1 Mary Jo O’Neill AZ #005924
Sally Shanley AZ#012251
2 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION, Phoenix District Office
3 3300 North Central Avenue, Suite 690
Phoenix, Arizona 85012
4 Telephone: (602) 640-5032
sally.shanley@eeoc.gov
5

6 Attorneys for Plaintiff

7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
9

10 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

) Civil Action No.

11 OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, ) )

12

Plaintiff,

)

COMPLAINT

13

v.

)

)

(Jury Demand )

14

)

EAGLE PRODUCE, L.L.C., an

)

15 Arizona Limited Liability Company, )

16

)

Defendant.

)

17

)

18

NATURE OF THE ACTION

19

This is an action under the Equal Pay Act of 1963 to restrain the unlawful

20 payment of wages to employees of one sex at rates less than the rates paid to

21 employees of the opposite sex, and to correct unlawful employment practices on

22 the basis of sex. The Commission alleges that Eagle Produce L.L.C., paid its

23 female Quality Control Inspector, Anita Guerreo, at wage rates which were less

24 than the rates paid to its male employees performing substantially equal work,

25 and otherwise discriminated against that female employee because of her sex.

26

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

27

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

28

1 1331, 1337, 1343 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to

2 Sections 16(c) and Section 17 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (the

3 "FLSA"), as amended, 29 U.S.C. §§ 216(c) and 217, to enforce the requirements

4 of the Equal Pay Act of 1963, codified as Section 6(d) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §

5 206(d) (“EPA”).

6

2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed

7 within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for Arizona.

8

PARTIES

9

3. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the

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

11 administration, interpretation and enforcement of the Equal Pay Act and is

12 expressly authorized to bring this action by Sections 16(c) and 17 of the FLSA, 29

13 U.S.C. §§ 216(c) and 217, as amended by Section 1 of Reorganization Plan No.

14 1 of 1978, 92 Stat. 3781, and Public Law 98-532 (1984), 98 Stat. 2705.

15

4. At all relevant times, Defendant, Eagle Produce, L.L.C. (the

16 "Employer"), has continuously been an Arizona Limited Liability Corporation,

17 doing business in the State of Arizona.

18

5. At all relevant times, Defendant Employer has acted directly or

19 indirectly as an employer in relation to employees and has continuously been an

20 employer within the meaning of Section 3(d) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(d).

21

6. At all relevant times, Defendant Employer has continuously

22 employed employees engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for

23 commerce within the meaning of Sections 3(b), (i) and (j) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C.

24 §§ 203(b), (i) and (j) has continuously been an enterprise engaged in commerce

25 or in the production of goods for commerce within the meaning of Sections 3(r)

26 and (s) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 203(r) and (s) and, in that said enterprise has

27

28

2

1 continuously been an enterprise whose annual gross volume of sales made or

2 business done is not less than $500,000.

3

STATEMENT OF EPA CLAIMS

4

7. Since at least May, 2004, Defendant Employer violated Sections

5 6(d)(1) and 15(a)(2) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 206(d)(1) and 215(a)(2), by

6 paying wages to Anita Guerrero in its Arizona facility, at rates less than the rates

7 paid to a male employee in the same establishment for substantially equal work

8 on jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility,

9 and which are performed under similar working conditions.

10

8. As a result of the acts complained of above in paragraph 7,

11 Defendant Employer unlawfully has withheld and is continuing to withhold the

12 payment of wages due to Anita Guerrero.

13

9. The unlawful practices complained of in paragraph 7 above were

14 willful.

15

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

16

Wherefore, the Commission requests that this Court:

17

A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining the Defendant Employer, its

18 officers, successors, assigns and all persons in active concert or participation

19 with it, from engaging in gender-based disparate compensation and in any other

20 employment practice which discriminates on the basis of sex.

21

B. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining the Defendant Employer, its

22 officers, successors, assigns and all persons in active concert or participation

23 with it, from discriminating within any of its establishments between employees on

24 the basis of sex, by paying wages to employees of one sex at rates less than the

25 rates at which it pays wages to employees of the opposite sex for substantially

26 equal work on jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and

27

28

3

1 responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions.

2

C. Order Defendant Employer to institute and carry out policies,

3 practices and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for

4 women, and which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful

5 employment practices.

6

D. Grant a judgment requiring Defendant Employer to pay appropriate

7 back wages in amounts to be determined at trial, an equal sum as liquidated

8 damages, and prejudgment interest to Anita Guerrero whose wages were being

9 unlawfully withheld as a result of the acts complained of above in paragraph 7.

10

E. Grant such further relief as this Court deems necessary and proper

11 in the public interest.

12

F. Award the Commission its costs of this action.

13

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

14

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

15

Complaint.

16

James L. Lee

17

Deputy General Counsel

18

Gwendolyn Young Reams

Associate General Counsel

19

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

20

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

1801 L Street, N.W.

21

Washington, D.C. 20507

22

s/ Mary Jo O’Neill

Mary Jo O’Neill

23

Regional Attorney

24

s/ Sally Shanley

Sally Shanley

25

Supervisory Trial Attorney

26

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

27

28

4

1

Phoenix District Office

3300 N. Central Ave., Suite 690

2

Phoenix, Arizona 85012

(602) 640-5032

3

Attorneys for Plaintiff

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

 
 1 Mary Jo O’Neill AZ Bar No. 005924
Sally Shanley AZ Bar No. 012251
2 Lucila G. Rosas CA Bar No. 187345
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
3 COMMISSION, Phoenix District Office
3300 North Central Avenue, Suite 690
4 Phoenix, Arizona 85012
Telephone: (602) 640-5032
5 sally.shanley@eeoc.gov
lucila.rosas@eeoc.gov
6
Attorneys for Plaintiff
7

8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

10

11

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

) Case No. CV06-1921-PHX-NVW )

12

)

13

Plaintiff,

)

AMENDED COMPLAINT

)

14

v.

)

(Jury Demand )

)

15 EAGLE PRODUCE, L.L.C., an

)

Arizona Limited Liability Company, )

16

)

17

Defendant.

)

)

18

19

NATURE OF THE ACTION

20

This is an action under the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Title VII of the Civil

21 Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to restrain the

22 unlawful payment of wages to employees of one sex at rates less than the rates

23 paid to employees of the opposite sex, and to correct unlawful employment

24 practices on the basis of sex. The Commission alleges that Eagle Produce

25 L.L.C., paid its female Quality Control Inspector, Anita Guerreo, at wage rates

26 which were less than the rates paid to its male employees performing

27 substantially equal work, and otherwise discriminated against that female

28 employee because of her sex.

1

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

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

3 1337, 1343 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to

4 Sections 16(c) and Section 17 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (the

5 "FLSA"), as amended, 29 U.S.C. §§ 216(c) and 217, to enforce the requirements

6 of the Equal Pay Act of 1963, codified as Section 6(d) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §

7 206(d) (“EPA”), and pursuant to Section 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII of the Civil

8 Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3) § 2000e-

9 5(f)(1) and (3)("Title VII"). This action is also authorized and instituted pursuant

10 to Section 102 of Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a.

11 2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed within

12 the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for Arizona.

13

PARTIES

14 3. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the

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

16 administration, interpretation and enforcement of the Equal Pay Act and Title VII,

17 and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Sections 16(c) and 17 of the

18 FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 216(c) and 217, as amended by Section 1 of Reorganization

19 Plan No. 1 of 1978, 92 Stat. 3781, and Public Law 98-532 (1984), 98 Stat. 2705,

20 and by 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1)and (3).

21 4. At all relevant times, Defendant, Eagle Produce, L.L.C. (the "Employer"),

22 has continuously been an Arizona Limited Liability Corporation, doing business in

23 the State of Arizona.

24 5. At all relevant times, Defendant Employer has acted directly or indirectly as

25 an employer in relation to employees and has continuously been an employer

26 within the meaning of Section 3(d) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(d).

27

28

2

1 6. At all relevant times, Defendant Employer has continuously been an

2 employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of

3 Sections 701(b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(b), (g) and (h).

4 7. At all relevant times, Defendant Employer has continuously employed

5 employees engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce

6 within the meaning of Sections 3(b), (i) and (j) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 203(b),

7 (i) and (j) has continuously been an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the

8 production of goods for commerce within the meaning of Sections 3(r) and (s) of

9 the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 203(r) and (s) and, in that said enterprise has

10 continuously been an enterprise whose annual gross volume of sales made or

11 business done is not less than $500,000.

12

STATEMENT OF EPA CLAIMS

13 8. Since at least May, 2004, Defendant Employer violated Sections 6(d)(1)

14 and 15(a)(2) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 206(d)(1) and 215(a)(2), by paying wages

15 to Anita Guerrero in its Arizona facility, at rates less than the rates paid to a male

16 employee in the same establishment for substantially equal work on jobs the

17 performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are

18 performed under similar working conditions.

19 9. As a result of the acts complained of above in paragraph 8, Defendant

20 Employer unlawfully has withheld and is continuing to withhold the payment of

21 wages due to Anita Guerrero.

22 10. The unlawful practices complained of in paragraph 8 above were willful.

23

STATEMENT OF TITLE VII CLAIM

24 11. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Anita Guerrero

25 filed a charge with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by Defendant

26 employer. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been

27

28

3

1 fulfilled.

2 12. Since at least June 2003, Defendant employer has engaged in unlawful

3 employment practices at its Yuma, Arizona site, in violation of Section 703(a) of

4 Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a) by discriminating against Anita Guerrero with

5 respect to her compensation because of her sex, female. This discrimination

6 includes paying Ms. Guerrero less than a male employee for the same work.

7 13. The effect of the practices complained of in paragraph 9 above has been to

8 deprive Anita Guerrero of equal employment opportunities and otherwise

9 adversely affect her status as an employee because of her sex, female.

10 14. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 9 above

11 were intentional.

12 15. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 9 above

13 were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected

14 rights of Anita Guerrero.

15

16

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

17

Wherefore, the Commission requests that this Court:

18 A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining the Defendant employer, its

19 officers, successors, assigns and all persons in active concert or participation

20 with it, from (a) engaging in gender-based disparate compensation and in any

21 other employment practice which discriminates on the basis of sex and (b)

22 retaliating against employees because they oppose practices made unlawful by

23 Title VII or participate in a proceeding pursuant to Title VII.

24 B. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining the Defendant Employer, its

25 officers, successors, assigns and all persons in active concert or participation

26 with it, from discriminating within any of its establishments between employees on

27

28

4

1 the basis of sex, by paying wages to employees of one sex at rates less than the

2 rates at which it pays wages to employees of the opposite sex for substantially

3 equal work on jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and

4 responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions.

5 C. Order Defendant Employer to institute and carry out policies, practices and

6 programs which provide equal employment opportunities for women, and which

7 eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices.

8 D. Order Defendant employer to make whole Anita Guerrero by providing

9 compensation for past and future nonpecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful

10 practices complained of above in paragraph 9, including emotional pain,

11 suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, and humiliation, in amounts to be determined

12 at trial.

13 E. Order Defendant employer to pay Anita Guerrero punitive damages for its

14 malicious and/or reckless conduct described in paragraph 9 above, in an amount

15 to be determined at trial.

16 F. Grant a judgment requiring Defendant Employer to pay appropriate back

17 wages in amounts to be determined at trial, an equal sum as liquidated damages,

18 and prejudgment interest to Anita Guerrero whose wages were being unlawfully

19 withheld as a result of the acts complained of above.

20 G. Grant such further relief as this Court deems necessary and proper in the

21 public interest.

22 H. Award the Commission its costs of this action.

23 JURY TRIAL DEMAND
24 The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by this
25 Complaint.
26

27

28

5

1

Ronald S. Cooper

General Counsel

2

James L. Lee

3

Deputy General Counsel

4

Gwendolyn Young Reams

Associate General Counsel

5

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

6

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

1801 L Street, N.W.

7

Washington, D.C. 20507

8

s/ Mary Jo O’Neill

Mary Jo O’Neill

9

Regional Attorney

10

s/ Sally Shanley

Sally Shanley

11

Supervisory Trial Attorney

12

s/ Lucila Rosas

Trial Attorney

13

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

14

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

15

Phoenix District Office

3300 N. Central Ave., Suite 690

16

Phoenix, Arizona 85012

(602) 640-5032

17

Attorneys for Plaintiff

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6

 
 Case 2:06-cv-01921-NVW Document 117-1 Filed 10/03/08 Page 1 of 10

1

2

3

4

5

6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8

9 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT 10 OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

) ) Civ. 06-1921 PHX NVW )

) SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

11

Plaintiff,

)

12

vs.

) )

)

13 EAGLE PRODUCE, L.L.C., an Arizona )

14 Limited Liability Company,

) )

)

15

Defendant.

)

16

The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the

17 “Commission” or “EEOC”) filed this action against Eagle Produce, L.L.C. (“Defendant”)

18 to enforce Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Civil Rights Act of 1991, and the

19 Equal Pay Act. In the Complaint, the Commission alleged that Defendant discriminated

20 against Mrs. Anita Guerrero in violation of the Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 206 (d)(1)

and 215(a)(2) and Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a) by paying her lower wages than
21

those paid to male employees performing substantially equal work. The Commission
22

further alleged that Defendant discriminated against Mrs. Guerrero in violation of Title
23

VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-2(a), because of her sex, female.
24

25

26

27 1
28

Case 2:06-cv-01921-NVW Document 117-1 Filed 10/03/08 Page 2 of 10

In the interest of resolving this matter, and as a result of having engaged in
1

comprehensive settlement negotiations, the Parties have agreed that this action should be
2

finally resolved by entry of this Settlement Agreement. Each of the parties hereto
3

acknowledge and agree that this is a full and final settlement and release as set forth in
4

paragraph 1and that the furnishing of any consideration therefore does not constitute and
5

shall not at any time be deemed to constitute or ever be construed as an admission of any
6

wrongdoing by any party and Defendant is entering into this Settlement Agreement solely
7

for economic reasons.
8

The Parties do not object to the jurisdiction of the Court over this action and
9

waive their rights to a hearing and the entry of findings of fact and conclusions of law.
10

It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED:

11

1. This Settlement Agreement resolves all claims of the Commission against

12

Defendant, including back pay, liquidated, compensatory and punitive damages, interest,

13

injunctive relief, attorney's fees, and costs arising out of the issues in this lawsuit.

14
2.

Defendant and its officers, through its agents, employees, successors, assigns, and

15
all persons in active concert or participation with it, both at the time that this Settlement

16
Agreement becomes effective and for the duration of this Settlement Agreement, shall

17
not (1) discriminate against any individual based on his or her sex, or (2) unlawfully pay

18
any female employee less than a male employee for substantially equal work.

19
3.

Defendant shall pay the gross sum of $9,000 to Mrs. Anita Guerrero by cashier’s

20
check or money order no later than ten (10) days from the Court’s entry of the Settlement

21
Agreement.

22
4.

The gross sum represents settlement of back pay in the amount of $3,000.00

23
liquidated damages in the amount of $3,000.00 and $3,000 in compensatory damages.

24
Defendant will pay all payroll taxes it owes on the back wages for the tax year during

25 which payment is made, and deduct the additional payroll taxes owed by Mrs. Guerrero.

26 Defendant will issue United States Internal Revenue Service Form 1099 to Mrs. Guerrero

27 2
28

Case 2:06-cv-01921-NVW Document 117-1 Filed 10/03/08 Page 3 of 10

for the liquidated damages and compensatory damages for the tax year during which
1

payment is made.
2

5.
3

Defendant will not condition the receipt of individual relief on Mrs. Guerrero’s

agreement to (a) maintain as confidential the terms of this Settlement Agreement, (b)
4

waive her statutory right to file a charge with any federal or state anti-discrimination
5

agency, or (c) waive her right to apply for a position with the Defendant.
6

6.
7

The cashier’s check or money order shall be made payable to Mrs. Guerrero and

mailed to the address provided by the Commission. Within three business days of the
8

issuance of the cashier’s check or money order, Defendant shall submit a copy of the
9

check or money order and all related correspondence to Mary Jo O’Neill, Regional
10

Attorney, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 3300 North Central Avenue,

11

Suite 690, Phoenix, Arizona 85012.

12

7. Defendant shall expunge from the personnel file of Mrs. Guerrero (a) all

13

references to the charge of discrimination filed against Defendant that formed the basis of

14

this action; (b) all references to Mrs. Guerrero’s participation in this action; (c) any

15

derogatory documents which relate to complaints or investigation of complaints of wage

16
and gender discrimination.

17
8.

Defendant shall institute and carry out policies and practices that help assure a

18
work environment free from wage discrimination based on sex. To assist Defendant in

19
its efforts to assure such a work environment, Defendant shall take the actions provided

20
in paragraphs 9 - 17 of this Settlement Agreement.

21
9.

Defendant shall post for the duration of this Settlement Agreement, in a

22
prominent place frequented by its employees at its facilities, the Notice attached as

23
Exhibit A. The Notice shall be the same type, style and size as set forth in Exhibit A and

24
shall be in English and Spanish.

25

26

27 3
28

Case 2:06-cv-01921-NVW Document 117-1 Filed 10/03/08 Page 4 of 10
TRAINING
1
10. During the effective period of this Settlement Agreement, Defendant shall
2
provide training on the EPA, specifically wage and gender discrimination, according to
3
the following terms:
4
A. Defendant shall retain and pay for a consultant/lecturer who shall provide
5
training to its employees. The live session shall be in English and Spanish. The session
6
may be videotaped for use in subsequent years. All of Defendant’s managers,
7
supervisors, human resource personnel and foremen, shall attend the live session and
8
subsequent trainings. Defendant may at its election have duplicative videotaped sessions
9
to accommodate staffing needs. Defendant shall be responsible for any additional costs
10
to provide such duplicative sessions.
11
B. The seminar training sessions shall be conducted within one month of the
12
beginning of the seasonal period.
13
C. The seminar training sessions shall be no less than two hours, including
14
time permitted for questions and answers. All of Defendant’s employees shall register
15
when they attend a seminar-training session. The registry of attendance shall be retained
16
by Defendant for the duration of this Settlement Agreement.
17
D. The seminars shall include: (1) what constitutes wage and gender
18
discrimination; (2) that the Equal Pay Act is violated by wage discrimination; (3) how to
19
prevent wage discrimination; (4) how to provide a work environment free from wage
20
discrimination; and (5) to whom and by what means employees may complain if they feel
21
they have been subjected to wage discrimination in the workplace. The session shall also
22
review and explain Defendant’s policies set out in this Settlement Agreement.
23
E. During the live training sessions, Defendant’s Plant Manager shall speak
24
to the employees about the legal consequences faced by companies that tolerate wage 25 discrimination; the importance of maintaining an environment free of wage and gender
26
27 4
28

Case 2:06-cv-01921-NVW Document 117-1 Filed 10/03/08 Page 5 of 10

discrimination; and Defendant’s policies in regard to wage and gender discrimination,
1

referred to in paragraph 12 of this Settlement Agreement.
2

POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
3

11. Within sixty (60) days of the entry of this Agreement, Defendant shall review and
4

modify, if necessary, written policies concerning wage and gender discrimination to
5

conform with the law, and submit the policy for review to the Regional Attorney of the
6

Phoenix District Office of the EEOC at the address provided in paragraph 6 above.
7
These written policies must be in English and Spanish and include at a minimum:
8
A. A strong and clear commitment to a workplace free of wage and gender
9
discrimination;
10
B. A clear and complete definition of wage and gender discrimination;
11
C. A statement that wage and gender discrimination is prohibited and will not
12
be tolerated;
13
D. A clear and strong encouragement of persons who believe they have been
14
subjected to wage and gender discrimination to come forward;
15
E. The identification of specific individuals, internal and external to
16
Defendant, with their telephone numbers, to whom employees, who have been
17
subjected to wage and gender discrimination, can report the unlawful conduct,

18
including a written statement that employees may report the unlawful conduct to

19
designated persons outside of their chain of management. The statement shall

20
explain that, should a non-English speaking employee seek to report wage and

21
gender discrimination, Defendant shall make an interpreter available for purposes

22
of taking the report and further communicating with the employee about the

23
reported incidents;

24
F. An assurance that Defendant will investigate allegations of wage and

25

gender discrimination promptly, fairly, reasonably and effectively, using

26

27 5
28

Case 2:06-cv-01921-NVW Document 117-1 Filed 10/03/08 Page 6 of 10
appropriate investigators, and that appropriate corrective action will be taken by
1
Defendant to make victims whole and to eradicate the unlawful conduct;
2
G. A description of the consequences, up to and including termination, which
3
will be imposed upon violators of the policy;
4
H. A promise of maximum feasible confidentiality for persons who believe
5
that they have been subjected to wage and gender discrimination;
6
I. An assurance of non-retaliation for persons who believe they have been
7
subjected to wage and gender discrimination, and for witnesses.
8
12. These policies shall be written in English and Spanish. They shall be distributed
9
to all new employees of Defendant when hired and reissued to each employee within one
10
month of the beginning of the seasonal period.
11
13. Defendant shall promptly and appropriately investigate all complaints by its
12
employees of wage and gender discrimination. The investigation must include a finding
13
of whether the alleged conduct occurred, a credibility assessment, if necessary;
14
interviews of all potential victims and witnesses identified; and concurrent notes of the
15
investigation. Defendant shall take immediate appropriate corrective action to make
16
victims of the unlawful conduct whole, to discipline those who engaged in the unlawful
17
conduct, and to eradicate the unlawful conduct.
18
14. Defendant shall not retain documents related to the investigation of complaints of
19
wage and gender discrimination in any of the complainant's personnel files. All
20
disciplinary actions taken against employees for violation of Defendant’s policies
21
regarding wage and gender discrimination shall be retained in the wrongdoer’s personnel
22
file. In those cases in which no conclusion could be reached on the allegations, the
23
investigation documents shall be retained in an investigation file.
24
REPORTING 25 15. Defendant shall report in writing and in affidavit form to the Regional Attorney 26 of the Commission's Phoenix District Office, at the address provided, beginning six
27 6
28

Case 2:06-cv-01921-NVW Document 117-1 Filed 10/03/08 Page 7 of 10
months from the date of the entry of this Settlement Agreement, and thereafter every year
1
for the duration of the Settlement Agreement, the following information:
2
A. Any changes, modifications, revocations, or revisions to its policies and
3
procedures which concern or affect the subjects of wage and gender
4
discrimination.
5
B. The registry of persons attending the seminars required in paragraph 10 of
6
this Settlement Agreement and a list of current supervisory, managerial, foremen,
7
and human resource personnel employed by Defendant on the days of the seminar
8
training sessions.
9
C. Confirmation that (1) the Notice required in paragraph 9 of this Settlement
10
Agreement was posted and the locations where it was posted; (2) the policies
11
required in paragraph 12 were distributed to each current and new employee of
12
Defendant, in all required languages, and posted.
13
.
14
COSTS AND DURATION
15
16. Each Party shall bear its costs and attorney's fees incurred as a result of this action
16
through the filing of this Settlement Agreement.
17
18 17. The duration of this Settlement Agreement shall be twelve (12) months from its 19 entry. This Court shall retain jurisdiction over this action, to enforce the Agreement, for 20 the duration of the Settlement Agreement. The Commission may petition this Court for 21 compliance with this Agreement at any time during which this Court maintains 22 jurisdiction over this action. If the Commission determines that the Defendant has not 23 complied with the Agreement, the Commission will provide written notification of the 24 alleged breach to the Defendant and will not petition the Court for enforcement sooner 25 than thirty (30) days after providing written notification. If the Commission petitions the 26 Court and the Court finds the Defendant to be in violation of the terms of the Settlement
27 7
28

Case 2:06-cv-01921-NVW Document 117-1 Filed 10/03/08 Page 8 of 10

1 Agreement, the Court may extend this Agreement or order other appropriate relief as may

2 be necessary to remedy Defendant's non-compliance.

3

18.
4

The Parties agree to entry of this Settlement Agreement subject to final approval

5 by the Court.

6

7

Dated this _ _day of

, 2008

8

9

NEIL V. WAKE

10

United States District Judge

11

12 13

;t3JA£CMht4R

14

- WHAEL CARROLL

Attorney
15

16
SALLY C. S ANLEY 17 Supervisory Trial Attorney

18 19

\\ ff

20 Trial Attorney

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY 21 COMMISSION

22 Phoenix District Office
3300 North Central Avenue, Suite 690 23 Phoenix, Arizona 85012

24 (602) 640-5032 Attorneys for Plaintiff
25

BURCH & CRACCHIOLO, P.A. 702 East Osborn Road, #200 Phoenix, AZ 85011 Attorneys for Defendant

>- / - . . ,- L 4 L : - -

_

8tef'ften Mal tOI i /U.7HVi!- J;

Eagle Produce, LLC

26

27
8 28

Case 2:06-cv-01921-NVW Document 117-1 Filed 10/03/08 Page 9 of 10
NOTICE TO ALL EAGLE PRODUCE, L.L.C.EMPLOYEES
It is unlawful under federal law, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Equal Pay Act, and state law to discriminate against an employee on the basis of sex, including sexual harassment, in the recruitment, hiring, firing, compensation, assignment, or other terms, and conditions or privileges of employment. It is also unlawful to retaliate against any person because the person protested discriminatory practices or contacted the EEOC or the Arizona Civil Rights Division (ACRD).
Eagle Produce, L.L.C. shall not discriminate against any employee on the basis of sex and shall not retaliate against any employee.
If you believe you have been discriminated against by Eagle Produce, L.L.C., you have the right to seek assistance from:
(1) EEOC, 3300 North Central Avenue, Suite 690 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 (602) 640-5000; (602) 640-5072 TTY www.eeoc.gov
(2) Arizona Civil Rights Division (ACRD) 1275 W. Washington, Phoenix, AZ 85007 (602) 542-5263; TDD: (602) 542-5002 Toll Free: (877) 49-5742; TDD (877) 624-8090
You have the right to file a charge with the EEOC or ACRD if you believe you are being discriminated against.
No Retaliation Clause. No action may be taken against you by any supervisory or management official of Eagle Produce, L.L.C. for (1) opposing discriminatory practices made unlawful by federal or state law; (2) filing a charge or assisting or participating in the filing of a charge of discrimination; or (3) assisting or participating in an investigation or proceeding brought under Title VII. Should any such retaliatory actions be taken against you, you should immediately contact one of the agencies at the addresses or telephone numbers listed above.
Exhibit A

Case 2:06-cv-01921-NVW Document 117-1 Filed 10/03/08 Page 10 of 10

RELEASE

In consideration for $ q)OOO. DQ paid to me by

in connection

with the resolution of EEOC v. EAGLE PRODUCE, INC CV 06-1921-NVW., I

waive my right to recover for any claims of discrimination arising under Title VII

of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or the Equal Pay Act that I had against Eagle

Produce prior to the date of this release and that were included in the claims

alleged in EEOC's complaint in United States District Court

9- Date: 30- 02

Signature:

I....A__

;o

 
 Case 2:06-cv-01921-NVW Document 89 Filed 06/06/08 Page 1 of 13

1

2

3

4

5

6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8

9 Equal Employment Opportunity)

Commission,

)

10

)

Plaintiff,

)

11

)

vs.

)

12

)

)

13 Eagle Produce, L.L.C., an Arizona Limited)

Liability Company,

)

14

)

Defendant.

)

15

)

)

16

No. CV-06-1921-PHX-NVW ORDER
[Not For Publication]

17

Before the court are Defendant Eagle Produce L.L.C.’s (“Eagle”) Motion for

18 Summary Judgment (Doc. # 55) and Additional Motion for Summary Judgment Re:

19 Bernardo Gomez (Doc. # 82), and Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity

20 Commission’s (“EEOC”) Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. # 57). The

21 Motions will be granted in part and denied in part.

22 I. Background

23

Eagle Produce is an agribusiness engaged in the growing, harvesting, and

24 marketing of produce. The company has two processing plants in Arizona, the Aguila

25 facility and the Harquahala facility. Anita Guerrero (“Guerrero”) first worked for Eagle

26 Produce in May 2003. During the 2003 harvest season she served as a quality control

27 inspector at the Aguila facility. She typically worked six days a week for approximately

28

Case 2:06-cv-01921-NVW Document 89 Filed 06/06/08 Page 2 of 13

1 10 to 12 hours a day, with Sundays off. Occasionally she worked 15 hours a day. In

2 2003 her salary was $1,000 weekly plus company housing.

3

Guerrero alleges that in April 2004 she was offered a job with Eagle for the 2004

4 season. (Doc. # 66 at ¶ 23.) On May 5, 2004 Guerrero reported for work at Aguila, but

5 was informed that there was in fact no position available. (Id. at ¶¶ 28-29, 33.) She

6 alleges that Jimmy Byrd, Eagle’s general manager, told her that the company had already

7 hired someone to work at the Harquahala facility and that a man named Bernie would be

8 doing quality control at Aguila. (Id. at ¶ 29.) However, “Bernie” Gomez resigned from

9 Eagle Produce on or about May 8, 2004. (Id. at ¶ 35.) On May 11, 2004, Byrd called

10 Guerrero and offered her the job of quality control inspector for the 2004 harvest season.

11 (Id. at ¶ 36.)

12

Unlike in 2003, Eagle offered to pay Guerrero $800 per week for the 2004 season.

13 However, she was required to work only ten hours per day, six days a week with Sundays

14 off. (Id. at ¶ 37.) Nevertheless, the duties she performed in 2003 and 2004 were

15 essentially the same. (Id. at ¶ 41.) She asserts that these duties included, but were not

16 limited to: testing the weight of melons; testing for sugar content and pressure; inspecting

17 packed produce boxes; preparing reports and entering them into a computer; checking

18 dates of products in the cold room; inspecting produce coming into the facility; ensuring

19 proper fruit was loaded per bill of lading; submitting reports to the office regarding the

20 quality of the fruit; inspecting repacked produce; keeping track of product that was

21 outside to make sure it was put in the cold room; asking employees to pull boxes that

22 were required to be repacked; letting the foreman know what problems were in the boxes

23 that were already packed; inspecting the produce for clients to make sure it was not

24 damaged; helping repack product to meet client specifications; showing buyers the

25 company’s product; and writing special reports for certain customers. (Id. at ¶ 13.)

26 Although Eagle claims otherwise, Guerrero also asserts that she had authority to accept or

27 reject fruit for a particular customer and that she made decisions on whether to accept the

28 fruit the company purchased. (Id. at ¶ 14.)

- 2 -

Case 2:06-cv-01921-NVW Document 89 Filed 06/06/08 Page 3 of 13

1

In May 2004 Eagle hired two males who allegedly performed duties similar to

2 those Guerrero was expected to carry out. One of these men was Bernardo “Bernie”

3 Gomez. Eagle’s records indicate that he was hired to conduct “quality control” at the

4 Aguila facility. (Doc. # 86, Ex. 5, Attach. A.) Gomez testified that his job duties included:

5 testing the weight of melons, testing for sugar content and pressure, and checking the

6 grade and sizing of the company’s product and preparing reports. (Id., Ex. 5 at 65:16-19.)

7 He also “pre-staged” product, which he described as “the same thing as just quality

8 control” —ensuring that the product selected for certain customers met certain standards

9 of quality. (Id., Ex. 5 at 34:4-6.) Gomez generally worked from 6:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.,

10 six days a week with Sundays off. (Id., Ex. 5 at 65:22-66:2.) He calculated his rate of

11 pay to be $1000 a week, which included $900 in salary plus gas expenses. (Id., Ex. 5 at

12 61:15-24.) He resigned on May 8, 2004, and Eagle hired Guerrero three days later.

13

The other male Eagle hired in May 2004 was Paul Collazo. He was hired on or

14 about May 1, 2004, to work at the Harquahala facility. (DSOF at ¶ 6.) Collazo performed

15 quality control duties at Harquahala, including: testing produce for proper color, defects,

16 ripeness, firmness, and sugar content; ensuring that produce was properly handled when

17 being delivered from the fields; ensuring that inventory was properly rotated; and

18 deciding whether produce should be withdrawn and dumped. (Id. at ¶¶ 15-18.) At some

19 point in May 2004, Collazo assumed supervisory control over certain operations at

20 Harquahala. In this capacity he hired, reprimanded, and fired employees. He also

21 approved employee time sheets and made sure that employees at the facility worked in

22 accordance with proper safety standards. (Id. at ¶ 8.) The parties dispute, however,

23 whether Eagle hired Collazo with the expectation that he would be given supervisory

24 authority. Moreover, Eagle claims that any quality control duties he carried out were

25 incidental to and stemmed from his role as a supervisor. During his time at Harquahala,

26 Collazo worked at least eleven hours per day, seven days a week. (Doc. # 66, Ex. 2 at

27 97:14-24.) His salary was $1,000, paid weekly.

28

- 3 -

Case 2:06-cv-01921-NVW Document 89 Filed 06/06/08 Page 4 of 13

1

The Harquahala facility completed its harvest of watermelons in July 2004 .

2 Because the watermelon fields at Aguila were ready to harvest, Eagle transferred the

3 Harquahala employees, including Collazo, to the Aguila facility. (Id. at ¶ 60). Collazo

4 continued to perform many of the same quality control duties at Aguila. (Id. at ¶ 61.)

5 However, the parties dispute whether he continued to supervise employees after the

6 move. Although his rate of pay did not change, Collazo worked fewer hours at Aguila

7 than he had at Harquahala and he also occasionally took days off. (Id., Ex. 2 at 98:14-

8 15.) Collazo worked at Aguila until September 2004 when he terminated his employment

9 with Eagle. (DSOF at ¶ 21.)

10

At some point in October or November 2004, Guerrero learned from a coworker

11 that Collazo’s weekly salary had been $1,000. (Doc. # 66 at ¶ 69.) She worked for Eagle

12 until the last day of the season, on or about November 3, 2004. On June 6, 2005,

13 Guerrero filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC alleging discrimination under

14 the Equal Pay Act. On August 7, 2006, the EEOC filed the present suit against Eagle

15 Produce alleging a violation of the Equal Pay Act. On August 14, 2006, Guerrero

16 amended her charge of discrimination to include a claim under Title VII of the Civil

17 Rights Act of 1964. (DSOF at ¶¶ 25-28.) Subsequently, the EEOC also amended its

18 complaint to allege a claim under Title VII.

19

Both parties filed motions for summary judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56.

20 Eagle argues in its motion that the EEOC lacks evidence sufficient to support its Equal

21 Pay Act and Title VII claims because Guerrero did not perform work equal to that

22 performed by either Collazo or Gomez. Additionally, Eagle argues that Guerrero’s Title

23 VII claim is time-barred. The EEOC’s motion seeks summary judgment on several of the

24 affirmative defenses Eagle asserted in its answer. Specifically, it requests judgment in the

25 EEOC’s favor on Eagle’s statute of limitations defenses, its laches defense, and its claim

26 that Guerrero failed to mitigate her damages.

27

28

- 4 -

Case 2:06-cv-01921-NVW Document 89 Filed 06/06/08 Page 5 of 13

1 II. Legal Standard

2

Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that summary judgment

3 shall be entered if the pleadings, depositions, affidavits, answers to interrogatories, and

4 admissions on file show that there is no genuine dispute regarding the material facts of

5 the case and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P.

6 56(c) (2004); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247 (1986) (citations

7 omitted). The court must evaluate a party’s motion for summary judgment construing the

8 alleged facts with all reasonable inferences favoring the nonmoving party. Baldwin v.

9 Trailer Inns, Inc., 266 F.3d 1104, 1117 (9th Cir. 2001).

10

The party seeking summary judgment bears the initial burden of informing the

11 court of the basis for its motion and identifying those portions of the pleadings,

12 depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the

13 affidavits, if any, which it believes demonstrate the absence of any genuine issue of

14 material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986) (citations omitted).

15 Where the moving party has met its initial burden with a properly supported motion, the

16 party opposing the motion “may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his

17 pleading, but . . . must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for

18 trial.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248 (citations omitted). Summary judgment is appropriate

19 against a party who “fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an

20 element essential to that party’s case, and on which that party will bear the burden of

21 proof at trial.” Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 322; accord Citadel Holding Corp. v. Roven,

22 26 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir. 1994). At the summary judgment stage, mere speculation or

23 allegations without supporting evidence do not create a factual issue necessitating a trial.

24 See Witherow v. Paff, 52 F.3d 264, 266 (9th Cir. 1995).

25 III. Guerrero’s Title VII Claim is Time-barred.

26

Eagle argues that the Plaintiff’s Title VII claim is time-barred because Guerrero

27 learned of the alleged gender-based discrimination no later than November, 3, 2004, but

28 did not file her charge with the EEOC until August 14, 2006. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

- 5 -

Case 2:06-cv-01921-NVW Document 89 Filed 06/06/08 Page 6 of 13

1 2000e-5(e)(1), Title VII claims are subject to a limitation period. Section 2000e-5(e)(1)

2 states that:

3

A charge under this section shall be filed within one hundred

and eighty days after the alleged unlawful employment practice

4

occurred and notice of the charge (including the date, place and

circumstances of the alleged unlawful employment practice)

5

shall be served upon the person against whom such charge is

made within ten days thereafter. . . .

6

In response, the EEOC points out that Guerrero filed her EPA charge on June 6,

7

2005, and that the August 14, 2006 addition of the Title VII claim was merely an

8

amendment to her original complaint. Therefore, the EEOC argues that the Title VII

9

charge should relate back to June 6, 2005, the date she filed the original EPA charge.

10

However, even if the court assumes that the amendments made in August 2006 should

11

relate back to June 6, 2005, the Title VII claim still runs afoul of the statute of limitations.

12

Assuming that Guerrero learned of Collazo’s salary as late as November 30, 2004, she

13

was required to file a Title VII charge no later than May 29, 2005. Though Eagle has

14

briefed this issue several times, the EEOC strangely has never responded to it. Therefore,

15

Eagle is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the plaintiff’s Title VII claims.

16

IV. Guerrero’s Equal Pay Act Claim is Controlled by the Two-year Statute of

17

Limitations Because the EEOC Has Not Established That Eagle “Willfully”

Violated the EPA.

18

Eagle alleges that the plaintiff’s EPA claim is similarly time-barred. Pursuant to

19

29 U.S.C. § 255(a), an EPA claim is time-barred if not commenced within two years after

20

the cause of action accrues or three years if the violation was “willful.” A cause of action

21

under 29 U.S.C. § 255 “‘accrues’ at each regular payday immediately following the work

22

period during which the services were rendered and for which the compensation is

23

claimed.” Hartt v. United Const. Co., Inc., 655 F. Supp. 937, 938 (W.D. Mo. 1987).

24

Both Eagle and the EEOC seek summary judgment on the issue of whether the

25

two- or three-year statute of limitations applies in Guerrero’s case. Eagle urges the court

26

to adopt the two-year limit and points out that the EEOC did not file its claim until

27

August 7, 2006. Accordingly, Eagle asserts that Guerrero can only recover for damages

28

- 6 -

Case 2:06-cv-01921-NVW Document 89 Filed 06/06/08 Page 7 of 13

1 she allegedly suffered subsequent to the payday immediately following August 7, 2004.

2 The EEOC asserts that Eagle’s violation of the EPA was willful, and therefore Guerrero’s

3 entire term of employment falls within the three-year statute of limitations.

4

The Supreme Court in McLaughlin v. Richland Shoe Co., 486 U.S. 128, 135

5 (1988), declared that the standard of willfulness applied in Trans. World Airlines v.

6 Thurston, 469 U.S. 111 (1985) also applies in causes of action filed under the Fair Labor

7 Standards Act. Under this standard, “a violation is willful if the company knew or

8 showed reckless disregard whether its conduct was prohibited” by statute. Id. at 128-29.

9

In order to obtain the benefit of the three-year statute of limitations at trial, the

10 EEOC would bear the burden of establishing that Eagle willfully paid Guerrero less

11 money for equal work in violation of the EPA. However, the only evidence the EEOC

12 offers in support of this claim is that Eagle’s general manager “was responsible for setting

13 the wages for Collazo, Gomez and Guerrero” and therefore “a jury could infer that he

14 willfully paid Guerrero less than her male counterparts because she was a woman.” (Doc.

15 # 65 at 14.) This “evidence” is merely a statement of liability and does not create an issue

16 of fact as to whether Eagle “knew or showed reckless disregard” that its conduct was

17 prohibited by the EPA. Having failed to carry its burden, the court denies the EEOC’s

18 request for judgment in its favor on this issue and applies the two-year statute of

19 limitations under 29 U.S.C. § 255(a). Accordingly, all claims for back pay and liquidated

20 damages sought pursuant to the EPA and related to conduct occurring prior to August 7,

21 2004, are time-barred.

22 V. An Equal Pay Act Plaintiff Must Show Unequal Pay For Substantially Equal Work.
23 “In order to make out a prima facie case under the EPA, [Plaintiff] bears the
24 burden of establishing that [she] did not receive equal pay for equal work.” Forsberg v.
25 Pacific Northwest Bell Tele. Co., 840 F.2d 1409, 1414 (9th Cir. 1988). “To make out the
26 prima facie case, the plaintiff [must show] that the jobs being compared are ‘substantially
27 equal.’” Stanley v. University of Southern California, 178 F.3d 1069, 1074 (9th Cir.
28

- 7 -

Case 2:06-cv-01921-NVW Document 89 Filed 06/06/08 Page 8 of 13

1 1999.) However, she “need not demonstrate that the jobs in question are [completely]

2 identical.” Id.

3

The “substantially equal” analysis has two steps. Id. First, the court must

4 determine “whether the jobs to be compared have a ‘common core’ of tasks.” Id. In

5 other words, whether a “significant portion” of the two jobs is identical. Id. If the

6 plaintiff establishes a common core of tasks, then the court must “determine whether any

7 additional tasks, incumbent on one job but not the other, make the two jobs ‘substantially

8 different.’” Id. However, even if a plaintiff succeeds in establishing a prima facie case, a

9 defendant may refute the plaintiff’s claim by showing that the pay differences resulted

10 from differences in: “I) a seniority system; (ii) a merit system; (iii) a system which

11 measures earnings by quantity or quality of production; or (iv) a differential based on any

12 other factor other than sex . . . .” 29 U.S.C. § 206(d)(1); Stanley, 178 F.3d at 1075.

13

A. A genuine issue of material fact exists concerning whether Guerrero

and Gomez performed substantially equal work.

14

Eagle argues that Guerrero’s job duties were not substantially equal to those

15

performed by Gomez. However, construing the disputable evidence in favor of the

16

EEOC on this record, the court concludes that a reasonable jury could find that

17

Guerrero’s and Gomez’s jobs satisfies the “substantially equal” test. First, Gomez’s and

18

Guerrero’s own descriptions of their duties reveal that they had a “common core” of

19

tasks. Both Guerrero and Gomez tested the weight of melons, tested for sugar content

20

and pressure, and checked the size and grade of the product. They also both prepared

21

reports and advised their superiors about the quality of the product. Finally, both

22

understood their primary role at the Aguila facility to be “quality control.”

23

To establish its prima facie case, however, the EEOC must also demonstrate the

24

lack of any additional tasks assigned to Gomez which made his job “substantially

25

different” than Guerrero’s. Eagle asserts that their jobs were substantially different

26

because Gomez had authority to decide which fruit should be shipped to certain

27

customers and could also reject and destroy fruit which he deemed to be substandard.

28

- 8 -

Case 2:06-cv-01921-NVW Document 89 Filed 06/06/08 Page 9 of 13

1 According to Eagle, Guerrero had no such authority. However, when describing this

2 aspect of his job, Gomez said that he “would just advise if the product was shippable or

3 not, but then [sales] made the decision whether to ship it.” (Doc. # 86, Ex. 5 at 35:19-21.)

4 Guerrero testified that she had similar authority. In her deposition she stated that if she

5 felt a particular batch of fruit meant for Wal-Mart was “mediocre,” then she could tell the

6 shipping department not to send it. (Doc. # 66, Ex. 1 at 148:6-9.) Like Gomez, she also

7 conceded that her decision could be overruled and that the ultimate decision about

8 whether to ship fruit that she considered substandard could be made by someone else.

9 (Id., Ex. 1 at 148:11-25.) Gomez’s description of his “authority” is nearly identical in

10 substance to Guerrero’s. Therefore, this aspect of his job is not a task, incumbent on one

11 job but not the other, which makes the two jobs “substantially different.”

12

Eagle attempts to explain away any difference in Gomez’s and Guerrero’s salaries

13 as based on a factor other than sex, a valid justification under 29 U.S.C. § 206(d)(1).

14 Specifically, Eagle asserts that the difference in pay was based on Gomez’s knowledge

15 and expertise of retailer produce standards. For example, Eagle notes that from 1995 to

16 2001 Gomez worked for an agricultural brokerage firm in the business of procuring

17 products for large retailers. In that position he visited suppliers, inspected their products,

18 and determined whether their produce met retail standards. In response, the EEOC

19 points out that Guerrero has over 35 years experience working generally in the produce

20 industry, and 20 years experience as a quality control inspector. She formerly worked for

21 the United States Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) and held a USDA inspector’s

22 license which allowed her to conduct USDA approved inspections of cantaloupes and

23 honeydews.1 There is a genuine issue of material fact concerning whether Guerrero and

24

25

1Guerrero alleges in an affidavit prepared in response to Eagle’s motion that while

working for a former employer, she also determined which produce met customer

26 specifications and made suggestions about where to purchase fruit for those customers.

27 (Doc. # 86, Ex. 1 at ¶ 6.) Eagle asserts that this statement is inconsistent with her deposition testimony and urges the court to disregard it. Based on the limited excerpts of Guerrero’s

28 deposition submitted to the court, it appears that her statement may be inconsistent with her

- 9 -

Case 2:06-cv-01921-NVW Document 89 Filed 06/06/08 Page 10 of 13

1 Gomez had comparable qualifications and experience such that a reasonable jury could

2 conclude that Eagle’s proffered justification for the pay differential is merely pretextual.

3

B. A genuine issue of material fact exists concerning whether Eagle hired

Collazo with the expectation that he would supervise the Harquahala

4

facility.

5

Eagle also argues that the EEOC has not shown that Collazo’s and Guerrero’s jobs

6 were “substantially equal.” Eagle asserts that Collazo was hired as an assistant plant

7 manager and that he had supervisory authority over the Harquahala plant. The EEOC

8 does not dispute that Collazo carried out some activities as a supervisor. Rather, it argues

9 that he did not assume any such authority until after Mark Lyons, Collazo’s supervisor,

10 was injured on or about May 17, 2004. The EEOC claims that before Lyon’s injury,

11 Collazo’s only job duties were related to quality control. Moreover, because Collazo’s

12 salary was set at the time he was hired (on or about May 1, 2004), the EEOC asserts that

13 any difference between his pay rate and Guerrero’s cannot be based on his status as a

14 supervisor.

15

The evidence establishes that Collazo performed at least some quality control

16 duties at Harquahala. In this role he completed many of the same tasks as Guerrero, but

17 he also made visits to the fields and made final decisions about whether produce should

18 be withdrawn and dumped. However, the record does not reveal whether these additional

19 duties were independent of his role as a supervisor.

20

The evidence also shows that at Harquahala he had authority to hire, reprimand,

21 and fire employees. In addition, he approved employee time sheets and made sure that

22 personnel at the facility worked in accordance with proper safety standards. Despite his

23 testimony that he was required to work between twelve and sixteen hours a day at

24 Harquahala, the EEOC offers evidence that he may have actually worked closer to eleven

25 hours a day. Collazo may have occasionally taken days off, but he was expected to work

26

27 prior testimony. Nevertheless, given Guerrero’s other claims about her background in the
28 relevant industry, her experience and expertise may be comparable to Gomez’s.

- 10 -

Case 2:06-cv-01921-NVW Document 89 Filed 06/06/08 Page 11 of 13

1 seven days a week. Although job titles are not dispositive of an employee’s actual

2 position or job duties, an internal personnel document completed on May 1, 2004, notes

3 that Collazo was hired as “Assistant Plant Mgr/Quality [indiscernible].” (Doc. # 66, Ex.

4 3, Attach. A.)

5

The EEOC offers only weak evidence in support of its theory that Eagle never

6 intended to give Collazo any supervisory authority prior to May 17, 2004. For example,

7 the EEOC submits testimony from two employees who worked in the Harquahala facility

8 during the 2004 season. The first, Cecilia Bryant, worked at the Harquahala facility as a

9 dispatcher for three to four weeks in 2004. (Id., Ex. 9 at ¶ 6.) She testified that she

10 observed Collazo carrying out quality control duties during that time and that he never

11 supervised her work. Similarly, Daniel Gonzalez, who worked as a dock foreman at

12 Harquahala during the 2004 season, testified that he reported to Mark Lyons, but that

13 after Lyons was injured he reported to Collazo on a daily basis. (Id., Ex. 10 at 53:9-24.)

14 He also testified that before Lyons was injured Collazo’s “duties was (sic) keeping

15 quality control.” (Id., Ex. 10 at 87:7-10.)

16

The EEOC also cites testimony from Jimmy Byrd, Eagle’s general manager, that

17 Collazo had authority to hire and fire employees, as long as he communicated with Byrd,

18 from the time Mark Lyons became absent. (Id., Ex. 3 at 83:18-84:7.)

19

Bryant’s testimony about what she observed only proves an undisputed fact, that

20 Collazo performed some quality control duties at Harquahala. The fact that he may not

21 have supervised her work does not necessarily refute Eagle’s claim that he had at least

22 some supervisory authority. Gonzalez’s and Byrd’s testimonies, on the other hand,

23 suggest that Collazo did not exercise any supervisory authority until after May 17, 2004.

24 The fact that Collazo did not actively supervise the Harquahala facility until after Lyons’

25 injury does not necessarily disprove Eagle’s claim that it hired him with the expectation

26 that he would assume such a role. However, when the alleged facts are construed in favor

27 of the EEOC, their testimony does provide an evidentiary basis from which a reasonable

28 jury could find that the timing was not a coincidence. Therefore, because a material issue

- 11 -

Case 2:06-cv-01921-NVW Document 89 Filed 06/06/08 Page 12 of 13

1 of genuine fact exists concerning whether Collazo was hired as an assistant plant

2 supervisor, the court must assume for purposes of this motion that he had no such

3 authority when his rate of pay was established on May 1, 2004.

4

Unfortunately, the court is unable to determine whether the work Collazo

5 performed after May 1, 2004, but prior to Lyons’ injury was “substantially equal” to that

6 performed by Guerrero. Eagle’s argument that Collazo and Guerrero performed

7 substantially different work is premised almost entirely on its assertion that Collazo was

8 hired as an assistant plant supervisor. Consequently, Eagle’s description of Collazo’s

9 duties is tainted by the notion that he was acting as a supervisor at all times relevant to

10 Guerrero’s claim. Therefore, the court cannot say whether Eagle has offered any

11 evidence regarding Collazo’s core, non-supervisory tasks. The EEOC, on the other hand,

12 offers at least some evidence suggesting that Collazo’s and Guerrero’s jobs were

13 substantially equal prior to Lyons’ departure. Accordingly, Eagle is not entitled to

14 summary judgment because the EEOC has shown that a genuine issue of material fact

15 exists concerning Collazo’s job duties.

16 VI. The EEOC is Entitled to Summary Judgement on Eagle’s Defense That Guerrero Failed to Mitigate Her Damages.
17 The EEOC’s motion also seeks summary judgment on two additional affirmative
18 defenses put forth by Eagle. The first is the defense of laches. Eagle argues that it was
19 prejudiced by Guerrero’s delay in filing her Title VII charge. The EEOC makes no
20 attempt to present, much less show the insufficiency of, any specific laches circumstances
21 in this case. Indeed, what remains of this case is only the EPA claim for wage differential
22 between August 7 and November 3, 2004. It is not apparent that any injunctive relief
23 would be warranted for what may be an isolated occurrence four years ago triggering
24 strict liability. The EEOC’s request for summary adjudication of an unexplained laches
25 defense to unknown injunctive relief falls short. The motion will be denied in that
26 respect.
27

28

- 12 -

Case 2:06-cv-01921-NVW Document 89 Filed 06/06/08 Page 13 of 13

1

Eagle’s answer also alleges that Guerrero failed to mitigate her damages. Eagle

2 argues that in May 2004 Guerrero knowingly accepted a job paying less than she earned

3 in 2003 and that she could have mitigated her damages by seeking employment

4 elsewhere. However, the basis of Guerrero’s claim is that she received unequal pay as a

5 result of gender discrimination, not that she was paid less from season to season.

6 Guerrero states that she did not know about the allegedly gender-based pay disparity until

7 October or November of 2004. Because Eagle puts forth no relevant evidence suggesting

8 that Guerrero failed to mitigate her damages, the EEOC is entitled to summary judgment

9 on that issue.

10

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant Eagle Produce, L.L.C.’s Motion

11 for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 55) and Additional Motion for Summary Judgment Re:

12 Bernardo Gomez (Doc. # 82) are DENIED as to the Equal Pay Act claim from August 7,

13 2004, and GRANTED as to the Title VII claim and the Equal Pay Act claim before

14 August 7, 2004.

15

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Equal Employment Opportunity

16 Commission’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. # 57) GRANTED as to the

17 defense of failure to mitigate damages and is DENIED in all other respects.

18

Dated: June 5, 2008.

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 13 -

 
 1 WO

2

3

4

5

6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8

9 Equal Employment Opportunity)

Commission,

)

10

)

Plaintiff,

)

11

)

vs.

)

12

)

)

13 Eagle Produce, L.L.C., an Arizona Limited)

Liability Company,

)

14

)

Defendant.

)

15

)

)

16

No. CV-06-1921-PHX-NVW ORDER

17

Before the court is Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s

18 (“EEOC”) Motion for Reconsideration of Summary Judgment Order (doc. # 91) filed

19 pursuant to Local Rule LRCiv 7.2(g) and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and

20 60(b). The EEOC asks the court to vacate its order of summary judgment against the

21 Title VII claim. The motion will be denied.

22 I. Procedural History

23

On June 6, 2005, Anita Guerrero filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC

24 alleging that Eagle Produce, L.L.C., her former employer, discriminated against her in

25 violation of the Equal Pay Act. On August 7, 2006, the EEOC filed this action against

26 Eagle on behalf of Guerrero, alleging only an Equal Pay Act claim. On August 14, 2006,

27 Guerrero amended her charge of discrimination to include a claim under Title VII of the

28

1 Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC later amended its complaint to add a Title VII claim.

2 Eagle pleaded the statute of limitations in defense to the Title VII claim. The parties filed

3 cross-motions for summary judgment on September 14, 2007, both addressing the statute

4 of limitations defense.

5

Days before the discovery and disclosure deadline, the EEOC disclosed for the

6 first time a second comparator, Bernardo Gomez, said to be paid more than Guerrero for

7 substantially equal work. The EEOC previously grounded its case on a different

8 comparator, Paul Collazo. The EEOC’s motion for summary judgment compared

9 Guerrero’s pay and job duties to both Collazo and Gomez, in effect asserting a second

10 lawsuit. Eagle moved to reopen discovery and to file a second motion for summary

11 judgment concerning Gomez. The court granted that request on December 5, 2007.

12 Eagle filed its second motion for summary judgment on February 15, 2008.

13

The statute of limitations states:

14

A charge under this section shall be filed within one hundred and eighty days

after the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred and notice of the

15

charge (including the date, place, and circumstances of the alleged unlawful

employment practice) shall be served upon the person against whom such

16

charge is made within ten days thereafter, except that in a case of an unlawful

employment practice with respect to which the person aggrieved has initially

17

instituted proceedings with a State or local agency with authority to grant or

seek relief from such practice or to institute criminal proceedings with respect

18

thereto upon receiving notice thereof, such charge shall be filed by or on

behalf of the person aggrieved within three hundred days after the alleged

19

unlawful employment practice occurred, or within thirty days after receiving

notice that the State or local agency has terminated the proceedings under the

20

State or local law . . . .

21 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(1).

22

In its first motion for summary judgment Eagle argued that the Title VII charge,

23 first made in the August 14, 2006 amendment, fell outside of the 180-day statute of

24 limitations. In both its own motion for summary judgment and its response to Eagle’s

25 motion, the EEOC argued that the August 14, 2006 amended charge concerning Title VII

26 related back to the original charge filed June 6, 2005. In its response to the EEOC’s

27 motion as well as in reply on its own motion, Eagle argued that even if the amendment

28 adding the Title VII charge related back to June 6, 2005, the charge was still filed more

- 2 -

1 than 180 days after November 30, 2004, the latest date that Guerrero could have learned

2 of the alleged Title VII discrimination.

3

In its reply on its motion for summary judgment the EEOC noted Eagle’s

4 concession that June 6, 2005, might be the date of filing the Title VII charge. But the

5 EEOC did not address Eagle’s argument that June 6, 2005, was beyond the 180-day

6 limitation. When Eagle later made the same limitations argument for the third time in its

7 second motion for summary judgment, the EEOC again failed to address why the 180-day

8 limitation did not apply and bar the Title VII claim.

9

In its order on the motions for summary judgment the court determined that, on the

10 issues and facts presented, the 180-day statute of limitations applied and ran no later than

11 May 29, 2005. The June 5, 2005 charge was filed too late. The court noted, “Though

12 Eagle has briefed this issue several times, the EEOC strangely has never responded to it.”

13 (Doc. # 89 at 6.)

14

On June 19, 2008, the EEOC filed this Motion for Reconsideration. The Motion

15 asserts—for the first time—that the State of Arizona and the EEOC have a formal

16 worksharing agreement. It argues that a charge filed with the EEOC is treated as if also

17 filed with the appropriate state agency. The EEOC argues that although Guerrero filed

18 her initial charge with the EEOC after the 180-day deadline, her Title VII charge is

19 actually subject to the 300-day statute of limitations for persons who institute proceedings

20 with a state agency. The EEOC asks under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and

21 60(b)(1) and Local Rule LRCiv 7.2(g) that the court “reverse its erroneous decision and

22 hold that Plaintiff’s Title VII claim is timely.” (Doc. # 91 at 2.)

23 II. 24

The order is correct because the EEOC failed to raise, and therefore forfeited, any contention that the 300-day statute of limitations applies and because the EEOC presented no fact triggering the 300-day limitation.

25

“On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative

26 from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake,

27 inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect. . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1). However,

28 “[n]either ignorance nor carelessness on the part of the litigant or his attorney provide

- 3 -

1 grounds for relief under Rule 60(b)(1).” Engleson v. Burlington N. Railroad Co., 972

2 F.2d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir. 1992) (quoting Kagan v. Caterpillar Tractor Co., 795 F.2d 601,

3 607 (7th Cir. 1986)). “The Court will ordinarily deny a motion for reconsideration of an

4 Order absent a showing of manifest error or a showing of new facts or legal authority that

5 could not have been brought to its attention earlier with reasonable diligence.” LRCiv

6 7.2(g)(1).

7

The “manifest error” warranting reconsideration under LRCiv 7.2(g)(1) must be

8 error of the court, not error of the litigant. Eagle’s briefs challenged the EEOC with the

9 180-day statute of limitations three times, yet the EEOC held back its argument until after

10 the ruling on its Title VII claim. Parties must come forward with their points and

11 authorities in support of or in opposition to a motion. LRCiv 7.2(b), (c). Failure to

12 respond to an argument is not ground for relief under Rule 60(b)(1). Smith v. Stone, 308

13 F.2d 15, 18 (9th Cir. 1962). “A defeated litigant cannot set aside a judgment because of

14 his failure to interpose a defense that could have been presented at trial, or because he

15 failed to present on a motion for summary judgment all of the facts known to him that

16 might have been useful to the court.” 11 WRIGHT, MILLER, & KANE, FEDERAL PRACTICE

17 AND PROCEDURE: CIVIL 2d § 2858 (1995). The EEOC could not have misunderstood

18 Eagle’s clear, thrice-presented argument; but even if it did, its neglect would not absolve

19 its duty to respond. Engleson, 972 F.2d at 1043; Allmerica Financial Life Ins. and

20 Annuity Co. v. Llewellyn, 139 F.3d 664, 665-66 (9th Cir. 1997) (counsel’s failure to

21 present an affirmative defense is not a basis for equitable relief).

22

The fact before the court–indeed, the true fact–was that Guerrero initiated her

23 charge of discrimination with the EEOC, not with a state agency. The EEOC did not

24 present the extra-judicial fact that it had entered into a worksharing agreement with the

25 State of Arizona or address how that relationship might affect the statute of limitations.

26 Without that fact and argument, the court correctly determined that the plain language of

27 the statute imposed a 180-day deadline for Guerrero’s Title VII charge and she missed it.

28

- 4 -

1

The ruling from which the EEOC seeks relief is not a “manifest error.” LRCiv

2 7.2(g)(1). It was compelled by the only facts and arguments presented to the court.. The

3 EEOC seeks relief from its own neglect or strategic choice, which abandoned both the

4 fact and the argument it now would resurrect. After 22 months of litigation and two

5 successive cycles of discovery and summary judgment briefing, the EEOC’s remorse at

6 its double omission after triple warning is not justification for a fourth chance to choose

7 its issues and evidence. Bank of America Nat. Trust and Sav. Ass’n v. Mamakos, 509

8 F.2d 1217, 1219 (9th Cir. 1975) (not abuse of discretion to deny a motion for

9 reconsideration where party fails to raise fact and assert point in opposition until after

10 judgment had been entered); Van Der Salm Bulb Farms, Inc. v. Hapag Lloyd, AG, 818

11 F.2d 699, 700 (9th Cir. 1987) (evidence presented for the first time in motion for

12 reconsideration does not justify granting of motion).

13 III. Conclusion

14

The Motion for Reconsideration does not present a “mistake, inadvertence,

15 surprise or excusable neglect” that warrants relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1). Nor is

16 it a basis for relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) or Local Rule LRCiv 7.2(g). To the

17 contrary, the Motion illustrates why litigants are required to timely present their issues

18 and evidence, why the courts are not required to search for reasons to rule for parties who

19 do not present their own, and why opposing parties who follow the rules of engagement

20 are entitled to repose at battle’s end.

21

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of

22 Summary Judgment Order (doc. # 91) is DENIED.

23

DATED this 18th day of July, 2008.

24

25

26

27

28

- 5 -

 
 Case: 2:06-cv-1921 As of: 06/03/2017 09:45 AM MST 1 of 9
U.S. District Court DISTRICT OF ARIZONA (Phoenix Division) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:06−cv−01921−NVW

CLOSED,STD

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Eagle Produce, L.L.C. Assigned to: Senior Judge Neil V Wake Cause: 29:203 Equal Pay Act
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 08/07/2006 Date Terminated: 10/03/2008 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by Lucila G Rosas EEOC 3300 N Central Ave Ste 690 Phoenix, AZ 85012 602−640−5025 Fax: 602−640−5009 Email: lucila.rosas@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mary Joleen O'Neill Equal Employment Opportunity Commission − Phoenix, AZ 3300 N Central Ave., Ste. 690 Phoenix, AZ 85012−1848 602−640−5044 Fax: 602−640−5009 Email: mary.oneill@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sally Clifford Shanley Equal Employment Opportunity Commission − Phoenix, AZ 3300 N Central Ave., Ste. 690 Phoenix, AZ 85012−1848 602−640−5007 Fax: 602−640−5009 Email: sally.shanley@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tin−Tin Diana Chen EEOC 3300 N Central Ave Ste 690 Phoenix, AZ 85012−2504 602−640−5033 Fax: 602−640−5009 Email: Diana.chen@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
Eagle Produce LLC an Arizona Limited Liability Company

represented by Clarissa Braza Reiman Burch & Cracchiolo PA 702 E Osborn Rd., Ste. 200 Phoenix, AZ 85014

Case: 2:06-cv-1921 As of: 06/03/2017 09:45 AM MST 2 of 9
602−234−8797 Fax: 602−234−0341 Email: creiman@bcattorneys.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
F Michael Carroll Burch & Cracchiolo PA PO Box 16882 Phoenix, AZ 85011−6882 602−234−9946 Fax: 602−234−0341 Email: mcarroll@bcattorneys.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 08/07/2006 08/07/2006
08/08/2006 11/29/2006 12/05/2006
12/22/2006 12/22/2006 12/26/2006 01/12/2007 01/17/2007 01/26/2007 02/02/2007 02/02/2007
02/02/2007
03/15/2007

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Shanley, Sally) (Entered: 08/07/2006)
This case has been assigned to the Honorable Neil V. Wake. All future pleadings or documents should bear the correct case number: CV06−1921−PHX−NVW. (entered by PEM) (Entered: 08/08/2006)
2 Summons Issued as to Eagle Produce, L.L.C. (PEM) (Entered: 08/08/2006)
3 AMENDED COMPLAINT against Eagle Produce, L.L.C.; Jury Demand, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.(Rosas, Lucila) (Entered: 11/29/2006)
4 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Eagle Produce, L.L.C. served on 12/1/2006, answer due 12/21/2006. (Shanley, Sally) (Entered: 12/05/2006)
5 ANSWER to Amended Complaint by Eagle Produce, L.L.C..(Carroll, F) (Entered: 12/22/2006)
6 DEMAND for Trial by Jury by Eagle Produce, L.L.C.. (Carroll, F) (Entered: 12/22/2006)
7 ORDER: Scheduling Conference set for 2/2/2007 at 11:00 AM before Judge Neil V Wake. Signed by Judge Neil V Wake on 12/26/06. (SJF) (Entered: 12/26/2006)
8 Notice by Eagle Produce, L.L.C. // NOTICE OF SERVICE OF DEFENDANT'S RULE 26(a)(1) DISCLOSURE STATEMENT (Carroll, F) (Entered: 01/12/2007)
9 Notice re Plaintiff EEOC's Initial Rule 26(a)(1) Disclosure Statement by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Rosas, Lucila) (Entered: 01/17/2007)
10 REPORT re: Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Eagle Produce, L.L.C.. (Rosas, Lucila) (Entered: 01/26/2007)
11 Notice re Service of Discovery Documents by Eagle Produce, L.L.C. (Carroll, F) (Entered: 02/02/2007)
12 TEXT−ONLY Minute Entry. Proceedings held before Judge Neil V Wake: Scheduling Conference held on 2/2/2007. Lucila G. Rosas is present for Plaintiff. F. Michael Carroll and Clarissa Reiman are present for Defendant. Status of the case is discussed and case management deadlines are established. Case Management Order will issue. (Court Reporter Linda Schroeder.) This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (SJF) (Entered: 02/02/2007)
13 SCHEDULING ORDER: Discovery due by 8/31/2007, Dispositive motions due by 9/14/2007, Proposed Pretrial Order due by 9/28/2007. Signed by Judge Neil V Wake on 2/2/07. (SJF) (Entered: 02/02/2007)
14 Notice re Service of First Discovery Responses to Defendant by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Rosas, Lucila) (Entered: 03/15/2007)

Case: 2:06-cv-1921 As of: 06/03/2017 09:45 AM MST 3 of 9

04/23/2007 05/01/2007 05/01/2007 05/02/2007 05/23/2007 05/23/2007 05/25/2007 05/25/2007 05/29/2007 06/11/2007 06/11/2007 06/12/2007 06/12/2007
06/13/2007
06/20/2007 06/21/2007 07/05/2007 07/13/2007

15 Notice re Service of First Discovery Requests by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Rosas, Lucila) (Entered: 04/23/2007)
16 NOTICE of Deposition of Jimmy Byrd, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Rosas, Lucila) (Entered: 05/01/2007)
17 NOTICE of Deposition of Mark Lyons, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Rosas, Lucila) (Entered: 05/01/2007)
18 NOTICE of Deposition of Guerrero, filed by Eagle Produce, L.L.C.. (Carroll, F) (Entered: 05/02/2007)
19 NOTICE of Deposition of Daniel Gonzalez, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Rosas, Lucila) (Entered: 05/23/2007)
20 NOTICE of Deposition of Ricardo Gonzalez, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Rosas, Lucila) (Entered: 05/23/2007)
21 Notice re Notice of Service of Responses to Request for Admissions by Eagle Produce, L.L.C. (Carroll, F) (Entered: 05/25/2007)
22 Notice re Notice of Service of Responses to 1st Set of Interrogatories by Eagle Produce, L.L.C. (Carroll, F) (Entered: 05/25/2007)
23 NOTICE of Deposition of Barbara Rusden, filed by Eagle Produce, L.L.C.. (Carroll, F) (Entered: 05/29/2007)
24 Notice re Notice of Service of Response to Request for Production of Documents by Eagle Produce, L.L.C. (Carroll, F) (Entered: 06/11/2007)
25 First MOTION for Extension of Time To Complete Discovery by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Rosas, Lucila) (Entered: 06/11/2007)
26 Notice re Discovery Dispute Regarding Deposition of EEOC Investigator by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Rosas, Lucila) (Entered: 06/12/2007)
27 IT IS ORDERED setting telephonic hearing re 26 Notice of Discovery Dispute Regarding Deposition of EEOC Investigator for 6/13/2007 at 11:00 AM before Judge Neil V. Wake. Counsel for Plaintiff shall initiate the conference call. Entered by Judge Neil V. Wake on 6/12/2007. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (NVW, ) (Entered: 06/12/2007)
28 Minute Entry. Proceedings held before Judge Neil V Wake: Telephone Conference held on 6/13/2007 re discovery dispute. Lucila Rosas is present telephonically for Plaintiff and F. Michael Carroll is present telephonically for Defendant. Counsel present argument. Plaintiff's notice of discovery dispute is granted in part and denied in part. It is denied to the extent that defendant may inquire of deponent Barbara Rudsen concerning the basis for damages to the employee in this case and the relief is granted to the extent that defendant may not inquire generally into the administrative investigation. Discussion is held regarding the pending Motion for Extension of Time. The Court grants the 25 Motion for Extension of Time and the discovery deadline is extended to 8/31/07 as requested. (Court Reporter Laurie Adams.) This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (SJF) (Entered: 06/13/2007)
29 Notice re Service of First Supplemental Disclosure and Supplemental Discovery Responses by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Rosas, Lucila) (Entered: 06/20/2007)
30 Notice re Service of First Supplemental Disclosure Statement by Eagle Produce, L.L.C. (Carroll, F) (Entered: 06/21/2007)
31 NOTICE of Deposition of Paul Collazo, filed by Eagle Produce, L.L.C.. (Carroll, F) (Entered: 07/05/2007)
32 Notice re Service of Second Set of Discovery Requests by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Rosas, Lucila) (Entered: 07/13/2007)

Case: 2:06-cv-1921 As of: 06/03/2017 09:45 AM MST 4 of 9

07/16/2007 07/16/2007 07/17/2007 07/18/2007 07/24/2007 07/26/2007 07/26/2007 07/26/2007 07/26/2007 07/31/2007 08/03/2007 08/07/2007 08/17/2007 08/17/2007
08/20/2007 08/20/2007 08/22/2007 08/23/2007
08/23/2007 08/24/2007
08/27/2007
09/07/2007

33 NOTICE of Deposition of Barbara Rusden, filed by Eagle Produce, L.L.C.. (Carroll, F) (Entered: 07/16/2007)
34 Notice re Subpoena by Eagle Produce, L.L.C. re 33 Notice of Deposition Barbara Rusden (Carroll, F) (Entered: 07/16/2007)
35 Notice re Service of 2nd Supplemental Disclosure Statement by Eagle Produce, L.L.C. (Carroll, F) (Entered: 07/17/2007)
36 NOTICE of Deposition of Paul Collazo, filed by Eagle Produce, L.L.C.. (Carroll, F) (Entered: 07/18/2007)
37 NOTICE of Deposition of Barbara Rusden, filed by Eagle Produce, L.L.C.. (Carroll, F) (Entered: 07/24/2007)
38 NOTICE of Deposition of Stephen Martori, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Rosas, Lucila) (Entered: 07/26/2007)
39 NOTICE of Deposition of Stephen Martori, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Rosas, Lucila) (Entered: 07/26/2007)
40 NOTICE of Deposition of 30(B)(6), filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Rosas, Lucila) (Entered: 07/26/2007)
41 Notice re Service of Second Supplemental Disclosure by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Rosas, Lucila) (Entered: 07/26/2007)
42 RESPONSE re 40 Notice of Deposition 30(b)(6) by Defendant Eagle Produce, L.L.C.. (Carroll, F) (Entered: 07/31/2007)
43 NOTICE of Deposition of Paul Collazo, filed by Eagle Produce, L.L.C.. (Carroll, F) (Entered: 08/03/2007)
44 NOTICE of Deposition of Paul Collazo, filed by Eagle Produce, L.L.C.. (Carroll, F) (Entered: 08/07/2007)
45 Notice re Service of 3rd Supplemental Disclosure Statement by Eagle Produce, L.L.C. (Carroll, F) (Entered: 08/17/2007)
46 Notice re Service by Eagle Produce, L.L.C. Responses to 2nd Set of Non−Uniform Interrogatories, Request for Admission, and Request for Production (Carroll, F) (Entered: 08/17/2007)
47 Notice re Service of 3rd Supplemental Disclosure Statement AMENDED by Eagle Produce, L.L.C. (Carroll, F) (Entered: 08/20/2007)
48 Notice re Service of Responses to Discovery Requests AMENDED by Eagle Produce, L.L.C. (Carroll, F) (Entered: 08/20/2007)
49 NOTICE of Deposition of Paul Collazo, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Rosas, Lucila) (Entered: 08/22/2007)
50 NOTICE of Deposition of Paul Collazo (by Subpoena), filed by Eagle Produce, L.L.C.. (Carroll, F) Modified on 8/24/2007 (SAT). INCORRECT PDF DOCUMENT ATTACHED. ATTORNEY NOTICED TO RE−FILE. (Entered: 08/23/2007)
51 Notice re of Service by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re Third Supplemental Disclosure (Rosas, Lucila) (Entered: 08/23/2007)
52 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCY re 50 Notice of Deposition filed by Eagle Produce, L.L.C.. Description of deficiency: Incorrect PDF document attached. Subpoena in a Civil Action attached to entry instead of the Notice of Deposition. (SAT) (Entered: 08/24/2007)
53 Notice re of Service by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 2nd Supplemental Response to Defendant's First Set of Interrogatories, Request for Admissions and Request for Production of Documents (Rosas, Lucila) (Entered: 08/27/2007)
54 REPORT of Settlement Talks (Joint) by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Rosas, Lucila) (Entered: 09/07/2007)

Case: 2:06-cv-1921 As of: 06/03/2017 09:45 AM MST 5 of 9

09/14/2007 09/14/2007 09/14/2007 09/14/2007 09/18/2007 09/20/2007 09/20/2007 09/20/2007 10/22/2007 10/22/2007
10/22/2007 10/22/2007 10/22/2007 11/01/2007 11/02/2007 11/15/2007

55 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Eagle Produce, L.L.C.. (Carroll, F) (Entered: 09/14/2007)
56 STATEMENT re 55 MOTION for Summary Judgment Statement of Facts by Defendant Eagle Produce, L.L.C.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits to Statement of Facts# 2 Exhibit Exhibits 15−21 to Statement of Facts)(Carroll, F) (Entered: 09/14/2007)
57 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Rosas, Lucila) (Entered: 09/14/2007)
58 STATEMENT of Facts in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment by Plaintiff EEOC re 57 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1−10)(Rosas, Lucila) (Entered: 09/14/2007)
59 AMENDED DOCUMENT by Eagle Produce, L.L.C.. Amendment to 56 Statement Statement of Facts in support of Motion for Summary Judgment. (Carroll, F) (Entered: 09/18/2007)
60 STIPULATION for Extension of Time to Respond to Motions for Summary Judgment by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Eagle Produce, L.L.C.. (Carroll, F) (Entered: 09/20/2007)
61 LODGED Proposed Order Granting Extension. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion to Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Eagle Produce, L.L.C.. (Carroll, F) (Entered: 09/20/2007)
62 ORDER granting 60 STIPULATION for Extension of Time (until 10/22/2007) to Respond to Motions for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Neil V. Wake on 9/20/2007. (NVW, ) (Entered: 09/20/2007)
63 RESPONSE to Motion re 57 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Re: Statute of Limitations; Laches; and Failure to Mitigate Damages filed by Eagle Produce, L.L.C.. (Reiman, Clarissa) (Entered: 10/22/2007)
64 STATEMENT of Controverting Statement of Facts and Separate Statement of Facts in Support of Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment re 58 Statement, 63 Response to Motion by Defendant Eagle Produce, L.L.C.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit Exhibit D# 5 Exhibit Exhibit E# 6 Exhibit Exhibit F# 7 Exhibit Exhibit G# 8 Exhibit Exhibit H# 9 Exhibit Exhibit I)(Reiman, Clarissa) (Entered: 10/22/2007)
65 RESPONSE in Opposition re 55 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Rosas, Lucila) (Entered: 10/22/2007)
66 STATEMENT of Statement of Facts in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment re 55 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1−11)(Rosas, Lucila) (Entered: 10/22/2007)
67 RESPONSE re 56 Statement, 59 Amended Document (NOT Motion/Complaint) Local Rule of Practice 56.1(b) by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Rosas, Lucila) (Entered: 10/22/2007)
68 STIPULATION For Extension of Time to File Respective Replies in Support of Motion(s) for Summary Judgment by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Eagle Produce, L.L.C.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Reiman, Clarissa) (Entered: 11/01/2007)
69 ORDER granting 68 STIPULATION For Extension of Time to 11/16/2007 to File Respective Replies in Support of Motion(s) for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Neil V. Wake on 11/2/2007. (NVW, ) (Entered: 11/02/2007)
70 Reply to Response to Motion re 57 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Rosas, Lucila) Modified on 11/16/2007 (SAT). DOCKET TEXT MODIFIED TO CORRECT DOCUMENT LINKAGE. INCORRECT EVENT TYPE SELECTED. THIS ENTRY HAS BEEN MODIFIED FROM "REPLY" TO "REPLY TO RESPONSE TO MOTION". (Entered: 11/15/2007)

Case: 2:06-cv-1921 As of: 06/03/2017 09:45 AM MST 6 of 9

11/16/2007 11/16/2007 11/16/2007
11/20/2007 11/21/2007 11/26/2007
11/27/2007
12/04/2007 12/05/2007
01/15/2008 01/15/2008 02/15/2008 02/15/2008
03/19/2008

71 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCY re 70 Reply filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Description of deficiency: Document linked incorrectly. Incorrect document type selected. (SAT) (Entered: 11/16/2007)
72 REPLY in Support re 55 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Eagle Produce, L.L.C.. (Carroll, F) (Entered: 11/16/2007)
73 STATEMENT of Exhibit to Def Statement of FActs re 72 Reply in Support of Motion by Defendant Eagle Produce, L.L.C.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A to Def Statement of Facts# 2 Exhibit Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit Exhibit D# 5 Exhibit Exhibit E# 6 Exhibit Exhibit F# 7 Exhibit Exhibit G# 8 Exhibit Exhibits H and I to Def Statement of Facts# 9 Exhibit Exhibits J and K to Def Statement of Facts)(Carroll, F) (Entered: 11/16/2007)
74 Notice re Service by Eagle Produce, L.L.C. 4th Supplemental Disclosure Statement (Carroll, F) (Entered: 11/20/2007)
75 MOTION for Leave to File to File Sur−Reply to Defendant Eagle Produce's Reply in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Rosas, Lucila) Modified on 11/26/2007 (SAT). LODGED PROPOSED DOCUMENT EVENT NOT ENTERED. (Entered: 11/21/2007)
76 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCY re 75 MOTION for Leave to File to File Sur−Reply to Defendant Eagle Produce's Reply in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Description of deficiency: Original proposed pleading not electronically lodged usint the "Lodge Proposed Document" event. (SAT) (Entered: 11/26/2007)
77 ORDER − IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff EEOC's 75 Motion for Leave to File Sur−Reply to Defendant Eagle Produce's Reply in Support of Its Motion for Summary Judgment is granted. Plaintiff may have until December 20, 2007, to file a Sur−Reply and additional controverting evidence. Signed by Judge Neil V Wake on 11/26/07. (SAT) (Entered: 11/27/2007)
78 MOTION to Continue Summary Judgment to Obtain the Deposition of B Gomez and Motion for Leave to File a Sur Rebuttal by Eagle Produce, L.L.C.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declaration of Michael Carroll)(Carroll, F) (Entered: 12/04/2007)
79 Minute Entry for telephonic motion hrg held before Judge Neil V Wake: The 77 Order granting pla leave to file a sur−reply on dft's motion for summary jgm is VACATED. Discovery is reopened re: the new contention by pla relating to Mr. Gomez as a comparator and matters ancillary to that. Deadline for this discovery extended to 1/31/08. Dft may file an additional motion for summary jgm, by 2/15/08, addressing the newly disclosed contentions from pla re: Mr. Gomez as a comparator. Pla's response due within the time provided by the rules. The pending 78 Motion for Continuance of Summary Jgm to Obtain the Deposition of Bernardo Gomez and Motion for Leave to File a Sur−Rebuttal is rendered moot by the above ruling. (Court Reporter Laurie Adams.) (SAT) (Entered: 12/06/2007)
80 NOTICE of Deposition of Bernardo Gomez, filed by Eagle Produce, L.L.C.. (Carroll, F) (Entered: 01/15/2008)
81 NOTICE of Deposition of Beatriz Lizarraga, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Rosas, Lucila) (Entered: 01/15/2008)
82 MOTION for Summary Judgment Re Bernardo Gomez by Eagle Produce, L.L.C.. (Carroll, F) (Entered: 02/15/2008)
83 STATEMENT of Facts re 82 MOTION for Summary Judgment re Bernardo Gomez by Eagle Produce, L.L.C.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(Carroll, F) Modified on 3/20/2008 (SAT). INCORRECT EVENT SELECTED. THIS ENTRY HAS BEEN MODIFIED FROM "MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT" TO "STATMENT". DOCKET TEXT MODIFIED TO CORRECT DOCUMENT LINKAGE. (Entered: 02/15/2008)
84 RESPONSE in Opposition re 82 MOTION for Summary Judgment Re Bernardo Gomez filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Rosas, Lucila) (Entered: 03/19/2008)

Case: 2:06-cv-1921 As of: 06/03/2017 09:45 AM MST 7 of 9

03/19/2008 03/19/2008 04/07/2008
04/07/2008 06/06/2008
06/06/2008
06/19/2008 07/18/2008 08/05/2008 08/06/2008 08/08/2008 08/08/2008 08/14/2008

85 STATEMENT Controverting Statement of Facts re 83 STATEMENT of Facts in support of 82 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Rosas, Lucila) Modified on 3/20/2008 (SAT). INCORRECT EVENT SELECTED. THIS ENTRY HAS BEEN MODIFIED FROM "RESPONSE" TO "STATEMENT". (Entered: 03/19/2008)
86 STATEMENT of (Additional) Facts in Opposition To Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment Re: Bernardo Gomez re 82 MOTION for Summary Judgment Re Bernardo Gomez by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1−9)(Rosas, Lucila) (Entered: 03/19/2008)
87 STATEMENT (Controverting) in Response to Plaintiff EEOC's 85 Controverting STATEMENT of Facts in Response to Defendant's Additional Statement of Facts re: Bernardo Gomez filed by Eagle Produce, L.L.C.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 3, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 4, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit 5)(Reiman, Clarissa) Modified on 4/8/2008 (SAT). INCORRECT EVENT SELECTED. THIS ENTRY HAS BEEN MODIFIED FROM "RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION" TO "STATEMENT". DOCKET TEXT MODIFIED TO CORRECT DOCUMENT LINKAGE. (Entered: 04/07/2008)
88 REPLY in Support re 82 MOTION for Summary Judgment Re Bernardo Gomez Reply in Support of Defendants' Additional Motion for Summary Judgment Re: Bernardo Gomez filed by Eagle Produce, L.L.C.. (Reiman, Clarissa) (Entered: 04/07/2008)
89 ORDER − IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Dft Eagle Produce, L.L.C.'s 55 Motion for Summary Judgment and 82 Additional Motion for Summary Judgment Re: Bernardo Gomez are DENIED as to the Equal Pay Act claim from 8/7/04, and GRANTED as to the Title VII claim and the Equal Pay Act claim before 8/7/04. FURTHER ORDERED that Pla Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's 57 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is GRANTED as to the defense of failure to mitigate damages and is DENIED in all other respects. Signed by Judge Neil V Wake on 6/5/08. (SAT) (Entered: 06/06/2008)
90 ORDER SETTING FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE − Final Pretrial Conference set for 9/26/2008 at 2:00 PM in Courtroom 504, 401 West Washington Street, Phoenix, AZ 85003 before Judge Neil V Wake. Proposed Pretrial Order due by 8/29/2008 no later than 4:00 p.m.. Jury Trial set for 10/21/2008 at 8:30 AM in Courtroom 504, 401 West Washington Street, Phoenix, AZ 85003 before Judge Neil V Wake. Signed by Judge Neil V Wake on 6/5/08. (SAT) (Entered: 06/06/2008)
91 MOTION for Reconsideration of Summary Judgment Order by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit # 1 − 3)(Rosas, Lucila) (Entered: 06/19/2008)
92 ORDER denying 91 Motion for Reconsideration. See text of attached order for full details. Signed by Judge Neil V Wake on 7/18/08.(SJF) Modified on 7/18/2008 to designate as opinion (SJF). (Entered: 07/18/2008)
93 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Joint Pretrial Order and Reschedule Trial Date by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Rosas, Lucila) (Entered: 08/05/2008)
94 RESPONSE to Motion re 93 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Joint Pretrial Order and Reschedule Trial Date filed by Eagle Produce, L.L.C.. (Carroll, F) Modified on 8/7/2008 (TLJ). DOCUMENT NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH LRCIV 7.1(c). ATTORNEY NOTICED. (Entered: 08/06/2008)
95 MOTION in Limine re: Exclude Mention of Title VII Claim No Longer Before Court by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Rosas, Lucila) (Entered: 08/08/2008)
96 MOTION in Limine re: Exclude Evidence Related to Defenses Not Asserted by Defendant by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Attachment 1)(Rosas, Lucila) (Entered: 08/08/2008)
97 ORDER granting 93 Motion for Extension of Time. Proposed Pretrial Order due by 9/12/2008. Trial reset for 10/14/2008 08:30 AM before Judge Neil V Wake.. Signed by Judge Neil V Wake on 8/13/08.(TLJ) (Entered: 08/14/2008)

Case: 2:06-cv-1921 As of: 06/03/2017 09:45 AM MST 8 of 9

08/22/2008 08/22/2008 08/22/2008 08/28/2008 09/12/2008 09/12/2008 09/12/2008 09/12/2008 09/16/2008 09/19/2008
09/19/2008 09/22/2008 09/23/2008 09/23/2008 09/26/2008 09/30/2008

98 TEXT−0NLY Minute Order: Due to a conflict on the Court's calendar, Final Pretrial Conference is reset from 9/26/08 at 2:00 PM to 9/26/2008 at 10:30 AM before Judge Neil V Wake. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (SJF) (Entered: 08/22/2008)
99 RESPONSE to Motion re 95 MOTION in Limine re: Exclude Mention of Title VII Claim No Longer Before Court filed by Eagle Produce, L.L.C.. (Reiman, Clarissa) Modified on 8/25/2008 (TLJ). DOCUMENT NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH LRCIV 7.1(c). ATTORNEY NOTICED. (Entered: 08/22/2008)
100 RESPONSE to Motion re 96 MOTION in Limine re: Exclude Evidence Related to Defenses Not Asserted by Defendant filed by Eagle Produce, L.L.C.. (Reiman, Clarissa) Modified on 8/25/2008 (TLJ). DOCUMENT NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH LRCIV 7.1(c). ATTORNEY NOTICED. (Entered: 08/22/2008)
101 NOTICE of Appearance by Tin−Tin Diana Chen on behalf of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Chen, Tin−Tin) (Entered: 08/28/2008)
102 Notice re of Lodging by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Rosas, Lucila) (Entered: 09/12/2008)
103 Notice of Filing Proposed Pretrial Order filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Eagle Produce, L.L.C. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1−6B)(Rosas, Lucila) (Entered: 09/12/2008)
104 TRIAL BRIEF by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Rosas, Lucila) (Entered: 09/12/2008)
105 TRIAL BRIEF Memorandum on Issues of Law and Fact by Eagle Produce, L.L.C.. (Carroll, F) (Entered: 09/12/2008)
106 TEXT−ONLY Minute Order: Due to the Court's scheduling conflict, Final Pretrial Conference is reset from 9/26/08 to 10/3/2008 at 10:00 AM before Judge Neil V Wake. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (SJF) (Entered: 09/16/2008)
107 ORDER: pursuant to Rule 4(m), Fed. R. Civ. P., that this action shall be dismissed on or after October 6, 2008, unless before then Plaintiff has served defendant(s) with process and has filed with the clerk of the court proof thereof pursuant to Rule 4(l). Signed by Judge Neil V Wake on 9/19/08. (SJF) DOCUMENT FILED IN WRONG CASE. REDOCKETED IN CORRECT CASE BY CLERK ON 9/19/2008 (MAP). (Entered: 09/19/2008)
108 NOTICE OF CORRECTION BY THE CLERK re 107 Order. Description of deficiency: Document (Order) docketed in wrong case. Follow up by Clerks Office: Order Redocketed in Correct Case by Clerk. Court use only: SJF. (MAP) (Entered: 09/19/2008)
109 MOTION for Referral to Magistrate Judge for Settlement Conference and for Expedited Ruling by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Rosas, Lucila) (Entered: 09/22/2008)
110 ORDER − IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's 109 Motion for Expedited Ruling is granted and Motion for Referral to Magistrate Judge for Settlement Conference is denied. Signed by Judge Neil V Wake on 9/23/08.(SAT) (Entered: 09/23/2008)
111 ORDER − IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's 109 Motion for Expedited Ruling is granted and Motion for Referral to Magistrate Judge for Settlement Conference is denied. Signed by Judge Neil V Wake on 9/23/08. (SAT) (Entered: 09/23/2008)
112 ORDER − IT IS ORDERED referring this matter to Magistrate Judge David K. Duncan for a mediation on Tuesday, September 30, 2008 from 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.. Signed by Judge Neil V Wake on 9/26/08. (SAT) (Entered: 09/26/2008)
113 Minute Entry. Proceedings held before Magistrate Judge David K Duncan: Settlement Conference held on 9/30/2008 and agreement between parties being reached − IT IS HEREBY ORDERED the settlement be fully executed and the final settlement agreement be filed with the Court no later than October 3, 2008. (Court Reporter

Case: 2:06-cv-1921 As of: 06/03/2017 09:45 AM MST 9 of 9

10/02/2008 10/03/2008 10/03/2008 10/03/2008 10/03/2008
10/03/2008 10/07/2008 10/07/2008
10/07/2008

COURTSMART.)(KMG, ) (Entered: 10/01/2008)
114 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION AND ORDER FORM by Eagle Produce, L.L.C. for proceedings held on 9/30/2008 before Judge David K. Duncan. (Carroll, F) (Entered: 10/02/2008)
115 Joint MOTION to Continue Pretrial Conference by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Eagle Produce, L.L.C.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Shanley, Sally) (Entered: 10/03/2008)
116 TEXT−ONLY ORDER granting 115 Motion to Continue: ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Continue Pretrial Conference (Doc. # 115) is granted, and the final pretrial conference is continued from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. on October 3, 2008. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (SJF) (Entered: 10/03/2008)
117 Notice re of filing Settlement Agreement by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Eagle Produce, L.L.C. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Settlement Agreement)(Shanley, Sally) (Entered: 10/03/2008)
118 ORDER that the Clerk enter judgment dismissing this action with prejudice, all parties to bear their own costs and attorney fees, but without prejudice to the rights and obligations of the parties under the written Settlement Agreement 117 . FURTHER ORDERED that the Court retains jurisdiction for one year from the date of this judgment to consider any motion by any party to enforce the terms of the Settlement Agreement. The Clerk shall terminate this action. Signed by Judge Neil V Wake on 10/3/08. (KMG, ) (Entered: 10/03/2008)
119 CLERK'S JUDGMENT − IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED by way of this Court, dismissing this action with prejudice, all parties to bear their own costs and attorney fees, but without prejudice to the rights and obligations of the parties under the written Settlement Agreement. Signed on 10/3/08. (KMG, ) (Entered: 10/03/2008)
120 TAPE ORDER FORM by Eagle Produce, L.L.C. for settlement proceedings held on 9/30/08 before Judge David K Duncan. (BAS, ) (Entered: 10/07/2008)
121 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings re: Settlement Conference held on 9/30/08 before Judge David K Duncan. Taped Proceeding Transcribed by Candy L Potter. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 10/28/2008. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 11/7/2008. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/5/2009. (BAS, ) (Entered: 10/07/2008)
122 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT (BAS, ) (Entered: 10/07/2008)