Case 8:06-cv-01792-JSM-MAP Document 1 Filed 09/29/2006 Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff, v. TACO BELL CORPORATION,
Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

CIVIL ACTION NO.

)

)

)

COMPLAINT

)

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

)

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF SOUGHT

)

NATURE OF THE ACTION

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

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

appropriate relief to Brookes Allen Stanley (“Stanley”) who was adversely affected by such

practices. The Commission alleges that Defendant, Taco Bell Corporation, discriminated against

Brookes Stanley by allowing him to be sexually harassed by his female supervisor. The

harassment was sufficiently severe and pervasive to constitute a hostile and intimidating work

environment.

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 Section 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.

1

Case 8:06-cv-01792-JSM-MAP Document 1 Filed 09/29/2006 Page 2 of 5
2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division.
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff, the United States 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, Taco Bell Corporation (the “Employer”), has continuously been a California corporation doing business in the State of Florida and the cities of Lakeland and Mulberry, and has continuously had at least 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 thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Brookes Stanley 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. Since at least April of 2004, the Defendant Employer engaged in unlawful employment practices at its Lakeland, Florida and Mulberry, Florida restaurants, in violation of Section 703(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a).
a. Brookes Stanley was subjected to sexual harassment by his female supervisor in the form of unwelcome physical and verbal conduct of a sexual nature, which was
2

Case 8:06-cv-01792-JSM-MAP Document 1 Filed 09/29/2006 Page 3 of 5
sufficiently severe and pervasive to constitute an intimidating, hostile and offensive work environment. The harassment included, but was not limited to: making numerous sexually explicit comments to Mr. Stanley about wanting to have sex with him, repeatedly rubbing her body against Mr. Stanley, rubbing his shoulders, trying to hug him from behind, and staring at his crotch.
b. Both Mr. Stanley and his mother reported the harassment to Defendant’s management officials; however Mr. Stanley’s supervisor continued to harass him on a regular basis. As a result of the ongoing harassment and Defendant’s failure to address the problem, Mr. Stanley felt compelled to leave his employment with Defendant on August 8, 2004.
9. The effect of the practices complained of in paragraph 7 has been to deprive Mr. Stanley of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, based on his sex.
10. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 7 were willful. 11. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 7 above were committed with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Brookes Stanley.
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 sexual harassment and any other employment practices which discriminate on the basis of sex.
3

Case 8:06-cv-01792-JSM-MAP Document 1 Filed 09/29/2006 Page 4 of 5
B. Order Defendant Employer to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for males, and which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices.
C. Order Defendant Employer to make whole Brookes Stanley by providing affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices.
D. Order Defendant Employer to make whole Brookes Stanley by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described in paragraph 7 above, including but not limited to, out of pocket losses, and medical expenses in amounts to be determined at trial.
E. Order Defendant Employer to make whole Brookes Stanley by providing compensation for past and future nonpecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices complained of in paragraph 7 above, including but not limited to, past and future emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, anxiety, humiliation and loss of enjoyment of life, in amounts to be determined at trial.
F. Order Defendant Employer to pay Brookes Stanley punitive damages for its malicious and reckless conduct described in paragraph above, in amounts to be determined at trial.
G. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public interest.
H. Award the Commission its costs of this action. JURY TRIAL DEMAND
The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its complaint.
4

Case 8:06-cv-01792-JSM-MAP Document 1 Filed 09/29/2006 Page 5 of 5
Respectfully Submitted, RONALD S.COOPER General Counsel JAMES L. LEE Deputy General Counsel GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel DELNER FRANKLIN-THOMAS Regional Attorney NORA E. CURTIN Supervisory Trial Attorney _/s/_ Michael Wells___________ MICHAEL WELLS Trial Attorney Pennsylvania Bar No. 61053 UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Tampa Field Office 501 East Polk Street, Room 1000 Tampa, Florida 33602 Tel. (813) 202-7902 Fax (813) 228-2841 E-mail: michael.wells@eeoc.gov
5

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
v.
TACO BELL OF AMERICA, INC. f/k/a TACO BELL CORPORATION d/b/a TACO BELL
Defendant.

)

)

)

)

) CIVIL ACTION NO. 8:06-CV-1792-T-30MAP

)

)

AMENDED COMPLAINT

)

)

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

)

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF SOUGHT

)

)

)

NATURE OF THE ACTION

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

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

appropriate relief to Brookes Allen Stanley (“Stanley”) who was adversely affected by such

practices. The Commission alleges that Defendant, Taco Bell, discriminated against Brookes

Stanley during his employment when it subjected him to sexual harassment by his supervisor.

The harassment was sufficiently severe and pervasive to constitute a hostile and intimidating

work environment.

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 Section 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.

1

2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division.
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff, the United States 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, Taco Bell of America, Inc. f/k/a Taco Bell Corporation d/b/a Taco Bell (the “Employer”), has continuously been doing business in the State of Florida and the cities of Lakeland and Mulberry, and has continuously had at least 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).
CONCILIATION 6. Prior to institution of this lawsuit, the Commission's representatives attempted to eliminate the unlawful employment practices alleged below and to effect voluntary compliance with Title VII through informal methods of conciliation, conference and persuasion within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(b). The Defendant declined to participate in the conciliation process.
2

STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 7. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Brookes Stanley 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. 8. Since at least April of 2004, the Defendant Employer engaged in unlawful employment practices at its Lakeland, Florida and Mulberry, Florida restaurants, in violation of Section 703(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a).
a. Brookes Stanley was subjected to sexual harassment by his supervisor in the form of unwelcome physical and verbal conduct of a sexual nature, which was sufficiently severe and pervasive to constitute an intimidating, hostile and offensive work environment. The harassment included, but was not limited t o, numerous sexually offensive comments about Mr. Stanley made both to him and one of his coworkers, the supervisor’s repeatedly rubbing her body against Mr. Stanley, rubbing his shoulders and trying to hug him from behind, staring at his crotch.
b. Mr. Stanley, and his mother, reported the harassment to Defendant’s management officials at the restaurant where he worked, however Mr. Stanley’s supervisor continued to harass him on a regular basis. Because of the harassment, after completing his shift on August 8, 2004, Mr. Stanley felt compelled to leave his employment with Defendant.
9. The effect of the practices complained of in paragraph 8 has been to deprive Mr. Stanley of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, based on his sex.
10. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 8 were willful.
3

11. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 8 above were committed with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Brookes Stanley.
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 sexual harassment and any other employment practices which discriminate on the basis of sex. B. Order Defendant Employer to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for males, and which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices. C. Order Defendant Employer to make whole Brookes Stanley by providing affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices. D. Order Defendant Employer to make whole Brookes Stanley by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described in paragraph 8 above, including but not limited to, out of pocket losses, and medical expenses in amounts to be determined at trial. E. Order Defendant Employer to make whole Brookes Stanley by providing compensation for past and future nonpecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices complained of in paragraph 8 above, including but not limited to, past and future emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, anxiety, humiliation and loss of enjoyment of life, in amounts to be determined at trial.
4

F. Order Defendant Employer to pay Brookes Stanley punitive damages for its
malicious and reckless conduct described in paragraph 8 above, in amounts to be determined at
trial.
G. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public
interest.
H. Award the Commission its costs of this action.
JURY TRIAL DEMAND
The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its complaint.
Respectfully Submitted,
RONALD S. COOPER General Counsel
JAMES L. LEE Deputy General Counsel
GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel
GREGORY GOCHANOUR Acting Regional Attorney
NORA E. CURTIN Supervisory Trial Attorney
s/ Carla J. Von Greiff CARLA J. VON GREIFF Florida Bar No. 0110566 Senior Trial Attorney EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 501 East Polk Street, Suite 1000 Tampa, Florida 33602 Tel: (813) 202-7903 Tel: (813) 202-2310 Fax (813) 228-2045 Carla.vongreiff@eeoc.gov
5

 
 Case 8:06-cv-01792-JSM-MAP Document 13 Filed 11/28/2006 Page 1 of 7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

)

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

and

)

)

BROOKES A. STANLEY,

)

)

Plaintiff-In-Intervention, )

)

v.

)

)

TACO BELL OF AMERICA, INC.,

)

flk/a TACO BELL CORPORATION,

)

d/b/a TACO BELL

)

)

Defendant.

)

----------------------------)

Case No.: 8:06-cv-01792-JSM-MAP

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT OF INTERVENTION AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

COMES NOW, Plaintiff BROOKES A. STANLEY (hereinafter "Stanley" or

"Plaintiff') by and through his undersigned counsel, and sues Defendant TACO BELL

OF AMERICA INC., flk/a TACO BELL CORPORATION, d/b/a TACO BELL

(hereinafter "Taco Bell" or "Defendant"), alleging unlawful employment practices and

demands a trial by jury of all issues so triable. In support of his claims for relief, Plaintiff

alleges as follows:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This is an action for damages brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act

of 1964, as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. §2000e, et seq.

Case 8:06-cv-01792-JSM-MAP Document 13 Filed 11/28/2006 Page 2 of 7
(hereinafter "Title VII"), the Florida Civil Rights Act, Fla. Stat. §760.01, et seq. (hereinafter "FCRA"), and the Florida Whistleblower Act, Fla. Stat. §448.102, et seq. (hereinafter "Whistleblower Act"). 2. Plaintiff invokes the federal question and civil rights jurisdiction of this Court under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343(a)(4). 3. Plaintiff invokes this Court's supplemental and pendent jurisdiction over Plaintiff s FCRA and Whistleblower Act claims against Defendant, which arise out of the same nucleus of operative facts as the federal claims alleged herein. 4. Venue for this action lies in the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, pursuant to Title VII and 28 U.S.C. §1391.
THE PARTIES 5. Plaintiff Stanley is a male resident of Spring Hill, Pasco County, Florida. 6. Prior to July 20, 2006, Taco Bell Corporation was continuously an employer
engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701(b), (g) and (h) ofTitle VII, 42 U.S.C. §§2000e(b), (g) and (h). Subsequent to July 20, 2006 Taco Bell Corporation became Taco Bell of America Inc., and is an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701(b), (g) and (h) ofTitie VII, 42 U.S.C. §§2000e(b), (g) and (h). Taco Bell of America Inc., is doing business within the State of Florida as Taco Bell. 7. At all relevant times, Defendant Taco Bell, has continuously been a foreign corporation doing business in the State of Florida and the cities of Lakeland and Mulberry, and has continuously had at least 15 employees.
2

Case 8:06-cv-01792-JSM-MAP Document 13 Filed 11/28/2006 Page 3 of 7
8. Defendant Taco Bell is an employer within the meaning of Title VII, the FCRA and the Whistleblower Act.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
9. Plaintiff Stanley filed a Charge of Discrimination with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (hereinafter "EEOC") and the Florida Commission of Human Relations (hereinafter "FCHR") on or about January 6, 2005.
10. On or about June 26, 2006, the EEOC issued a Letter of Determination finding reasonable cause to believe that a violation of Title VII had occurred.
1l. On or about September 29, 2006, the EEOC filed suit against Defendant Taco BeJl alleging unlawful employment practices.
12. Plaintiff has complied with all administrative prerequisites and conditions precedent prior to the institution of this lawsuit. FACTS
13. In or about March of 2004, Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as an hourly non-managerial employee.
14. During his employment with Defendant, Plaintiff was subjected to ongoing, unwelcome and sexuaJly offensive conduct by his female supervisor.
15. The conduct was sufficiently severe and pervasive to create an intimidating and hostile work environment for Plaintiff.
16. The sexual harassment to which Plaintiff was subjected by his supervisor included rubbing up against Plaintiff; telling Plaintiff that she wanted to "blow" him; rubbing Plaintiffs shoulders; leering at Plaintiff in a sexual manner; telling
3

Case 8:06-cv-01792-JSM-MAP Document 13 Filed 11/28/2006 Page 4 of 7
Plaintiff that she wanted to show him her "fat pussy;" and expressing to coworkers that she wanted to have Plaintiffs baby. 17. Plaintiff made repeated complaints to members of management regarding the sexual harassment. However, management failed to take Plaintiff s complaints seriously and even made jokes about Plaintiffs complaints. 18. Plaintiff was retaliated against based on his complaints of sexual harassment. 19. Plaintiffs work was scrutinized more closely following his complaints and he was verbally disciplined for complaining. 20. The sexual harassment continued despite Plaintiffs complaints. 21. Plaintiff was forced to resign his position with Defendant Taco Bell in or about August of 2004, based on the continued sexual harassment and retaliation. COUNT I: TITLE VII AND FCRA (DISCRIMINATION BASED ON SEX) 22. Plaintiff repeats, realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs one (1) through seventeen (17), twenty (20) and twenty-one (21) of the Complaint. 23. Defendant Taco Bell knew or should have known that Plaintiff was subjected to ongoing, unwelcome and offensive sexual conduct and failed to take prompt remedial action. 24. Defendant Taco Bell condoned, ratified, authorized and perpetuated Plaintiffs supervisor's ongoing, unwelcome and offensive sexual conduct by failing to take prompt remedial action. 25. Defendant Taco Bell engaged in unlawful employment practices prohibited by Title VII and the FCRA by creating, condoning and perpetuating a sexually hostile and offensive work environment for Plaintiff.
4

Case 8:06-cv-01792-JSM-MAP Document 13 Filed 11/28/2006 Page 5 of 7
26. Defendant Taco Bell acted intentionally and with malice and reckless disregard for Plaintiff s rights under Title VII and the FCRA.
27. As a result of Defendant Taco Bell's unlawful employment practices, Plaintiff has suffered damages including, the loss of a career with Defendant, the loss of wages, benefits, and other compensation; harm to his reputation; emotional distress; and other pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honorable Court declare
that Defendant Taco Bell violated the rights of Plaintiff as protected by the laws of the United States and the State of Florida; award Plaintiff back pay and the value of lost employment benefits; award Plaintiff front pay; award Plaintiff punitive damages; award Plaintiff compensatory damages for mental anguish, general emotional distress, humiliation, and the loss of reputation; award attorney fees and costs; and grant other and further relief as this Court deems appropriate and just.
COUNT II: TITLE VII AND FCRA (RETALIATION) 28. Plaintiff repeats, realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs one (1)
through twenty-one (21) of the Complaint. 29. Defendant Taco Bell acted intentionally and with malice and reckless disregard
for Plaintiff s rights under Title VII and the FCRA. 30. Defendant Taco Bell engaged in unlawful employment practices prohibited by
Title VII and the FCRA by intentionally and willfully taking adverse employment action against Plaintiff up to and including constructive discharge in retaliation for his complaints and/or objections to unwelcome, sexually offensive and hostile and discriminatory conduct.
5

Case 8:06-cv-01792-JSM-MAP Document 13 Filed 11/28/2006 Page 6 of 7
31. As a result of Defendant Taco Bell's unlawful employment practices, Plaintiff has suffered damages including, the loss of a career with Defendant, the loss of wages, benefits, and other compensation; harm to his reputation; emotional distress; and other pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honorable Court declare
that Defendant Taco Bell violated the rights of Plaintiff as protected by the laws of the United States and the State of Florida; award Plaintiff back pay and the value of lost employment benefits; award Plaintiff front pay; award Plaintiff punitive damages; award Plaintiff compensatory damages for mental anguish, general emotional distress, humiliation, and the loss of reputation; award attorney fees and costs; and grant other and further relief as this Court deems appropriate and just. Dated this 28th day of November 2006.
Respectfully submitted, sf Randall V. Shanafelt Randall V. Shanafelt, Esquire Florida Bar Number: 0052426 Sharon A. Wey, Esquire Florida Bar Number: 0048010 Attorneys for Brookes A. Stanley THE SHANAFELT LAW FIRM, P.A. 803 Turner Street Clearwater, Florida 33756 Telephone: (727) 441-8533 Facsimile: (727) 441- 8541 RVS@ShanafeltLaw.com
6

Case 8:06-cv-01792-JSM-MAP Document 13 Filed 11/28/2006 Page 7 of 7 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on November 28th, 2006, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court by using the CMlECF system which will send a notice of electronic filing to Carla Von Greiff, Esquire, Attorney for U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Tampa Field Office, 501 East Polk Street, Room 1000, Tampa, FL 33602, carla.vongreiff@eeoc.gov; and served the foregoing by U.S. Mail on F. Robert Radel, II, Butler, Pappas, Weihmuller, Katz, Craig LLP, One Harbour Place, 777 S. Harbour Island Blvd., Suite 500, Tampa, FL 33602, counsel for Defendant.
lsi Randall V. Shanafelt Randall V. Shanafelt, Esquire
7

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

v.

Case No. 8:06-cv-1792-T-30MAP

TACO BELL OF AMERICA, INC.,

Defendant. _____________________________________/

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The Court has been advised by Mediator Mary Lau that the above-styled action has been

settled. Accordingly, pursuant to Local Rule 3.08(b) of the M.D.Fla., it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that this cause is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice

subject to the right of any party to re-open the action within sixty (60) days of the date of this order,

to submit a stipulated form of final order or judgment should they so choose or for any party to

move to reopen the action, upon good cause shown. After that 60-day period, however, dismissal

shall be with prejudice. All pending motions, if any, are DENIED as moot. The Clerk is directed

to close the file.

DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on June 14, 2007.

Copies furnished to: Counsel/Parties of Record
F:\Docs\2006\06-cv-1792.dismissal.wpd

 
 Case ~ : O ~ - C V - O I ~ ~ ~ - J S M - DMoAcuPment 35-2 Filed 08/01/2OO7 Page 1 of 10

INTHE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE PISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT )

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

)

)
Plaintiff,

and

1

BROOKES A. STANLEY

1

)

Intervenor Plaintiff

1

v.

1

)

TACO BELL OF AMERICA, INC.

)

fWa TACO BELL CORPORATION

)

d/b/a TACO BELL

1

CIVIL ACTION NO. 8:06-CV- 1792-t-30MAP

Defendant.

)

CONSENT DECREE I. This Consent Decree (the "Decree") is made and entered into by and between Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (hereinafter referred to as the "Commission" or "EEOC"), Plaintiff Intervenor Brookes Stanley (hereinaficr "Brookes Stanley" or "Plaintiff intervenor"), and Defendant, Taco Bell of America, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as the "Company or "Defendant"). The Commission,Plaintiff Intervenor, and Defendant are collectively referred to herein as the "Parties." 2. On September 29, 2006, EEOC initiated this action by filing its Complaint in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, Civil Action No. 8:06-CV-1792-t-30MAP based upon a charge filed by Brookes Stanley (EEOC Charge No. 15 I 2005-01026). EEOC's Complaint, and its subsequent Amended Complaint, alleges that Defendant

.----

I

Case 8:06-cv-OI792-JSM-MAP Document 35-2 Filed 08/01/2007 Page 2 of 10

violated Title VII of the Civil fights Act of 1964, including but not limited to, amendments authorized by the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. Section 2OOOe et seq. ("Title VIP') by subjecting Brookes Stanleyto sexual harassment by his supervisorwhich was sufficientlysevereand pervasive to constitute a hostile, intimidating work environment. Additionally, EEOC's Complaint alleges that as a result of the sexual harassment Brookes Stanley was constructively discharged by the Defendant.
3. On December 15, 2006, Defendant fiIed its Answer and Affirmative Defenses to EEOC's Complaint denying that its actions were discriminatory in any way.
4. Subsequently, Mr. Stanley filed a motion to intervene in this action, which was eventually granted by the Court. Mr. Stanley's Intervenor Complaint and Amended Complaint alIeges the same Title VII violations as Plaintiff EEOC's Complaint.
5 . In the interest of resolving this matter, without admitting fault, to avoid the costs of litigation, and as a result of having engaged in comprehensive settlement negotiations, the Parties have agreed that this action should be finally resolved by entry of this Decree. This Decree is final and binding upon the Parties, their successors and assigns.
6. The Parties agree that this Decree resolves all claims alleged against the Defendant in EEOC Charge Number No. 151-2005-01026, and the Complaints filed in this action, and constitutes a complete resolution of all claims under Title VII that were made by the Commission and Plaintiff Intervenor in this action. The Parties furtheragreethat this Decree does not resolve any future or pending EEOC charges of discrimination other than the charges referred to in this paragraph.
7. NOW, THEREFORE,the Court having carefully examined the terms and provisions

I
Case 8:06-cv-OI792-JSM-MAP Document 35-2 Filed 08/01/2007 Page 3 of 10
of this Decree, and based on the pleadings filed by the parties, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED THAT:
JURISDICTION 8. This Court hasjurisdiction of the subject matter of this action and over the Parties for the purposes of entering and enforcing this Decree. 9. No party shall contest jurisdiction of this federal court to enforce this Decree and its terms or the right of the EEOC to seek enforcement in the event Defendant breaches any of the terms of this Decree.
DISCRIMINATION POLICY AND TRAINING 10. Defendant has established a written policy against sexual harassment. Defendant agrees that all of its employees and managers in Lakeland Area 10026' will be provided a complete copy of its policy against sexual harassment within thirty (30) days of thc entry of this Decree. Defendant also agrees that all new employees shall be given a copy of its policy aginst sexual harassment within their first week of employment with the Defendant. 11. In order to further ensure the effective implementation of Defendant's antidiscrimination policy, Defendant will conduct an annual training by video for all of its employees, managers and supervisory personnel in Lakeland Area 10026with specific emphasis on recognizing harassment, on acts that could constitute retaliation, and on the proper procedure to be followed if [hey bccome aware of harassment in the workplace or if they receive complaints of discrimination. Defendant agrees to provide at least thirty minutes of a question and answer session after its video training is presented to the employees pursuant to this paragraph. Defendant agrees to provide the
' Units # 261,2139,2889, 19977,21506,22026.
3

I
Case 8:06-cv-OI792-JSM-MAP Document 35-2 Filed 08/01/ZOO7 Page 4 of 10
EEOC, at least two weeks notice before it conducts its training session(s), with the date($ and location(s) of the training, the identification of the training materials to be used at the training session, and a general description of the category of employees who will be in attendance at the training. The training will be conducted by the Employee Relations Coordinator. Additionally, Defendant agrees that the EEOC shall, at the EEOC's discretion, be in attendance at each training session(s).
12 Defendant agrees that the training described in paragraph 11 shall be conducted within ninety (90)days of the entry ofthis Decree, and should take place annually in the same format by the 3 1" of August each year thereafter, for the duration of this Decree. Defendant further agrees that the discrimination policy and training materials utilized for the training described in paragraph 11 shall be presented to and explained to all new managers and supervisors, who did not attend the annual training, within thirty (30) days-ofbeing placed in a management or supervisoryposition.
DISCIPLINE TO OFFENDING EMPLOYEE 13. Defendant agrees that within fifteen (15) calendar days of the entry of this Decree it will disciplinethe charged supervisor for failing to followthe Company's reportingproceduresunder the harassment policy. Such discipline will be placed in the employee's personnel file. Defendant further agrees that it will provide the EEOC with a copy of the written warning once it has been issued to the offending employee.
POSTING 14. Defendant will post a laminated 11 x 14 copy of the Notice, attached as Exhibit A, within fifteen (15) calendar days of the entry of this Decree. Said notice shall be posted at the

I
Case 8:06-cv-OI792-JSM-MAP Document 35-2 Filed 08/01/ZOO7 Page 5 of 10
restaurants in Lakeland Area 10026 for the duration of this Decree in a conspicuous location accessible to all employees such as an employee bulletin board and/or breakhnch room.
MONITORLNG 15 . Defendantwill retain aH employmentandor investigativerecords relatingin any way to any complaintor allegationof harassment for the duration of this Decree relating to the restaurants in Lakeland Area 10026 and as required under federal law. 16. Defendant will certify to the EEOC every 180 days throughout the duration of this Decree that it is in compliance with all aspects ofthis Decree. The first such certificationwill be due no later than thirty(30) days from the first training provided pursuant to paragraph 11. With each
certification Defendant will further provide the EEOC with the name, address, and phone number of any person who alleges they have been harassed while working for Defendant at the restaurants
in Lakeland Area 10026during the preceding six month period. Defendant will also state the actions taken in response to each such allegation and provide any and all documentation associated with such complaint. The certifications required to be submitted to the EEOC pursuant to this Consent Decree shall be mailed with the notation TACO BELL MONITORING to: United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Attention: Office of the Regional Attorney, 1 Biscayne Tower, Suite 2700, 2 South Biscape Boulevard, Miami, FI 33 131 .
MONETARY RELIEF 17. Defendantagreestopayatotalamountof $76.050.00(Seventy-sixthousandand fifty dollars) to resolve this litigation. The payments referenced herein shall issue within fifteen (15) calendar days fkom the Court's execution of this Decree. The monies shall be distributed as set forth below in Exhibit B attached hereto.

Case 8:06-cv-01792JSM-MAP Document 35-2 Filed 08/0112007 Page 6 of 10

18. If Defendant fails to tender the above-mentioned payments as set forth in

paragraph 17 above and attached Exhibit B, then Defendant shall pay interest on the defaulted

paymentattheratecalculated pursuant to 26 U.S.C.Section662l(b) until the sameis paid, andbear

any additional costs incurred by the EEOC causedby the non-complianceor delay ofthe Defendant.

ENFORCEMENT OF DECREE

19. The Commission shall have independent authority to seek the judicial enforcement

of any aspect, tern or provision of this Decree.

COSTS

20. Each Party shall bear its own costs associated with this litigation.

DURATION OF CONSENT DECREE

21. The duration of this Decree shall be three (3) years from the date of entry of the

Decree

T"-

22.

.,

-c-
23. The C l e r k is d i r e c t e d t o CLOSE THIS FILE.
4 SO ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED, this day of August, 2007.

Case 866-cv-01792-JSM-MAP Document 35-2 Filed 08/01/ZOO7 Page 7 of 10

AGREED TO: FOR THE PLADJTIFF, UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OFPOR'IZINITY CC$fMISSION

. J Nora E. Curtjn

Date: June 13, 2007

Nora E. Curtin

Regional Attorney

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNllY COMMISS:(ON

Miami District Officc

One Biscayne Tower, Suite 2700

2 South Biscayne Boulevard

Miami, Florida 33 13 I

Telephone: (305) 530-6001

Facsimile: (305) 536-4494

AGMED TO: FOR THE PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR

by s/-I

V. Shanafelt

Randall V.Shanafelt

Shanafelt Law Firm, P.A.

803 Turner Street

Clearwater, FL 33756

Telephone: (727) 441-8533

Facsimile: (727) 441-8541

Date: June 13,2007

Case- .8.:.0-.6..--c-v..-.O-.l792-JSM-MAP Document 35-2 Filed 08/01/2OO7 Page 8 of 10 b

by: sim&u&u
F.RobmRadel, I1

Date: .rune 13,2007

Butler, Pappas, Weihmullet, Katz, Craig US

One Harbour Place

777 South Harbour Island Boulevard

Suitc 500

Tampa, Florida 33602

d c l l Z i l b u t l m .corq

AGREED TO: FOR THEDEFENDANT: TACO BELL OF AMERICA, INC.

I
Cas.e ~ : O ~ - C ~ - O I ~ ~ ~ - J S MDo- cMumAePnt 35.~2. Filed.08/01/2007..-.Page3 of.10

EXHIBIT A

NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES POSTED PURSUANT TO A CONSENT DECREE BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION AND
TACO BELL OF AMERICA, INC.

Thisnotice is being posted pursuant to a Consent Decreeenteredby the Courtin US. EEOC v. Taco Bell of America Inc, Civil Action No.8 :06-CV-1792-t-30MAP.Taco Bell has agreed that
it wilI not discrimhate againstemployees on the basis of gender in violationof Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ('Title VII"). Title VII protects individuals fiom employment discrimination becauseof theirrace,religion, color, national origin,orsex. Taco Bell will not condoneemployment discrimination of any kind as set forth in federal anti-discriminationlaws.

Furthemore, Taco Bell, assures its employees that it supportsTitle VII and will not take any action against an individual because helshe has exercised hisher rights under the law to oppose
discriminatory acts or to file charges with the EEOC.

Appropriate corrective action, up to and including termination, shall be taken against any employee(includingmanagementpersonnel)foundto violate the policiesregardingdiscrimination, basedupon the circumstancesinvolved.

This notice shall remain posted for three ( 3 ) years from the date signed. Employees or applicantsforemployment who havequestionsabouttheirrights underTitleVII or any otherfederal anti-discrimination law may telephone the Miami District Ofice of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission at 1-800-669-4000.

d Signed this day of

,2007.

Esq., Division Counsel,

DO NOT REMOVE BEFORE

20 10.

I

I

Case 8:06-cv-OI792-JSM-MAP Document 35-2 Filed 08/01/ZOO7 Page 10 of 10

EXHIBIT B
In order to resolve U.S. EEOC v. Taco Bell of America. Inc, Civil Action No. 8:06-CV-1792t-30MAP., Taco Bell of America, Inc. shall pay the total amount of $76.050.00 (Seventy- six thousand and fifty dollars) to be distributed as follows:
a. Defendant will pay $76.050.00 (Seventy- six thousand and fifty dollars) to Brookes Stanley which shall representative of compensatory, punitive damages and attorney fees. Defendant shall issue the check in the amount of $76,050.00to Brookes Stanley and the Shanafelt Law Firm, P.A. The Defendant will issue a form 1099 to the Shanafelt Law Firm for this amount.
b. The checks referenced above shall be mailed, certified return receipt requested, to the Shanafelt Law Finn at 803 Turner Street, Clearwater, FL 33756.
c. Thepayments referenced herein shall issue within fifteen(1 5) calendar days from the Court's execution of this Decree. Copies of the payment checks shall be forwarded to the attention of Carla J. Von Grciff, Senior Trial Attorney, U.S. Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission, 501 East Polk Street, Suite 1000,Tampa, FI,
33602.

 
 U.S. E.E.O.C. v. Taco Bell of America, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2007)
2007 WL 809660 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division.
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v.
TACO BELL OF AMERICA, INC., Defendant.
No. 8:06-cv-1792-T-30MAP. | March 15, 2007.
Attorneys and Law Firms
Carla Johanna Von Greiff, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Tampa, FL, for Plaintiff.
F. Robert Radel, II, William Philip Schoel, Butler Pappas Weihmuller Katz Craig, LLP, Tampa, FL, for Defendant.
Opinion
ORDER
JAMES S. MOODY, JR., United States District Judge.
*1 THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Plaintiff-In-Intervention Brookes A. Stanley’s Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and to Dismiss/Stay Intervening Plaintiff Brookes A. Stanley’s Complaint and/or in the Alternative, Motion for Clarification (Dkt.# 22), and Defendant Taco Bell of America, Inc.’s Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff-In-Intervention’s Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt.# 26). This Court, having considered the motion, responses and memoranda, and being otherwise advised in the premises, finds that Plaintiff-In-Intervention’s motion is denied.1
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff-In-Intervention (“Intervenor”) requests that this Court specifically rule as to whether the arbitration provision in Defendant’s employment application is unconscionable. The Supreme Court has held that a federal court may adjudicate a claim that relates specifically to the making of an agreement to arbitrate. Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna 126 S.Ct. 1204, 1208 (2006); Prima Paint Corporation v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co., 388 U.S. 395, 403-404 (1967). Furthermore, in Chastain v. The Robinson-Humphrey Company, Inc., 957, F.2d 851, 854-856 (11th Cir.1992), the Eleventh Circuit held that if the validity of an agreement to arbitrate is at issue, a district court rather than an arbitration panel must decide if the arbitration provision is enforceable against the parties. Whether the arbitration provision is unconscionable is a question of state law. Perry v. Thomas, 482 U.S. 483, 492 n. 9 (1987); Doctor’s Associate’s, Inc. v. Casarotto, 517 U.S. 681, 687 (1996).
Under Florida law, Intervenor has the burden of establishing that the arbitration provision at issue is procedurally and substantively unconscionable. Murphy v. Courtesy Ford, LLC, 644 So.2d 1131, 1134 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006). A determination of procedural unconscionability relates to the manner in which a contract was made and requires consideration of the relative bargaining power of the parties and their ability to understand the relevant terms. Orkin Extermination Company, Inc. v. Francis D. Petch, 872 So.2d 259, 265 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). In making a determination of procedural unconscionability, courts consider whether the complaining party had a realistic opportunity to bargain, whether the terms were presented on a “take-it-or leave-it” basis, and whether such party had a reasonable opportunity to understand the contract terms. Murphy, 644 So.2d at 1134. Substantive unconscionability relates to the agreement itself, and requires a showing that the terms of the agreement or provision are unreasonable and unfair. Powertel v. Bexley, 743 So.2d 570, 574 (Fla. 1 st DCA 1999). In determining whether an agreement or provision is substantively unconscionable, courts consider whether the disputed terms
1

U.S. E.E.O.C. v. Taco Bell of America, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2007)
limit available remedies, exclude punitive damages, prevent equitable relief, impose substantial costs, or lack mutuality of obligation with respect to the arbitration of disputes. Palm Beach Motor Cars Limited, Inc. v. Jeffries, 885 So.2d 990, 992 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). According to Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal, such terms must be “so outrageously unfair” as to “shock the judicial conscience.” Bland ex rel. Coker v. Health Care and Retirement Corp. of America, 927 So.2d 252, 256.
*2 Florida courts have enforced arbitration provisions similar the disputed provision in the instant case. In Murphy, the court held that an arbitration provision in an automobile purchase contract was not procedurally unconscionable where the complaining party signed the agreement containing the arbitration provision without reading it, the provision appeared in the same type face as the rest of the contract, and the purchaser/plaintiff presented no evidence that the seller/defendant discouraged the plaintiff from knowing or understanding the disputed terms. 944 So.2d at 1135; see also Orkin, 872 So.2d at 265 (holding an arbitration provision in a termite extermination contract was not procedurally unconscionable and not an adhesion contract where the provision was not buried in fine print and the complaining party could have obtained termite services for his home without acquiescing to the exterminator’s terms). The court in Murphy noted that a party to a contract is not “permitted to avoid the consequences of a contract freely entered into simply because he or she elected not to read and understand its terms before executing it or because in retrospect, the bargain turns out to be disadvantageous ... to sanction such a result would be to render contracts worthless as a tool of commerce.” Id. (citing Gainesville Health Care Ctr., Inc. v. Weston, 857 So.2d 278, 288 (Fla. 1 st DCA 2003)). As to substantive unconscionability, the court in Orkin held that an arbitration provision was not substantively unconscionable where it did not preclude the complaining party from raising his statutory claims in arbitration and did not limit statutory damages available. 872 So.2d at 265.
Florida courts have held arbitration provisions to be procedurally and substantively unconscionable. In Palm Beach Motor Cars Limited, Inc. v. Jeffries, 885 So.2d 990, 991 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004), the plaintiff signed an automobile purchase agreement that contained an arbitration clause on the back page. The arbitration clause included a blank space for purchasers to initial. Despite fine print on the front page of the agreement referring to terms on the back page of the agreement, the plaintiff was not aware the agreement included a back page and did not initial the arbitration provision. Id. Based on the small size of this print, the lack of the plaintiff’s initials under the arbitration provision, and the customary practice of the defendant’s employees to not draw customers’ attention to the back page of the agreement, the court held that the provision was procedurally unconscionable, finding that the defendant had actively discouraged the plaintiff from understanding the contract terms. Id. at 992, 993; see also Powertel v. Bexley, 743 So.2d at 575 (Fla. 1 st DCA 1999) (holding an arbitration clause in a cellular service agreement procedurally unconscionable and noting an absence of meaningful choice on the part of the consumer where the arbitration clause was prepared by the service provider, was not signed by its customers, and was circulated to its customers along with their monthly bill). The court in Jeffries went on to hold that the disputed arbitration provision was substantively unconscionable because it bound only the plaintiff to arbitrate all disputes. Id. at 992; see also Powertel 743 So.2d at 576 (holding arbitration clause to be substantively unconscionable where such clause limited defendant/service provider’s liability to actual damages and precluded punitive damages).
*3 The arbitration provision in Intervenor’s employment application, unlike the arbitration provisions in Jeffries and Powertel, is located directly above Intervenor’s signature. While Intervenor argues that the print used for the arbitration clause is smaller than the print used for other portions of the application, the print used for the clause is actually in bold and appears to be no smaller than the print on the remainder of the page. Moreover, Intervenor had the opportunity to read the application and the arbitration provision. He has not alleged that Defendant concealed the arbitration provision or otherwise discouraged him from understanding the disputed terms. Thus, Intervenor has failed to support a claim of procedural unconscionability.
As both procedural and substantive unconscionability are required under Florida law to invalidate an arbitration provision, this Court need not decide whether the arbitration provision was substantively unconscionable. Murphy 944 So.2d at 1135. Nevertheless, some Florida courts have applied a balancing test to the unconscionability analysis whereby if a great degree of substantive unconscionability exists and some quantum of procedural unconscionability exists, the contract or provision is held to be unenforceable. See Orkin 872 So.2d at 265. Therefore, a discussion of substantive unconscionability is merited in this case.
Intervenor has failed to support a claim of substantive unconscionability. Intervenor’s claim that the arbitration provision lacks mutuality of obligation in that it does not bind Defendant to arbitration is without merit. The arbitration provision clearly imposes a duty to arbitrate on both Defendant and Intervenor and does not limit damages against Defendant. Moreover, while Intervenor argues that the arbitration provision is unfair because Intervenor will incur greater expenses in the arbitral forum, the arbitration provision requires Defendant to pay both the arbitrator’s fees and the portion of the arbitration filing fee in excess of a similar court filing fee. As the arbitration provision is neither unreasonable nor unfair,
2

U.S. E.E.O.C. v. Taco Bell of America, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2007)
Intervenor has failed to establish that the arbitration provision is substantively unconscionable.
It is therefore ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:
1. Plaintiff-In-Intervention Brookes A. Stanley’s Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and to Dismiss/Stay Intervening Plaintiff Brookes A. Stanley’s Complaint and/or in the Alternative, Motion for Clarification (Dkt. # 22) is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED.

Footnotes

1

On February 27, 2007, during a hearing regarding Plaintiff-In-Intervention’s motion to reconsider, this Court declined to

reconsider its Order limiting Intervenor’s participation in this action to that of a monitor and dismissing Intervenor’s Florida Civil

Rights Act claims. During the hearing, this Court also clarified Intervenor’s role as monitor in this action.

3

 
 E.E.O.C. v. Taco Bell of America, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2007)

2007 WL 192351 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division.
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v.
TACO BELL OF AMERICA, INC., Defendant.
No. 8:06-cv-1792-T-30MAP. | Jan. 23, 2007.
Attorneys and Law Firms
Carla Johanna Von Greiff, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Tampa, FL, for Plaintiff.
F. Robert Radel, II, William Philip Schoel, Butler Pappas Weihmuller Katz Craig, LLP, Tampa, FL, for Defendant.
Opinion
ORDER
JAMES S. MOODY, JR., United States District Judge.
*1 THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Defendant Taco Bell of America, Inc.’s Motion and Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Compel Arbitration and to Dismiss/Stay Intervening Plaintiff Brooks A. Stanley’s Complaint (Dkt. # 15), Plaintiff-InIntervention’s Response in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and to Dismiss/Stay Plaintiff-In-Intervention’s Complaint (Dkt.# 17), and Plaintiff EEOC’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and to Dismiss/Stay Intervening Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. # 18). The Court, having considered the motion, responses, memoranda, Amended Complaint (Dkt.# 5), and Intervenor’s Second Amended Complaint (Dkt.# 13), and being otherwise advised in the premises, finds that Defendant’s motion should be granted in part and denied in part as stated herein.
Defendant, Taco Bell of America, Inc. (“Taco Bell”), requests that the Court issue an order compelling Plaintiff, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the “EEOC”), to submit to binding arbitration, or in the alternative, dismiss Mr. Stanley’s Florida Civil Rights Act claim and/or stay his action in this Court pending arbitration. Defendant argues that the EEOC is bound to arbitrate its claims pursuant to a written “Agreement to Arbitrate” executed by Taco Bell and Plaintiff-In-Intervention Brooks A. Stanley (“Mr.

Stanley” or “Plaintiff-In-Intervention”).

The EEOC and Mr. Stanley oppose Taco Bell’s motion to compel arbitration and argue that the EEOC is not subject to arbitration because the EEOC was not a party to the arbitration agreement. Furthermore, the EEOC did not issue a Right to Sue letter to Mr. Stanley, thus Mr. Stanley does not have standing to bring an independent cause of action on his own behalf.

The Supreme Court has already answered the question of whether an arbitration agreement between an employer and employee bars the EEOC from pursuing victim-specific relief, such as backpay, reinstatement, and damages in an enforcement action brought by the EEOC. See EEOC v. Waffle House, Inc., 534 U.S. 279 (2002). In Waffle House, the Supreme Court held that an arbitration agreement between the employer and employee is not binding on the EEOC; and therefore, the EEOC is not barred from pursuing victim-specific relief on behalf of such employee. Waffle House at 294.In Waffle House, the Supreme Court recognized that the employee has no independent cause of action if the EEOC files suit on its own. Id. at 291.Additionally, an intervenor is foreclosed from filing his own lawsuit until he receives a Right to Sue from the EEOC. See42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e) and 5(f)(1).

In harmony with the Supreme Court’s holding in Waffle House, the Court concludes that the EEOC should not be compelled to participate in arbitration based on the arbitration agreement by and between Mr. Stanley and Taco Bell. Further, Mr. Stanley should not be compelled to attend arbitration in this matter, since he currently lacks the right to bring an independent cause of action under Title VII.

*2 As a Plaintiff-In-Intervention, the Court hereby limits Mr. Stanley’s participation in this case, as follows: Plaintiff-In-Intervention may monitor the proceedings to ensure that the EEOC obtains an award benefitting Mr. Stanley; Plaintiff-In-Intervention shall not actively prosecute this case, or introduce issues which are outside the scope of the issues of the main suit filed by the EEOC (such as claims under the Florida Civil Rights Act)1; and, if PlaintiffIn-Intervention becomes dissatisfied with the prosecution of this case by the EEOC, then Plaintiff-In-Intervention may bring such grounds for dissatisfaction to the attention of the Court. To the extent Plaintiff-In-Intervention seeks to incorporate a cause of action under the Florida Civil Rights Act within the Intervenor’s Second Amended Complaint, such claims should be dismissed without prejudice.

1

If Mr. Stanley desires to bring an independent action

against Taco Bell under the Florida Civil Rights Act,

1

E.E.O.C. v. Taco Bell of America, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2007)

then such action would be subject to arbitration between Mr. Stanley and Taco Bell.
It is therefore ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:
1. Defendant Taco Bell of America, Inc.’s Motion and Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Compel Arbitration and to Dismiss/Stay Intervening Plaintiff Brooks A. Stanley’s Complaint (Dkt.# 15) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART

as stated herein.
2. Plaintiff-In-Intervention’s claims under the Florida Civil Rights Act are dismissed without prejudice.
DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on January 23, 2007.
	  

2

 
 Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida

https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?436885423752441-L_9...

U.S. District Court Middle District of Florida (Tampa) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 8:06-cv-01792-JSM-MAP

CLOSED

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Taco Bell Corporation Assigned to: Judge James S. Moody, Jr Referred to: Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

Date Filed: 09/29/2006 Date Terminated: 08/09/2007 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by Carla Johanna Von Greiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Tampa Area Office 501 E. Polk St., Ste. 1000 Tampa, FL 33602 813/202-7903 Fax: 813/228-2045 Email: carla.vongreiff@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael Wells U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 501 E. Polk St. Suite 1000 Tampa, FL 33602 813/202-7902 Fax: 813/228-2045 Email: michael.wells@eeoc.gov TERMINATED: 11/08/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Intervenor Plaintiff Brookes Allen Stanley

represented by Randall V. Shanafelt Shanafelt Law Firm, P.A. 803 Turner St. Clearwater, FL 33756 727-441-8533

1 of 6

3/24/2008 5:50 PM

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida

https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?436885423752441-L_9...

V. Defendant Taco Bell Corporation TERMINATED: 10/24/2006 Defendant Taco Bell of America, Inc. formerly known as Taco Bell Corporation doing business as Taco Bell
Mediator Mary A. Lau

Fax: 727-441-8541 Email: RVS@ShanafeltLaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by F. Robert Radel, II Butler Pappas, LLP One Harbour Place - Suite 500 777 S Harbour Island Blvd Tampa, FL 33602-5723 813/281-1900 Fax: 813/281-0900 Email: fradel@butlerpappas.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William Philip Schoel Butler Pappas, LLP One Harbour Place - Suite 500 777 S Harbour Island Blvd Tampa, FL 33602-5723 813/281-1900 Fax: 813/281-0900 Email: wschoel@butlerpappas.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Mary A. Lau Lau, Lane, Pieper, Conley & McCreadie, PA 100 S Ashley Dr - Ste 1700 PO Box 838 Tampa, FL 33601-0838 813/229-2121 Fax: 813/228-7710 Email: Mlau@laulane.com TERMINATED: 06/15/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

2 of 6

3/24/2008 5:50 PM

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida

https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?436885423752441-L_9...

Date Filed 09/29/2006 09/29/2006 10/02/2006 10/06/2006 10/24/2006 10/25/2006 11/07/2006
11/08/2006 11/09/2006 11/20/2006 11/20/2006 11/21/2006
11/28/2006 12/15/2006

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against Taco Bell Corporation; jury demand, filed by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (RFM) (Entered: 09/29/2006)
2 Summons issued as to Taco Bell Corporation. (RFM) (Entered: 09/29/2006)
3 NOTICE of designation under Local Rule 3.05 - track 2 issued by Deputy Clerk on 10/2/2006. (smb) (Entered: 10/02/2006)
4 MOTION to intervene by Brookes Allen Stanley. (Shanafelt, Randall) (Entered: 10/06/2006)
5 AMENDED COMPLAINT against Taco Bell of America, Inc. with Jury Demand filed by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.(Von Greiff, Carla) (Entered: 10/24/2006)
6 Amended MOTION to intervene by Brookes Allen Stanley. (Shanafelt, Randall) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo. (Entered: 10/25/2006)
7 ORDER denying 6 Brookes A. Stanley's Amended Motion to Intervene. Signed by Judge James S. Moody Jr. on 11/7/2006. (len) ORDER IS VACATED PURSUANT TO 12 ORDER. Modified on 11/21/2006 (bn). (Entered: 11/07/2006)
8 NOTICE by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission of Substitution of Counsel (Von Greiff, Carla) (Entered: 11/08/2006)
9 Emergency MOTION for reconsideration of denial of Brookes A. Stanley's Amended Motion to Intervene (Dkt. 6) by Brookes Allen Stanley. (Shanafelt, Randall) (Entered: 11/09/2006)
10 WAIVER OF SERVICE returned executed on November 13, 2006 by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Waiver of Service sent on October 24, 2006 as to Taco Bell of America, Inc.. (Von Greiff, Carla) (Entered: 11/20/2006)
11 NOTICE of unavailability of counsel byU.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission from December 18, 2006 to January 2, 2007. (Von Greiff, Carla) (Entered: 11/20/2006)
12 ORDER: Brookes A. Stanley's Emergency Motion for Reconsideration of Denial of Plaintiff Brookes A. Stanleys Motion to Intervene (Dkt. #9) is GRANTED.This Court's Order entered on November 7, 2006 (Dkt. #7) denying Brookes A. Stanley's Amended Motion to Intervene is VACATED.Brookes A. Stanley's Amended Motion to Intervene (Dkt. #6) is GRANTED.The Intervenor shall have fifteen (15) days from the date of this Order to file his Complaint with the Clerk of Court. Signed by Judge James S. Moody Jr. on 11/21/2006. (smb) (Entered: 11/21/2006)
13 Second INTERVENOR'S COMPLAINT filed by Brookes Allen Stanley.(Shanafelt, Randall) (Entered: 11/28/2006)
14 DEFENDANT TACO BELL OF AMERICA, INC.'S ANSWER and affirmative defenses to amended complaint OF THE EEOC by Taco Bell of America, Inc..(Radel, F.) (Entered: 12/15/2006)

3 of 6

3/24/2008 5:50 PM

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida

https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?436885423752441-L_9...

12/15/2006 12/20/2006 01/05/2007 01/05/2007 01/23/2007
01/30/2007 02/05/2007
02/09/2007 02/13/2007
02/13/2007 02/14/2007 02/23/2007 02/27/2007

15 MOTION to compel arbitration and to Dismiss/Stay Intervening Plaintiff's Complaint by Taco Bell of America, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Schoel, William) (Entered: 12/15/2006)
16 NOTICE of filing Affidavit in support of 15 Motion to Compel by Taco Bell of America, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Angela Fleig# 2 Exhibit Exhibit A Employment Application)(Schoel, William) Modified on 12/21/2006 (bn). (Entered: 12/20/2006)
17 RESPONSE in opposition re 15 MOTION to compel arbitration and to Dismiss/Stay Intervening Plaintiff's Complaint filed by Brookes Allen Stanley. (Shanafelt, Randall) (Entered: 01/05/2007)
18 RESPONSE in opposition re 15 MOTION to compel arbitration and to Dismiss/Stay Intervening Plaintiff's Complaint filed by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B)(Von Greiff, Carla) (Entered: 01/05/2007)
19 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 15 Defendant's Motion to compel arbitration and to dismiss/stay Intervening Plaintiff Brooks A. Stanley's Complaint. Plaintiff-In-Intervention's claims under the Florida Civil Rights Act are dismissed without prejudice. Signed by Judge James S. Moody Jr. on 1/23/2007. (len) Modified on 1/24/2007 (bn). (Entered: 01/23/2007)
20 CASE MANAGEMENT REPORT. (Von Greiff, Carla) (Entered: 01/30/2007)
21 CASE MANAGEMENT AND SCHEDULING ORDER: Fact Discovery due by 9/4/2007. Dispositive motions due by 12/9/2007. Pretrial Conference set for FRIDAY, 2/8/2008 at 8:45 AM in Courtroom 13A before Judge James S. Moody Jr. Jury Trial set for MARCH 2008. Signed by Judge James S. Moody Jr. on 2/5/2007. (len) (Entered: 02/05/2007)
22 MOTION for reconsideration of the Court's Order (Dkt. 19) Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration (Dkt. 15) by Brookes Allen Stanley. (Shanafelt, Randall) (Entered: 02/09/2007)
23 NOTICE OF HEARING on Motion 22 MOTION for reconsideration of the Court's Order (Dkt. 19) Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration (Dkt. 15) : Motion Hearing set for TUESDAY, 2/27/2007 at 9:00 AM in Courtroom 13A before Judge James S. Moody Jr. Time reserved: 15 minutes. (len) (Entered: 02/13/2007)
24 NOTICE by Brookes Allen Stanley of Filing Amended Local Rule 3.01(g) Certificate (Attachments: # 1 Amended Local Rule 3.01(g) Certificate)(Shanafelt, Randall) (Entered: 02/13/2007)
25 NOTICE by Brookes Allen Stanley re 24 Notice (Other) of Filing Amended Local Rule 3.01(g) Certificate (Shanafelt, Randall) (Entered: 02/14/2007)
26 MEMORANDUM in opposition re 22 Motion for reconsideration filed by Taco Bell of America, Inc.. (Schoel, William) (Entered: 02/23/2007)
27 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge James S. Moody Jr.: Motion Hearing held on 2/27/2007 re 22 MOTION for reconsideration of the

4 of 6

3/24/2008 5:50 PM

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida

https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?436885423752441-L_9...

03/15/2007
04/04/2007 05/25/2007 05/29/2007 06/14/2007 06/15/2007 06/26/2007 08/01/2007 08/08/2007 08/09/2007 08/09/2007

Court's Order (Dkt. 19) Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration (Dkt. 15) filed by Brookes Allen Stanley. Court Reporter: Sherrill L. Jackson (smb) (Entered: 02/27/2007)
28 ORDER: Plaintiff-In-Intervention Brookes A. Stanley's Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration and to Dismiss/Stay Intervening Plaintiff Brookes A. Stanley's Complaint and/or in the Alternative, Motion for Clarification 22 is DENIED. Signed by Judge James S. Moody Jr. on 3/15/2007. (len) (Entered: 03/15/2007)
29 TRANSCRIPT of Motion Hearing held on 2/27/2007 before Judge James S. Moody, Jr.. Court Reporter: Sherrill L. Jackson. (cda) (Entered: 04/05/2007)
30 NOTICE by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission of Scheduling Mediation (Von Greiff, Carla) (Entered: 05/25/2007)
31 ORDER scheduling ** MEDIATION ** conference on JUNE 13, 2007, before Mediator Mary Lau. Signed by Judge James S. Moody Jr. on 5/29/2007. (len) (Entered: 05/29/2007)
32 60-DAY ORDER OF DISMISSAL. All pending motions are denied as moot. Clerk is directed to close the file. Signed by Judge James S. Moody Jr. on 6/14/2007. (len) (Entered: 06/14/2007)
33 MEDIATION REPORT Hearing held on JUNE 13, 2007 Hearing outcome: concluded and will be dismissed.(Lau, Mary) (Entered: 06/15/2007)
34 Joint MOTION For Approval Of Consent Decree by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Consent Decree)(Von Greiff, Carla) (Entered: 06/26/2007)
35 Second MOTION For Approval of Consent Decree by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Consent Decree)(Von Greiff, Carla) (Entered: 08/01/2007)
36 ENDORSED ORDER denying as moot 34 Joint Motion for Approval of Consent Decree. Signed by Judge James S. Moody Jr. on 8/8/2007. (len) (Entered: 08/08/2007)
37 ORDER: The Clerk is directed to re-open this case. The Second Joint Motion for Approval of Consent Decree 35 is GRANTED. Signed by Judge James S. Moody Jr. on 8/9/2007. (len) (Entered: 08/09/2007)
38 CONSENT DECREE. The Clerk is directed to close this file. Signed by Judge James S. Moody Jr. on 8/9/2007. (len) (Entered: 08/09/2007)

5 of 6

PACER Login:

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

03/24/2008 18:49:33

wu0079

Client Code:

eeoc

3/24/2008 5:50 PM

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida

https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?436885423752441-L_9...

Description:
Billable Pages:

Docket Report
4

Search Criteria:
Cost:

8:06-cv-01792-JSM-MAP 0.32

6 of 6

3/24/2008 5:50 PM