EIEED

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
CHARLESTON DIVISION

SEP 2 5 2003
I~RRY W. PROPES, CLERK U. S. DISTRICT COURT.

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,

CIVIL ACTION NO.
2’ 0

0 5 5-i

go
HOOVER CHRYSLER, INC.; HOOVER JEEP CHRYSLER, INC.; and HOOVER CHRYSLER JEEP, INC.
Defendants.

COMPLAINT (JURY TRIAL DEMANDED)

NATURE OF THE ACTION This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of sex, and to provide appropriate relief to Jessica Keefer, Laura Franks, Katherine Later, Renee Cotton, Melinda Jones, and other similarly situated female employees who were adversely affected by such practices. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "EEOC") alleges that since at least November 2000, through September 2002 the above-referenced female employees were subjected to a continuing sexually hostile working environment at Defendants’ Summerville, South Carolina, automobile dealership on Old Trolley Road, and all were adversely affected by such practices.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 451, 1331, 1337, 1343 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Section 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1)

and (3), and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a. 2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed within the
jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, Charleston Division.
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, is the agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title VII, and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Section 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3). 4. At all relevant times, Defendant Hoover Chrysler, Inc. (HC), has continuously been a South Carolina corporation doing business in the State of South Carolina and the City of Summerville, and has continuously had at least 15 employees. 5. At all relevant times, Defendant Hoover Jeep Chrysler, Inc. ("HJC"), has continuously been a South Carolina corporation doing business in the State of South Carolina and the City of Summerville, and has continuously had at least 15 employees. 6. At all relevant times, Defendant Hoover Chrysler Jeep, Inc. ("HCJ"), has continuously been a South Carolina corporation doing business in the State of South Carolina and the City of Summerville, and has continuously had at least 15 employees. 7. At all relevant times, Defendants HC, HJC, and HCJ (referred to collectively herein as Defendants) were an integrated enterprise of automobile dealerships doing business as "Hoover the Mover" on Old Trolley Road in Summerville, South Carolina, and elsewhere in the Charleston metropolitan area. 8. At all relevant times, Defendants have continuously been employers engaged in an
2

industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701 (b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(b), (g) and (h).
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 9. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Jessica Keefer filed a charge with the EEOC alleging violations of Title VII by Defendants. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled. 10. Since at least November 2000 through September 2002, Defendants have engaged in unlawful employment practices at their Summerville, South Carolina, automobile dealership on Old Trolley Road in violation of Section 703 of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2, including, but not limited to, subjecting female employees, some of whom as young as sixteen years old, to a continuing severe or pervasive sexually hostile working environment, which was based on their sex, female, and which included, but was not limited to, daily verbal and physical sexual harassment by several adult or senior adult car salesmen. 11. The effect of the practices complained of in paragraph 10 above has deprived Jessica Keefer, Laura Franks, Katherine Later, Renee Cotton, Melinda Jones, and other similarly situated female employees who worked at the Summerville, South Carolina, automobile dealership on Old Trolley Road of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affected their status as employees because of their sex, female. 12. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 10 above were intentional. 13. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 10 above were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Jessica Keefer,
3

Laura Franks, Katherine Later, Renee Cotton, Melinda Jones, and the other similarly situated female employees who worked at the Summerville, South Carolina, automobile dealership on Old Trolley Road.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, the EEOC respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendants, their officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with them, from engaging in sexual harassment and any other employment practice which discriminates on the basis of sex. B. Order Defendants to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for women, and which eradicate the effects of their past unlawful employment practices. C. Order Defendants to make whole Jessica Keefer, Laura Franks, Renee Cotton, and other similarly situated female employees who worked at the Summerville, South Carolina, automobile dealership on Old Trolley Road by providing appropriate back pay with prejudgment interest, in amounts to be determined at trial, and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of their unlawful employment practices. D. Order Defendants to make whole Jessica Keefer, Laura Franks, Renee Cotton, Melinda Jones, and other similarly situated female employees who worked at Defendants’ Old Trolley Road automobile dealership, by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described in paragraph 10 above, including, but not limited to, lost wages and medical expenses, in amounts to be determined at trial.
4

E. Order Defendants to make whole Jessica Keefer, Laura Franks, Katherine Later,

Renee Cotton, Melinda Jones, and other similarly situated female employees who worked at the

Summerville, South Carolina, automobile dealership on 01d Trolley Road, by providing compensation for past and future nonpecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices complained of in paragraph 10 above, including, but not limited to, loss of enjoyment of life, personal injuries, loss of earning capacity, suffering, humiliation, fear, anxiety, emotional pain, loss of dignity, loss of civil rights, and anger, in amounts to be determined at trial.
F. Order Defendants to pay Jessica Keefer, Laura Franks, Katherine Later, Renee

Cotton, Melinda Jones, and other similarly situated female employees who worked at the

Summerville, South Carolina, automobile dealership on Old Trolley Road, punitive damages for

Defendants’ malicious and reckless conduct described in paragraph 10 above, in amounts to be

determined at trial.

Go

Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public

interest.

H. Award the EEOC its costs of this action.

JURY TRIAL DEMAND The EEOC requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its complaint. Dated this ~,k day of ~_~, 2003.
ERIC S. DREIBAND General Counsel JAMES L. LEE Deputy General Counsel GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel BOBBY C. SIMPSON Acting Regional Attorney
Trial Attorney Federal ID# 5189 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION 301 N. Main Street Landmark Building, Suite 1402 Greenville, SC 29601 (864) 241-4406
6

 
 F ! E D

IN THE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTI-[ CAROLINA
CHARLESTON DIVISION

lARRY W. PROPES, CLERK U, S. DISTRICT COURT

EQI, JAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
lqaintill\
IJOO\/ILR DODGE, INC. t lOOVER CHRYSLER, INC.; I tOOVER ,IEEP CHRYSLER, INC.; and I4OOVER CHRYSLER IIEEP, IN(_’.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2: 0_~-_~05.>-2_~ B(,
AMENI) EI) (:OMPI,AINT (,II, jRY TRIAL DEMANDED)

Dclcndants.

NATURE OF THE ACTION This is nn action under Title VII otfl~e Civil Rights Act ol 1904 m~d Fitte I oIfl~c Civil Rights Act o1 1991 to correct unl:~wl~tl employment practices on the basis o[ sex, amt to provide :~ppropri~lic relief to ,lessic~l KcclEr, Laura Franks, Kati~crinc L:~tcr, Renec Cotton, Melinda .fortes,

November 2()~)(}, throu4h September 2(}02 tl~c ~fl~ovc-rcl%rcnccd Ibmalc employees xx crc sulzjcctcd ~o :~ comimfing sexually hostile working environmenl at I)elUndnnts’ Summemillc,

,I[;I{ISDICTION AND VIINLJE 1. ,lurisdiclion olthis Coutl is invol<cd pursuant to 2S I.S.C. ~ 451, 1331, 1337, I343 and 1345. This~‘~cti~nisauthoriZedm]dins~itu~dptw~unntt~Section7~(~(~m~d(~‘Ti~VII of the (’ivil Rights Act o11964~ ;~s amcmted ("Title VII"), 42 t J.S.C. ~ 2000o-5(1)(1) mid (3). amt

Section 102 ol~hc Civil Ri4hls Acl of 1991,42 2. The cn~phumcnt practices alle~ed to be unlawful wore committed within the jurisdiction
orthc [Jnitcd States District Court l~r the District ot’South (",~rolina~ (:harlcston Division.
PARTIES 3. Plaintift~ the Equal Employmcl~t Opporttmity Commission, is the agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretalion and cnlbrccment of Titlc VII, rand is expressly authorized to bring this action by Section 70(~(t3(1) and (3) olTitle VII, 42 [J.S.C. ~ 2000e-5(13(1 ) and (3). 4. Al all relevant times, Det~ndant l foover Dodge, Inc. (tfD), has continuously been a South Carolina corporz~tion doing business in the State of South Cm-olina and the City of Summerville, Lllld []~ls cot~tint~ousJv had at least 15 en~pl%’ccs. 5. At all rclex’m~t times, Dct~ndant l:foover Chrysler, Inc. (I
Nummcrville, ~tnd h:/s continuously h~ld :~l least 15 employees. At all relevant timcs, Del~nctant I toovcr ,lccp Chrysler, Inc. ("11.IC"), has continuously
7. ,,Xl :~11 rclcx~ml times. Del)nd~mt t loovcr (]71~rvslcr .loop, I~c. ("11C,I"), t~s contimtouslv
N. :Xl ~lll ~ctcvm~t times. Dcl~ndunts t ll), I IC, 1t.1(’. :~nd 1 I(.1 (tel>fred lo collectively hottin
"’ltoovcr the Mover" on ()ld Trolley tZoz~d in Nummcrxillc, N<4tth (’:~-olina, and elsewhere in the

(Tharlcston metropolitan area. 9. AI all relevant limes, Defendants have continuously been employers engaged in an imitts[rv nt’t~cting commercc within tl~c meaning of Sections 701(b), (g) ;rod (h) ol’Titlc VII, 42 U.S,C. ~ 2000c(b), (g) anct (h).
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS Xdorc thou] thirty clays prior to the instilutiol] otthis I~xvsttit, ,Icssica Kect)r l]led a charge withthcEEOC~fllcgingviolationsol’TitleVllbyDcl~mt:~ms. All conditions precedent to the
1 l. Since unlawful cmployl]]ent practices at their Summerville, Nouth Carolina, automobile dealership on Old Trolley Road in violation otNcction 703 olTitlc Vll, 42 U.S.C. ~ 2(~()0e-2, inclucting~ but not limited to, sub.iccting female employees, some ol~whom contintting sex’ere or pervasive sexual y hostile working environment, which w:~s 1)~sc(t on fl]cir
12. The cllL’ct
sl~tttts ~ts cmployecs bcc~tusc of thcir sex, l~m~tlc. 13. li~c ttnl:twlul cmph+ymcnt practiccs compl+tincd of i~ paragrapt~ 11 ’,fl+o~ c xvct-c
14.

\vi@ m~licc or \vifl~ reckless indiflcrcncc to the tcdcrally prolcc~cd ri~h~s oflJcssica Kect~r. Laura Franks. Kathcrine Later, Renee Cotton, Mclimta Jones, and tl~e othcr similarly situated @male employees who worl<cd at fl~c Summcrvillc, South Carolling, automobile dealership on Old Trollcy Road.
I)RA~’I~R FOR RELIEF Whcrctbtc. the EEOC rcspcctlully requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent in.iunction c@oinin~ Dct~ndants~ their orficcrs~ succcssors~ assigns, amt all pcrso~s in active conccrl or parlicipalJon with lbcm. l]-om cn~a2in~ in sexual lmr;~ssmcnl ’and cmv o@er employment practice which discriminates on lhc basis o1" sex.
~ hich provide cq~ml cmplo}.mc~[ opportunities lbr women, amt ~N~ich eradicate the ~heir pas~ unlawful cmploymcn~ practices.
()rdcr l)¢lbmt;m~s > m,fl<c wholc .lcssica KcclUr. L;mra Fr~ml<s. Rcnce od~cr similarly si~mlcd tbmalc employees who worked al ~hc Summcrvill< Sou@ Carolina~ automobile dc~dcrship on Old Troll% t{o’,~d by providin~ appropriate back pay wilh illlCl’CSk ill ~IlllO[lll[S [O NO dcterlnincd a~ lrJ,ll, and oilier all]rnmtivc relief llCCcssaI-v tO cradicaLe
I). ()rdcr I)c@ndams to mal<c whole .lcssica l(cct~r, l~aur~ Franks. Rc~cc Mcliml~ .loncs, amt o~hcr similarly si~umcd female c~ploh’ccs who ~x orl<cd a~ Dcl%mtan[s’

E. Order Dcfendants ~.o make whole Jcssica Kcclcr, Laura Franks, Katherine l~a~cr~ Rc~c.e Coi~on, Mclind~ Jones, n~d olher similarly siltmlcd l~m~llc employees who worked Summcrvillc, South Caroliml, ~mtomobilc dealership on Old Trolley Ro~Rt, by providin~ compensation tbr pas~ m~d luturc mmpccuni~lry losses rcsuldn~ from fl~c unlawl~l practices co~pl~i~]cd of in paragraph 11 above, incl~di~,4~/)u~ ~>~ limilcd Io, loss otcn.joymcn[ of lifc~ personal injuries, loss otcarnil~ capacity~ sutt~rinB, humiliation, l~ar, anxiety, emotional
F. Order DeaCon(tams to P~3 .lessica Kcetbr. l,aura Fra~fl<s, Kalhcrine Lalcr, Re~ee ("OtIOII, Melind:~ Jones, and other similzu-lv sittmtcd l~male employees who xx orl<cd at the %ti~mcrxillc. South C’arolin:~. automobile ctc~IcrM~ip cm ()ld l~rollcv Road, punitive
G. Grant such l\;rflae~-relic’i P,s ’~l;c CotH! (teems neccss~trv and proper in the public
11. A\\m-d the fT..t{()(" i:s cos’~s ol’this &lotion.

JUICY TRIAL DEMANI)
The EEOC requests a.jury trial on all questions of [act raised by its complaint. Dated this a ~,*k day of >: {e,~,~’ ~ ,2003.
ERIC S. DP, EIBAND General Counsel
,lAMES L. LEE Deputy Gencral Counsel
G\VICNDOLYN YOUNG P,t!AMS Associate General Counsel
BOBBY C. S INlPS()N Acting l~,cgion:~l .-\ttorncv_
Trial Attorney Federal ID# 51 EQUAI~ EMPI~OYM ENT OPPORTUNITY
(’OM N,I INS ION 3()1 N. Main Landlnark Building, Suite 1402 Grccnville, SC 29601 (864) 241

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR TIlE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAt>,OLINA
CI-IAP, I~ESTON DIVISION

EQUAIJ EM I)LOYM I£NT OPPOP, TUNIT’]" COM N,I ISS1ON.
l}l~tintill\

CI\/IL ACrlON NO. 2- 03-3055-23 BG

t tOOVER DODGE. INC. t IOOVER CHf~,YSI.F.R, INC.; t~()O\/[:~R .IEEP CHP, YSI£R, INC.: and I1OOVIER CI-tRYSI~LffP, .IF~EP, INC.
Dclcl]dants.
CI’~I;~TI Iri(2~VFF~ O17 SERVICE
I hereby ccrti fv that a tFLI¢ and correct copy of the lbllo\vil~g documents were se~ved upon the Det~ndanls bv a~]d th~ough their counsel of recoFd 11. Claylon Wall<or, ,lr., Esq ¯ Swa~a~t, XValke~-, Martin & Rcibold. P.A.; 1722 Main St., Suite 2202 Columl)ia~ Soulh Ca~olina 2920I

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA CHARLESTON DIVISION

FILED
JAil 1 6
LARRY W. PF~-.,O,,’:~::’, ’ CLERK

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
vs.
HOOVER DODGE, INC., HOOVER CHRYSLER, INC., HOOVER JEEP CHRYSLER, INC., and HOOVER CHRYSLER JEEP, INC.,
Defendants.
JESSICA KEEFER and LAURA FRANKS,
Intervenors.

CIVIL ACTION Z;03~-30155~-ISBG
COMPLAINT~ TN>-. INTERVENTION (Sexual Harassment)’ (Jury Requested)

NATURE OF ACTION ±. Intervenor/Plaintiffs Jessica Keefer and Laura Franks (hereinafter, "Keefer" and "Franks"), bring this action ~o obtain redress for sex discrimination due to sexual harassment in the workplace, and constructive discharge from their employmgnt with Defendant Hoover Dodge, Inc., d/b/a, "Hoover Dodge"; in Violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (.hereinafter, "Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. 2000e; the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42! U.S.C. 1981a; for breach of contract, and breach of contract accomganied by fraudulent act.

2. Intervenors hereby adopt and incorporate by refer ance paragraphs 1-14 of the Plaintiff"s Amended Complaint file ~ on December 30, 2003.

JURISDICTION 3. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 2000e~5 (.f) (11 and (3); 42 U.S.C. 1981a; and 28 U.S.C. 451~ 1331,,i 1337, 1343, and 1345. Because the State law claims arise out Of the same facts and events that gave rise to the claims under iTitle VII, the State claims form a part of the same case or controversy as the Title VII claim and the Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the State claims pursuant to 28 U..S..C~ 1367. The employment practices alleged to 5e unlawful were committed w~.thi.n t~e jurist. diction of the Un±ted States District Court for the. District of South Caroli~a~ Charleston Divi.sion~.

P~RT!ES

4. Intervenor Je.ssica Keefer~ at all times, relevantito this Complaint~ was and 2.s a female citizen and reg2den~ of DOrcBester

County, Soutg. Carol2na~ and was employed B.y Hoover Dodge as a re~

ceptionist D~etwee.n NovemDer 20.00 and June 2d01..

:

5. Intervenor Laura Franks:, at all times relevant tO this.

Complaint~ was a female citizen and resident of Dorc~ester County~

South Carolina; and was also employed by Hoover Dodge as a sales person between March and June, 2001.
6a. Defendant Hoover Dodge, at all relevant times, has, contin~ uously been a South Carolina corporation doing business l!n Summerville, South Carolina, and has continuously had at least 15 emplioyees.
6B. Defendant Hoover Chrysler, Inc., at all relevant itimes, has continuously Been a South. Carolina corporation doing bus~ness in Sums. merville, South Carolina, and elsewhere in the Charleston~ South Caro~ lina metropolitan area, and has continuously had at least 15 employees.
6c. Defendant Hoover Jeep Chrysler, Inc., at all relevant times~ has continuously Been a South Carolina corporation doing ibus~ness in Summerville, South. Carolina, and elsewhere in the Charleston~ South Carolina metropolitan area, and has continuously had at ~east 15 loyees.
6d. Defendant Hoover Chrysler Jeep, Inc,, at all relevant times, has continuously Been a South Carolina corporation doing business in Summerville, South Caro±ina~ and elsewhere in the Ch.arle~ton,. South. Carolina metropolitan area, and has continuously Bad at least 15 em~,ployees.
7. At all relevant times f. Defendant Hoover Dodge~ and the other defendants named 2n paragraphs 6B--6d above, were an ~_ntegrated enters. prJ~se of automobile, dealerships doing business as ..~oover the Nover’,’ on Old Trolley Road in Summerv±.lle, .South Caroli.na~ and elsewhere in the Charleston, South Carolina metropolitan area~.
8. At all relevant times, Defendants have continuously been employers engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 2000e(b), (g), and (h).

FACTS 9. From 2000 to 2001, Intervenors were subjected tolnumerous blatant and outrageous incidents of sexual harassment by several adult or senior car salesmen of Hoover Dodge.. This crea~ed a sev~ere and pervasive hostile work environment based onIntervenors’~ sex, female. 10. Said incidents of sexual harassment were uninv~.t~d and welcome~ and 2nvolve.d outright propositions for sex, sexual advances,
propos2t2ons for money-, requests for dates, touch±rig of private body
parts and other s-exually s.uggest±ve contacg, and lewd gestures and c~mme.nts of a sexual nature,
11. Said incidents of sexual harassment occurred during ~he course and scope, of the car salesmen~s employment at Hoover Dodge.
12. Zntervenors and w~tnesse.s complained numerous e~me.s, to manage~merit about the misconduct~ bug Hoover Dodg~ failed to effectively ventilate the matter, stop the misconduct, or d±acipl~ne!offenders. Hoover Dodge a~so had constructive ]~nowledge of the sexual harassment because of its pervasiveness and frequency of occurrencei
13. Due to the intolerable and hostile work environment created by Hoover Dodge, through its agents and servants, Keeferland Franks were forced to resign their positions in about June 2001.
14. More than 30 days prior to inst±tution of this lawsuzt~ Keefer filed a charge with the EEOC alleging violations of Titl~ VII by the Defendant H~over Dodge. All conditions precedent to institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled.

FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (SEXUAL DISCRIMINATION)
lb. The foregoing allegations 1-14 are incorporated b~ reference berein as if fully re-stated verbatim.
16. The actions of Defendant Hoover Dodge, by¯¯¯and through its agents and servants, in engaging in unwanted sexual prop~s±tlons,

sexually charged comments and gestures, and offensive physical contact, all toward Keefer and Franks, constituted illegal sex discrimination in violation of Title VII and the Civil Rights Act of 1991.
17. Tn.e actions of Defendant Hoover Dodge Dy and through its

agents and servants, in failing to remedy the aforesaid sexual har-. assment and provide a workplace free from hostile conduc~ of a sexua±

nature, were ~el~berater not in good faithr and carried Out in a manner which was ~alicious~ outrageous~ gross~ wanton an~ willful, and in reck.less di.s:regard for the protected r±gS.ts of Ke~fer and FranRs.

18. Said sexual discri-mination was so severe an~ pervasive as to

alter tge conditionsof K~efer’.’s and Franks’. employme~nt~i~.nterfere

wit~. t~.eir wor~ performance, significantly affect their psych~logica±

well Deing~ and create¯ a n~s.ti.le.f ~usive, and offens:iNe, work, environs,

ment.

l

The effect Of t~e practices co~plaine.d of in¯ para~graphs 10~

and 16 herein ~.as de.pr$:ved Keefer and Franks~ and other szmilarly

i ,.

situated female employees who worked at th~ Summerville~ South. Carol~na

automoDile dealership on Old Trolley Road of equal employment oppor~¯

tunities and otherwise adversely affected their status as employees because of their sex, female.
20. As a direct and proximate result of the actions Of Hoover Dodge, through its agents and servants, Keefer and Frank~ are en-.
t±t±ed to ackuai damages for physical and personal 2.njurg~ fear~ anxiety, depression, severe emoti.onal d±stress, mental a~gu±.s~.~ gura2±iation, r±.d2cule~ ±oss of enjoyment o~ 1;re, em~arr~ssme.nt~ ±ost wages and ~enef±ts., anger~ ~ost d±gn2ty-~ ~edz.ca± e~pe.nse.s, lost earning capacity~ ~,ac~ pay with pre~judgment ;"znte.re~’t~ h±r2ng
or front pay, and to puniti.ve damages; all in amounts to ~e determined by th.e Court~ and to reasonaDle attorney fees and cos~ts~.,
FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTI0N ~-(~0N~.TRUCT~VE--D-IStHAR~ .... 21. The foregoing allegations I~20, are, incorporated ~,y reference herein as i,f fully, re~stated ver~atim~. 22. The acti,ons and inacti~ons,, of Hoover Dodge, by and through, its agents and ser,vants, in fai!i,ng toprovide Keefer and Franks ~ith_ a workplace free of sexual harassment,, consti,tuted illegalisex di.scrim~, ination in v~.olat£on of T£,tle qII~ and the Ci~v~l Ri.g~s ACt of i~i. 23. Sai.d actions and Snactions of H,oover Dodge.~ ~y, ahd through.
¯ i its agents, and servants~ were deliDerately directed ~@ai.nst Keefer and Franks, in that Hoover Dodge. failed to correct tNe sexual harass, sme,nt after it kne~~ or ShO, ul~ h.ave.kno~n~ through_ $.ts. agents and servants, of its existence; and the ~ork. condi.ti,ons thns. :eate, d were

so intolerable that a reasonable person would not be expected, to endure them.

24

As a proximate result of Hoover Dodge"s actions ~nd inac~-

tions, by and through, its agents and servants, Hoover Do~ge’:s work.~. place became intoleraDIy hostile toward Keefer and Franks!, resulting

in their forced resignation and constructive discharge from employment,

entitling them to actual damages for loss of salary, ~e.nefits, anxiety, depression, emotional distress, ~.umiliation, and emBarrass~ent; and

to punitfve damages; in amounts to be determined by th.e. Court; and to

reasonable attorney fees and costs.

FOR A ’±’HZRD CAUSE OF ACTION (BREACH OF CONTRACT]
25. The foregoing allegations I-.24 are incorporated by reference herein as if fully re-stated verbatim.
16. At all times relevant to this action, Hoover Dodge maintained a written company policy strictly forbidding verbal and physical sex-. ual harassment in the workp±ace. This policy further stated that any such sexual ~.arassment would not De tolerated by Hoover ~odge.
27. The above ~escribed policy altered Keeferts and Frank.s~ at will status as employees and constituted an employment contract w~.ich Hoover Dodge was bound to ~onor with its employees, tCop~ attached hereto).
28. Hoover Dodge intended that its employees, including Keefer and Franks, rely on this policy in continuing their employment, and

-/

~eefer and Franks ~id, in tact, so rely. z9. Hoover Dodge violated and breached this policy in its

actions and inactions toward Keefer and Franks in allowinlg the

sexual harassment to occur, and in falling to remedy it ~nce

put upon notice of its existence.

I

30. As a proximate result of said breach of contract,I Keefer and Franks are informed and Delieve that they are entitl~d to ac~,

tual damages in amounts to De determined Dy the Court.

¯ FOR ~ FOU~TH CAUSE OF ACTI~N (..BREACH OF CONT~AC’~ ACCOMPANIED BYFRAUDULENT

31. The foregoing allegations ±~30 are. incorporated By reference

herein as if fu±ly re--stated verbatim.

32

Accompanying the Breach of the aforementioned contract, the

Defendant Hoover Dodge~ through, its agents and servants~ icommi.tted ~eee±tful and fraudu±ent acts. by~ (~a[ having a sexual h~rassment

po±±cy for appearance purposes only, and u±tn. no antentz.~n or efforta expended to enforce 2.t~ (~.l represent±n~ ~o Keefer an6 ~ranka~, after complaints ~ere made., tn.at khe ~exual naraasment would~e atopped,

aa t~e±r policy requ±re.6~ when ±.n fac~, ±t only cont~nue~ ~n~ 2neen~s±.f±e~ until they were forced to rea±~n; (.cI perpetrat±~g w±.l~ful, oppress±re, and ~lle~a± acts and statements of sexua~ ha~aaament a~a±n~t Keefer an~ ~rank~ khrou~hout tne±r tenure of empkoyment ~±th

8

Hoover Dodge; and (d), fabricating a disciplinary report on Keefer the day she resigned due to Defendant’s sexual harassment. The

aforestated misrepresentation in (b) was false, material~ the

Defendantknew it was false, Defendant intended it be relied

upon, Keefer and Franks were ignorant of its falsity~ tn.~y relied on the m±sreprese.ntation, they had a right to rely on " ~ and tn.ey

suffered damages. 33. The. acts committed By Hoover Dodge as hereinaDove enumer~~
ated were done fn violation of Keefer"s and Frankst’ rig~ to work

in an envlron~ent free of sexual harassment; and said ac~s were committed fraudulently~ intentiona±ly, and wi±lfully forithe purp

ose of damaging Keefer an6 Franks~ and mak±ng it imposs±~±e for them to continue work.
34. By reason of the fraudulent acts accompanying Drfiach. of contract Dy Defendant, Keefer and F¯ranks are entitled to recover punitive damages as well as¯ the actual damages as hereinaDove al~-

leged.

I

WHEREFORE, Intervenor/Plaintiffs pray for judgment against the

Defendants where appropriate, as follows: actual and punitive dam~ ages, costs, pre~.judgment and post-judgment interest, reasonaDle attorney fees, and for such furtn~er relief as the Court deems just

and proper.

uduglas H. z3 Broad Street Charleston, SC 29401 (843) 853-9600 #993 ATTORNEY FOR INTERVENOR/PLAINTIFI’S
10

-6-

NO HARASSMENT POLICY

I

Hoover Automotive does not and will not tolerate harassmen~ of our employees, applicants, or customers. The term "harassment" includes, but is not limited to, slurs, jokes, and other verbal, graphic, or physical conduct relating to an individual’s race, color, sex, religion, national origin, citizenship, age, or disability_ "Harassment" also includes sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, offensive touching, and other verbal, ~ raphic, or

physical conduct of a sexual nature. VIOLATION OF THIS POLICY WILL SUBJECT AN EMPL{ ;YEE TO
DISCIPLINARY ACTION, UP TO AND INCLUDING IMMEDIATE DISCHARGE.

Ifyoufeel that you are being harassed in any way by a co-worker, a ~ustomer, or a vendor, you should notify your supervisor or manager immediately. The mat!er will be thoroughly investigated and, where appropriate, disciplinary action will be taken.
Our supervisors and managers are also covered by this pohcy and are prohibited fi’om engaging in any form of harassing conduct. Further, no supervisor or other

member of management has the authority to suggest to any employee or applicant that the individu-a-l s employment, continued employment, or future advancement will be affected in any way by the individual’s entering into (or refusing to enter into) any form of personal relationship with the supervisor or member of management. Such conduct is a direct violation of this policy.
if you believe-that a supervisor or member of management has acted

inconsistently with this policy, if you are not comfortable bringing a complaint. :egarding harassment to your immediate supervisor, or if you believe that your complaint concerning a co-worker,, a customer, or a vendor has not been handled to your satisfactic n, please immediately contact the dealer.

YOU WILL NOT BE PENALIZED IN ANY WAY FOR REPORTING SUCH IMPROPER CONDUCT.
Please. do not assume that the Company is aware of your problem. Please

bring your complaints and concerns to our attention so that we can resolve them.

HOOVER CHRYSLER DODGE, INC. "HARASSMENT"

The company wil] not tolerate harassment of its emloyees. An~ . form of harassment related to an employee’s race, color, sex, relilg£on,
nationa! origin, age, or disability is a violation of this po]icy land will be treated aS a disciplinary matter. For these purposes, the term "harassment" includes, but not necessarily limited to: slurs, jokes, or other verbal, graphic, or physica] conduct relating to an indi~idual’s race, color, sex, religion, nationa] origin, age, or physical or nenta]
handicap. Harassment also includes sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal, graphic, or physical conduct of a sexual nature. Violation of this policy by an employee shall subject that employee to disciplinary action, up to and including discharge.

at

¯ If you once make

feel your

you are being harasse~ by any other employee, feelings .know~"~:~c~O~dh~-~~!~\~e:.~.~r-V.~or

yOorui

should

other member of managemeht"to .~ho~.~the-e.~1~yee’ feels comfortable’

reporting the incident. The supervisor will see that the matter is

investigated and, where appropriate, disciplinary action taken. If

you do not feel that the matter can be discussed with your supervi.sor, you may arrange for a conference with the company president. Any’

employee reporting harassment or assisting in an investigation of such

charge will not be subject to any retaliating response from managenent.

Harassment of employees in connection with their work by nonemployees (auditors, customers,, salespersons) may also be a v~olat~on of this policy. Any employee who becomes aware of any harassment Of an employee by a nonemployee.should report such harassment to his/her supervisor.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA CHARLESTON DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
VS.
HOOVER DODGE, INC., HOOVER CHRYSLER, INC., HOOVER JEEP CHRYSLER, INC., and HOOVER CHRYSLER JEEP, INC.,
Defendants.
JESSICA KEEFER and LAURA FRANKS,
Intervenors.

CIVIL ACTION 2;03~.3055~-18BG CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on the 13th day of January 2004, I mailed by ffrs-t class mail a copy of the Intervenor/Plaintiffs~" Mo~ion to Intervene, and proposed Complaint in Intervention, to counsel of record for the Defendants, H. Clayton Walker, Jr.~. P.O. Box 1459, Columb±a, SC, 2~202~ and counsel for P±a±nt±ff, Edw±n L. ~urna~e, EEOC, 301 N. Na±n St., Landmark. Bld~ Ste.. ~4fi2, Greenville, SC 296fi~.

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
CHARLESTON DIVISION

8 2004
LARRY W. PROPES,~ CLERK U. S. DISTRICT COURT

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2: 03-3055-23BG

Plaintiff,

JESSICA KEEFER and LAURA FRANKS Plaintiffs-Intervenors,

HOOVER DODGE, INC., HOOVER CHRYSLER, INC.; HOOVER JEEP CHRYSLER, INC.; HOOVER CHRYSLER JEEP, INC.; and HOOVER MOTORS, INC.,

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT (JURY TRIAL DEMAND)

Defendants.

NATURE OF THE ACTION This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of sex, and to provide appropriate relief to Jessica Keefer, Laura Franks Roques, Katherine Later, Renee Cotton, Melinda Jones, and other similarly situated female employees who were adversely affected by such practices. As alleged with greater particularity below, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "EEOC") alleges that the above-referenced female employees were discriminated against in that they were subjected to a sexually hostile working environment by Defendants, and that female employees were constructively discharged.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 451, 1331, 1337,

1343 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Section 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3), and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a.
2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, Charleston Division.
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, is the agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title VII, and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Section 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3). 4. At all relevant times, Defendant Hoover Dodge, Inc., has continuously been a South Carolina corporation doing business in the State of South Carolina and the City of Summerville, and has continuously had at least 15 employees. 5. At all relevant times, Defendant Hoover Chrysler, Inc., has continuously been a South Carolina corporation doing business in the State of South Carolina and the City of Summerville, and has continuously had at least 15 employees. 6. At all relevant times, Defendant Hoover Jeep Chrysler, Inc., has continuously been a South Carolina corporation doing business in the State of South Carolina and the City of Summerville, and has continuously had at least 15 employees. 7. At all relevant times, Defendant Hoover Chrysler Jeep, Inc., has continuously been a South Carolina corporation doing business in the State of South Carolina and the City of Summerville, and has continuously had at least 15 employees.
2

8. At all relevant times, Defendant Hoover Motors, Inc., has continuously been a
South Carolina corporation doing business in the State of South Carolina and the City of
Summerville, and has continuously had at least 15 employees.
9. At all relevant times, Defendants were an integrated enterprise of automobile dealerships doing business as "Hoover the Mover" on Old Trolley Road in Summerville, South
Carolina, and elsewhere in the Charleston metropolitan area.
10. At all relevant times, Defendants have continuously been employers engaged in
an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701(b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(b), (g) and (h).
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS
11. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Jessica Keefer filed a
charge with the EEOC alleging violations of Title VII by Defendants. All conditions precedent
to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled. 12. Since at least November 2000 through September 2002, Defendants have engaged
in unlawful employment practices at their Old Trolley Road Summerville, South Carolina,
automobile dealership in violation of Section 703(a)(1) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1),
as follows: (a) Subjecting Jessica Keefer, Laura Franks Roques, Katherine Later, Renee Cotton, Melinda Jones, and other similarly situated female employees, who were adversely affected by such practices, to a continuing severe or pervasive sexually hostile working environment, which included, but was not limited to, verbal and physical sexual harassment by several male employees because of their sex; and
(b) Through the conduct described in paragraph 12(a) above, subjecting Jessica Keefer, Laura Franks Roques, Renee Cotton, Melinda Jones and other similarly situated female employees to an intolerable working environment that caused them to resign their employment. 13. The effect of the practices complained of in paragraph 12 above has been to
3

deprive Jessica Keefer, Laura Franks Roques, Katherine Later, Renee Cotton, Melinda Jones, and other similarly situated female employees of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees because of their sex, female.
14. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 12 above were intentional.
15. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 12 above were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Jessica Keefer, Laura Franks Roques, Katherine Later, Renee Cotton, Melinda Jones, and the other similarly situated female employees.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, the EEOC respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendants, their officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with them, from engaging in sexual harassment and any other employment practice which discriminates on the basis of sex. B. Order Defendants to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for women, and which eradicate the effects of their past unlawful employment practices. C. Order Defendants to make whole Jessica Keefer, Laura Franks Roques, Renee Cotton, Melinda Jones and other similarly situated female employees by providing appropriate back pay with prejudgment interest, in amounts to be determined at trial, and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of their unlawful employment practices. D. Order Defendants to make whole Jessica Keefer, Laura Franks Roques, Renee Cotton, Melinda Jones, and other similarly situated female employees, by providing
4

compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described in paragraph 12 above, including, but not limited to, medical expenses, in amounts to be determined at trial.
E. Order Defendants to make whole Jessica Keefer, Laura Franks Roques, Katherine Later, Renee Cotton, Melinda Jones, and other similarly situated female employees by providing compensation for past and future nonpecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices complained of in paragraph 12 above, including, but not limited to, loss of enjoyment of life, personal injuries, loss of earning capacity, suffering, humiliation, fear, anxiety, emotional pain, loss of dignity, loss of civil rights, and anger, in amounts to be determined at trial.
F. Order Defendants to pay Jessica Keefer, Laura Franks Roques, Katherine Later, Renee Cotton, Melinda Jones, and other similarly situated female employees, punitive damages for Defendants’ malicious and reckless conduct described in paragraph 12 above, in amounts to be determined at trial.
Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public interest.
H. Award the EEOC its costs of this action. JURY TRIAL DEMAND
The EEOC requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its Second Amended Complaint.
5

Dated this ) ~[~day of @ ,’) , 2004.
! ERIC S. DREIBAND General Counsel
JAMES L. LEE Deputy General Counsel
GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel
LYNETTE A. BARNES Acting Regional Attorney

Trial Attorney

~

Federal ID# 5189

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

COMMISSION

301 N. Main Street

Landmark Building, Suite 1402

Greenville, SC 29601

(864) 241-4406

6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA CHARLESTON DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2: 03-3055-23BG

Plaintiff,

JESSICA KEEFER and LAURA FRANKS

Plaintiffs-Intervenors,

go

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

HOOVER DODGE, INC., HOOVER CHRYSLER, INC.; HOOVER JEEP CHRYSLER, INC.; and
HOOVER CHRYSLER JEEP, INC.

Defendants.

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the following documents were served upon the parties by and~through their counsel of record via U.S. mail, first class, postage prepaid, this ~t4"k day of (-J.~,4"-,’] ,2004:;

H. Clayton Walker, Jr. Walker, Martin & Reibold, LLC 1720 Main St., Suite 303 Columbia, South Carolina 29201

Douglas H. Westbrook, Esq. 23 Broad Street Charleston, SC 29401

1. EEOC’s Second Amended Complaint 2. Prop sed Summons on Hoover Motors, Inc.

Edwin L. T

Trial Attorney

~

 
 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTHICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA CHARLESTON DIVISION

FILED
APR 3 0
,.~rl, T ~, PROPES, CLESK CHARLESTON SC

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
P±aintiff,
vs.
HOOVER UODGE, INC., HOOVER CHRYSLEH, INC., HOOVER JEEP CHRYSLER, INC., HOOVEH CHHYSLER JEEP, INC., and HOOVEH MOTORS, INC.,
Defendants.
JESSICA KEEFEm and LAURA FRANKS,
Intervenors.

CIVIL ACT±ON z:0&-3u55~18BG
AMENDED COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION (Sexual Harassment) (Jury Requested)

NATUHE OF ACTION i. Intervenor/Plamntlffs Jessica Keefer and Laura Franks (hereinafter, "Keefer" and "Franks"), oring this action to obtain redress £or sex @iscrimination due to sexual harassment in the workplace, and constructive dzscnarge from thelr employment with Defendant Hoover Do@ge, Inc., d/b/a, "Hoover Dodge"; in violation of Title VII of the Civil Hignts Act of 1964 [hereinafter, "Title VIA"), 42 u.S.C, z000e; the civzl Rzghts Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. 1981a~ for breach of contract, an@ breach of contract accompanied by fraudulent act. 2. Intervenors adopt and incorporate by reference paragraphs

1-15 of the Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint filed on or about April 27, 2004.
JURISDICTION 3. This Court has jurisaiction pursuant to 4z U.S.C. 2000e-5 (t) (I) and (3); 42 u.S.C. 198±a; and z8 U.S.C. 4DI, ±331, iJ37, 13~3, and 134D. Because the State law claims arise out of the same facts and events that gave rlse to the claims under Title VII, the State claims form a part of tne same case or controversy as the Title vii claim and tne Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the State claims pursuant to 2~ U.~.C. 1367. The employment practmces alleged to be unlawful were committed within the jurlsdlctlon of the United States District Court for the uistrict ot South carolina, charleston Divis±on.
PARTIES ~. Intervenor Jessica Keefer, at all times relevant to thls Complaint, was ana is a female citizen and resident of uorchester County, Soutn Carolina; and was employed by Hoover Dodge as a receptlonlst between November 2000 and June z001. 5. Intervenor Laura Franks, at all times relevant to thls Complaint, was a female citizen and resident of uorchester County, South Carol~na; an~ was also employed by Hoover Dodge as a sales person between March ana June, z001. 6a. Defenaant Hoover Dodge, at all relevant times, has continuously been a South carolina corporation doing Dus~ness in Summerville, South Carolina, and has continuously had at least 15 employees.

6~. Defendant Hoover Chrysler, Inc., at all relevant times, has continuously been a South carolina corporation domng business in Summervllle, South Carollna, and elsewhere in the Charleston, South Carolina metropolitan area, and has continuously had at least 15 employees.
6c. Defendant Hoover Jeep Chrysler, Inc., at all relevant tlmes, has contmnuously been a South Carolina corporation do1ng ~usiness in Summerville, South Carolina, and elsewhere in the Cnar±eston, South Carolina metropolitan area, anG has continuously hag at least i~ employees.
6d. Defendant Hoover Chrysler Jeep, Inc., at all relevant times, has continuously been a South Carolina corporatlon doing business in Summervil±e, South Carolina, and elsewhere in the Charleston, South Carolina metropolitan area, an~ has continuously hag at least ib employees.
6e. Defendant Hoover Motors, Inc., at all relevant times, has continuously been a South carolina corporation doing business in Summerville, South Carolina, and elsewhere in the Charleston, South Carolina metropolitan area, and has contlnuously had at least 15 employees.
7. At all relevant times, Defendant Hoover Dodge, and the other de~enGants nameG in paragraphs 6b-6e above, were an integratea enterprise of automobmle Gealerships doing business as "Hoover the Mover" on Old Trolley ~oaG in Summerville, South Carolina, and elsewhere in the Charleston, south Carolina metropolitan area.
8. At all relevant times, Defendants have continuously been employers engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 2~00e(b], (g), and ~h).
3

FACTS 9. From 2000 to 2001, Intervenors were subjected to numerous blatant and outrageous incidents of sexual harassment ~y several adult or senior car salesmen of Hoover Dodge. This created a severe and pervasive h.ostile work environment based on Intervenors" sex, female. !0. Said incidents of sexual harassment were uninvited and un~ welcome, and involved outright propositions for sex, sexual advances, propositions for money, requests for dates, touching of private body parts and other sexually suggestive contact, and lewd gestures and comments of a sexual nature. ii. Said incidents of sexual harassment occurred during the course and scope of the car salesmen’s employment at Hoover Dodge. 12. Intervenors and witnesses complained numerous times to manage~ ment about the misconduct, but Hoover Dodge failed to effectively in~ vestigate the matter, stop the misconduct, or discipline offenders. Hoover Dodge also had constructive knowledge of the sexual harassment because of its pervasiveness and frequency of occurrence. 13. Due to the intolerable and hostile work environment created by Hoover Dodge, through its agents and servants, Keefer and Franks were forced to resign their positions in about June 2001. 14. More than 30 days prior to institution of this lawsuit, Keefer filed a charge with the EEOC alleging violations of Title VII by the Defendant Hoover Dodge. All conditions precedent to institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled.
4

FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (SEXUAL DISCRIMINATION)
1~. The foregoing allegations 1-14 are incorporated by reference berein as if fully re-stated verbatim.
16. The actions of Defendant Hoover Dodge, by and through its

agents and servants, in engaging in unwanted sexual proposit£ons, sexua!ly charged comments and gestures, and offens±ve physical contact, all toward Keefer and Franks, const±tuted illegal sex discrimination in violation of Title VII and the Civil Rights Act of 1991.

17. The actions of Defendant Hoover Dodge, ~v and through its

agents and servants, in failing to remedy the aforesaid sexual har-

assment and provide a workplace free from hostile conCuct of a sexual

nature, were @elAberate, not in good ~"

~lt~, and carried out ~n a

manner which was malicious, outrageous, gross, wanton and w~llfu!,

and in reckless d~sregard for t~e protected rights of Keefer and ~ranks.

18. Said sexual ~iscrimination was so severe an@ ~ervasive as to alter the conditions of Keefer’s and Franks’ employment, ~nterfere

wit~ their work performance, significantly affect their psychological

well being, and create a hostile, aDusive, ant offensive work environ-

ment.

!9. The effect of the practices complained of in paragraphs i0

and 16 herein has deprived Keefer and Franks, and other similarly

situated female employees who worked at the Summerville, Sout~ Carolina automomile dealership on 01@ Trolley Road of equal employment oppor~

5

tunities and otherwise adversely affected their status as employees because of their sex, female.
Z0. As a @irect and proximate result of the actions of Hoover Dodge, through its agents and servants, Keefer and Franks are entitled to actual damages for physical and personal injury, fear, anxiety, depression, severe emotional distress, mental anguish, humiliation, ridicule, loss of enjoyment of l!fe, enmOarrassment, lost wages and benefits, anger, lost dignity, medlca± expenses, lost earning capacity, back pay with pre-judgment interest, hiring or front pay, and to punitive damages; all in amounts to me determined by the Court; and to reasonable attorney fees and costs.
FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (~ONSTRUCT!VE DISCHARGEk
21. The foregoing allegations 1-20 are incorporated hy reference herein as if fully re-stated verbatim.
22. The actions and inactions of Hoover Dodge, by and through ~ts agents and servants, An failing to provide Keefer and Franks with a workplace free of sexual harassment, constituted illegal sex discrim~ ination in violation of Title VII and the Civil Rights Act of i~91.
23. Said actions and inactions of Hoover Dodge, hy and through its agents and servants, were @eliberate!y eirected against Keefer and Franks, in that Hoover Dodge failed to correct th~ sexual hmrassment after it knew, or shoul~ have known, t~rough ~ts agents and servants, of its existence; and the work conditions thms. created were
6

so intolerable that a reasonable person would not he expected to endure them.
24. As a proximate result of Hoover Dodge’~s actions and inact{ons, by and through i~s acents and servants, Hoover Dodge’s work~lace mecame intolerab±y hostile toward Keefer and Franks, resulting in their forced resignation and constructive discharge from emp!oymenC, entitling them to actual damages for loss of sa!arv, ~enefits, anxiety, depression, emotional distress, humiliation, and embarrassment; and to punitive damages; in amounts to be determined by th.e Court; and to reasonable attorney fees and costs.
FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (BREACH OF CONTRACT)
25. The foregoing allegations 1-24 are incorporated by reference herein as if fully re-stated verbatim.
26. At all times relevant to this action, Hoover Dodge maintained a written company policy strictly formidding verbal and physical sexual harassment in the workplace. This policy further stated that any such sexual harassment would not be tolerated by Hoover Dodge.
27. The above @escribed policy altered Keefer~s and Franks’ at will status as employees and constituted an employment contract which Hoover Dodge was bound to honor w!th its empioyees. [Copy attached heret<
28. Hoover Dodge ~ntended that its employees, Including Keefer and Franks, rely on this policy mn continuing their employment, and
7

mee~er and Franks ~id, in tact, so rely. z9. ~oover Dodge vlolated and breached this policy in !ts
act!ons and inactions toward Keefer and Franks in allowing the sexual harassment to occur, and in falling to remedy it once put upon notice of its exmstence.
30. As a proxmmate result of samd breach of contract, Keefer an~ Franks are informed and melieve that t~ey are entitled to actual damages In amounts to me determined my the Court.

FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (BREACH OF CONTRACT ACCOMPANIED BY FRAUDULENT ACT]
31. The foregoing allegations 1-30 are incorporated by reference

herein as if fully re-stated verbatim.

32. Accompanying the breach of the aforementmoned contract, the

Defendant Hoover Dodge, through its agents and servants, committed

deceitful and fraudulent acts by:

(~a) having a sexual harassment

policy for appearance purposes only, and with no mntentmon or efforts

expended to enforce it;

(hi representing to Keefer and Franks, after

complaints were made, that the sexual harassment would me stopped,

as themr policy required, when in fact, it only continued ann inten-

sified until they were forced to resign;

(c~ perpetrating wmllful,

oppressive, and mllegal acts and statements of sexual harassment

agamnst Keefer an~ Eranks throughout t~eir tenure of employment with

Hcover Dodge; and (d), fabricatinm a @iscipiinary report on Keefer the day she resigned due to Defendant’s sexual harassment. The aforestated misrepresentation in (b) was false, material, the Defendant knew it was false, Defendant intende@ it be relied upon, Keefer an@ Franks were ignorant of its falsity, they rel!ed on the mlsrepresentation, they had a right to rely on it, and they suffered damages.
33. The acts committed by Hoover Dodge as hereina~ove enumer~. ated were done in violation of Keefer’s and Franks" right to work in an environment free of sexual harassment; and samd acts were committed fraudulently, intentionally, and willfully for the purpose of damaging Keefer and Franks, and making it impossible for them to continue work.
34. By reason of the fraudulent acts accompanymng mreach of contract my Defendant, Keefer and Franks are entitled to recover punitive @amages, as well as the actual damages as hereinabove al~ ±eged.
WHEREFORE, Intervenor/Plaint±ffs pray for judgment against the Defendants where appropriate, as follows: actual and punmtive damages, costs, pre-judgment and post-ju@gment mnterest, reasonamie attorney fees, and for such further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

25 Broad Street Charleston, SC 29401 [84J) 863-~60U D.C. #993 ATTORNEY FOR INTEI{VENOR/PLAINTIFFS
i0

-6-
NO HARASSMENT POLICY Hoover Automotive does not and will not toterate harassmenotf our employees, applicants, or customers. The term "harassment" includes~ but is not limited to, slurs, jokes, and other verbal, graphic, or physical conduct relating to an individual’s race, color, se~ religion, national origin, citizenship, age, or disability. "Harassment" also includes sex-ual advances, requests for sexual favors, offensive touching, and other verbal, graphic, or physical conduct of a sexual nature. VIOLATION OF THIS POLICY WILL SUBJECT AN E~IPLOYEE TO D[SCIPLLNARY ACTION’, UP TO AND INCLUDING IMMEDIATE DISCHARGE. If you f~t that you are being harassed in any way by a co-worker, a customer, or a vendor, you should notify your supervisor or manager immediately. The matter will be thoroughly investigated and, where appropriate, disciplinary" action will be taken. Our supervisors and managers are also covered by this policy and are prohibited from engaging in any form of harassing conduct. Further, no supervisor or other member of management has the authority to suggest to any employee or applicant that the individual’s employment, continued employment, or future advancement will be affected in any way by the individuaVs entering into (or refusing to enter into) any form of personal relationship with the supervisor or member of management. Such conduct is a direct violation of this policy. If you believe that a supervisor or member of management has acted inconsistently with this policy, if you are not comfortable bringing a complaint regarding harassment to your immediate supervisor, or if you believe that your complaint concerning a co-worker, a customer, or a vendor has not been handled to your satisfaction, please immediately contact the dealer. YOU WILL NOT BE PENALIZED LN ANY WAY FOR REPORTING SUCH IMPROPER CONDUCT. Please do not assume that the Company is aware of your problem. Please bring your complaints and concerns to our attention so that we can resolve them.

HOOVER CHRYSLER DODGE, INC.
"HARASSMENT"
The company will not tolerate harassment of its emloyees. Any form of harassment related to an ~mployee’s race, color, sex, religion, national origin, age, or disability is a violation of this policy and will be treated as a disciplinary matter. For these purposes, the term "harassment" includes, but not necessarily limited to: slurs, jokes, or other verbal, graphic, or physical conduct relating to an individual’s race, color, sex, religion, national origin, age, or physical or mental handicap. Harassment also includes sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal, graphic, or physical conduct of a sexual nature. Violation of this policy by an employee shall subject that employee to disciplinary action, up to and including discharge.
If you feel you are being h~ssed by any other emDloyee: you should at once make your feelings .known~o~out L~medi~te’.sU~r~-sor or other member of m~nagement to ~ho~.’the. employee feels comfortable reporting the incident. The supervisor will see that the matter is investigated and, where appropriate, disciplinary action taken. If you do not feel that the matter can be discussed with your supervisor, you may arrange for a conference with the company president. Any employee reporting harassment or assisting in an investigation of such charge will not be subject to any retaliating response from management.
Harassment of employees in connection with their work by nonemployees (auditors, customers, salespersons) may also be a violation of this policy. Any employee who becomes aware of any harassment of an employee by a nonemployee should report such harassment to his/her supervisor.
~,~ °f Emp~°yeeL

 
 --
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
CHARLESTON DIVISION

FILED
FEB J 42005
LNlR~ Yw ~ scCI.!Al(

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )

COMMISSION

)

Plaintiff,

)

and

)

)

JESSICA KEEFER and

)

LAURA FRANKS

)

Intevenors,

)

vs.

)

)

HOOVER DODGE, INC.,

)

HOOVER CHRYSLER, INC.,

)

HOOVER JEEP CHRYSLER, INC.,

)

HOOVER CHRYSLER JEEP, INC., and

)

HOOVER MOTORS, INC.

)

Defendants.

)

)

Civil Action No. 2:03-3055-23BG CONSENT DECREE

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "Commission") instituted this action seeking relief for Jessica Keefer, Laura Franks, Katherine Later, and Renee Cotton pursuant to Section 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3), ("Title VII") and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991,42 U.S.C. § 1981a. Thereafter, Jessica Keefer and Laura Franks (now Laura Roques) intervened, through counsel, alleging violations of Title VII and state law.
The Commission, Plaintiff-Intervenors, and the Defendants hereby stipulate to jurisdiction of the Court over the parties and agree that the subject matter of this action is properly before the Court.
The parties have advised this Court that they desire to resolve the allegations in the Complaint without the burden, expense, and delay of further litigation.

It is therefore the finding of this Court, made on the pleadings and the record as a whole, that: (I) the Court has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this action; (2) the purpose and provisions of Title VII will be promoted and effectuated by the entry of the Consent Decree; and (3) this Decree resolves all matters in controversy between the parties as provided in paragraphs I through 17 below.
It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED as follows: I. Defendants will not discriminate against any person on the basis of sex or any other protected category within the meaning of Title VIr. 2. Defendants will not discriminate or retaliate against any person because of opposition to any practice made unlawful under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, or because of the filing of a charge, the giving of testimony or assistance, or the participation in any investigation, proceeding or hearing under the foregoing statute. 3. In settlement of the claims raised in this action, Defendant Hoover Dodge, Inc., ("Hoover Dodge") will cause to be paid the sum of thirty five thousand dollars ($35,000.00) to Douglas H. Westbrook, Esq., counsel for Jessica Keefer, for distribution in a manner agreed upon by Mr. Westbrook and Ms. Keefer, and which include all attorney fees and costs incurred by Jessica Keefer. Within ten (10) days after the check has been sent, Defendant Hoover Dodge will mail to Lynette A. Barnes, Acting Regional Attorney, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 129 West Trade Street, Suite 400, Charlotte, NC 28202, a copy ofthe check and proof of its delivery. 4. In settlement of the claims raised in this action, Defendant Hoover Dodge, Inc., ("Hoover Dodge") will cause to be paid the sum of thirty five thousand dollars ($35,000.00) to
2

Douglas H. Westbrook. Esq., counsel for Laura Roques, for distribution in a manner agreed upon

by Mr. Westbrook and Ms. Roques, and which include all attorney fees and costs incurred by

Laura Roques. Within ten (10) days after the check has been sent, Defendant Hoover Dodge will

mail to Lynette A. Barnes, Acting Regional Attorney, Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission, 129 West Trade Street, Suite 400, Charlotte, NC 28202, a copy of the check and

proof of its delivery.

5. In settlement of the claims raised in this action, Defendant Hoover Dodge will

cause to be paid the sum five thousand seven hundred fifty dollars ($5,750.00) to Katherine

Later. Within ten (10) days of the entry of this Consent Decree, Defendant Hoover Dodge will

mail the check to Ms. Later at an address to be provided by the Commission. Within ten (10)

days after the check has been sent, Defendant Hoover Dodge will mail to Lynette A. Barnes,

Acting Regional Attorney, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 129 West Trade Street,

Suite 400, Charlotte, NC 28202, a copy of the check and proof of its delivery.

6. In settlement of the claims raised in this action, Defendant Hoover Dodge will

cause to be paid the sum often thousand seven hundred fifty dollars ($10,750.00) to Renee

Cotton. Within ten (10) days of the entry of this Consent Decree, Defendant Hoover Dodge will

mail the check to an address to be provided by the Commission. Within ten (10) days after the

check has been sent, Defendant Hoover Dodge will mail to Lynette A. Barnes, Acting Regional

Attorney, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 129 West Trade Street, Suite 400, Charlotte, NC 28202, a copy of the check and proof of its delivery.

7. Within ninety (90) days of the entry of this decree by the Court, Defendants shall

adopt, implement, and distribute a formal, written anti-discrimination policy, which shall include

-3
~

3

but not be limited to the following: an explanation of the requirements of the federal equal employment opportunity laws, including Title VII and its prohibition against sexual harassment; procedures for reporting discrimination; and a procedure for the thorough and immediate investigation of employee complaints of discrimination. Defendants shall distribute to each current employee a copy of the policy within the aforementioned 90 day time period. Within one hundred (100) days of the entry of this decree, Defendants shall report compliance to the Commission. During tile term of this Decree, Defendants shall distribute the policy to all new employees and review it with them at the time of hire.
8. During the term of this decree, Defendants agree to post a copy of the policy described in paragraph 7, supra, in all of their facilities in a place where it is visible to employees. If the policy becomes defaced or unreadable, Defendants will replace it by posting another copy of the policy. Within ninety (90) days after ilie Consent Decree is entered, Defendants will post the policy and notify the EEOC that it has been posted.
9. During the term of this decree, Defendants agree iliat they will provide annual training program to all of their employees, including management and non-management. At least fifteen (15) days prior to each program, Defendants will provide the Commission with an agenda for the training program. The training program will include an explanation of the requirements of the federal equal employment opportunity laws, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its prohibition against discrimination, including sexual harassment. The training will also cover Defendants' anti-discrimination policy, described in paragraph 7, supra, and an explanation of the rights and responsibilities of employees and managers under the policy. The first training will be completed wiiliin one hundred twenty (120) days after entry of
4

the decree by the Court. Within ten (10) days after completion of the training, Defendants will certify to the Commission the specific training which was undertaken and will provide the Commission with a roster of all employees who received the training.
10. Throughout the six (6) months following the entry of this Decree, Defendants will conspicuously post the attached Employee Notice, marked Appendix A, hereby made a part of this decree, in a place where it is visible to all employees at all its locations. If the Notice becomes defaced or unreadable, Defendants will replace it by posting another copy of the Notice. Within ten (10) days after the Consent Decree is entered, Defendants will post the Notice and notify the EEOC that it has been posted.
II. During the term of this decree, Defendants will provide the Commission with reports at six (6) month intervals, with the first being due four (4) months after the Court enters this Decree. The reports will include the following information: (a) the identities of all individuals who have made a complaint of sexual harassment, including by way of identification each person's name, sex, position, social security number, and contact information; (b) the identity of the individual(s) who received the complaint; (c) a detailed statement of the individual's complaint; and (d) a detailed statement of what action was taken in response to the individual's complaint.
12. Defendants agree that the Commission may review compliance with this Decree. As part of such review, the Commission may inspect the premises, interview employees and examine and copy documents.
13. If anytime during the term of this Decree, the Commission believes that Defendants are in violation of this Decree, the Commission shall give notice of the alleged
5

-

-

violation to the Defendants. Defendants shall have thirty (30) days in which to investigate and respond to the allegations. Thereafter, the parties shall have a period of thirty (30) days, or such additional period as may be agreed upon by them, in which to engage in negotiation and conciliation regarding such allegations, before the Commission exercises any remedy provided by law.
14. All reports and compliance statements required by this Consent Decree shall be mailed to Lynette A. Barnes, Acting Regional Attorney, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 129 West Trade Street, Suite 400, Charlotte, NC 28202.
15. The term of this Decree will be for two (2) years from its entry by the Court. 16. Each party will bear its own costs and attorneys' fees 17. This Court will retain jurisdiction of this cause for purposes of monitoring compliance with this Decree and entry of such further orders as may be necessary or appropriate.
~~
Judge, U.S. District COUrt
District of South Carolina
The parties jointly request that the Court approve and enter the Consent Decree:

6

-

FOR PLAINTIFF, EEOC

FOR PLAINTIFF-INTERVENORS

ERIC S. DREIBAND General Counsel
JAMESL. LEE Deputy General Counsel
GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel

DOUGLAS H. WESTBROOK 23 Broad Street Charleston, SC 29401 Tel. (843) 853-9600

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION _-t-R&l~"L" Street, N.W. Was· n, D.C. 20507

FOR DEFENDANTS

Acting Regional Attorney 129 W. Trade St. Suite 400 Charlotte, NC 28202

,JR. Walker artin & Reibold, LLC
rest Drive, Suite C-201 Post Office Box 61140 Columbia, South Carolina 29260 Tel. (803) 454-0955

RITHCOHEN Senior Trial Attorney 1309 Annapolis Drive Raleigh, North Carolina 27608-2129 Tel.( 919) 856-4148

/1&/>ed ;-: "'r . / ~/~.
ROBERT F. DALEY,: Assistant U.S. Attorney 1441 Main Street, Suite 500

1l~/ll:f)(Aay-
w7i 1Ut.Yl.~

Columbia, S.C. 29201

Tel. (803) 929-3054

7

-

-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
CHARLESTON DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

)

COMMISSION

)

Plaintiff,

)

and

)

)

JESSICA KEEFER and

)

LAURA FRANKS

)

Intevenors,

)

vs.

)

)

HOOVER DODGE, INC.,

)

HOOVER CHRYSLER, INC.,

)

HOOVER JEEP CHRYSLER, INC.,

)

HOOVER CHRYSLER JEEP, INC., and

)

HOOVER MOTORS, INC.

)

Defendants.

)

Civil Action No. 2:03-3055-23BG NOTICE

I.

This Notice is posted pursuant to a settlement between the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission and the above named Defendants in a case of discrimination based on sex.

Specifically, the EEOC alleged that Defendants subjected Jessica Keefer, Laura Franks, Katie

Later, Renee Cotton, and Melinda Jones to a sexually hostile work environment in violation of

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Defendants denied the allegations.

2.

Federal law requires that employers not discriminate against any employee or applicant for

employment because of the individual's race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age (40 or

older) or disability. Title VII specifically prohibits discrimination based on sex, including sexual

harassment.

3.

The Defendants support and will comply with such federal law in all respects. Furthermore, the

Defendants will not take any actions against employees because they have exercised their rights,

reported an alleged violation under the law or given testimony, assistance or participation in any

investigation, proceeding or hearing conducted by the U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission.

An employee has the right, and is encouraged to exercise that right, to report allegations of employment discrimination in the workplace. An employee may contact their local U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission field office for the purpose of filing a charge of employment discrimination. To locate the nearest field office, contact:

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 1801 L Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20507 TEL: 1-800-669-4000 TTY: 1-800-669-6820

DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE UNTIL: _ _ _ _ _ _, 2005

APPENDIX A

 
 CM/ECF - scd - Docket Report

https://ecf.scd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?653340118110644-L_35...

CLOSED, JURY
U.S. District Court District of South Carolina (Charleston) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:03-cv-03055-PMD-GCK

EEOC, et al v. Hoover Chrysler Inc, et al Assigned to: Judge Patrick Michael Duffy Referred to: Magistrate Judge George C Kosko Demand: $0 Cause: 42:1981 Sex Discrimination
Plaintiff
United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Date Filed: 09/25/2003 Date Terminated: 02/24/2005 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff
represented by Edwin Lake Turnage Harris and Graves PO Box 6263 Greenville, SC 29606 864-235-1331 Fax: 864-235-1741 Email: elt@harrisgraves.com TERMINATED: 05/04/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert F Daley, Jr US Attorneys Office 1441 Main Street Suite 500 Columbia, SC 29201 803-929-3000 Fax: 803-252-2759 Email: bob.daley@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gwendolyn Young Reams Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 1801 L Street NW Room 7032 Washington, DC 20507 202-663-4059

Jessica L Dixon US Equal Opportunity Commission 129 W Trade Street Suite 400 Charlotte, NC 28202 704-344-6875

1 of 12

7/13/2007 1:21 PM

CM/ECF - scd - Docket Report
Intervenor Plaintiff Jessica Keefer
Intervenor Plaintiff Laura Franks V. Defendant Hoover Chrysler Inc
2 of 12

https://ecf.scd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?653340118110644-L_35...
Email: jessica.dixon@eeoc.gov
Kerith Cohen US Equal Opportunity Commission 1309 Annapolis Drive Raleigh, NC 27608 919-856-4148
represented by Douglas H Westbrook 23 Broad Street Charleston, SC 29401 843-853-9600 Fax: 843-577-2241 Email: douglas.westbrook@yahoo.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Douglas H Westbrook (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Allan Riley Holmes Gibbs and Holmes PO Box 938 Charleston, SC 29402 843-722-0033 Fax: 843-722-0114 Email: aholmes@gibbs-holmes.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Harry Clayton Walker, Jr Walker Martin and Reibold PO Box 61140 Columbia, SC 29260 803-454-0955 Fax: 803-454-0956 Email: cwalker@walkerreibold.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert L Reibold Walker Martin and Reibold
7/13/2007 1:21 PM

CM/ECF - scd - Docket Report
Defendant Hoover Jeep Chrysler Inc
Defendant Hoover Chrysler Jeep Inc
Defendant Hoover Motors Inc
3 of 12

https://ecf.scd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?653340118110644-L_35...
PO Box 61140 Columbia, SC 29260 803-454-0955 Fax: 803-454-0956 Email: rreibold@walkerreibold.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Allan Riley Holmes (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Harry Clayton Walker, Jr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert L Reibold (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Allan Riley Holmes (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Harry Clayton Walker, Jr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert L Reibold (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Allan Riley Holmes (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Harry Clayton Walker, Jr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
7/13/2007 1:21 PM

CM/ECF - scd - Docket Report
Intervenor Defendant Hoover Chrysler Inc
Intervenor Defendant Hoover Jeep Chrysler Inc
Intervenor Defendant Hoover Chrysler Jeep Inc
Intervenor Defendant Hoover Dodge Inc
4 of 12

https://ecf.scd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?653340118110644-L_35...
Robert L Reibold (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Allan Riley Holmes (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Harry Clayton Walker, Jr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Allan Riley Holmes (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Harry Clayton Walker, Jr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Allan Riley Holmes (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Harry Clayton Walker, Jr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Allan Riley Holmes (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Harry Clayton Walker, Jr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
7/13/2007 1:21 PM

CM/ECF - scd - Docket Report

https://ecf.scd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?653340118110644-L_35...

Defendant Hoover Dodge Inc
Movant Jessica Keefer Movant Laura Franks

represented by Allan Riley Holmes (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Harry Clayton Walker, Jr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert L Reibold (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Douglas H Westbrook (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Douglas H Westbrook (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 09/25/2003 09/25/2003 09/25/2003 10/14/2003
10/17/2003 10/21/2003 12/05/2003

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT; Service due by 1/23/04 for Hoover Chrysler Jeep, for Hoover Jeep Chrysler, for Hoover Chrysler Inc (kmca) (Entered: 09/25/2003)
2 SUMMONS(ES) issued for defendant Hoover Chrysler Inc, defendant Hoover Jeep Chrysler, defendant Hoover Chrysler Jeep (kmca) (Entered: 09/25/2003)
3 ANSWER to Local Rule 26 Interrogatories by plaintiff EEOC; jury demand (kmca) (Entered: 09/25/2003)
4 WAIVER OF SERVICE as to Hoover Chrysler Inc, Hoover Jeep Chrysler, Hoover Chrysler Jeep Answer due on 12/6/03 for Hoover Chrysler Jeep, for Hoover Jeep Chrysler, for Hoover Chrysler Inc (dnap) (Entered: 10/14/2003)
CASE reassigned from Judge Norton to Judge Patrick Michael Duffy (glev) (Entered: 10/17/2003)
5 NOTICE of Judge reassignment (jwol) (Entered: 10/22/2003)
6 MOTION by defendant Hoover Chrysler Inc, defendant Hoover Jeep Chrysler, defendant Hoover Chrysler Jeep to dismiss (asni) (Entered: 12/05/2003)

5 of 12

7/13/2007 1:21 PM

CM/ECF - scd - Docket Report

https://ecf.scd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?653340118110644-L_35...

12/05/2003 12/05/2003 12/05/2003 12/22/2003 12/30/2003
12/30/2003 12/30/2003 01/06/2004 01/06/2004
01/06/2004 01/06/2004
01/07/2004 01/12/2004 01/13/2004

7 MEMORANDUM by defendant Hoover Chrysler Inc, defendant Hoover Jeep Chrysler, defendant Hoover Chrysler Jeep in support of [6-1] motion to dismiss (asni) (Entered: 12/05/2003)
8 AFFIDAVIT of H. Clayton Walker Jr. by defendant Hoover Chrysler Inc, defendant Hoover Jeep Chrysler, defendant Hoover Chrysler Jeep Re: [6-1] motion to dismiss (asni) (Entered: 12/05/2003)
9 ANSWER to Local Rule 26 Interrogatories by defendant Hoover Chrysler Inc, defendant Hoover Jeep Chrysler, defendant Hoover Chrysler Jeep; jury demand (asni) (Entered: 12/05/2003)
10 ORDER EEOC's Response to motion reset to 12/30/03 for [6-1] motion to dismiss ( signed by Magistrate Judge George C. Kosko ) EOD (obri) (Entered: 12/22/2003)
11 AMENDED COMPLAINT by plaintiff EEOC , (Answer due 1/9/04 for Hoover Chrysler Jeep, for Hoover Jeep Chrysler, for Hoover Chrysler Inc ) Service due by 4/28/04 for Hoover Chrysler Jeep, for Hoover Jeep Chrysler, for Hoover Chrysler Inc amending [1-1] complaint against defendant Hoover Dodge Inc; jury demand (jtho) (Entered: 12/30/2003)
12 SUMMONS issued for defendant Hoover Dodge Inc (jtho) (Entered: 12/30/2003)
13 RESPONSE by plaintiff EEOC to [6-1] motion to dismiss (kric) (Entered: 12/31/2003)
14 ORDER extending time for defendants to , Reply to Response to Motion ( signed by Magistrate Judge George C. Kosko ) eod 1/6/04 (cmur) (Entered: 01/06/2004)
15 ANSWER by defendant Hoover Chrysler Inc, defendant Hoover Jeep Chrysler, defendant Hoover Chrysler Jeep, defendant Hoover Dodge Inc (Attorney Harry Clayton Walker Jr., Allan Riley Holmes) to amended complaint; jury demand (gpea) (Entered: 01/07/2004)
16 MOTION by defendant Hoover Chrysler Inc, defendant Hoover Jeep Chrysler, defendant Hoover Chrysler Jeep, defendant Hoover Dodge Inc to dismiss amended complaint (gpea) (Entered: 01/07/2004)
17 MEMORANDUM by defendant Hoover Chrysler Inc, defendant Hoover Jeep Chrysler, defendant Hoover Chrysler Jeep, defendant Hoover Dodge Inc in support of [16-1] motion to dismiss amended complaint (gpea) (Entered: 01/07/2004)
18 NOTICE of Hearing before Magistrate Judge George C. Kosko set Motion Hearing to 10:00 1/16/04 for [6-1] motion to dismiss (cmur) (Entered: 01/07/2004)
19 REPLY by defendant Hoover Chrysler Inc, defendant Hoover Jeep Chrysler, defendant Hoover Chrysler Jeep, defendant Hoover Dodge Inc to response to [6-1] motion to dismiss (cram) (Entered: 01/13/2004)
20 MOTION to intervene by Jessica Keefer, Laura Franks (cmur) (Entered: 01/14/2004)

6 of 12

7/13/2007 1:21 PM

CM/ECF - scd - Docket Report

https://ecf.scd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?653340118110644-L_35...

01/15/2004 01/15/2004
01/16/2004 01/16/2004 01/16/2004 01/16/2004
02/13/2004 02/13/2004 02/19/2004 02/20/2004 02/20/2004

21 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff EEOC in opposition to [16-1] motion to dismiss amended complaint (cmur) (Entered: 01/15/2004)
22 ACCEPTANCE OF SERVICE filed as to Hoover Chrysler Inc, Hoover Jeep Chrysler, Hoover Chrysler Jeep, Hoover Dodge Inc 1/9/04 Answer due on 1/29/04 for Hoover Dodge Inc, for Hoover Chrysler Jeep, for Hoover Jeep Chrysler, for Hoover Chrysler Inc Assignment Interrogatories due on 1/26/04 for Hoover Dodge Inc, for Hoover Chrysler Jeep, for Hoover Jeep Chrysler, for Hoover Chrysler Inc ; (cmur) (Entered: 01/15/2004)
23 ORDER granting [20-1] motion to intervene by Jessica Keefer, Laura Franks ( signed by Magistrate Judge George C. Kosko ) EOD (obri) (Entered: 01/16/2004)
24 Intervenor's COMPLAINT by intervenor-plaintiff Jessica Keefer, Laura Franks against defendant Hoover Chrysler Inc, defendant Hoover Jeep Chrysler, defendant Hoover Chrysler Jeep, defendant Hoover Dodge Inc; jury demand (obri) (Entered: 01/16/2004)
25 MOTION HEARING [16-1] motion to dismiss amended complaint, [6-1] motion to dismiss held ORAL ORDER granting [16-1] motion to dismiss amended complaint, Court added in Hoover Dodge, Inc. as defendant party [6-1] motion to dismiss taken under advisement (before Magistrate Judge George C. Kosko ) Court Reporter: Gilbert O'Brien,ESR. (obri) (Entered: 01/16/2004)
26 CONFERENCE AND SCHEDULING ORDER setting 26(f) Conference no later than 2/5/04 ; 26(a) Initial Disclosures served by 2/20/04 ; 26(f) Report filed by 2/20/04 ; Joining of parties,amending of pleadings on 3/8/04 ; Plaintiff's ID of Experts set for 4/5/04 ; Defendant's ID of Experts set for 5/5/04 ; Records Custodian Affidavit filed by 5/5/04 ; Discovery cutoff 7/5/04 ; Motion In Limine filed by 9/10/04 ; Deadline for filing of all motions 7/19/04 ; 26(a)3 Pretrial Disclosures filed by 10/4/04 ; Pretrial Brief filed by 9/24/04 ; Jury Selection deadline set for 10/1/04 ; ADR Statement/Cert due by 8/17/04 Mediation deadline for 9/17/04 ( signed by Magistrate Judge George C. Kosko ) eod 1/20/04 (cmur) (Entered: 01/20/2004)
27 ANSWER to INTERVENER'S Complaint by defendant Hoover Chrysler Inc, defendant Hoover Jeep Chrysler, defendant Hoover Chrysler Jeep, defendant Hoover Dodge Inc (Attorney H. Clayton Walker, Jr),; jury demand (bbro) (Entered: 02/13/2004)
28 26(f) Report by Jessica Keefer, Laura Franks . Parties Agree to Conference and Scheduling Order. (cmur) (Entered: 02/17/2004)
29 AMENDED ANSWER to Intervener Complaint by defendant Hoover Chrysler Inc, defendant Hoover Jeep Chrysler, defendant Hoover Chrysler Jeep, defendant Hoover Dodge Inc : amends [27-1] answer; jury demand (cram) (Entered: 02/20/2004)
30 26(f) Report by EEOC. Parties disagree to Conference and Scheduling Order; exhibit A = proposed consent amended scheduling order (kmca) (Entered: 02/20/2004)
30 26(f) Outline of Discovery Plan by EEOC. (kmca) (Entered: 02/20/2004)

7 of 12

7/13/2007 1:21 PM

CM/ECF - scd - Docket Report

https://ecf.scd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?653340118110644-L_35...

02/20/2004 02/23/2004 02/23/2004 02/25/2004
03/01/2004
04/20/2004 04/26/2004 04/28/2004
04/28/2004 04/28/2004 04/28/2004 04/29/2004 04/30/2004

30 26(f) Answers to Local Rule 26 Interrogatories by EEOC. (kmca) (Entered: 02/20/2004)
31 26(f) Report by Hoover Chrysler Inc, Hoover Jeep Chrysler, Hoover Chrysler Jeep, Hoover Dodge Inc . Parties to Conference and Scheduling Order. (cram) (Entered: 02/24/2004)
32 PRETRIAL DISCLOSURES by Hoover Chrysler Inc, Hoover Jeep Chrysler, Hoover Chrysler Jeep, Hoover Dodge Inc (cram) (Entered: 02/24/2004)
33 AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER setting Joining of parties,amending of pleadings on 5/17/04 ; Plaintiff's ID of Experts set for 6/21/04 ; Defendant's ID of Experts set for 7/26/04 ; Records Custodian Affidavit filed by 8/1/04 ; Discovery cutoff 9/6/04 ; Motion In Limine filed by 11/15/04 ; Deadline for filing of all motions 9/20/04 ; Mediation deadline for 10/11/04 Mediation Statement filed by 9/11/04 ; 26(a)3 Pretrial Disclosures filed by 11/8/04 ; Pretrial Brief filed by 11/24/04 ; Jury Selection deadline set for 12/1/04 ; ( signed by Magistrate Judge George C. Kosko ) eod 2/26/04 (cmur) (Entered: 02/26/2004)
34 WAIVER OF SERVICE as to Hoover Chrysler Inc, Hoover Jeep Chrysler, Hoover Chrysler Jeep Answer due on 3/26/04 for Hoover Dodge Inc, for Hoover Chrysler Jeep, for Hoover Jeep Chrysler, for Hoover Chrysler Inc (cmur) (Entered: 03/01/2004)
35 MOTION by plaintiff EEOC to amend [11-1] amended complaint (jtho) (Entered: 04/20/2004)
36 ORDER granting [35-1] motion to amend [11-1] amended complaint ( signed by Magistrate Judge George C. Kosko ) eod (cmur) (Entered: 04/26/2004)
37 AMENDED COMPLAINT by plaintiff EEOC, intervenor-plaintiff Jessica Keefer, intervenor-plaintiff Laura Franks , (Answer due 5/10/04 for Hoover Motors Inc ) Service due by 8/26/04 for Hoover Motors Inc amending [11-1] amended complaint; jury demand (jtho) (Entered: 04/28/2004)
38 SUMMONS issued for defendant Hoover Motors Inc (jtho) (Entered: 04/28/2004)
39 MOTION by plaintiff EEOC for Edwin L. Turnage to withdraw as attorney (dnap) (Entered: 04/28/2004)
40 MOTION by plaintiff EEOC to stay the proceedings until May 31, 2004 (dnap) (Entered: 04/28/2004)
41 MOTION by defendant Hoover Chrysler Inc, defendant Hoover Jeep Chrysler, defendant Hoover Chrysler Jeep, defendant Hoover Dodge Inc, defendant Hoover Motors Inc to amend [33-1] Scheduling order (cram) (Entered: 04/30/2004)
42 AMENDED COMPLAINT by intervenor-plaintiff Jessica Keefer, intervenor-plaintiff Laura Franks , (Answer due 5/10/04 for Hoover Dodge Inc, for Hoover Chrysler Jeep, for Hoover Jeep Chrysler, for Hoover Chrysler Inc ) Service due by 8/30/04 for Hoover Motors Inc, for Hoover Dodge Inc, for Hoover Chrysler Jeep, for Hoover Jeep Chrysler, for Hoover Chrysler Inc amending [24-1] intervenor complaint; jury demand (cmur) (Entered: 05/03/2004)

8 of 12

7/13/2007 1:21 PM

CM/ECF - scd - Docket Report

https://ecf.scd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?653340118110644-L_35...

04/30/2004 05/04/2004 05/04/2004 05/05/2004
05/06/2004
05/07/2004
05/07/2004 05/11/2004 05/26/2004

43 SUMMONS(ES) issued for intervenor-defendant Hoover Chrysler Inc, intervenor-defendant Hoover Jeep Chrysler, intervenor-defendant Hoover Chrysler Jeep, intervenor-defendant Hoover Dodge Inc (cmur) (Entered: 05/03/2004)
44 ORDER granting [40-1] motion to stay the proceedings until May 31, 2004 ( signed by Magistrate Judge George C. Kosko ) eod 5/5/04 (cmur) (Entered: 05/05/2004)
45 ORDER granting [39-1] motion for Edwin L. Turnage to withdraw as attorney ( signed by Magistrate Judge George C. Kosko ) eod 5/5/04 (cmur) (Entered: 05/05/2004)
46 AMENDED CONFERENCE AND SCHEDULING ORDER setting Defendant's ID of Experts set for 6/7/04 ; Records Custodian Affidavit filed by 6/7/04 ; Discovery cutoff 8/5/04 ; Motion In Limine filed by 10/11/04 ; Deadline for filing of all motions 8/19/04 ; Mediation deadline for 10/18/04 Mediation Statement filed by 9/18/04 ; 26(a)3 Pretrial Disclosures filed by 11/4/04 ; Pretrial Brief filed by 11/24/04 ; Jury Selection deadline set for 12/1/04 ; granting [41-1] motion to amend [33-1] Scheduling order ( signed by Magistrate Judge George C. Kosko ) eod (cmur) (Entered: 05/05/2004)
47 SCHEDULING ORDER setting Joining of parties,amending of pleadings on 6/16/04 ; Plaintiff's ID of Experts set for 7/21/04 ; Defendant's ID of Experts set for 8/25/04 ; Records Custodian Affidavit filed by 8/31/04 ; Discovery cutoff 10/6/04 ; Motion In Limine filed by 11/25/04 ; Deadline for filing of all motions 10/20/04 ; 26(a)3 Pretrial Disclosures filed by 12/8/04 ; Pretrial Brief filed by 12/27/04 ; Jury Selection deadline set for 1/1/05 ; Mediation deadline for 11/10/04 ( signed by Magistrate Judge George C. Kosko ) (obri) (Entered: 05/06/2004)
48 ACCEPTANCE OF SERVICE filed as to Hoover Chrysler Inc, Hoover Jeep Chrysler, Hoover Chrysler Jeep, Hoover Dodge Inc, Hoover Chrysler Inc, Hoover Jeep Chrysler, Hoover Chrysler Jeep, Hoover Dodge Inc, 5/3/04 Answer due on 5/24/04 for Hoover Motors Inc, for Hoover Dodge Inc, for Hoover Chrysler Jeep, for Hoover Jeep Chrysler, for Hoover Chrysler Inc, for Hoover Dodge Inc, for Hoover Chrysler Jeep, for Hoover Jeep Chrysler, for Hoover Chrysler Inc Assignment Interrogatories due on 5/17/04 for Hoover Motors Inc, for Hoover Dodge Inc, for Hoover Chrysler Jeep, for Hoover Jeep Chrysler, for Hoover Chrysler Inc ; (cmur) (Entered: 05/07/2004)
49 ANSWER by defendant Hoover Chrysler Inc, defendant Hoover Jeep Chrysler, defendant Hoover Chrysler Jeep, defendant Hoover Dodge Inc, defendant Hoover Motors Inc (Attorney Allan Riley Holmes) to Plaintiff's second amended complaint; jury demand (cram) (Entered: 05/10/2004)
50 ANSWER by defendant Hoover Chrysler Inc, defendant Hoover Jeep Chrysler, defendant Hoover Chrysler Jeep, defendant Hoover Dodge Inc, defendant Hoover Motors Inc to Intervenor's Jessica Keefer and Laura Franks amended complaint; jury demand (cram) (Entered: 05/12/2004)
51 NOTICE of attorney appearance for plaintiff EEOC by Robert F Daley Jr (cram) (Entered: 05/27/2004)

9 of 12

7/13/2007 1:21 PM

CM/ECF - scd - Docket Report

https://ecf.scd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?653340118110644-L_35...

05/27/2004 06/02/2004 06/10/2004 06/14/2004 06/15/2004 07/02/2004 07/02/2004 07/12/2004
07/23/2004 07/23/2004 07/27/2004 07/27/2004
08/02/2004 08/03/2004 10/05/2004

52 MOTION by plaintiff EEOC for Kerith Cohen to appear pro hac vice FILING FEE AMOUNT WAIVED DUE TO STATUE with original appalication/affidavit attached (cram) (Entered: 05/28/2004)
53 ORDER granting [52-1] motion for Kerith Cohen to appear pro hac vice FILING FEE AMOUNT WAIVED DUE TO STATUE ( signed by Judge Patrick Michael Duffy ) eod (cmur) (Entered: 06/02/2004)
54 MOTION by intervenor-plaintiff Jessica Keefer, intervenor-plaintiff Laura Franks to compel discovery (erav) (Entered: 06/10/2004)
55 ACCEPTANCE OF SERVICE filed as to Hoover Motors Inc 6/14/04 Answer due on 7/6/04 for Hoover Motors Inc (cram) (Entered: 06/15/2004)
56 ORDER denying [54-1] motion to compel discovery ( signed by Magistrate Judge George C. Kosko ) (mnew) (Entered: 06/15/2004)
57 MOTION by plaintiff EEOC for Jessica L. Dixon to appear pro hac vice FILING FEE AMOUNT waived due to US Government plaintiff (kpri) (Entered: 07/06/2004)
58 AFFIDAVIT of Jessica L. Dixon by plaintiff EEOC in support of: [57-1] motion for Jessica L. Dixon to appear pro hac vice FILING FEE AMOUNT waived due to US Government plaintiff (kpri) (Entered: 07/06/2004)
59 ORDER granting [57-1] motion for Jessica L. Dixon to appear pro hac vice FILING FEE AMOUNT waived due to US Government plaintiff ( signed by Judge Patrick Michael Duffy ) eod (cmur) Modified on 07/13/2004 (Entered: 07/13/2004)
60 NOTICE of Hearing set status conference for 2:00 8/3/04 before Magistrate Judge George C. Kosko (cmur) (Entered: 07/23/2004)
61 CONSENT CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER concerning certain discovery material. Details set forth in order.( signed by Magistrate Judge George C. Kosko ) eod (cmur) (Entered: 07/23/2004)
Minute entry: mooting [6-1] motion to dismiss per Judge Kosko's chambers as document 16 supercedes document 6 (mnew) (Entered: 07/27/2004)
62 SUPPLEMENTAL PRETRIAL DISCLOSURES by Hoover Chrysler Inc, Hoover Jeep Chrysler, Hoover Chrysler Jeep, Hoover Dodge Inc, Hoover Motors Inc Objections to PT Disclosures due by 8/10/04 for Laura Franks, for Jessica Keefer, for Laura Franks, for Jessica Keefer, for EEOC ; (cram) (Entered: 07/28/2004)
63 Plaintiff's ID of Experts by EEOC (cram) (Entered: 08/03/2004)
64 STATUS CONFERENCE held before Magistrate Judge George C. Kosko; Case on schedule; ORAL ORDER Court Reporter: Dennis Patrick, esr. (dpat) (Entered: 08/03/2004)
65 SECOND CONSENT AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER setting Discovery cutoff 12/6/04 ; Motion In Limine filed by 2/14/05 ; Mediation deadline for 1/10/05 Mediation Statement filed by 12/10/04 ; 26(a)3 Pretrial Disclosures filed by 2/7/05 ; Pretrial Brief filed by 2/22/05 ; Jury Selection deadline set for 3/1/05 ;

10 of 12

7/13/2007 1:21 PM

CM/ECF - scd - Docket Report

https://ecf.scd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?653340118110644-L_35...

10/28/2004 11/01/2004
11/04/2004 11/04/2004 11/04/2004 11/04/2004 11/24/2004 12/06/2004 12/07/2004 12/08/2004 12/13/2004 12/16/2004

( signed by Magistrate Judge George C. Kosko ) eod (cmur) (Entered: 10/05/2004)
66 MOTION by defendant Hoover Chrysler Inc, defendant Hoover Jeep Chrysler, defendant Hoover Chrysler Jeep, defendant Hoover Dodge Inc to extend time to file affidavits of records custodian (bbro) (Entered: 10/29/2004)
67 THIRD AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER setting Records Custodian Affidavit filed by 12/6/04 ; Discovery cutoff 12/6/04 ; Motion In Limine filed by 2/14/05 ; Mediation deadline for 1/10/05 Mediation Statement filed by 12/10/04 ; 26(a)3 Pretrial Disclosures filed by 2/7/05 ; Pretrial Brief filed by 2/22/05 ; Jury Selection deadline set for 3/1/05 ; granting [66-1] motion to extend time to file affidavits of records custodian ( signed by Magistrate Judge George C. Kosko ) eod 11/2/04 (cmur) (Entered: 11/02/2004)
68 AFFIDAVIT of Wanda I. Bruno by defendant Hoover Chrysler Inc, defendant Hoover Jeep Chrysler, defendant Hoover Chrysler Jeep, defendant Hoover Dodge Inc, defendant Hoover Motors Inc Re: Records of Jessica Joan Keefer (bshr) (Entered: 11/05/2004)
69 AFFIDAVIT of Meagan Shaughnessy by defendant Hoover Chrysler Inc, defendant Hoover Jeep Chrysler, defendant Hoover Chrysler Jeep, defendant Hoover Dodge Inc, defendant Hoover Motors Inc Re: Records of Jessica Joan Keefer (bshr) (Entered: 11/05/2004)
70 AFFIDAVIT of Fred Long by defendant Hoover Chrysler Inc, defendant Hoover Jeep Chrysler, defendant Hoover Chrysler Jeep, defendant Hoover Dodge Inc, defendant Hoover Motors Inc Re: Records of Jessica Joan Keefer (bshr) (Entered: 11/05/2004)
71 AFFIDAVIT of John Disher by defendant Hoover Chrysler Inc, defendant Hoover Jeep Chrysler, defendant Hoover Chrysler Jeep, defendant Hoover Dodge Inc, defendant Hoover Motors Inc Re: Records of Jessica Joan Keefer (bshr) (Entered: 11/05/2004)
72 AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER setting Discovery cutoff 12/7/04 ; Deadline for filing of all motions 1/7/05 ; ( signed by Magistrate Judge George C. Kosko ) eod (cmur) (Entered: 11/24/2004)
73 26(f) Report (SUPPLEMENT) by Laura Franks, Jessica Keefer. (cmur) (Entered: 12/07/2004)
74 SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL 26(f) Answers to Local Rule 26 Interrogatories by Laura Franks, Jessica Keefer . (cmur) (Entered: 12/08/2004)
75 ADR Statement/Certification filed by intervenor-plaintiff Laura Franks, intervenor-plaintiff Jessica Keefer (cmur) (Entered: 12/09/2004)
76 ADR Statement/Certification filed by plaintiff EEOC (bshr) (Entered: 12/14/2004)
77 ADR Statement/Certification filed by defendant Hoover Motors Inc, defendant Hoover Dodge Inc, defendant Hoover Chrysler Jeep, defendant Hoover Jeep Chrysler, defendant Hoover Chrysler Inc (bshr) (Entered: 12/17/2004)

11 of 12

7/13/2007 1:21 PM

CM/ECF - scd - Docket Report

https://ecf.scd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?653340118110644-L_35...

01/03/2005 01/06/2005 01/06/2005 01/18/2005 02/24/2005

78 AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER setting Mediation deadline for 1/11/05 ( signed by Magistrate Judge George C. Kosko ) eod 1/4/05 (cmur) (Entered: 01/04/2005)
79 MOTION by defendant Hoover Motors Inc, defendant Hoover Dodge Inc, defendant Hoover Chrysler Jeep, defendant Hoover Jeep Chrysler, defendant Hoover Chrysler Inc for partial summary judgment (bbro) Modified on 01/07/2005 (Entered: 01/07/2005)
80 MEMORANDUM by defendant Hoover Motors Inc, defendant Hoover Dodge Inc, defendant Hoover Chrysler Jeep, defendant Hoover Jeep Chrysler, defendant Hoover Chrysler Inc in support of [79-1] motion for partial summary judgment with appendix to memorandum (bbro) (Entered: 01/07/2005)
Oral order: mooting [79-1] motion for partial summary judgment Per: Judge Kosko; Case announced settled ( by Magistrate Judge George C. Kosko ) (obri) Modified on 01/18/2005 (Entered: 01/18/2005)
81 CONSENT DECREE as to settlement agreement between the parties. Details outlined in the order. Signed by Judge Patrick Michael Duffy on 2/24/2005. (cmur, ) (Entered: 02/25/2005)

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

PACER Login:
Description:
Billable Pages:

07/13/2007 14:21:24

hs0328

Client Code:

eeoc

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

2:03-cv-03055-PMD-GCK

7

Cost:

0.56

12 of 12

7/13/2007 1:21 PM