IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY :

COMMISSION,

:

Plaintiff

:

:

and

:

:

JAMIE MOHN,

:

:

Plaintiff-Intervenor, :

:

v.

:

:

DINE INC., d/b/a SILK CITY DINER, INC.; :

GEORGE BARAKOS AND NICHOLAS

:

BARAKOS

:

:

Defendants.

:

CIVIL ACTION No. 2:04-CV-04523-LS JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

PLAINTIFF INTERVENOR’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT Plaintiff, Jamie Mohn, (“Mohn”) brings this action against defendants, Dine Inc., d/b/a
Silk City Diner, Inc., Nicholas Barakos and George Barakos for sex discrimination, including subjecting her to a hostile work environment, and for tort claims arising under Pennsylvania common law. Ms. Mohn seeks compensatory and punitive damages and other statutory relief under federal and state laws. II. PARTIES
1. Plaintiff, Jamie Mohn, is an individual and citizen of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, residing at 128 Gregg Circle, Ephrata, PA 17522.
2. Plaintiff is female.

3. Defendant, Dine Inc., d/b/a Silk City Diner, Inc., is a Pennsylvania corporation engaged in an industry affecting commerce, which regularly conducts business in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and has a principal place of business located at 1640 N. Reading Road, Stevens, PA 17578.
4. Defendant George Barakos is an employee and corporate officer of Dine Inc., d/b/a Silk City Diner, Inc. at the time of the alleged conduct giving rise to the herein Complaint and was a direct supervisor of Ms. Mohn. George Barakos is a citizen of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with a last known business address at 1640 N. Reading Road, Stevens, PA 17578.
5. Defendant Nicholas Barakos is an employee and corporate officer of Dine Inc., d/b/a Silk City Diner, Inc. at the time of the alleged conduct giving rise to the herein Complaint and was a direct supervisor of Ms. Mohn. Nicholas Barakos is a citizen of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with a last known business address at 1640 N. Reading Road, Stevens, PA 17578.
6. Upon information and belief, George and Nicholas Barakos are brothers and coowners of Dine Inc., d/b/a Silk City Diner, Inc.
7. At all times material hereto, defendants employed in excess of fifteen (15) employees.
8. At all times material hereto, defendants acted by and through their authorized agents, servants, workmen and/or employees acting within the course and scope of their employment with defendants and in furtherance of defendants’ business.
2

III. JURISDICTION
9. The causes of action set forth in this Complaint arise under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §2000(e), et seq. ("Title VII"), the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, as amended, 43 P.S. §951, et seq. ("PHRA"), and Pennsylvania common law. The District Court has jurisdiction over the causes of action under Title VII pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §2000(e)-5(f) and 28 U.S.C. §1331, the PHRA pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367, and the Pennsylvania common law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C §1367.
10. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
IV. PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS
11. On or about May 22, 2003, Ms. Mohn filed a Complaint of Discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) and dual filed with the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission (“PHRC”), alleging sex discrimination and workplace harassment against her employer Dine Inc., d/b/a Silk City Diner, Inc. and against defendants George Barakos and Nicholas Barakos.
12. On or about September 27, 2004, the EEOC filed suit in Federal Court naming Dine, Inc. d/b/a Silk City Diner, as defendant.
13. Ms. Mohn has fully complied with all the administrative prerequisites for the commencement of this action.
V. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
14. Ms. Mohn was employed by Dine Inc., d/b/a Silk City Diner, Inc. as a waitress.
3

15. Ms. Mohn commenced her employment in or about April, 2002.
16. Defendant George Barakos was an employee and corporate officer of Defendant Dine Inc., d/b/a Silk City Diner, Inc.
17. Defendant George Barakos had direct supervisory responsibilities over Ms. Mohn.
18. Defendant Nicholas Barakos was an employee and corporate officer of Defendant Dine Inc., d/b/a Silk City Diner, Inc.
19. Defendant Nicholas Barakos had direct supervisory responsibilities over Ms. Mohn.
20. During her employment, Ms. Mohn was subjected to continuing disparate, discriminatory, and harassing treatment and a hostile work environment by defendants both generally, as set forth herein and, inter alia, in the following particular respects:
(a) Defendant George Barakos touched Plaintiff on a number of occasions, even though she repeatedly asked him to stop. For instance, George Barakos, on more than one occasion, rubbed her inner thighs, her waist, and her ear. Additionally, he attempted to kiss her on a few occasions.
(b) George Barakos also made numerous inappropriate and sexually-charged comments to Plaintiff: (i) George Barakos informed Ms. Mohn that he bought handcuffs because he was thinking of her and he stated that he hoped he would have the opportunity to use them on her; (ii) When Ms. Mohn was leaving work to go out with some co-workers, George Barakos asked her to return to the diner late that evening where he would be waiting for her; (iii) George Barakos once attempted to barge in on Ms. Mohn while she was changing in the bathroom. When he entered, Ms. Mohn was
4

already dressed. George. Barakos stated that he was sorry he was late because he would have “…liked to have helped [Ms. Mohn] out”; (iv) The day after Ms. Mohn dined with a friend at Silk City, George Barakos said to her “[y]ou looked so hot…I wish I could have taken you and your big-breasted friend out so I could have some fun”; (v) On another occasion, when Ms. Mohn walked to the car to retrieve her asthma inhaler, George Barakos followed her to the door and stated that he could give her mouth-to-mouth and stick his tongue down her throat to clear any obstructive airways; and (vi) George Barakos also made explicit comments about her body, including her lips and buttocks. For instance, as she would walk by him, George Barakos would say “look at that ass.” He also once told Ms. Mohn that she “…has such a nice butt. Hispanic women and Greek women are the best to have.” (vii) Additionally, he would say that Ms. Mohn has “nice, juicy lips” or that he “…would love to kiss those juicy lips.”
21. Although Dine, Inc., failed to provide Plaintiff with any sexual harassment training or materials, she reported George Barakos’ comments and unwanted touching to her immediate supervisor.
22. Additionally, she asked George Barakos to stop his behavior. However, Dine, Inc., neither investigated nor remedied the matter. Rather, George Barakos and Nicholas Barakos charted a course of retaliatory conduct --- including assignment to less profitable dining areas and discipline for alleged violations of suspect work rules.
23. Because of this retaliatory conduct and Dine, Inc.’s failure to remedy and stop the sexual harassment, the work environment became so intolerable that Plaintiff was constructively discharged in November 2002.
5

24. Throughout Ms. Mohn’s employment, defendants engaged in a pattern and practice of sexual harassment and discrimination in defendants’ workplace and failed to discourage, investigate, document or take proper action to remedy and eradicate the sexual harassment and discrimination in its workplace, both generally, as set forth herein and, inter alia, in the following particular respect: upon information and belief, defendant Dine Inc., d/b/a Silk City Diner, Inc. was aware of defendant George Barakos’ harassing and discriminatory treatment of Ms. Mohn. Defendant Dine Inc., d/b/a Silk City Diner, Inc.’s agents failed to investigate or remedy defendant George Barakos’ conduct.
25. Defendants failed to prevent, address or remedy the improper, discriminatory actions referred to herein and further failed to take corrective measures to make the workplace free of discriminatory and harassing conduct.
26. As a direct and proximate result of the improper, discriminatory and harassing conduct of defendants, Ms. Mohn has in the past incurred, and may in the future incur, a loss of earnings and/or earning capacity, loss of benefits, attorney fees, pain and suffering, embarrassment, humiliation, mental anguish and loss of life's pleasures, the full extent of which are not known at this time.
27. Defendants engaged in discriminatory conduct with malice and reckless indifference to Ms. Mohn’s right to be free from such discrimination. The conduct of defendants, as set forth herein, was outrageous under the circumstances and warrants the imposition of punitive damages.
6

COUNT I Title VII 28. Ms. Mohn incorporates herein by reference paragraphs 1 through 27 above as if set forth herein in their entirety.
29. Defendant Dine Inc., by its discriminatory and retaliatory actions against Ms. Mohn, has violated Title VII.
30. Said violations were intentional.
31. Said violations were conducted with malice and reckless indifference to Ms. Mohn’s right to be free from such discrimination. The conduct of defendant Dine, Inc., as set forth herein, was outrageous under the circumstances and warrants the imposition of punitive damages.
32. As a direct and proximate result of defendant Dine, Inc.’s violation of Title VII, Ms. Mohn has sustained the injuries, damages and losses set forth herein.
33. Ms. Mohn is now suffering and will continue to suffer irreparable injury and monetary damages as a result of defendant Dine Inc.’s discriminatory conduct unless and until this Court grants the relief requested herein.
COUNT II Pennsylvania Human Relations Act 34. Ms. Mohn incorporates herein by reference paragraphs 1 through 33 above as if set forth herein in their entirety.
7

35. Defendant Dine Inc., d/b/a Silk City Diner, Inc. violated the PHRA by its discriminatory actions against Ms. Mohn.
36. Defendant George Barakos is individually liable under the aider and abettor provisions of the PHRA as a result of his discriminatory conduct directed towards Ms. Mohn.
37. Defendant Nicholas Barakos is individually liable under the aider and abettor provisions of the PHRA as a result of his discriminatory conduct directed towards Ms. Mohn.
38. Said violations were intentional. 39. As a direct and proximate result of defendants’ violation of the PHRA, Ms. Mohn has sustained the injuries, damages and losses set forth herein. 40. Ms. Mohn is now suffering and will continue to suffer irreparable injury and monetary damages as a result of defendants’ discriminatory and retaliatory acts unless and until this Court grants the relief requested herein.
COUNT III Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress 41. Ms. Mohn realleges and reincorporates by reference all allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 40 herein. 42. By the conduct outlined in the Statement of Facts above, defendant Dine Inc., d/b/a Silk City Diner, Inc., through its duly authorized agents, George Barakos and Nicholas Barakos intentionally inflicted emotional distress on Ms. Mohn.
8

43. Defendants’ conduct, as outlined in the Statement of Facts above, was so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized society.

44. Defendants engaged in such conduct with malice or reckless indifference to the rights of Ms. Mohn.

45. As relief for defendants’ unlawful conduct, Ms. Mohn is entitled to recover, in amounts to be proved at trial, compensatory damages for pain and suffering, past and future; for mental anguish and humiliation, past and future; for psychological injury, past and future; for loss of enjoyment of life’s pleasures, past and future.

46. As further relief for the unlawful conduct of defendants, Ms. Mohn is entitled to recover, in amounts to be proved at trial, punitive damages.

47. As further relief for defendants’ unlawful conduct, Ms. Mohn is entitled to recover, in amounts to be proved at trial, all other legal and equitable relief recoverable under state tort law, including, but not limited to, attorney’s fees, expert witness fees, the costs of this action, and pre- and post-judgment interest.

RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Ms. Mohn respectfully requests that this Court enter a judgment against defendants:

(a)

declaring the acts and practices complained of herein to be in violation of

Title VII;

9

(b)

declaring the acts and practices complained of herein to be in violation of

the PHRA;

(c)

declaring the acts and practices complained of herein to be in violation of

Pennsylvania common law including, the intentional infliction of

emotional distress;

(d)

enjoining and restraining permanently the allegations alleged herein;

(e)

enjoining defendants from harassing or engaging in acts of reprisal or

retaliation against plaintiff from seeking her statutory rights not to be

discriminated against on the basis of sex and from otherwise interfering

with the rights of plaintiff;

(f)

directing defendants to take such affirmative actions as are necessary to

assure that the effects of the unlawful employment practices complained

of herein are eliminated;

(g)

awarding compensatory damages to plaintiff to make plaintiff whole for

all lost earnings, past and future, which plaintiff has suffered and will

continue to suffer as a result of defendants’ improper, discriminatory

treatment, including, but not limited to, past and future lost wages, lost

earnings capacity and pension and other lost benefits;

(h)

awarding compensatory damages for extreme emotional upset, mental

anguish, humiliation, loss of life's pleasures and pain and suffering;

10

(i)

awarding punitive damages;

(j)

awarding plaintiff costs of this action, together with reasonable attorney's

fees;

(k)

awarding plaintiff such other damages as are appropriate under Title VII,

the PHRA and Pennsylvania common law; and,

(l)

granting such other and further relief as the Court deems appropriate.

Respectfully Submitted,

GALFAND BERGER, LLP

Dated: December 20, 2004

By: __________________________ DEBRA A. JENSEN, ESQUIRE Pa. Atty ID. 33598 WAYNE A. HAMILTON, ESQUIRE Pa. Atty. ID 77181 Suite 2300 1818 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103-3623 (215) 665-1600 Attorneys for the Plaintiff-Intervenor Jamie Mohn

11

 
 ~.S·

Stephanie Marino, Esq.

Attorney for Plaintiff, E.E.O.C.

UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Philadelphia District Office

.

.

21 S. 5'h Street, Suite 400

Philadelphia, PA 19106

(215) 440-284112684

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OJ;' PENNSYLVANIA

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff,
JAIME MOHN, -Plaintiff-Intervenor,
v.
DINE, INC. d/b/a SILK CITY DINER, INC. Defendant.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
) CIVIL ACTION NO. 04:cv-4523
) ) ) ) )

CONSENT DECREE

Introducti on

A. This action was instituted by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity COlTIllllssion

("the EEOC" or "the Commission") on or about September 27,2004 against Dine, Inc. d/b/a Silk

City Diner, Inc. ("Silk City Diner" or "Defendant") to enforce provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et ~ ("Title VII"). In its Complaint, the

Commission alleged that Defendant's co-owner subjected Charging Party to sexually explicit

comments and conduct which created a sexually hostile and offensive work environment for her as

a female, The Commission further alleged that Silk City Diner failed to undertake any remedial

MAY 1 1 2005

action to stop the offensive and discriminatory conduct and, in fact, retaliated against the Charging Party after she complained of the offensive conduct to both Defendant's co-owner and to her supervisor. EEOC alleges that as a result of the sexual harassment and retaliatory behavior, the Charging Party was forced to resign from her employment and was constructively discharged from her position as a waitress. EEOC alleges that she suffered severe emotional distress and damages as a result of the aforementioned illegal conduct of the Defendant. Defendant denies any liability.
B. This Consent Decree is entered into by and shall be final and binding between the EEOC and Silk City Diner, its directors, officers, agents, successors and assigns.
C. The Commission and Defendant agree to the entry of this Consent Decree, which shall fully and finally resolve all claims the EEOC raised in its Complaint in Civil Action No. P4-cv4523 (LFS). This Consent Decree shall not constitute either an adjudication of or finding on the merits ofthe complaint and shall not be construed as an admission by Defendant of any violation of Title VII.
Findings D. Having carefully examined the tenns and provisions of this Consent Decree, and based on the pleadings, record and stipulations ofthe parties, the Court finds: (I) it has jurisdiction of the parties and subject matter jurisdiction of this action; and (2) the terms of this Decree are fair, reasonable, equitable and just, and adequately protect the rights ofthe parties, and the public interest. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED THAT:
Non-Discrimination and Non-Retaliation 1. This Court has jurisdiction over the parties and subj ect matter of this action. 2. Defendant will not harass any employee on the basis of sex in violation of Title VII.
2

3. Defendant will not engage in any employment practices which retaliate in any manner against any person, including but not limited to Jaime Mohn, because of that person's opposition to any practice made an unlawful employment practice under Title VII or because that person has made a charge, testified, assisted or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding or hearing under Title VIJ.
4. Defendant shall only divulge to any identifiable employer or potential employer of Jaime Mohn, Ms. Mohn's start date, position title, final salary and end date and indicate that such limited disclosure is part of its business practice.
5. Nothing in this Consent Decree, either by inclusion or exclusion, shall be construed to limit the obligations of Defendant under Title VII or the EEOC's authority to process or litigllte any charge of discrimination now pending or filed in the future against Defendant.
Monetarv Relief 6. No later than 15 days after receipt of a Release executed by Ms. Mohn, Defendant agrees to pay monetary relief in the amount of twenty-two thousand five hundred dollars ($22,500.00) to Jaime Mohn, in full settlement of the claim raised on her behalf against Defendant in the EEOC's Complaint. The check will be mailed to Jaime Mohn at her residence and a copy within five business days thereafter to the attention of Stephanie Marino, Trial Attorney, EEOC, 21 South Fifth Street, Suite 400, Philadelphia, PA 19106-2515. In order to receive this monetary relief, Ms. Mohn must execute a Release, as negotiated separately through her private counsel. Late payment of the check will be subject to the accrual of interest on the unpaid amount, calculated pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961.
3

Posting of Notice 7. Within 20 business days after entry of this Decree, Defendant shall post at its Silk City Diner work site(s) on all bulletin boards, used by Defendant for communicating with employees, same-sized copies of the Notice attached as Exhibit A to this Decree. The Notice shall remain posted for two (2) years from the date of entry of this Decree. Defendant shall forward a certification that the Notice has been posted and dates of posting within 30 days after entry of this Decree to Stephanie Marino, Trial Attorney, EEOC, 21 South Fifth Street Suite 400, Philadelphia, PA 19106-2515. If posted copies become defaced, removed, marred or otherwise illegible, Defendant agrees to post a readable copy in the same manner as heretofore specified.
Non-Discrimination and Anti-Harassment Policies and Complaint Procedures 8. Defendant agrees to draft a policy against discrimination, harassment and retaliati.on and complaint procedures, which shall be drafted in plain and simple language. Defendant shall ensure that its policy or policies against discrimination, harassment. and retaliation and related complaint procedures meet the following minimum criteria: (a) state that Defendant: (i) prohibits discrimination against employees on the basis of sex, and prohibits retaliation in violation ofTitle Vll; (ii) prohibits retaliation against employees for opposing employment practices they reasonably believe arediscriminatory or for participating in an investigation by the EEOC or a state or local governmental agency of a charge of discrimination under Title Vll; (iii) prohibits any act, policy or practice that has the effect of harassing or intimidating any employee on the basis of sex, in violation of Title Vll; and (iv) prohibits any act, policy or practice that has the effect of creating, facilitating or permitting the existence of a work environment that is hostile to employees through acts such as physical/verbal abuse and derogatory
4

comments based on sex, in violation of Title VII; (b) include a complaint procedure designed to encourage employees to come forward
with complaints regarding violations ofits policy or policies against discrimination, harassment and retaliation, which shall meet the following minimum criteria: (i) provide effective mechanism(s) for reporting incidents ofdiscrimination, harassment and retaliation; (ii) provide that the complaints of discrimination, harassment and/or retaliation can be made either in writing or verbally; (iii) identify an employee or employees at Defendant's worksite(s), to whom an employee can make a complaint; (iv) encourage prompt reporting by employees; and (v) provide assurances that complainants shall not be subjected to retaliation;
(c) provide for prompt investigation of complaints of harassment and/or retaliation; (d) provide for prompt communication to the complaining party of the results of the investigation and any remedial actions taken or proposed; and (e) provide for discipline up to and including discharge ofan employee or supervisor who violates Defendant's policy or policies against discrimination, harassment and retaliation, and for increasingly severe discipline of repeat offenders. 9. Defendant shall distribute to all of its employees and newly-hired employees, its policy or policies against discrimination, harassment and retaliation within 60 days after entry ofthis Consent Decree. 10. Within 60 days after entry ofthis Consent Decree, Defendant shall advise Stephanie Marino, Trial Attorney, EEOC's Philadelphia District Office, that its policy or policies against discrimination, harassment and retaliation have been distributed to current employees, including temporary employees, via paycheck enclosure and that new employees, including temporary
5

employees, will receive these policies and an opportunity to acknowledge receipt. Defendant will retain copies of any acknowledgment of receipt form for an employee in the employee's personnel file.
11. Defendant shall annually for the duration of the Consent Decree send a copy of its policy or policies against discrimination, harassment and retaliation with each employee's paycheck.
Supervisor Accountability 12. Defendant shall promote supervisor accountability by the following conduct: (a) providing annual anti-discrimination training to all ofits supervisory and managerial personnel as set forth in Paragraphs 13; (b) disciplining, up to and including discharge, any supervisor or manager who violates Defendant's policy or policies against discrimination, harassment and retaliation; and (c) imposing on all managers and supervisory personnel a duty to administer their work areas to ensure compliance with Defendant's policy against discrimination, harassment and retaliation; and Cd) requiring all managers <!TId supervisors to report any incidents and/or complaints of harassment and/or retaliation of which they become. aware to the employee or employees designated to handle complaints of discrimination, harassment and retaliation.
Training 13. Defendant shall provide training on the requirements of Title VII as follows: (a) Defendant agrees to provide annual training sessions for any employee or employees at its Silk City Diner work sites responsible for responding to Title VII complaints made at Silk City Diner by a vendor approved by the EEOC. The training will cover employee rights and employer
6

obligations under both Title VII and relevant state or local anti-discrimination laws, and will emphasize what constitutes unlawful harassment and discrimination in the workplace, how to keep the company free from such discrimination, what constitutes unlawful retaliation, and will summarize how to conduct a prompt and effective investigation into allegations, complaints or charges of discrimination;
(b) Defendant shall first provide training in accordance wi th Paragraph 13(a) by no later than 120 calendar days after entry of this Consent Decree and also shan provide such training in calendar years 2006 and 2007.
14. Defendant shall obtain the EEOC's approval of its proposed trainer prior to each year's training sessions.
15. Defendants agree at its expense to provide the EEOC with copies of all pamphlets, brochures, outlines or other written materials provided to attendees of training sessions. Even though the EEOC has approved of or designated a trainer to provide training for one year, it is not required to approve of or designate the same trainer for future training sessions.
16. Defendant shall certify to the EEOC in writing within 10 business days after the training sessions required by Paragraph 13 have occurred that the training has taken place and the personnel who attended. Such certification shall include: (i) the dates, location and duration ofthe training session; (ii) a copy of the registry of attendance, including the name and position of each person in attendance; and (iii) a listing of the employee or employees at Silk City Diner's work site(s), responsible for responding to Title VII complaints made at Silk City Diner as of the date of the training.
17. Defendant shall furnish to the EEOC the following written reports annually for a
7

period of two years following entry of this Decree wi th the first report due six months after entry of the Decree and the final report due 24 months after entry of the Decree. Each such report shall contain:
(a) a certification by Defendant that the Notice required to be posted by Paragraph 7 was posted during the six months preceding the report;
(b) a certification by Defendant that it has or will distribute the policy or policies against discrimination, harassment and retaliation annually to employees, and that Defendant has disseminated the policy against discrimination, harassment and retaliation to all new employees, including temporary employees, hired within the six-month period preceding the report;
(c) a certification that Defendant has complied with training requirements ofthis Consent Decree;
(d) a summary of any additional actions Defendant took to prevent discrimination, harassment and retaliation at Silk City Diner's work site(s) during the six-month period preceding the report.
Dispute Resolution 18. In the event either party to this Decree believes the other party has failed to comply with any provision(s) ofthe Decree, the complaining party shall notify the other party ofthe alleged non-compliance within 20 days of the alleged non-compliance and afford the alleged non-complying party 20 business days to remedy the non-compliance or satisfy the complaining party that the ,alleged non-complying party has complied. lithe alleged non-complying party has not remedied the alleged non-compliance or satisfied the complaining party that it has complied within 20 business days, the complaining party may apply to the Court for appropriate relief.
8

Miscellaneous Provisions 19. Each party to this Decree shall bear its own expenses, costs and attorneys' fees. 20. The tenns of this Decree are and shall be binding upon the present and future representatives, agents, directors, officers, successors and assigns of Defendant in their capacities as representatives, agents, directors and officers ofDefendant and not in their individual capacities. This paragraph shall not be construed as placing any limit on remedies available to the Court in the event any individual is found in contempt for a violation of this Decree. 21. This Consent Decree shall fully and finally resolve all claims which were raised by the EEOC in its Complaint in Civil Action No. 04-4523. 22. This Consent Decree shall be filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and shall continue in effect for two (2) years. During this time, this Court shall retain jurisdiction over this matter and the parties for purposes of enforcing compliance with the Decree, including issuing such orders as may be required to effectuate its purposes. .Any application by any party to modify or vacate this Consent Decree during such perio~ shall be made by motion to the Court on no less than 30 days' notice to the other party. Should any material disputes under this Decree remain unresolved after this two-year period, the tenn ofthe Decree shall be automatically extended (and the Court will retainjurisdiction ofthis matter to enforce the Consent Decree) until s\lch time as all disputes have been resolved. 23. The Clerk of the District Court is hereby directed to send a tile-stamped copy ofthis Consent Decree to counsel ofrecord.
9

For Plaintiff EEOC:
Eric S. Dreiband General Counsel
James L. Lee Deputy General Counsel
Gwendolyn Young Reams Associate General Counsel Wash., D.C.
EQUAL EMPLOY1vfENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
~acq~ uere' H. Mi cNair/hCz~; )
Regional Attorney

For Defendant Silk City Diner~ Inc.:
Stephanie Carfley? Esquire/" BARLEY, SNYDER SENFT"& COHEN, L.L.C. 126 East King Street Lancaster, PA 17602-2893

Philadelphia District Office 21 S. 5lh Street, Suite 400 Philadelphia,PA 19106 (215) 440-2828
-J.d ~ f By the Court: r..; ENCE F. STENGEL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
10

Date: s:lrCYf_5_' __

EXHIBIT A
NOTICE TO ALL SILK CITY DINER~ INC. EMPLOYEES
This Notice is posted pursuant to a Consent Decree entered by the federal court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in EEOC v. Dine, Inc. d/b/a Silk City Diner, Inc., Civil Action Number 04-cv-4523, resolving a lawsuit filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") against Dine, Inc. d/b/a Silk City Diner, Inc., ("Silk City Diner").
Title vrr of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et ~, as amended ("Title
VII"), prohibits discrimination against employees and applicants for employment based upon national origin, sex, race, color orreligion. Title VII further prohibits retaliation against employees or applicants who avail themselves oftheir rights under Title VIIby engaging in protected activities, such as filing a charge of discrimination and/or testifying or participating in a Commission investigation. The EEOC is the federal agency which investigates charges of unlawful employment discrimination. The EEOC has the authority to bring lawsuits in federal court to enforce Title VII.
In its lawsuit, the EEOC alleged that Silk City Diner subj ected an employee to harassment
based on sex, causing the employee to constructively discharge, in violation ofTitle vrr ofthe Civil
Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII").
To resolve the case, Silk City Diner and the EEOC have entered into a Consent Decree which provided, among other things, that: (1) Silk City Diner agrees that it will not discriminate on the basis of sex in the future; (2) Silk City Diner will not retaliate against any person because he or she opposed any practice made unlawful by Title VII, filed a Title VII charge of discrimination, participated in any Title VII proceeding, or asserted any rights under the Consent Decree; and: (3) Silk City Diner will train any employee or employees at Silk City Diner's work sites with responsibility for responding to Title VII complaints made at Silk City Diner, regarding discrimination, harassment and retaliation, and regarding its policy prohibiting discrimination, harassment and retaliation.
If you believe you have been discriminated against, you may contact the EEOC at (215) 4402600. The EEOC charges no fees and has employees who speak languages other than English.
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND MUST NOT BE DEFACED BY ANYONE
This Notice must remain posted for two (2) years from the date below and must not be altered, defaced or covered by any other material. Any questions about this Notice or compliance with its terms may be directed to the Regional Attorney, EEOC Philadelphia District Office, 21 South 5th Street, Philadelphia, PA 19106.

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
DATED: ________________

Silk City Diner, Inc. DATED: _____________________

 
 United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?294230963229093-L_3...
A/R, CLOSED, STANDARD
United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:04-cv-04523-LS

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION v. DINE INC. Assigned to: HONORABLE LAWRENCE F. STENGEL Cause: 42:2000 Job Discrimination (Sex)

Date Filed: 09/27/2004 Date Terminated: 05/17/2005 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

represented by JACQUELINE H. MCNAIR EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 21 S. 5TH ST STE 400 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19106 215-440-2687 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

MARY M. TIERNAN EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMM PHILA DISTRICT OFFICE THE BOURSE BLDG 21 S. 5TH ST., STE 400 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19106 215-440-2828 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

STEPHANIE MARINO U.S. E.E.O.C. 21 SOUTH 5TH ST. SUITE 400 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19106-2515 215-440-2841 Email: stephanie.marino@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

TERRENCE R. COOK EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION PHILADELPHIA DISTRICT OFFICE 21 S. 5TH ST

1 of 5

6/7/2007 3:30 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?294230963229093-L_3...

Intervenor Plaintiff JAMIE MOHN
V. Defendant DINE INC. doing business as SILK CITY DINER, INC.
Defendant

STE 400 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19106 215-440-2688 Email: terrence.cook@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by DEBRA A. JENSEN GALFAND BERGER, LLP 1818 MARKET ST. STE. 2300 PHILA., PA 19103-3623 215-665-1600 Fax: 215-564-2262 Email: djensen@galfandberger.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
WAYNE A. HAMILTON GALFAND BERGER LLP 1818 MARKET ST STE 2300 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 215-665-1600 Email: whamilton@galfandberger.com TERMINATED: 03/18/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by MICHAEL A. MOORE BARLEY SNYDER 126 E. KING ST LANCASTER, PA 17602 717-299-5201 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEPHANIE CARFLEY BARLEY SNYDER SENFT & COHEN LLC 126 EAST KING ST LANCASTER, PA 17602-2832 TEL 717-299-5201 Email: scarfley@barley.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

2 of 5

6/7/2007 3:30 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?294230963229093-L_3...

GEORGE BARAKOS
Defendant NICHOLAS BARAKOS

represented by MICHAEL A. MOORE (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEPHANIE CARFLEY (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by MICHAEL A. MOORE (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEPHANIE CARFLEY (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 09/27/2004 09/27/2004 09/27/2004 11/04/2004
11/10/2004 11/16/2004 11/22/2004

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT against DINE INC. , filed by EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION.(tj, ) (Entered: 09/27/2004)
Summons Issued; 1 Mailed to counsel 9/27/04 as to DINE INC. (tj, ) (Entered: 09/27/2004)
DEMAND for Trial by Jury by EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION. (tj, ) (Entered: 09/27/2004)
2 SUMMONS Returned Executed by EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION re: Tom Fredericks served Summons and Complaint upon George Barakos on behalf of DINE INC. by Personal Service. DINE INC. served on 10/22/2004, answer due 11/12/2004. (wgc, ) (Entered: 11/04/2004)
3 ANSWER to Complaint with Affirmative Defense, Jury Demand and Certificate of Service by DINE INC.(CARFLEY, STEPHANIE) Modified on 11/15/2004 (fh, ). (Entered: 11/10/2004)
4 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE FILED BY MOVANT JAMIE MOHN, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (jpd). (Entered: 11/17/2004)
5 NOTICE of Hearing: RULE 16 CONFERENCE SET FOR 12/3/2004 AT 3:00 PM IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT STATION IN READING LOCATED IN THE MADISON BUILDING, 400 WASHINGTON STREET IN THE 4TH FLOOR COURTROOM BEFORE HONORABLE LAWRENCE F. STENGEL. (pac,) (Entered: 11/22/2004)

3 of 5

6/7/2007 3:30 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?294230963229093-L_3...

12/02/2004 12/06/2004
12/06/2004 12/06/2004 12/06/2004 12/09/2004
12/21/2004 12/22/2004 01/11/2005 03/02/2005
03/04/2005 03/07/2005

6 ORDER THAT JAMIE MOHN'S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO INTERVENE IS GRANTED. SIGNED BY JUDGE LAWRENCE F. STENGEL ON 12/2/04. 12/2/04 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND E-MAILED. (jpd) (Entered: 12/02/2004)
7 SCHEDULING ORDER: ALL DISCOVERY DUE BY 5/3/2005. ALL DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS DUE BY 6/4/2005, RESPONSES TO DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS SHALL BE FILED BY 6/20/05. A SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE SHALL BE HELD ON 1/28/05 AT 9:30AM IN READING. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE LAWRENCE F. STENGEL ON 12/6/04. ) 12/6/04 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND E-MAILED.(gn, ) Modified on 12/14/2004 (gn, ). (Entered: 12/06/2004)
Set/Reset Hearings: SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE SET FOR 1/28/2005 09:30 AM BEFORE HONORABLE LAWRENCE F. STENGEL. (gn, ) (Entered: 12/06/2004)
8 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge LAWRENCE F. STENGEL : Initial Pretrial Conference held on 12/3/04 (wgc, ) (Entered: 12/07/2004)
Set/Reset Scheduling Order Deadlines: DISCOVERY DUE BY 5/3/2005. MOTIONS DUE BY 6/4/2005. (gn, ) (Entered: 12/14/2004)
9 NOTICE of Rescheduled Hearing: SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE RESCHEDULED FOR 2/18/2005 AT 9:30 AM IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT STATION IN READING, LOCATED IN THE MADISON BUILDING, 400 WASHINGTON STREET IN THE 4TH FLOOR COURTROOM BEFORE HONORABLE LAWRENCE F. STENGEL. (pac,) (Entered: 12/09/2004)
10 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AGAINST GEORGE BARAKOS, NICHOLAS BARAKOS, DINE INC., filed by INTERVENOR PLAINTIFF JAMIE MOHN, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.(jpd) (Entered: 12/22/2004)
11 Defendants' ANSWER to Amended Complaint of Plaintiff Intervener by GEORGE BARAKOS, NICHOLAS BARAKOS, DINE INC..(CARFLEY, STEPHANIE) (Entered: 12/22/2004)
12 Defendants' ANSWER to Amended Complaint of Plaintiff Intervener by GEORGE BARAKOS, NICHOLAS BARAKOS, DINE INC. with Affirmative Defenses; Jury Demand, Certificate of Service. (CARFLEY, STEPHANIE) Modified on 1/12/2005 (np). (Entered: 01/11/2005)
13 NOTICE of Hearing: SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE RESCHEFDULED FOR 4/15/2005 AT 11:30 AM IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT STATION IN READING, LOCATED IN THE MADISON BUILDING, 400 WASHINGTON STREET, IN THE 4TH FLOOR COURTROOM BEFORE HONORABLE LAWRENCE F. STENGEL. (pac,) (Entered: 03/02/2005)
14 NOTICE of Appearance by DEBRA A. JENSEN on behalf of plff-intervenor JAMIE MOHN (gn, ) (Entered: 03/07/2005)
15 NOTICE of Appearance by STEPHANIE MARINO on behalf of EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION with Certificate of Service (MARINO, STEPHANIE) (Entered: 03/07/2005)

4 of 5

6/7/2007 3:30 PM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?294230963229093-L_3...

03/18/2005 05/12/2005 05/17/2005

16 Withdrawal of Appearance by WAYNE A. HAMILTON on behalf of JAMIE MOHN (wgc, ) (Entered: 03/21/2005)
17 CONSENT DECREE. SIGNED BY JUDGE LAWRENCE F. STENGEL ON 5/12/05. 5/13/05 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (jpd) (Entered: 05/13/2005)
18 STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR JAMIE MOHN, PLAINTIFF EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, DEFENDANTS GEORGE BARAKOS, NICHOLAS BARAKOS, DINE INC. AS TO DEFENDANTS GEORGE BARAKOS, NICHOLAS BARAKOS, DINE INC.(jpd) (Entered: 05/18/2005)

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

06/07/2007 16:29:01

PACER Login:

hs0328

Client Code:

Description:

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

Billable Pages: 3

Cost:

eeoc 2:04-cv-04523-LS 0.24

5 of 5

6/7/2007 3:30 PM