff’s employment, and thus General Dynamics was a co-employer of Plaintiff.
4. At all relevant times, Defendants have continuously been employers engaged in industries affecting commerce within the meaning of sections 701(b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§2000e(b), (g), and (h).
5. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed within the jurisdiction of this Court.
6. The Court’s jurisdiction is premised on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended, U.S.C. §2000e-5(f)(i) et seq. and 42 U.S.C. §2000e-2(a) et seq. (“Title VII”), Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. §1981a, and the Michigan Elliot Larson Civil Rights Act (“ELCRA”), M.C.L. §37.2101 et seq.
7. The amount in controversy exclusive of interest and costs exceeds $75,000 (seventy-five-thousand dollars).
8. Plaintiff timely filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). He has complied with all procedural prerequisites to this action and he intervened in the action filed in this matter by the EEOC.
BACKGROUND FACTS FOR ALL COUNTS 9. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 8 above.
3

2:13-cv-15229-VAR-MKM Doc # 14 Filed 06/10/14 Pg 4 of 7 Pg ID 61
10. Plaintiff Christopher Smith worked as a security guard for Defendant Guardsmark at Defendant General Dynamics’ Warren and Sterling Heights facilities.
11. On a number of occasions at GD’s Sterling Heights facility, Smith observed a male co-worker using the security cameras to zoom in on women’s breasts.
12. Smith complained about the conduct to the co-worker, who responded that Smith should “mind his own business.”
13. Thereafter, on or around June 4, 2012, Smith informed a female victim of the behavior of his co-worker’s conduct. She subsequently complained about it.
14. Two days later, on June 6, 2012, Plaintiff was removed from his position at Defendant General Dynamics.
15. Although Guardsmark later indicated that Plaintiff was eligible to work at other facilities, it failed to place him in a different assignment or reassign him in any way. Moreover, Guardsmark made clear to him that he could no longer work at a General Dynamics facility.
16. Upon information and belief, Guardsmark removed Plaintiff from his position and refused to allow him to work for General Dynamics at the request of Defendant General Dynamics.
17. The effect of the Defendants’ actions has been to deprive Plaintiff Smith of equal employment opportunity and to otherwise affect his status as an employee.
18. Defendants’ conduct was intentional and was done with malice or with reckless indifference to Smith’s rights.
COUNT I – RETALIATION (Title VII)
(Against Guardsmark) 19. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by references paragraphs 1 through 18 above.
4

2:13-cv-15229-VAR-MKM Doc # 14 Filed 06/10/14 Pg 5 of 7 Pg ID 62
20. Plaintiff was removed from his position at General Dynamics and was not reassigned to another position after he opposed the sexual harassment of women at a General Dynamics facility.
21. As a result of Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiff was harmed and continues to be harmed in that he has suffered economic loss, emotional distress, and damage to reputation, among other injuries.
COUNT II – RETALIATION (ELCRA)
(Against All Defendants)
22. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 21 above. 23. Plaintiff was removed from his position at General Dynamics and was not reassigned to another position after he opposed the sexual harassment of women at a General Dynamics facility. 24. As a result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff was harmed and continues to be harmed in that he has suffered economic loss, emotional distress, and damage to reputation, among other injuries.
COUNT III (ELCRA – Aiding and Abetting)
(Against General Dynamics) 25. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 24 above. 26. By encouraging and/or requesting Guardsmark to remove Plaintiff from its facility, General Dynamics aided, abetted, incited, compelled and/or coerced Guardsmark to violate the ELCRA and interfered with Plaintiff’s exercise of his enjoyment of rights protected by the ELCRA. 27. Defendant’s conduct violated M.C.L. 37.2701(h) and (f).
5

2:13-cv-15229-VAR-MKM Doc # 14 Filed 06/10/14 Pg 6 of 7 Pg ID 63
28. As a result of Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiff was harmed and continues to be harmed in that he has suffered economic loss, emotional distress, and damage to reputation, among other injuries.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Christopher Smith respectfully requests that this Honorable Court award whatever relief to which Plaintiff is found to be entitled to, including all lawful and equitable damages, punitive damages, and attorneys fees and costs.

June 10, 2014

Respectfully submitted, NACHT, ROUMEL, SALVATORE, BLANCHARD & WALKER, P.C.
/s/ Jennifer B. Salvatore Jennifer B. Salvatore (P66640) Edward Macey (P72939) Attorneys for Plaintiff 101 N. Main St., Suite 555 Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104 (734) 663-7550 jsalvatore@nachtlaw.com emacey@nachtlaw.com

6

2:13-cv-15229-VAR-MKM Doc # 14 Filed 06/10/14 Pg 7 of 7 Pg ID 64

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Now Comes Plaintiff, Christopher Smith, by and though his attorneys, Nacht, Roumel,
Salvatore, Blanchard, & Walker, P.C. and hereby demands a trial by jury in the above captioned
matter.
Respectfully submitted, NACHT, ROUMEL, SALVATORE, BLANCHARD & WALKER, P.C.

June 10, 2014

/s/ Jennifer B. Salvatore Jennifer B. Salvatore (P66640) Edward Macey (P72939) Attorneys for Plaintiff 101 N. Main St., Suite 555 Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104 (734) 663-7550 jsalvatore@nachtlaw.com emacey@nachtlaw.com

7

 
 2:13-cv-15229-VAR-MKM Doc # 19 Filed 07/09/14 Pg 1 of 6 Pg ID 84

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Plaintiff,

Case No. 2:13-cv-15229-PDB-MAR

and CHRISTOPHER SMITH

Hon. Victoria A. Roberts

Plaintiff -- Intervenor v.

GUARDSMARK, LLC, a Foreign Limited Liability Company, and GENERAL DYNAMICS LAND SYSTEMS INC., a Foreign Profit Corporation

Defendants.

Nedra D. Campbell (P58768) Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 865 Patrick V. McNamara Building 477 Michigan Ave. Detroit, MI 48226 (313) 226-5673 nedra.campbell@eeoc.gov
Jennifer B. Salvatore (P66640) Edward A. Macey (P72939) NACHT, ROUMEL, SALVATORE BLANCHARD & WALKER, P.C. Attorneys for Plaintiff, Smith 101 N. Main Street, Ste. 555 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 (734) 663-7550 jsalvatore@nachtlaw.com emacey@nachtlaw.com

Stephen E. Glazek (P23186) Melonie L.M. Stothers (P65344) BARRIS, SOTT, DENN & DRIKER, P.L.L.C. Attorneys for Defendant Guardsmark, LLC 211 West Fort Street, 15th Floor Detroit, MI 48226-3281 (313) 965-3281 sglazek@bsdd.com mstothers@bsdd.com

INTERVENING PLAINTIFF CHRISTOPHER SMITH'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AS OF RIGHT
AND RELIANCE ON JURY DEMAND PREVIOUSLY FILED

2:13-cv-15229-VAR-MKM Doc # 19 Filed 07/09/14 Pg 2 of 6 Pg ID 85
NOW COMES Plaintiff, CHRISTOPHER SMITH, by and through his attorney, NACHT, ROUMEL, SALVATORE, BLANCHARD & WALKER, P.C., and hereby complains of Defendants GUARDSMARK, LLC and GENERAL DYNAMICS LAND SYSTEMS INC., as follows:
NATURE OF THE CASE
This is an action for retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and for various violations of the Elliot Larson Civil Rights Act. Plaintiff Christopher Smith was working as a security guard for Guardsmark, LLC (“Guardsmark”), where he was placed in a position as front desk security at General Dynamics (“GDLS”) Warren, Michigan facility and then transferred to GDLS’ Sterling Heights facility. While working at General Dynamics' Sterling Heights facility, Smith witnessed a male co-worker using the security cameras to zoom in on women’s breasts as they entered the facility. Smith complained to the co-worker, who refused to stop the offensive conduct. Smith then informed a female victim of the co-worker’s conduct and the victim complained about it. Two days later, Guardsmark removed Christopher Smith from his position at General Dynamics.
PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE
1. Plaintiff Christopher Smith worked for Guardsmark as a security guard from October of 2006 to June 6, 2012. In approximately 2008, Guardsmark placed Smith at General Dynamics’ Warren facility, where he was paid $15.00 an hour. In approximately 2011, Christopher Smith was transferred to General Dynamics’ Sterling Heights facility.
2. Guardsmark, LLC is a security company that provides security guards to corporate clients. Guardsmark is a Delaware Corporation doing business in the State of Michigan and the
2

2:13-cv-15229-VAR-MKM Doc # 19 Filed 07/09/14 Pg 3 of 6 Pg ID 86
City of Troy. Guardsmark has more than 15 employees. At all relevant times, Guardsmark was Plaintiff’s employer pursuant to section 701(b) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. 2000e(h) and M.C.L. § 37.2201(a).
3. General Dynamics Land Systems, Inc. is a defense contractor with operations in Michigan. General Dynamics contracts with Guardsmark for security services at its facilities in Warren and Sterling Heights, Michigan. At all relevant times, Plaintiff worked as a security guard at General Dynamics’ Warren and Sterling Heights facilities. General Dynamics had the ability to control terms and conditions of Plaintiff’s employment, and thus General Dynamics was a coemployer of Plaintiff.
4. At all relevant times, Defendants have continuously been employers engaged in industries affecting commerce within the meaning of sections 701(b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§2000e(b), (g), and (h).
5. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed within the jurisdiction of this Court.
6. The Court’s jurisdiction is premised on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended, U.S.C. §2000e-5(f)(i) et seq. and 42 U.S.C. §2000e-2(a) et seq. (“Title VII”), Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. §1981a, and the Michigan Elliot Larson Civil Rights Act (“ELCRA”), M.C.L. §37.2101 et seq.
7. The amount in controversy exclusive of interest and costs exceeds $75,000 (seventy-five-thousand dollars).
8. Plaintiff timely filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). He has complied with all procedural prerequisites to this action and he intervened in the action filed in this matter by the EEOC.
3

2:13-cv-15229-VAR-MKM Doc # 19 Filed 07/09/14 Pg 4 of 6 Pg ID 87
BACKGROUND FACTS FOR ALL COUNTS 9. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 8 above. 10. Plaintiff Christopher Smith worked as a security guard for Defendant Guardsmark at Defendant General Dynamics’ Warren and Sterling Heights facilities. 11. On a number of occasions at GDLS’ Sterling Heights facility, Smith observed a male co-worker using the security cameras to zoom in on women’s breasts. 12. Smith complained about the conduct to the co-worker, who responded that Smith should “mind his own business.” 13. Thereafter, on or around June 4, 2012, Smith informed a female victim of the behavior of his co-worker’s conduct. She subsequently complained about it. 14. Two days later, on June 6, 2012, Plaintiff was removed from his position at Defendant General Dynamics. 15. Although Guardsmark later indicated that Plaintiff was eligible to work at other facilities, it failed to place him in a different assignment or reassign him in any way. Moreover, Guardsmark made clear to him that he could no longer work at a General Dynamics facility. 16. Upon information and belief, Guardsmark removed Plaintiff from his position and refused to allow him to work for General Dynamics at the request of Defendant General Dynamics. 17. The effect of the Defendants’ actions has been to deprive Plaintiff Smith of equal employment opportunity and to otherwise affect his status as an employee. 18. Defendants’ conduct was intentional and was done with malice or with reckless indifference to Smith’s rights.
4

2:13-cv-15229-VAR-MKM Doc # 19 Filed 07/09/14 Pg 5 of 6 Pg ID 88
COUNT I – RETALIATION (Title VII)
(Against Guardsmark) 19. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by references paragraphs 1 through 18 above. 20. Plaintiff was removed from his position at General Dynamics and was not reassigned to another position after he opposed the sexual harassment of women at a General Dynamics facility. 21. As a result of Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiff was harmed and continues to be harmed in that he has suffered economic loss, emotional distress, and damage to reputation, among other injuries.
COUNT II – RETALIATION (ELCRA)
(Against All Defendants)
22. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 21 above. 23. Plaintiff was removed from his position at General Dynamics and was not reassigned to another position after he opposed the sexual harassment of women at a General Dynamics facility. 24. As a result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff was harmed and continues to be harmed in that he has suffered economic loss, emotional distress, and damage to reputation, among other injuries.
COUNT III (ELCRA – Aiding and Abetting)
(Against General Dynamics) 25. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 24 above. 26. By encouraging and/or requesting Guardsmark to remove Plaintiff from its facility, General Dynamics aided, abetted, incited, compelled and/or coerced Guardsmark to violate the
5

2:13-cv-15229-VAR-MKM Doc # 19 Filed 07/09/14 Pg 6 of 6 Pg ID 89
ELCRA and interfered with Plaintiff’s exercise of his enjoyment of rights protected by the ELCRA.
27. Defendant’s conduct violated M.C.L. 37.2701(h) and (f). 28. As a result of Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiff was harmed and continues to be harmed in that he has suffered economic loss, emotional distress, and damage to reputation, among other injuries. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Christopher Smith respectfully requests that this Honorable Court award whatever relief to which Plaintiff is found to be entitled to, including all lawful and equitable damages, punitive damages, and attorneys fees and costs.
RELIANCE ON JURY DEMAND PREVIOUSLY FILED

July 9, 2014

Respectfully submitted, NACHT, ROUMEL, SALVATORE, BLANCHARD & WALKER, P.C.
/s/ Jennifer B. Salvatore Jennifer B. Salvatore (P66640) Edward Macey (P72939) Attorneys for Plaintiff 101 N. Main St., Suite 555 Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104 (734) 663-7550 jsalvatore@nachtlaw.com emacey@nachtlaw.com

6

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Christopher Smith (Plaintiff-Intervenor)

Plaintiffs,

Case No: 13-15229

v.

Hon. Victoria A. Roberts

Guardsmark, LLC,

Defendant. /

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

I. Introduction

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) filed a Complaint

alleging Defendant Guardsmark LLC unlawfully fired employee Christopher Smith

(“Smith”) in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3.

Smith intervened filing a separate Complaint alleging retaliation under Title VII and the

Elliot Larsen Civil Rights Act, M.C.L., § 37.2101, et seq.

Both EEOC and Smith filed Partial Motions for Summary Judgment. Smith

adopts and joins EEOC’s Motion. Guardsmark filed a Motion for Summary Judgment

against both Plaintiffs on all counts. Guardsmark says both Plaintiffs lack standing, fail

to present genuine issues of material fact that retaliation occurred, and cannot establish

a prima facie case for retaliation. On the other hand, the EEOC says there is direct

evidence of discrimination and retaliation and that no issues of fact remain to be

decided.

The Motions are DENIED.

1

II. Statement of Facts Guardsmark provides security services to various companies, including General
Dynamics Land Systems, Inc., (“General Dynamics). Smith saw another guard using security cameras to zoom in on a woman’s breasts. Smith did not tell his superiors. Instead, he told the woman, Sarah Stewart (“Stewart”), a former co-worker. On June 5, 2012, Patty Calisi, Human Resource Director for Stewart’s employer (Computer Sciences Corporation, a contractor for General Dynamics) sent an email to human resources for General Dynamics about the incident. The email identified Smith as the person who informed Stewart that she was inappropriately filmed. The next day Guardsmark removed Smith. III. Standard of Review
Summary judgment is proper when “the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a). A genuine issue of material fact exists "if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986). The essential inquiry is "whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law." Id. at 251-52.
The movant has the initial burden to demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). The burden then shifts to the nonmovant, who “must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 256 (discussing FED. R. CIV. P. 56(e)).
2

“The court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party,

drawing all reasonable inferences in that party's favor.” Sagan, 342 F.3d at 497 (citing

Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986)).

IV. Discussion

A. EEOC and Smith have Standing

Guardsmark says Plaintiffs do not have standing because Title VII does not

protect employees from retaliation for opposing discrimination against non-employees.

The anti-retaliation provision of Title VII has been broadly construed to cover a

broad range of conduct. Thompson v. N. Am. Stainless, LP, 562 U.S. 170, 174 (2011).

It prohibits “any employer action” that “might have dissuaded a reasonable worker from

making or supporting a charge of discrimination.” Id. (Citations omitted).

The Court finds Plaintiffs have standing; a reasonable worker might be dissuaded

from opposing sexually inappropriate conduct in the workplace if he knew that he would

be fired. Whether or not the underlying claim of sexual harassment has merit is

unimportant, Smith engaged in protected activity by opposing what he believed was

unlawful sexual harassment by another security guard. See Horner v. Klein, 497 F.

App'x 484, 489 (6th Cir. 2012) (unpublished).

B. Genuine Issues of Fact Exist

In denying the Motions for Summary Judgment, the Court finds genuine issues of

fact exist, including but not limited to:

•

Whether Guardsmark knew at the time Smith was removed, that Smith

had engaged in protected activity by providing information to Stewart who

then filed a complaint.

3

•

Whether Guardsmark’s business reasons for removing Smith from his

position were sufficient to warrant removal.

V. Conclusion

All three Motions (ECF No. 49; ECF No. 50 and ECF No. 52) are DENIED.

IT IS ORDERED.

Dated: April 8, 2016

S/Victoria A. Roberts Victoria A. Roberts United States District Judge

The undersigned certifies that a copy of this document was served on the attorneys of record by electronic means or U.S. Mail on April 8, 2016.
s/Linda Vertriest Deputy Clerk

4

 
 Case 2:13-cv-15229-VAR-MKM ECF No. 73 filed 09/09/16 PageID.1680 Page 1 of 8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Plaintiff,
and CHRISTOPHER SMITH Plaintiff - Intervenor,
v.

Case No. 2:13-cv-15229
Hon. Victoria A. Roberts Magistrate Mona Majzoub

GUARDSMARK, LLC,

a Foreign Limited Liability Company,

Defendant.

________________________________________________________________/

Kenneth L. Bird

Stephen E. Glazek (P23186)

Nedra Campbell (P58768)

Melonie L.M. Stothers (P65344)

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

BARRIS, SOTT, DENN

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

& DRIKER, P.L.L.C.

477 Michigan Ave. Rm. 865

Counsel for Guardsmark, LLC

Detroit, Michigan 48226

333 W Fort Street, Ste. 1200

(313) 226-3410

Detroit, Michigan 48226-3281

nedra.campbell@eeoc.gov

(313) 965-9725

sglazek@bsdd.com

mstothers@bsdd.com

Jennifer B. Salvatore (P66640)

SALVATORE PRESCOTT PLLC

105 E Main Street

Northville, MI 48167-1619

(248) 679-8711

salvatore@salvatoreprescott.com

________________________________________________________________/

CONSENT DECREE

Case 2:13-cv-15229-VAR-MKM ECF No. 73 filed 09/09/16 PageID.1681 Page 2 of 8
Christopher Smith (“Smith”) is a former employee of Guardsmark, LLC (“Guardsmark”). Guardsmark was the security contractor employing security officers at the General Dynamics Land System facility in Sterling Heights, Michigan.
On December 24, 2013, the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“Commission” or “EEOC”) filed this action against Guardsmark to enforce Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e (“Title VII”). In its Complaint (the “EEOC Complaint”), the Commission alleged that Guardsmark violated Title VII by discharging Smith in retaliation for Smith opposing sexually inappropriate conduct by a co-worker. After the Commission’s Complaint was filed, Smith exercised his right to intervene in the Commission’s action and filed a Complaint and Amended Complaint (collectively the “Smith Complaint”) under Title VII and Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, MCL 37.2101 et seq. (“ELCRA”), against Guardsmark. Guardsmark denied and continues to deny liability under Title VII and ELCRA.
As a result of settlement discussions, the EEOC, Smith, and Guardsmark have resolved their differences and agreed that this action should be settled by way of this Consent Decree. It is the intent of the parties that this Consent Decree and the Settlement Agreement and Full Release of All Claims executed by Smith be a final and binding settlement in full disposition of the above-referenced complaints
2

Case 2:13-cv-15229-VAR-MKM ECF No. 73 filed 09/09/16 PageID.1682 Page 3 of 8
brought against Guardsmark in this matter and in the Charge of Discrimination filed against Guardsmark by Smith.
It is therefore the finding of this Court, made on the pleadings and the record as a whole, that: 1) the Court has jurisdiction over EEOC, Smith, and Guardsmark and the subject matter of this action; and 2) this Consent Decree fully and finally resolves all matters in controversy or claims and issues arising out of the EEOC Complaint and Smith Complaint filed in this case.
Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED: NON-RETALIATION
1. Guardsmark, its officers, agents, employees, attorneys, and all persons in active concert or participation with them shall not retaliate against nor aid any agents or contractors in retaliating against any employee because s/he: (i) opposes discriminatory practices made unlawful by Title VII; (ii) files a charge of discrimination or assists or participates in the filing of such a charge; or (iii) assists or participates in an investigation or proceeding brought under federal laws prohibiting discrimination or retaliation.
MONETARY RELIEF AND REFERENCE 2. Within twenty-one (21) business days after this Decree has been entered by the Court, Guardsmark shall pay a total amount of One Hundred and Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($115,000) in monetary relief to Christopher Smith. Of
3

Case 2:13-cv-15229-VAR-MKM ECF No. 73 filed 09/09/16 PageID.1683 Page 4 of 8
this monetary payment, Thirty Six Thousand Six Hundred Forty-One and 80/100 Dollars ($36,641.80) shall be considered back pay, and Thirty Six Thousand Six Hundred Forty-One and 80/100 Dollars ($36,641.80) shall be considered compensatory damages, and Forty-One Thousand Seven Hundred Sixteen and 40/100 Dollars ($41,716.40) shall be considered attorneys’ fees and costs. Guardsmark shall issue a W-2 for the amount designated as back pay, less appropriate taxes and withholdings, and a 1099-MISC for the remaining amount, in the ordinary course of business. Guardsmark shall not deduct the amount of the employer’s share of any costs, taxes, or social security payments required by law to be paid by Guardsmark. Furthermore, Guardsmark shall not withhold any amounts from payment of compensatory damages or attorneys’ fees and costs.
3. Smith will receive neutral job verification as to his employment with Guardsmark, consisting only of the dates of employment and position held.
4. Within twenty-one (21) business days after payment has been made, Guardsmark shall mail copies of the checks to Kenneth Bird, Acting Regional Attorney, care of Nedra Campbell, Trial Attorney, EEOC, 477 Michigan Avenue, Room 865, Detroit, Michigan 48226.
NOTICE POSTING 5. Guardsmark shall cause to be posted for the duration of this Decree in a conspicuous place at the Farmington Hills, Michigan, Branch, where employee
4

Case 2:13-cv-15229-VAR-MKM ECF No. 73 filed 09/09/16 PageID.1684 Page 5 of 8
notices are posted, the Notice attached as Exhibit A, in the same type, style, and size. In the event the posting becomes marred, or defaced, Guardsmark shall cause to be re-posted a clean and readable copy. In addition to causing this Notice to be posted, Guardsmark shall cause a copy of Exhibit A to be distributed to all employees assigned to the General Dynamics Land System facility in Sterling Heights, Michigan within thirty (30) days of the entry of this Consent Decree.
TRAINING 6. Within sixty (60) days of the date this Decree is entered by the Court, Guardsmark shall cause all of the employees (including managers, supervisors, officers, and directors) assigned to the General Dynamics Land System facility in Sterling Heights, Michigan to be trained on sexual harassment and retaliation. Guardsmark shall keep a registry of all attendees who take the training pursuant to this Decree. Guardsmark shall retain the registry for the duration of this Decree and forward a copy of the list of all attendees to Kenneth Bird, Acting Regional Attorney, care of Nedra Campbell, Trial Attorney, EEOC, 477 Michigan Avenue, Room 865, Detroit, Michigan 48226.
REPORTING BY GUARDSMARK 7. Guardsmark shall submit the following in writing and in affidavit form to the Commission’s Regional Attorney at the address provided above:
5

Case 2:13-cv-15229-VAR-MKM ECF No. 73 filed 09/09/16 PageID.1685 Page 6 of 8
A. Within ten (10) days of conducting the required training, the registry of persons attending the training required above, and a list of the then current employees assigned to the General Dynamics Land System facility in Sterling Heights, Michigan; and
B. Within ten (10) days of posting the required notice, Guardsmark shall provide confirmation that (i) the Notice required above was posted, and the location(s) where it was posted; and (ii) the Notice required above was distributed to each current employee assigned to the General Dynamics Land System facility in Sterling Heights, Michigan.
DURATION 8. Absent extension, this Decree shall expire by its own terms at the end of one (1) year from the date of its entry without further action by the parties.
DISPUTE RESOLUTION AND COMPLIANCE 9. This Court shall retain jurisdiction over this action for the duration of this Decree and shall have all equitable powers, including injunctive relief, to enforce this Decree.
MISCELLANEOUS 10. Each party will bear its own costs and fees except as provided in paragraph 2.
6

Case 2:13-cv-15229-VAR-MKM ECF No. 73 filed 09/09/16 PageID.1686 Page 7 of 8

11. If any provision of this Decree is found to be unenforceable by a

court, only the specific provision in question shall be affected and the other

enforceable provisions shall remain in full force.

12. Any modifications to this Decree must be entered by the Court.

13. The terms of this Decree are and shall be binding upon Guardsmark,

its officers, successors, assigns, directors, employees, creditors, agents, trustees,

administrators, and representatives.

IT IS SO ORDERED:

Dated: September 6, 2016

S/Victoria A. Roberts United States District Judge

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
__s/ Nedra Campbell___________ Nedra Campbell (P58768)

GUARDSMARK, LLC
____s/ Melonie L.M. Stothers__ Stephen E. Glazek (P23186) Melonie L.M. Stothers (P65344)

INTERVENING—PLAINTIFF CHRISTOPHER SMITH
__s/ Jennifer Salvatore_________ Jennifer B. Salvatore (P66640)

Date: September 6, 2016 Exhibit A —NOTICE
7

Case 2:13-cv-15229-VAR-MKM ECF No. 73 filed 09/09/16 PageID.1687 Page 8 of 8

The following notice is being posted and provided pursuant to the terms of a Consent Decree reached between the parties in EEOC et. al. v. Guardsmark, et. al., filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Civil Action No. 2:13-cv-15229.
Pursuant to Title VII, it is unlawful for an employer to retaliate against an employee because s/he has opposed discriminatory employment practices, including opposing sexual harassment or sexually inappropriate behavior in the workplace. An employer may not take any adverse action against an employee because s/he opposes employment discrimination or assists another individual in filing an employment discrimination complaint, including a sexual harassment complaint. In addition, an employee shall not be retaliated against because s/he has filed a charge of discrimination with any municipal, state or federal equal employment opportunity agency, or because s/he has participated in an investigation of a charge of discrimination.
Any employee who believes that s/he has suffered employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, pregnancy, national origin, age, genetic information, or disability should immediately let management know in accordance with the employment policies provided. You also have the right to contact the EEOC directly at 1-800-669-4000. In compliance with federal law, Guardsmark will not retaliate against an employee who has made an internal complaint of employment discrimination or contacted the EEOC.
This Notice shall remain posted for the term of one (1) year, until September 6, 2017.

Guardsmark, LLC By:__________________________________

____________________ Date

8

 
 Case: 2:13-cv-15229-VAR-MKM As of: 04/04/2019 10:54 AM EDT 1 of 7
CLOSED,reassigned
U.S. District Court Eastern District of Michigan (Detroit) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:13−cv−15229−VAR−MKM

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission et al v. Guardsmark, LLC et al Assigned to: District Judge Victoria A. Roberts Referred to: Magistrate Judge Mona K. Majzoub Cause: 28:1345 U.S. Plaintiff
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 12/24/2013 Date Terminated: 09/16/2016 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by Nedra D. Campbell Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 477 Michigan Avenue Room 865 Detroit, MI 48226 313−226−3410 Email: nedra.campbell@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Intervenor Plaintiff Christopher Smith

represented by Edward A. Macey International Union, UAW 8000 East Jefferson Avenue Detroit, MI 48214 313−926−5216 Email: emacey@uaw.net TERMINATED: 05/22/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer B. Salvatore Salvatore Prescott, PLLC 105 E. Main Street Northville, MI 48167 (248) 679.8711 Fax: 248−773−7280 Email: salvatore@salvatoreprescott.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Guardsmark, LLC

represented by Melonie L. M. Stothers Barris, Sott, Denn & Driker, PLLC 333 W. Fort Street 12th Floor Detroit, MI 48226 313−965−9725 Fax: 313−983−3359 Email: mstothers@bsdd.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen E. Glazek Barris, Sott, Denn & Driker, PLLC 333 West Fort Street 12th Floor Detroit, MI 48226

Case: 2:13-cv-15229-VAR-MKM As of: 04/04/2019 10:54 AM EDT 2 of 7

313−965−9725 Fax: 313−983−3323 Email: sglazek@bsdd.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
General Dynamics Corporation TERMINATED: 07/09/2014

Defendant
General Dynamics Land Systems, Inc. TERMINATED: 11/13/2014

represented by Donelle Renee Buratto Trinity Health 20555 Victor Parkway Suite 300 Livonia, MI 48152 734−343−0850 Email: donelle.buratto@trinity−health.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas A. Cattel Ogletree, Deakins, 34977 Woodward Avenue Suite 300 Birmingham, MI 48009 248−593−6400 Fax: 248−593−2603 Email: thomas.cattel@ogletreedeakins.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 12/24/2013
12/24/2013 01/13/2014 01/14/2014 01/14/2014 01/15/2014 01/16/2014 01/17/2014 01/17/2014 01/27/2014 01/31/2014

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against Guardsmark, LLC with Jury Demand. Plaintiff requests summons issued. No Fee Required − US Government. County of 1st Plaintiff: USA − County Where Action Arose: Oakland − [Previously dismissed case: No] [Possible companion case(s): None] (Campbell, Nedra) (Entered: 12/24/2013)
2 SUMMONS Issued for *Guardsmark, LLC* (TMcg) (Entered: 12/24/2013)
3 MOTION to Intervene by Christopher Smith. (Salvatore, Jennifer) (Entered: 01/13/2014)
4 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE: Melonie L. M. Stothers appearing on behalf of All Defendants (Stothers, Melonie) (Entered: 01/14/2014)
5 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE: Stephen E. Glazek appearing on behalf of All Defendants (Glazek, Stephen) (Entered: 01/14/2014)
6 ORDER of DISQUALIFICATION and REASSIGNING CASE from District Judge Paul D. Borman to District Judge Victoria A. Roberts. (SSch) (Entered: 01/15/2014)
Set/Reset Deadlines as to 3 MOTION to Intervene. Response due by 1/27/2014; Reply due by 2/3/2014. (Monda, H) (Entered: 01/16/2014)
7 ORDER of DISQUALIFICATION and REASSIGNING CASE from Magistrate Judge Mark A. Randon to Magistrate Judge Mona K. Majzoub. (SSch) (Entered: 01/17/2014)
8 CERTIFICATE of Service/Summons Returned Executed. All Defendants. (Campbell, Nedra) (Entered: 01/17/2014)
9 RESPONSE to 3 MOTION to Intervene and Brief in Support filed by All Defendants. (Stothers, Melonie) (Entered: 01/27/2014)
10 ANSWER to Complaint with Affirmative Defenses by All Defendants. (Stothers, Melonie) (Entered: 01/31/2014)

Case: 2:13-cv-15229-VAR-MKM As of: 04/04/2019 10:54 AM EDT 3 of 7

02/03/2014
06/05/2014 06/06/2014
06/10/2014 06/11/2014 06/11/2014 06/17/2014
06/18/2014
07/02/2014 07/09/2014
07/09/2014 07/10/2014 07/16/2014 07/29/2014 08/04/2014 08/04/2014 08/07/2014 08/07/2014
08/15/2014 10/09/2014 10/09/2014 10/09/2014

11 REPLY to Response re 3 MOTION to Intervene filed by Christopher Smith. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Complaint, # 2 Exhibit Email) (Salvatore, Jennifer) (Entered: 02/03/2014)
12 ORDER granting 3 Motion to Intervene. Signed by District Judge Victoria A. Roberts. (KKra) (Entered: 06/05/2014)
13 NOTICE TO APPEAR: Scheduling Conference set for 8/14/2014 02:30 PM before District Judge Victoria A. Roberts SEE NOTICE FOR DETAILS (CPin) (Entered: 06/06/2014)
14 INTERVENOR COMPLAINT filed by Christopher Smith against Guardsmark, LLC. (Salvatore, Jennifer) (Entered: 06/10/2014)
REQUEST for SUMMONS for General Dynamics Corporation. (Salvatore, Jennifer) (Entered: 06/11/2014)
15 SUMMONS Issued for *General Dynamics Corporation, Guardsmark, LLC* (TMcg) (Entered: 06/11/2014)
16 CERTIFICATE of Service/Summons Returned Executed. Guardsmark, LLC served on 6/12/2014, answer due 7/3/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Document Continuation email) (Salvatore, Jennifer) (Entered: 06/17/2014)
17 CERTIFICATE of Service/Summons Returned Executed. General Dynamics Corporation served on 6/13/2014, answer due 7/7/2014. (Salvatore, Jennifer) (Entered: 06/18/2014)
18 ANSWER to Intervenor Complaint with Affirmative Defenses by Guardsmark, LLC. (Stothers, Melonie) (Entered: 07/02/2014)
19 AMENDED COMPLAINT with Jury Demand previously filed − filed by Christopher Smith against All Defendants. NO NEW PARTIES ADDED. (Salvatore, Jennifer) (Entered: 07/09/2014)
REQUEST for SUMMONS for General Dynamics Land Systems, Inc.. (Salvatore, Jennifer) (Entered: 07/09/2014)
20 SUMMONS Issued for *General Dynamics Land Systems, Inc.* (TMcg) (Entered: 07/10/2014)
21 ANSWER to Amended Complaint with Affirmative Defenses by Guardsmark, LLC. (Stothers, Melonie) (Entered: 07/16/2014)
22 ANSWER to Amended Complaint with Affirmative Defenses by General Dynamics Land Systems, Inc.. (Cattel, Thomas) (Entered: 07/29/2014)
23 NOTICE of Appearance by Donelle Renee Buratto on behalf of General Dynamics Land Systems, Inc.. (Buratto, Donelle) (Entered: 08/04/2014)
24 DISCOVERY plan jointly filed pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(f) (Campbell, Nedra) (Entered: 08/04/2014)
TEXT−ONLY NOTICE: Scheduling Conference on 8/14/14 at 2:30 is Cancelled. The Court will issue a scheduling order. (LVer) (Entered: 08/07/2014)
25 SCHEDULING ORDER PHASE I: Settlement Conference set for 4/13/2015 at 2:00 PM before District Judge Victoria A. Roberts. Signed by District Judge Victoria A. Roberts. (Refer to image for additional dates) (LVer) (Entered: 08/07/2014)
26 NOTICE of Appearance by Edward A. Macey on behalf of Christopher Smith. (Macey, Edward) (Entered: 08/15/2014)
27 Plaintiff's WITNESS LIST by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Campbell, Nedra) (Entered: 10/09/2014)
28 WITNESS LIST by Christopher Smith (Salvatore, Jennifer) (Entered: 10/09/2014)
29 WITNESS LIST by Guardsmark, LLC (Stothers, Melonie) (Entered: 10/09/2014)

Case: 2:13-cv-15229-VAR-MKM As of: 04/04/2019 10:54 AM EDT 4 of 7

10/09/2014 11/13/2014 02/27/2015
03/02/2015 03/05/2015 03/05/2015
03/05/2015
03/05/2015 03/06/2015 03/16/2015 03/19/2015 05/21/2015 05/22/2015 06/01/2015 06/04/2015
06/04/2015
06/11/2015 07/21/2015
08/04/2015
08/18/2015
08/21/2015

30 WITNESS LIST by General Dynamics Land Systems, Inc. (Buratto, Donelle) (Entered: 10/09/2014)
31 STIPULATED ORDER of Dismissal of General Dynamics Land Systems, Inc. only. Signed by District Judge Mark A. Goldsmith. (SSch) (Entered: 11/17/2014)
32 MOTION for Protective Order by Guardsmark, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit Campbell Email, # 3 Exhibit Thomas Notice, # 4 Exhibit 30(b)(6) Notice, # 5 Exhibit Stothers Email) (Stothers, Melonie) (Entered: 02/27/2015)
33 NOTICE of Telephone Conference on Pending Motion. (LVer) (Entered: 03/02/2015)
34 ORDER. (see image for details and dates) Signed by District Judge Victoria A. Roberts. (LVer) (Entered: 03/05/2015)
35 ORDER REFERRING MOTION to Magistrate Judge Mona K. Majzoub: 32 MOTION for Protective Order filed by Guardsmark, LLC. Signed by District Judge Victoria A. Roberts. (LVer) (Entered: 03/05/2015)
36 ORDER REFERRING MOTION to Magistrate Judge Mona K. Majzoub: 32 MOTION for Protective Order filed by Guardsmark, LLC. Signed by District Judge Victoria A. Roberts. (LVer) (Entered: 03/05/2015)
Minute Entry for proceedings before District Judge Victoria A. Roberts: Telephonic Status Conference held on 3/5/2015 (CPin) (Entered: 03/09/2015)
37 Notice of Determination of Motion Without Oral Argument re 32 MOTION for Protective Order (LBar) (Entered: 03/06/2015)
38 RESPONSE to 32 MOTION for Protective Order filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Campbell, Nedra) (Entered: 03/16/2015)
39 NOTICE by Guardsmark, LLC of withdrawal of 32 MOTION for Protective Order . (Stothers, Melonie) (Entered: 03/19/2015)
40 NOTICE by Christopher Smith Withdrawal of Attorney of Record Edward A. Macey (Salvatore, Jennifer) (Entered: 05/21/2015)
41 ORDER Granting Withdrawal of Attorney. Signed by District Judge Victoria A. Roberts. (SSch) (Entered: 05/22/2015)
42 NOTICE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission of Completion of Discovery (Campbell, Nedra) (Entered: 06/01/2015)
43 ORDER REFERRING OTHER MATTERS to Magistrate Judge Majzoub : Conduct Settlement Conference. Signed by District Judge Victoria A. Roberts. (LVer) (Entered: 06/04/2015)
44 NOTICE AND ORDER TO APPEAR: Settlement Conference set for 6/18/2015 09:30 AM before Magistrate Judge Mona K. Majzoub (LBar) (Entered: 06/04/2015)
45 NOTICE TO APPEAR: Settlement Conference re−set for 7/29/2015 01:30 PM before Magistrate Judge Mona K. Majzoub (LBar) (Entered: 06/11/2015)
46 AMENDED NOTICE AND ORDER TO APPEAR: Settlement Conference re−set for 8/4/2015 09:30 AM before Magistrate Judge Mona K. Majzoub (LBar) (Entered: 07/21/2015)
Minute Entry for proceedings before Magistrate Judge Mona K. Majzoub: Settlement Conference held on 8/4/2015. Disposition: NOT SETTLED (LBar) (Entered: 08/04/2015)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: TELEPHONIC Status Conference set for 8/21/2015 at 1:30 PM before District Judge Victoria A. Roberts. The Court will initiate the call. (LVer) (Entered: 08/18/2015)
47 ORDER Setting Dispositive Motion Briefing. Signed by District Judge Victoria A. Roberts. (LVer) (Entered: 08/21/2015)

Case: 2:13-cv-15229-VAR-MKM As of: 04/04/2019 10:54 AM EDT 5 of 7

09/25/2015 09/25/2015
09/25/2015
09/28/2015 09/29/2015 10/19/2015
10/19/2015

48 [STRICKEN] MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Christopher Smith. (Salvatore, Jennifer) (Entered: 09/25/2015)
49 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit A −− Excerpt of Gardner deposition, # 3 Exhibit B −− Calisi email, # 4 Exhibit C −− Excerpt of Staples deposition, # 5 Exhibit D −− Excerpt of Donna Smith deposition, # 6 Exhibit E −− Excerpt of Dobbin deposition, # 7 Exhibit F −− Excerpt of Smith deposition, # 8 Exhibit G −− Supervisor Achievement Award, # 9 Exhibit H − Payroll Form, # 10 Exhibit I −− Excerpt of Kimbel deposition, # 11 Exhibit J −− Building Guardsmark Form, # 12 Exhibit K −− Excerpt of Steinman deposition, # 13 Exhibit L −− Excerpt of Bowman deposition, # 14 Exhibit M −− Excerpt of Stewart deposition, # 15 Exhibit N −− Uniform Receipt, # 16 Exhibit O −− Excerpt of Kindey Replacement Motion for Summary Judgment, # 17 Exhibit P −− Excerpt from Guardsmark Responses to Interrogatories) (Campbell, Nedra) (Entered: 09/25/2015)
50 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Guardsmark, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits Exhibit List, # 2 Exhibit 1 − Smith Dep Transcript, # 3 Exhibit 2 − Employment Agreement, # 4 Exhibit 3 − GOR&I, # 5 Exhibit 4 − Mission Ptp Statement, # 6 Exhibit 5 − Memo − P. Dobbin, # 7 Exhibit 6 − Stewart Dep Transcript, # 8 Exhibit 7 − Dobbin Dep Transcript, # 9 Exhibit 8 − Steinman Dep Transcript, # 10 Exhibit 9 − Statement Control Room Opr, # 11 Exhibit 10 − Memo re CCTV Retraining, # 12 Exhibit 11 − Smith Notes, # 13 Exhibit 12 − Smith Time Line, # 14 Exhibit 13 − email to Taylor, # 15 Exhibit 14 − emails of Smith, # 16 Index of Exhibits Appendix of Cited Case Law, # 17 Exhibit A − Baldwin, # 18 Exhibit B − Barrett, # 19 Exhibit C − Blair, # 20 Exhibit D − Burlington, # 21 Exhibit E − Clark County, # 22 Exhibit F − EEOC, # 23 Exhibit G − Gamel, # 24 Exhibit H − Hamner, # 25 Exhibit I − Hodge, # 26 Exhibit K − Jones, # 27 Exhibit L − Kunzler, # 28 Exhibit M − Lujan, # 29 Exhibit N − Martinez, # 30 Exhibit O − MX Group, # 31 Exhibit P − Niswander, # 32 Exhibit Q − O'Day, # 33 Exhibit R − Russell, # 34 Exhibit S − Wimmer) (Stothers, Melonie) (Entered: 09/25/2015)
51 ORDER Striking 48 Non−Conforming Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Signed by District Judge Victoria A. Roberts. (LVer) (Entered: 09/28/2015)
52 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Christopher Smith. (Salvatore, Jennifer) (Entered: 09/29/2015)
53 RESPONSE to 50 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit A − Excerpt of Smith deposition, # 3 Exhibit B − Excerpt of Dobbin deposition, # 4 Exhibit C − Excerpt of Staples deposition, # 5 Exhibit D − Super Bowl email, # 6 Exhibit E − Excerpt of Bowman deposition, # 7 Exhibit F − Excerpt of Donna Smith deposition, # 8 Exhibit G − Excerpt of Stewart deposition, # 9 Exhibit H − Pictures of security desk, # 10 Exhibit I − Excerpt of Kimble deposition, # 11 Exhibit J − Excerpt of Sexual Harassment policy, # 12 Exhibit K − Dobbin memo to General Counsel, # 13 Exhibit L − Calisi email, # 14 Exhibit M − Declaration Calisi, # 15 Exhibit N − Excerpt of Steinman deposition, # 16 Exhibit O − Excerpt of Gardner deposition, # 17 Exhibit P − Emails between Smith and Bowman) (Campbell, Nedra) (Entered: 10/19/2015)
54 RESPONSE to 52 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment , 49 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Guardsmark, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit 15 Excerpts of Transcript from Deposition of Donna Smith, # 3 Exhibit 16 Excerpts of Transcript from Deposition of Ralph Staples, # 4 Exhibit 17 Excerpts of Transcript from Deposition of Mike Kimble, # 5 Exhibit 18 Additional Excerpts of Transcript from Deposition of Peter Dobbin, # 6 Exhibit 19 Additional Excerpts of Transcript from Deposition of Sarah Stewart, # 7 Exhibit 20 Additional Excerpts of Transcript from Deposition of Scott Steinman, # 8 Index of Exhibits Index of Appendices, # 9 Exhibit Appendix T Abbott v Crown Motor Co Inc, # 10 Exhibit Appendix U Bonn v City of Omaha, # 11 Exhibit Appendix V Crowley v Prince Georges County Md, # 12 Exhibit Appendix W Holt v Lewis, # 13 Exhibit Appendix X Trevino v Austin Peay State University MD Ohio) (Stothers, Melonie) (Entered: 10/19/2015)

Case: 2:13-cv-15229-VAR-MKM As of: 04/04/2019 10:54 AM EDT 6 of 7

10/19/2015
11/05/2015 11/05/2015
11/05/2015
03/02/2016 03/04/2016 03/30/2016 04/08/2016 04/08/2016 04/15/2016 04/15/2016 04/15/2016

55 RESPONSE to 50 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Christopher Smith. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit Chris Smith Dep. Transcript, # 3 Exhibit P. Dobbin Dep. Transcript, # 4 Exhibit M. Kimble Dep. Transcript, # 5 Exhibit S. Steinman Dep. Transcript, # 6 Exhibit R. Staples Dep. Transcript, # 7 Exhibit J. Bowman Dep. Transcript, # 8 Exhibit D. Smith Dep. Transcript, # 9 Exhibit S. Stewart Dep. Transcript, # 10 Exhibit Declaration of Patti Calisi, # 11 Exhibit Calisi email to Bucksbaum, # 12 Exhibit Guardsmark Annual Instruction, # 13 Exhibit General Order Regulations and Instructions, # 14 Exhibit Guardsmark's Sexual Harassment Policy, # 15 Exhibit Hager v. Warren Consol. Sch., # 16 Exhibit Bennani v. Dept. of Mgt. and Budget, # 17 Exhibit Moore v. Countryside Care Ctr., # 18 Exhibit Propps v. 9008 Group, Inc.) (Salvatore, Jennifer) (Entered: 10/19/2015)
56 REPLY to Response re 50 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Smith's Response) filed by Guardsmark, LLC. (Stothers, Melonie) (Entered: 11/05/2015)
57 REPLY to Response re 49 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit A −− Chart of mischaracterizations, # 3 Exhibit B −− Excerpt of Donna Smith deposition, # 4 Exhibit C −− Excerpt of Dobbin deposition, # 5 Exhibit D −− Excerpt of Staples deposition, # 6 Exhibit E −− Excerpt of Guardsmark sexual harassment policy, # 7 Exhibit F −− Excerpt of Sarah Stewart deposition, # 8 Exhibit G −− Guardsmark confidential information policy, # 9 Exhibit H −− Excerpt of Steinman deposition, # 10 Exhibit I −− Excerpt of Chris Smith deposition) (Campbell, Nedra) (Entered: 11/05/2015)
58 REPLY to Response re 50 MOTION for Summary Judgment (EEOC's Response) filed by Guardsmark, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit 21 − Additional Excerpts of Transcript from Deposition of Sarah Stewart, # 3 Exhibit 22 − Additional Excerpts of Transcript from Deposition of Scott Steinman, # 4 Exhibit 23 − Additional Excerpts of Transcript from Deposition of Chris Smith) (Stothers, Melonie) (Entered: 11/05/2015)
59 NOTICE of Change of Address/Contact Information by Jennifer B. Salvatore on behalf of Christopher Smith. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Proposed Order) (Salvatore, Jennifer) (Entered: 03/02/2016)
60 ORDER Granting Substitution of Counsel. Signed by District Judge Victoria A. Roberts. (SSch) (Entered: 03/04/2016)
61 NOTICE of Change of Address/Contact Information by Melonie L. M. Stothers on behalf of Guardsmark, LLC. (Stothers, Melonie) (Entered: 03/30/2016)
62 ORDER Denying 49 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; Denying 50 Motion for Summary Judgment; and Denying 52 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Signed by District Judge Victoria A. Roberts. (LVer) (Entered: 04/08/2016)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: TELEPHONIC Status Conference set for 4/13/2016 at 11:30 AM before District Judge Victoria A. Roberts. The Court will initiate the call. (LVer) (Entered: 04/08/2016)
63 SCHEDULING ORDER PHASE II: Status Conference by phone set for 7/14/2016 at 11:00 AM before District Judge Victoria A. Roberts; Jury Trial set for 11/14/2016 at 9:00 AM before District Judge Victoria A. Roberts. Signed by District Judge Victoria A. Roberts. (Refer to image for additional dates) (LVer) (Entered: 04/15/2016)
64 [DOCKETING ERROR] ORDER REGARDING JOINT FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE AND FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER: Final Pretrial Conference set for 10/31/2016 at 10:00 AM before District Judge Victoria A. Roberts. Signed by District Judge Victoria A. Roberts. (Refer to image for additional dates) (LVer) (Entered: 04/15/2016)
65 ORDER REGARDING JOINT FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER AND FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE: Final Pretrial Conference set for 10/31/2016 at 10:00 AM before District Judge Victoria A. Roberts. Signed by District Judge Victoria A. Roberts. (Refer to image for additional dates) (LVer) (Entered: 04/15/2016)

Case: 2:13-cv-15229-VAR-MKM As of: 04/04/2019 10:54 AM EDT 7 of 7

04/15/2016 04/22/2016
04/25/2016 05/02/2016 05/06/2016
05/12/2016 06/22/2016 07/14/2016 07/15/2016 07/19/2016 08/04/2016 09/09/2016 09/16/2016

66 NOTICE of Correction re 64 Order Regarding Joint Final Pretrial Order and Final Pretrial Conference. (LVer) (Entered: 04/15/2016)
67 MOTION for Reconsideration re 62 Order on Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Order on Motion for Summary Judgment, by Guardsmark, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit A.Excerpts of Transcripts from Deposition of Peter Dobbin, # 3 Exhibit B.Excerpts of Transcript from Deposition of Christopher Smith, # 4 Exhibit C.Memorandum of Peter Dobbin, # 5 Exhibit D.Excerpts of Transcript from Deposition of Sarah Stewart, # 6 Exhibit E.Excerpts of Transcript from Deposition of Scott Steinman, # 7 Exhibit F.Excerpt of Mission Partnership Statement for Guardsmark and GDLS, # 8 Exhibit G.Employment Agreements Between Guardsmark and Christopher Smith, # 9 Exhibit H.Excerpts of Guardsmarks General Orders, Regulations, and Instructions for Uniformed Personnel, # 10 Index of Exhibits List of Cases, # 11 Exhibit 1.Baldwin v. New York, # 12 Exhibit 2.Bonn v. City of Omaha, # 13 Exhibit 3.Clark County School Dist. v. Breeden, # 14 Exhibit 4.Crowley v. Prince Georges County, Md., # 15 Exhibit 5.Hamner v. St. Vincent Hosp. & Health Care Ctr., Inc., # 16 Exhibit 6.Holt v. Lewis, # 17 Exhibit 7.Jones v. St. Jude Med. S.C., Inc., # 18 Exhibit 8.Kunzler v. Canon, U.S.A., Inc., # 19 Exhibit 9.Niswander v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., # 20 Exhibit 10.ODay v McDonnell Douglas Helicopter Co., # 21 Exhibit 11.Trevino v. Austin Peay State University, # 22 Exhibit 12.Wimmer v. Suffolk County Police Dept) (Stothers, Melonie) (Entered: 04/22/2016)
Set/Reset Deadlines as to 67 MOTION for Reconsideration re 62 Order on Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Order on Motion for Summary Judgment: Responses due by 5/2/2016, Reply due by 5/6/2016 (LVer) (Entered: 04/25/2016)
68 RESPONSE to 67 MOTION for Reconsideration re 62 Order on Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Order on Motion for Summary Judgment, filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit A −− Excerpt from Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration, # 3 Exhibit B −− Excerpt from Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment) (Campbell, Nedra) (Entered: 05/02/2016)
69 REPLY to Response re 50 MOTION for Summary Judgment , 67 MOTION for Reconsideration re 62 Order on Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Order on Motion for Summary Judgment, filed by Guardsmark, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit I − C. Smith Timeline, # 3 Exhibit J − Excerpt of Smith Dep Transcript, # 4 Exhibit K− Stothers Response to Campbell Email, # 5 Exhibit L− Smith EEOC Statement, # 6 Exhibit M − Excerpt of S. Stuart Dep Transcript) (Stothers, Melonie) (Entered: 05/06/2016)
70 Expert WITNESS LIST by Guardsmark, LLC (Stothers, Melonie) (Entered: 05/12/2016)
71 ORDER Denying 67 Guardsmark's Motion for Clarification and Reconsideration or, Alternatively, Certification for Leave to Appeal The Court's Order Denying Guardsmark's Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by District Judge Victoria A. Roberts. (LVer) (Entered: 06/22/2016)
TEXT−ONLY NOTICE: Telephone conference on 7/14/2016 is Cancelled (CPin) (Entered: 07/14/2016)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: TELEPHONIC Status Conference set for 7/19/2016 02:30 PM before District Judge Victoria A. Roberts Court will initiate call (CPin) (Entered: 07/15/2016)
Minute Entry for proceedings before District Judge Victoria A. Roberts: Telephonic Status Conference held on 7/19/2016 (CPin) (Entered: 07/20/2016)
72 NOTICE TO APPEAR: Settlement Conference set for 10/3/2016 02:00 PM before District Judge Victoria A. Roberts. (see image for details and dates) (LVer) (Entered: 08/04/2016)
73 CONSENT DECREE. Signed by District Judge Victoria A. Roberts. (CPin) (Entered: 09/09/2016)
74 CONSENT DECREE AMENDING AND REPLACING CONSENT DECREE OF SEPTEMBER 9 2016 73 Signed by District Judge Victoria A. Roberts. (CPin) (Entered: 09/16/2016)

 
 U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

PRESS RELEASE 12-24-13

EEOC Sues Guardsmark for Retaliation

Security Guard Fired for Opposing Sexual Harassment, Federal Agency Charged
DETROIT - Security giant Guardsmark retaliated against a security guard who opposed a sexually hostile work environment by firing him, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleged in a lawsuit filed today.
The lawsuit alleges that Guardsmark terminated Christopher Smith in retaliation for his role in a woman's sexual harassment complaint. According to the lawsuit, another security guard used security cameras to zoom in on women's private parts. Smith told the security guard to stop, but the guard continued to engage in the behavior. Smith told a woman about the guard's actions, and the woman filed a sexual harassment complaint with the contractor for whom she worked. Guardsmark responded by firing Smith.
Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits retaliation. The EEOC filed suit (EEOC v. Guardsmark, Case No. 2:13cv15229), filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan), after first attempting to settle the case through its conciliation process. The agency seeks to recover monetary compensation for Smith, including back pay and compensatory damages for emotional distress, as well as punitive damages.
"Title VII protects employees from being retaliated against for opposing sexual harassment even if they complain to someone else, like a co-worker or client," explained Nedra Campbell, trial attorney for the EEOC. "Employees like Smith who oppose the illegal acts of a co-worker should be commended, not fired."
Guardsmark provides security services to companies throughout the world. According to its website, www.guardsmark.com, Guardsmark, LLC, is one of the largest security firms in the world with over 19,000 employees and offices in more than 400 cities.
Eliminating policies and practices that discourage or prohibit individuals from exercising their rights under employment discrimination statutes, or that impede the EEOC's investigative or enforcement efforts, is one of six national priorities identified by the EEOC's Strategic Enforcement Plan.
The EEOC is responsible for enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.