F I L E

Si:P 2 7 Z005

eu,:".' IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

Ie,"I, J~:'LD~~?~:~~URT

EASTERN DIVISION

U. S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

)

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

GLENVIEW CAR WASH

)

)

Defendants.

)

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

COMPLAINT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
~JUDGE RONALD GUZMAN

NATUR~~ OF THE ACTION MAGISTRATE JUDGE NOLAN

This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Aet of 1964. as amended, 42 U.S.c. § 2000e et seq. ("Tit.le VTr'), and Title I of the Ci vi 1Rights Aet of 1991 to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of sex and retaliation and to provide appropriate relief to a class of male employees who were adversely affected by such practices. Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC" or "Commission") alleges that Thc Glenview Car Wash, Tne. ("Glenview") subjected Diego Perez, Fidencio Atimo, and Elmer Bettencourt (collectively referred to hereafter as "Charging Parties"), and a class of male employees to harassment on the basis of sex. EEOC also alleges that Glenview retaliated against Charging Patty Elmer Bellencourt and a elass of employees by terminating their employment.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.c. !i§ 451, 1331, 1337, 1343, and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Section 706(t)(J) and (3) of

Title VB, 42 U.S.c. § 2000e-S(f)(I) and (3), and § 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.c. § 1981A.
2. The employment practices hereafter alleged to be unlawful were and are now heing committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Tllinois, Eastern Division.
PARTIES 3. Plainti IT, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, is an agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation, and enforcement of Title Vll and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Section 706(f)(I) and (3) of Title VII, 421.LS.C. Section 2000e-S(f)(l) and (3). 4. At all times relevant, Glenview has continuously been doing business in the Northern District of Illinois and has continuously had at least fifteen employees. 5. At all times relevant, Glenview has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701(b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. Sections 2000e(b), (g) and (h).
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 6. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Charging Parties filed charges with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by Glenview. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been ful fi lled. 7. Since at least August 1988, Glenview has engaged in unlawful employment practices at its car wash facility at 1820 Waukegan Road, Glenview, Illinois, in violation of Sections 701(k) and 703(a) of Title Vll, 42 U.S.c. Sections 2000e(k) and 2(a). Such unlawful
2

employment practices have included: 1) subjecting Charging Parties and a class of male employees to harassment and a hostile work environment because of their sex; 2) retaliating against some Charging Parties and a class or male employees by subjecting them to termination.
8. The effect of the practices complained of above has been to deprive Charging Parties. and a class of male employees adversely affected by the discriminatory actions, of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees because of their sex and for opposing practices made unlawful by Title Vll or for engaging in activities protected by Title VII.
9. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs 7 and 8 above were intentional.
10. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs 7 and 8 above were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Charging Parties and a class of male employees because of their sex.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, the Commission respectfully requests that this COutt: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Glenview, its officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or pruticipation with it, from engaging in any employment practice which discriminates hecause of sex. B. Grant a pemlanent injunction enjoining Glenview, its officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert Or participation with it, from retaliating against any employee for opposing practices made unlawful under Title Vll or for engaging in activities
3

protected by Title VII.

C. Ordcr Glenview to institute and carry out policies, practices and programs which

eradicate the effe~ts of its past and present unlawful practices.

D. Order Glenview to make whole Charging Partics and the affected class by

providing appropriatc back pay with prejudgment interest, in amounts tu bc determined at trial,

and uther affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment

practices, including reinstatement where appropriate.

E. Order Glenview to make whole Charging Parties and the affected class by

providing compensation for past and future pecuniary lusses resulting from tbe unlawful

employment practices described in paragraphs 7 and 8 above, in amounts to be determined at

(lial.

f. Order Glenview to make whole Charging Parties and the affected class by

providing compensation for past and future non-pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful

practices complained uf in paragraphs 7 and 8 above, including emotional pain, inconvenience,

and humiliation, in amounts to be determined at trial.

G. Order Glenview to pay Charging Parties and the affected class punitive damages

for their malicious and reckless conduct described in paragraphs 7 and 8 above, in amounts tu be

determined at trial.

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

interest; and

1.

Award the Commission its costs in this action.

4

JURY TRIAL DEMAND The Commission requests ajury trial on all questions of fact raised by its complaint.
Respectfully submitted, James Lee Deputy General Counsel Gwendolyn Young Reams Associate General Counsel
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
1801 "L"

Ethan M. M. Cohen A.R.D.C. No. 06206781 U.S. Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission 500 W. Madison, Suite 2800 Chicago, Illinois 60661 (312) 353~7568

Trial Attorney 5

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

)

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

ELMER BETHANCOURTH, DIEGO PEREZ )

and FIDENCIO ANTIMO

)

)

Plaintiff-Intervenors, )

v.

)

)

GLENVIEW CAR WASH

)

)

Defendants.

)

)

Case No. 05 C 5568 Judge Ronald Guzman

COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION

NATURE OF THE ACTION

This is an action under Title VII Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.

§ 2000e et seq. ("Title VII"), Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to correct unlawful

employment practices on the basis of sex and retaliation and to provide appropriate

relief to Elmer Bethancourth, Diego Perez and Fidencio Antimo (collectively, "Plaintiff-

Intervenors"). Plaintiff- Intervenors allege that the Glenview Car Wash, Inc. ("Glenview")

and Plaintiff-Intervenors to harassment on the basis of sex. Glenview also retaliated

against Plaintiff-Intervenors by terminating their employment.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Plaintiff-Intervenors seek intervention as of right under Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(a) and 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1).

2. The employment practices hereafter alleged to be unlawful and are now being committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff-Intervenors were employees at Glenview and are the Charging Parties in the above captioned EEOC Action. 4. At all relevant times, Glenview has continuously been doing business in the Northern District of Illinois and has continuously had at least fifteen employees. 5. At all relevant times, Glenview has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701 (b),(g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. Sections 2000e(b), (g) and (h).
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 6. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Plaintiff-Intervenors filed charges with the EEOC alleging violations of Title VII by Glenview. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled. 7. Since at least August 1988, Glenview has engaged in unlawful employment practices at its car wash facility at 1820 Waukegan Road, Glenview, Illinois, in violation of Sections 701(k) and 703(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. Sections 2000e(k) and 2(a). Such unlawful employment practices have included: (1) subjecting Plaintiff-Intervenors to harassment and a hostile work environment because of their sex; (2) retaliating against some Plaintiff-Intervenors by subjecting them to termination. 8. The effect of the practices complaint above has been to deprive PlaintiffIntervenors of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affects their status

as employees because of their sex and for opposing practices made unlawful by Title VII or for engaging in activities protected by Title VII.
9. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs 7 and 8 were intentional.
10. The practices complained of in paragraph 7 and 8 above were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Plaintiff-Intervenors because of their sex.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff-Intervenors respectfully request that this court: 1. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Glenview, its officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in any employment practice which discriminates because of sex. 2. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Glenview, its officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from retaliating against any employee for opposing practices made unlawful under Title VII or for engaging in activities protected by Title VII. 3. Order Glenview and institute and carry out policies, practices and programs which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful practices. 4. Order Glenview to make Plaintiff-Intervenors and the affected class by providing appropriate backpay with prejudgment interest in amounts to be determined at trial, and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices, including reinstatement where appropriate.

5. Order Glenview to make Plaintiff-Intervenors whole for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from unlawful employment practices described in paragraphs 7 and 8 above, amounts to be determined at trial.
6. Order Glenview to make whole Plaintiff-Intervenors by providing compensation for past and future non-pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices complained of in paragraphs 7 and 8 above, including emotional pain, inconvenience, and humiliation, in amounts to be determined at trial.
7. Order Glenview to pay Plaintiff-Intervenors punitive damages for the malicious and reckless conduct described in paragraphs 7 and 8 above in amounts to be determined at trial.
8. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public interest.
9. Award the Plaintiff-Intervenors their costs in this action.

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Plaintiff-Intervenors request a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by their complaint.

Respectfully Submitted,

By:

/s/ Marisel A. Hernandez

One of Plaintiff-Intervenors Attorneys

Marisel A. Hernandez
Jacobs, Burns, Orlove, Stanton & Hernandez
122 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 1720 Chicago, Illinois 60603-6145 (312) 372-1646

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

EQUALENWLOYMENTOPPORTUMTY )

COMMISSION,

)

Plaintiff, and

)

ELMER BETHANCOURTH, et al.

)

Plaintiff.Intervenors,

)

v.

)

)

GLENVIEW CAR WASH, INC.,

)

Defendant.

)

)

No. 05 C 5568 HOD. Judge Guzman Magistrate Judge Nolan

CONSENT DECREE Tbe Litigation
L Plaintiff, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (hereafter the "EEOC"), filed tbis action on September 27,2005, alleging that Defendant Glenview Car Wasb, Inc. ("Glenview" or "Defendant") discriminated against three (3) Charging Parties ("Charging Parties") and a class of male employees who did not file charges (''the claimants"), in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rigbts Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e~. ("Title VII"), and § 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991,42 U.S.C. § 1981A, by subjecting tbem to harassment and a hostile work environment because of their sex. On October 20, 2005, the Charging Parties, Elmer Bethancourth, Diego Perez and Fidencio Antirno (collectively "Charging Parties"), intervened in this action and are represented by private counsel. Defendant filed answers to the complaints denying the allegations. As a result of the parties having engaged in settlement discussions, the parties have agreed that tbis action should be finally resolved by entry of this Consent Decree. This Consent Decree is intended to and does fully and finally resolve any and
1

all claims arising out of the Complaint. Findings
2. Having examined the terms and provisions of this Consent Decree and based on the pleadings, records, and stipulations of the parties, this Court finds the following:
A. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action and over the parties.
B. The terms and provisions of this Consent Decree are fair, adequate, reasonable, equitable and just. The rights of the parties, the claimants and the public are adequatel y protected by this Consent Decree.
C. This Consent Decree conforms with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Title VII. The entry of this Consent Decree will further the objectives of Title VII and will be in the best interest of the parties, the claimants and the public.
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED THAT: Non-Discrimination
3. Glenview is enjoined from discriminating against employees on the basis of sex and shall comply with Title VII.
Non-Retaliation 4. Glenview, its officers, agents, employees, successors, and assigns shall not retaliate against, penalize or otherwise prejudice any employee, former employee or applicant for employment because such person has opposed any practice made unlawful by Title VII; filed a Complaint or Charge of Discrimination; testified, assisted, or otherwise participated in any manner in any investigation, proceeding, hearing or litigation under Title VII; asserted any right
2

under this Consent Decree; or otherwise exercised his or her rights under Title VD. Monetary Relief
5. a) Glenview shall pay the gross sum of one hundred twenty five thousand five hundred dollars ($125,500), to resolve the claims of the Charging Parties and the claimants who did not file charges, inclusive of attorneys' fees and costs. This sum shall be distributed in the amounts indicated in the Release Agreements provided to Glenview by the Charging Parties and the EEOC, and equal in the aggregate one hundred twenty five thousand five hundred dollars ($125,500). Of this amount, an aggregate of twenty three thousand dollars ($23,000) shall be paid to the claimants who did no! file charges.
b) Payment to the Charging Parties shall be in a manner and on terms separately agreed to by Defendant and the Charging Parties and by their counsel, the firm of Jacobs, Burns, Orlove, Stanton & Hernandez ("Hernandez"), on behalf of the Charging Parties. EEOC has had no role in negotiating, is not a party to, and has not approved the terms of the release agreement eniered into by the Charging Parties who have been counseled by Hernandez with respect thereto.
c) Within ten (10) days of the entry of this Decree, EEOC shall mail to each EEOC claimant a letter informing them of the settlement (Exhibit B, attached) and a blank release (Exhibit C, attached).
d) Within ten (10) business days after receipt by Glenview of a Release Agreement in the format of Exhibit C from an EEOC claimant, Glenview shall issue and mail by certified mail to each such claimant, a check in the amount indicated on the release, payable to the order of such claimant to the address indicated on the release, as settlement of this case by
3

the EEOC, with a copy to the EEOC. e) Except as otherwise provided for in the agreement between Defendant and
the Charging Parties referred to in paragraph 5(b), above, payment to the Charging Parties and the claimants shall not be deemed to be for lost wages. Defendant shall not make withholdings and shall issue 1099 forms to the Charging Parties and claimants no later than January 30, 200i. The 1099 forms shall bear the Social Security number and be mailed to the address shown on the release agreements signed by the Charging Parties and claimants.
Notice Posting 6. Within ten (10) days after the Court's entry of lhi s Consent Decree and for the duration of this Decree, Glenview shall continuously post the notice annexed hereto as Exhibit A, along with a Spanish translation to be provided by EEOC (the notice and its translation shall, hereinafter, be referred to collectively as "the Notice"), in a location prominently visible to Glenview employees. Within ten (to) days after the Consent Decree is entered, Glenview shall certify in writing to the Chicago District Office of the EEOC that the Notice has been posted, and shall inform the EEOC of the location where it has been posted. Glenview shall permit a representative of EEOC to enter Glenview's premises for purposes of verifying compliance with this Paragraph at any time during norma! business hours.
Record Keeping and Reporting 7. Glenview shall maintain records of any complaints, formal or informal, oral or in wri ling, iI receives rei ating to harassment based on sex, including the name, address, telephone number and date of birth of the complainant and what was alleged, its investigation and any action taken by Glenview in response to such complaints, for the duration of the Consent Decree.
4

,
8. Beginning six (6) months after entry of this Consent Decree and every six (6) months thereafter for the duration of the Consent Decree, Glenview shall furnish EEOC with reports reflecting the information detailed in the records described in Paragraph 7 of this Consent Decree. Glenview's last report will be submitted to EEOC two (2) weeks prior to the date on which the Decree is to expire.
9. For the term of the Consent Decree and upon five (5) business days' notice to Glenview, the EEOC, when it has reasonable cause to believe Glenview is not in compliance with the terms of this Consent Decree, shall have access to Glenview's facility during normal business hours to review and copy any documents related to determining compliance at its facility and to interview any personnel employed by Glenview for the purpose of determining Glenview's compliance with the terms of this Consent Decree.
Training 10. During each of the two (2) years covered by this Decree, Glenview shall arrange for annual training of all employees, including supervisors and managers, regarding the requirements of Title VII and Glenview's policies prohibiting discrimination under Title VII. Glenview shall submit to EEOC for approval, materials regarding the training sessions, including the credentials of the trai ner and proposed training program, prior to such training. Within five (5) days after the completion of the training described above, Glenview will certify to EEOC that the training has been completed, the name(s) of the person(s) conducting the training, the time(s), duration and date(s) the training were held and a list identifying by name and position all individuals who received the training. The first training shall take place within forty-five (45) days after entry of this Consent Decree.
5

.,
Duration of DecreeiRetention of Jurisdiction 11. The tenns of this Consent Decree shall be in effect (and the Court will retain jurisdiction of this matter to enforce this Decree) for a period of two (2) years from the date on which this Consent Decree is entered, provided, however, that if, at the end of the two (2) year period, there are disputes that remain unresolved, and written notice is given by the party claiming that such dispute(s) remain unresolved, the tenn of the Decree shall be automatically extended until such time as all such di sputes have been rewlved.
Costs and Attorneys' Fees 12. Each party to this action shall bear its own attorney's fees, costs, and expenses.
Dispute Resolution 13. If EEOC has reasonable cause to believe that Defendants have violated any of the tenns of this Consent Decree, EEOC shall notify Defendants in writing, and Defendants will then have ten (10) business days in which to satisfy EEOC that there has not been a violation or that the violation has been corrected. If, at the expiration of such time period, EEOC has not been so satisfied, then EEOC may immediately apply to the Court for appropriate relief.
Miscellaneous Provisions 14. The tenns of this Consent Decree shall be binding upon the present and future directors, officers, managers, agents, successors, and assigns of Glenview. Glenview, and any successor of Glenview, will provide a copy of this Decree to any organization which proposes to acquire or merge with Glenview, or any successor of Glenview, prior to the effectiveness of any such acquisition or merger. This paragraph shall not be deemed to limit any remedies available in the event of any finding by the Court of contempt for a violation of thi s Decree.
6

15. When this Consent Decree requires the submissi on by Defendants of reports, notices, or other materials to the Commission, such materials shall be mailed to: Glenview Settlement, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Chicago District Office, Legal Division, 500 West Madison, Suite 2800, Chicago, Illinois 60661.
7

ENTERED AND APPROVED FOR:
For the EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 1801 L Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20507
James L. Lee Deputy General Counsel
Gwendolyn Young Reams Associate General Counsel

For GLENVIEW CAR WASH, INC.:

j~j.. Um-k- ,4'/06

Kathleen Cook

Date

President, The Glenview Car Wash, Inc.

1820 Waukegan Road

Glenview, lllinois 60025

DiEGO

se ernandez

ate

Jacobs, Burns, Orlove, Stanton & Hernandez

122 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 1720

Chicago, IL 60603

~ ~z.~lo~

iane I. Smason

Date

0 L L s:pwe. .'ssooryry .Tt.rial Attorney /J.. I'

l~4tt~ ~~/~

Ethan M. M. Cohen Trial Attorney

Date ;

ENTER:

DATE:-----'~f0-.:>---7;1'-----p-b-

/' United States District Court Judg

8

EXHIBIT A
NOTICE TO ALL GLENVIEW CAR WASH. INC. EMPLOYEES
Thi s Notice is being posted pursuant to a Consent Decree entered by the federal court in EEOC v. Glenview Car Wash, Inc., No. 05 C 5568 (N.D. nL), resolving a lawsuit filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (''EEOC'') against Glenview Car Wash, Inc. ("Glenview'') .
In its suiI, the EEOC alleged that Glenview discriminated against a class of male employees, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e~. ("Title VII"), and § 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981A, by subjecting them to harassment and a hostile work environment because of their sex. Glenview filed an answer to the suit in which it denied the allegations.
To resolve the case, Glenview and the EEOC have entered in to a Consent Decree which provided, among other things, that:
1) Glenview pay monetary damages totaling $125,500 to a class of employees; 2) Glenview will not discriminate on the basis of sex; 3) Glenview will not retali ate against any person because he or she opposed any
practice made unlawful by Title VII, fi led a Title VII charge of discrimination, participated in any Title VII proceeding, or asserted any rights under the Consent Decree; 4) Glenview will train all employees, including management and supervisory employees, regarding their duties and obligations under Title VII.
The EEOC enforces the federal laws against discrimination in employment on the basis of sex, race, color, religion, national origin, age or disability. If you believe you have been discriminated against, you may contact the EEOC at (312) 353-8195. The EEOC charges no fees and has employees who speak languages other than English. If you believe you have been di scriminated against you may contact the EEOC.
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND MUST NOT BE DEFACED BY ANYONE
This Notice must remain posted for two years from the date below and must not be altered, defaced or covered by any other material. Any questions about this Notice or compliance with its terms may be directed to: Glenview Settlement, EEOC 500 West Madison Street, Suite 2800, Chicago, Dlinois 60661.

Date

Hon. Ronald A. Guzman

United States District Court Judge

9

______________ ,2006

LE'ITERHEAD EXHIBITB

xxxxxxxx
XXXXSt.
XXXXX, XX XXXXX

Re: EEOC v. Glenview. Corp., No. 05 C 5568 (N.D. nl.)

Dear Mx. XXXXXX:

A Consent Decree resolving the above·referenced lawsuit was signed by the parties and

entered by the Court on

,2006. Pursuant to the terms of the Consent Decree,

enclosed you will find a copy of a Release to be signed by you.

In order to obtain any monetary relief under the Consent Decree in this case, you must sign the Release and return it to me. Please mail the signed Release to me as soon as possible at the following address:

Ethan M. M. Cohen Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 500 West Madison Streel, Suite 2800 Chicago, TIlinois 60661
I have enclosed a pre·addressed envelope for your convenience. You may, of course, wish . to make and keep a copy of the signed Release for your own records.

If you have any questions about the Release or cannot sign and return the enclosed document within fourleen days, please contact me at (312) 353·7568.

Sincerely,

Encls.

Ethan M. M. Cohen Trial Attorney

10

· ,
EXHIBITC
RELEASE AGREEMENT
I, XXXXXXX, in consideration for $XX,OOO paid to me by Glenview Car Wash, Inc., in connection with the resolution of EEOC v. Glenview Car Wash, Inc., No. 05 C 5568 (N.D. fi1.), waive my right to recover for any claims of sex discrimination arising under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., that I had against Glenview Car Wash Inc. prior to the date of this release and that were included in the claims alleged in EEOC's complaint in EEOC v. Glenview Car Wash. Inc., No. 05 C 5568 (ND. TI1.).

Date Social Security Number

xxxxxxxx
Street Address City, State, Zi P Code

11

 
 E.E.O.C. v. City of Joliet, 239 F.R.D. 490 (2006)
239 F.R.D. 490 United States District Court,
N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division.
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Plaintiff, and
Elmer Bethancourth, et al., Plaintiff-Interveners, v.
CITY OF JOLIET, et al., Defendants.
No. 05 C 5568. | May 5, 2006.
Attorneys and Law Firms
*491 AUSA, United States Attorney’s Office, John C. Hendrickson, Ethan M.M. Cohen, Gregory M. Gochanour, Jeanne B. Szromba, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff.
Marisel A. Hernandez, Sylvia Rios, Jacobs, Burns, Orlove, Stanton & Hernandez, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff-Interveners.
Peter W. Andjelkovich, Bradley J. Wartman, Peter Andjelkovich & Associates, Chicago, IL, for Defendant.
Opinion
ORDER
GUZMAN, District Judge.
Plaintiffs’ emergency motion for a protective order is granted in part and denied in part.
Introduction Plaintiff, EEOC, has filed a complaint under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. alleging unlawful employment practices, i.e., harassment and hostile work environment on the basis of sex, on behalf of a class of male employees who are adversely affected by such practices. Named as charging parties are Fidencio Antimo, Elmer Bethancourth and Diego Perez. These parties have also intervened as individual plaintiffs. EEOC also alleges that defendant retaliated against Elmer Bethancourth and a class of employees by terminating their employment. On November 28, 2005, this court entered a discovery and scheduling order which provided for fact discovery to be completed by June 30, 2006.
Plaintiff-interveners have filed an emergency motion in which they allege that on or about April 24, 2006,

defendant required all employees to complete employment application forms for the first time. The application form consisted in part, at least, of a Department of Homeland Security (formerly Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”)) Form I-9 “Employment Eligibility Verification.” On this form, the employee is required, at the time he is hired, to certify under penalty of perjury that he is either a citizen, lawful permanent resident, or alien authorized to work and to provide true documentation (under penalty of federal law) to verify the declaration. Apparently, plaintiff-intervener Fidencio Antimo refused to fill out the form and directed defendant to speak to his attorneys regarding this information. Thereafter, on May 1, 2006, plaintiff-interveners’ counsel received a letter from defendant’s counsel advising that this information was needed from each of its employees in order for defendant “to be in compliance with *492 all labor, Internal Revenue and immigration laws.”

Factual findings [1] The court has heard the arguments of the parties and based upon the representations of the parties finds as follows.1 Defendant has submitted to each of its current employees a Form I-9 as described above. In response to the court’s inquiry, defendant’s counsel indicated that the immigration form was required in order for his client to be in compliance with the immigration laws. Counsel also informed the court that his client has been in business since approximately 1989 and has never before required employees to fill out such a form. Further, each of the employees now being faced with this form was hired without having been required to fill out the form. When asked why his client had chosen this moment in time to make this first time effort to comply with the immigration laws, counsel responded that the plaintiffs’ discovery requests had made his client aware of how incomplete its files were, and, thus, the determination to require the Form I-9 to be filled out for the first time in the history of the employer’s existence.

1

Defendant’s counsel urges an evidentiary hearing to

resolve factual disputes, but this is unnecessary as the

court is not relying upon any contested factual issues.

Rather, the key facts recited and upon which the court

relies are uncontested.

The court finds defendant’s explanation unconvincing. It is not plausible that this employer, in business since 1989, would now discover for the first time that its employee files were deficient in regards to immigration law requirements. Nor does the court find it convincing that the only motive for requesting such immigration status information at this particular point in time is the
1

E.E.O.C. v. City of Joliet, 239 F.R.D. 490 (2006)
employer’s sudden desire to be in compliance with its obligations under the immigration laws. Defendant would have the court believe that the fact of this current lawsuit by its employees is, in effect, a mere coincidence. It is clear that this is not so. Rather, the court finds that the main purpose behind this alleged new found desire to abide by the law is to effect a not so subtle intimidation of the intervener plaintiffs and all the potential class members. Such actions are meant to, and if unchecked most certainly will, chill the exercise of the employees’ Title VII rights-which rights the current lawsuit was filed to safeguard.
Discussion Counsel for defendant makes a point of asserting his client’s duty and right to comply with the immigration laws of the United States. However, as pointed out above, we find this argument rings hollow in the face of years of doing business during which defendant was, admittedly, in non-compliance with this particular aspect of the law. Furthermore, if allowed, defendant’s actions will have the effect not of enhancing compliance with immigration employment laws, but of undermining the enforcement of and compliance with such laws. It is well known and understood that one of the main motivations for the hiring of undocumented workers is the reality that such workers are unlikely to complain if discriminated against, underpaid, overworked or subjected to abusive work environments because they fear deportation. Therefore, safeguarding the rights of such workers to enforce laws such as Title VII will, in effect, strengthen our immigration laws by removing one of the main motivations for hiring undocumented workers in the first place-one of the stated goals of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (“IRCA”). Patel v. Quality Inn So., 846 F.2d 700 at 704 (11th Cir.1988). If employers are forced to treat such workers in the same manner as they must treat documented workers in all respects, a main incentive to hire the undocumented worker simply disappears.
Other Courts in similar situations have come to the same conclusion. An instructive example is found in Galaviz-Zamora v. Brady Farms, Inc., 230 F.R.D. 499 (W.D.Mich.2005). Migrant and seasonal agricultural workers brought a class action against employers under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (AWPA) to recover backpay for work already performed. Id. Defendants submitted to Plaintiffs various interrogatories and requests for production seeking information such as social security *493 numbers, Plaintiffs’ Alien Registration cards and copies of each Plaintiff’s United States birth certificate or Certificate of Birth Abroad issued by the United States Department of State. Id. Plaintiffs maintained that these discovery requests were

designed for the improper purpose of determining their immigration status and moved for a protective order. Id. Defendants countered by asserting that plaintiffs’ immigration status was relevant for purposes of establishing their entitlement to damages, standing to sue, credibility and also relevant as to class certification issues. Id. at 501. The court in Galaviz-Zamora found that the damage and prejudice which would result from the discovery into the immigration status of the employee plaintiffs would far outweigh whatever minimal legitimate probative value such information might have and barred the defendant from inquiring into the immigration status of its employees. Id. at 502. As pointed out in Galaviz-Zamora, other courts have found that the in terrorem effect of inquiring into the immigration status of employees suing their employer for unfair labor practices is devastating. Id. Not only does an undocumented alien face the reality of possible retaliatory adverse work place actions by the employer, but he or she also faces the very real possibility of being reported to the Department of Homeland Security and subsequent deportation or even criminal prosecution. Faced with such drastic consequences, most undocumented workers will withdraw their complaints. Id. A similar conclusion was reached by the court in Flores, v. Amigon, 233 F.Supp.2d 462, 464-65 (E.D.N.Y.2002).
Defendants in this case did not initiate their requests for documents and information through proper discovery processes, but rather by direct contact with the intervener-plaintiffs, apparently claiming that they are not seeking discovery, but merely complying with their duty under IRCA and, therefore, are not subject to protective orders meant to control the discovery process. But as noted above, the court is not persuaded by this sudden declaration of patriotic motivation. In Contreras v. Corinthian Vigor Insurance Brokerage, Inc., 103 F.Supp.2d 1180 (N.D.Cal.2000) plaintiff, Contreras, filed a claim against her employer, Corinthian, for unpaid wages and overtime pay pursuant to Section 98 of the California Labor Code with the California Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Labor Standards Enforcement. Id. at 1182. After plaintiff filed her claim, defendant caused plaintiff’s undocumented status to be reported to the INS. “As a result of the communication with the INS, Contreras was arrested by the INS four days after a pre-hearing conference with the California Labor Commissioner regarding her wage and overtime claim, and held in their custody for a week.” Id. Contreras alleged that Corinthian reported her to avoid liability on her claims and filed an action in federal court against her former employer for retaliation in violation of Section 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act. In response, defendants argued that they were “merely verifying and clarifying information they had regarding Contreras’ Social Security number, that they were required to report her undocumented status, and that they were just curious.” Id. at 1186. The court found these reasons to be pretextual
2

E.E.O.C. v. City of Joliet, 239 F.R.D. 490 (2006)
and further found that the employer’s communication with the INS constituted an adverse employment action under the FLSA taken in retaliation for Contreras’ claim. Id. at 1186-87.
Defendant’s actions in the case at bar will be interpreted by any reasonable undocumented plaintiff or class member as nothing less than the first step towards being discharged, reported to the Department of Homeland Security as an undocumented alien, or both. The least onerous consequence will be the loss of the plaintiff’s job. The most onerous consequence will be precisely what happened to the plaintiff in the Contreras case-loss of job, arrest, detention and ultimately deportation. The intimidating effect of such conduct is hard to exaggerate. This step alone might be sufficient to end the lawsuit regardless of its merits.
[2] This court has the authority under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) to “make any order which justice requires to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.” This authority includes the power to enter protective orders limiting discovery as the interests of justice require. *494 For the reasons explained above, the court rejects plaintiff’s assertion that its actions are not discovery, but rather simply an attempt to comply with its duties under immigration law.
[3] Further, even assuming arguendo that defendant is correct as to the inapplicability of Rule 26, the court nevertheless has the authority in class action lawsuits pursuant to Rule 23(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to prevent misleading or inappropriate direct communications with members of a class by either party. It has been recognized that such communications can have effects hard to undo at the end of the case, EEOC v. Mitsubishi Motor Mfg. of Am., 102 F.3d 869 (7th Cir.1996), and that direct communications with class members can lead to abuse. Manual For Complex Litigation, Fourth 248 (“Manual”). Indeed, one of the examples of abuse described in the Manual is the possibility that defendants might attempt to obtain releases from class members without informing them that

a proposed class action complaint has been filed. The direct communications before the court in the case at bar constitute conduct which is much more abusive than the example given in the Manual. This conduct is aimed, not at persuading the class members to drop their lawsuit, but rather at scaring them into doing so. Although the court hesitates to intervene in the communication between an employer and its employees, it is clear that plaintiffs and class members must be protected from intimidation which will deter them from asserting their rights under Title VII.2 Absent such protection, there is a significant possibility that the lawsuit will be fatally undermined long before any determination on the merits.

2

See Gulf Oil Co. v. Bernard 452 U.S. 89, 101 S.Ct.

2193, 2200-2201, 68 L.Ed.2d 693 and Coles v. Marsh,

560 F.2d 186, 189(CA3), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 985, 98

S.Ct. 611, 54 L.Ed.2d 479 (1977) for the appropriate

parameters and considerations in issuing Rule 23

protective orders.

Conclusion For the reasons given above, the court grants the motion for a protective order in part. Defendant is barred from seeking any further information directly or indirectly from its current employees regarding their immigration status until the termination of this cause of action or a subsequent order of this court. Inquiries regarding the possession of a driver’s license and other bona fide qualifications for the job which have historically been a part of the plaintiff’s employment inquiry are not barred.
SO ORDERED
Parallel Citations
66 Fed.R.Serv.3d 1039
	  

3

 
 CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.0 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket... https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?999927857081935-L_35...
CLOSED, NOLAN
United States District Court Northern District of Illinois - CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.0 (Chicago)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:05-cv-05568

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Glenview Car Wash Assigned to: Honorable Ronald A. Guzman Cause: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

Date Filed: 09/27/2005 Date Terminated: 07/05/2006 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by John C. Hendrickson United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 500 West Madison Street Suite 2800 Chicago, IL 60661 (312) 353-8551 Fax: (312) 353-8555 Email: john.hendrickson@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

AUSA United States Attorney's Office (NDIL) 219 South Dearborn Street Suite 500 Chicago, IL 60604 (312) 353-5300 Email: USAILN.ECFAUSA@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ethan M.M. Cohen United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 500 West Madison Street Suite 2800 Chicago, IL 60661 (312) 353-7568 Email: ethan.cohen@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gregory M. Gochanour United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 500 West Madison Street Suite 2800

1 of 9

5/8/2007 12:14 PM

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.0 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket... https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?999927857081935-L_35...

Chicago, IL 60661 (312) 886-9124 Email: gregory.gochanour@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeanne B. Szromba United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 500 West Madison Street Suite 2800 Chicago, IL 60661 (312) 353-7546 Email: jeanne.szromba@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Glenview Car Wash
Intervenor Plaintiff Fidencio Antimo
Intervenor Plaintiff

represented by Peter W. Andjelkovich Peter Andjelkovich & Associates 39 South LaSalle Street Suite 200 Chicago, IL 60603 (312) 782-8345 Email: carolynanderson@paalaw.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bradley J. Wartman Peter Andjelkovich & Associates 39 South LaSalle Street Suite 200 Chicago, IL 60603 (312) 782-8345 Email: bradwartman@paalaw.net ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Marisel A Hernandez Jacobs, Burns, Orlove, Stanton & Hernandez 122 South Michigan Avenue Suite 1720 Chicago, IL 60603-2002 (312) 372-1646 Email: mhernandez@jbosh.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

2 of 9

5/8/2007 12:14 PM

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.0 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket... https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?999927857081935-L_35...

Elmer Bethancourth
Intervenor Plaintiff Diego Perez
Intervenor Plaintiff Attorney Jacobs, Burns, Orlove, Stanton & Hernandez

represented by Marisel A Hernandez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Marisel A Hernandez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Sylvia Rios Jacobs, Burns, Orlove, Stanton & Hernandez 122 South Michigan Avenue Suite 1720 Chicago, IL 60603 (312)327-3427 Email: srios@jbosh.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 09/27/2005 09/27/2005 09/27/2005 09/28/2005
10/17/2005 10/17/2005 10/17/2005 10/17/2005

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT filed by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission; Jury Demand.(mb, ) (Entered: 09/29/2005)
2 CIVIL Cover Sheet (mb, ) (Entered: 09/29/2005)
4 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission by Ethan M.M. Cohen, Gregory M. Gochanour, John C. Hendrickson (mb, ) (Entered: 09/29/2005)
3 MINUTE entry before Judge Ronald A. Guzman : Status hearing set for 11/28/05 at 9:30 a.m. The Court orders the parties to appear for an initial status hearing. All parties shall refer to and comply with Judge Guzman's requirements for the initial appearance as outlined in Judge Guzman's case management procedures, which can be found at: www.ilnd.uscourts.gov. Mailed notices (gcy, ) (Entered: 09/29/2005)
5 MOTION to intervene (Attachments: # 1)(Rios, Sylvia) (Entered: 10/17/2005)
6 NOTICE of Motion by Sylvia Rios for presentment of motion to intervene5 before Honorable Ronald A. Guzman on 10/20/2005 at 09:30 AM. (Rios, Sylvia) (Entered: 10/17/2005)
7 CERTIFICATE of Service by Sylvia Rios on behalf of Jacobs, Burns, Orlove, Stanton & Hernandez regarding MOTION to intervene5, notice of motion6 (Rios, Sylvia) (Entered: 10/17/2005)
10 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Glenview Car Wash by Peter W. Andjelkovich, Bradley J. Wartman (rmm, ) (Entered: 10/19/2005)

3 of 9

5/8/2007 12:14 PM

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.0 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket... https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?999927857081935-L_35...

10/18/2005 10/18/2005
10/20/2005
10/20/2005 11/21/2005 11/21/2005 11/21/2005 11/21/2005 11/22/2005 11/22/2005 11/28/2005
02/01/2006 02/01/2006 02/06/2006

8 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission by Jeanne B. Szromba (Szromba, Jeanne) (Entered: 10/18/2005)
9 WAIVER OF SERVICE returned executed by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Glenview Car Wash waiver sent on 9/28/2005, answer due 11/28/2005. (Attachments: # 1 Notice of filing and certificate of service)(Cohen, Ethan) (Entered: 10/18/2005)
11 MINUTE entry before Judge Ronald A. Guzman : Motion hearing held and motion to Intervene by individual plaintiffs through attorney Marisel Hernandez 5 is Granted. Individual plaintiffs are Elmer Bethancourth, Diego Perez, and Fidencio Antimo. Answer to complaint due 11/21/05. Mailed notice (rmm, ) (Entered: 10/26/2005)
12 INTERVENOR complaint filed by Fidencio Antimo, Elmer Bethancourth, Diego Perez against Glenview Car Wash(rmm, ) (Entered: 10/26/2005)
13 NOTICE by Glenview Car Wash Answer EEOC Complaint (Andjelkovich, Peter) (Entered: 11/21/2005)
14 ANSWER to Complaint of EEOC by Glenview Car Wash(Andjelkovich, Peter) (Entered: 11/21/2005)
15 NOTICE by Glenview Car Wash Answer to Plt's Complaint (Andjelkovich, Peter) (Entered: 11/21/2005)
16 ANSWER to Complaint of Plaintiffs-Intervenors by Glenview Car Wash(Andjelkovich, Peter) (Entered: 11/21/2005)
17 REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Cohen, Ethan) (Entered: 11/22/2005)
18 REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Cohen, Ethan) Additional attachment(s) added on 11/23/2005 (jmp, ). (Entered: 11/22/2005)
19 MINUTE entry before Judge Ronald A. Guzman : Status hearing held on 11/28/2005. Court adopts proposed discovery schedule. Fact discovery ordered closed by 6/30/2006. Expert discovery closes 8/25/06. Dispositive motions due by 9/15/2006. Status hearing set for 4/12/2006 at 09:30 AM. Mailed notice (cjg, ) (Entered: 11/28/2005)
20 MOTION by Defendant Glenview Car Wash for protective order (Attachments: # 1)(Wartman, Bradley) (Entered: 02/01/2006)
21 NOTICE of Motion by Bradley J. Wartman for presentment of motion for protective order20 before Honorable Ronald A. Guzman on 2/9/2006 at 09:30 AM. (Wartman, Bradley) (Entered: 02/01/2006)
22 MINUTE entry before Judge Ronald A. Guzman : For the reasons set forth in this Order, the parties? motion for entry of Agreed Protective Order [doc. no. 20] is denied without prejudice. The Court orders the parties to submit an amended protective order, consistent with this order and the cases cited herein, no later than seven days after the date this order is entered. Mailed notice (hp, ) (Entered: 02/08/2006)

4 of 9

5/8/2007 12:14 PM

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.0 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket... https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?999927857081935-L_35...

02/16/2006
04/04/2006
04/04/2006 04/05/2006 04/10/2006 04/10/2006 04/10/2006 04/12/2006 04/14/2006 04/17/2006

23 MINUTE entry before Judge Ronald A. Guzman : The Court strikes the parties' Agreed Protective Order without prejudice. The Order's definition of "Confidential Documents" as those "including] but not... limited to" documents containing social security numbers and medical information is too broad. (See Min. Order of 2/9/06.) Any amended order the parties submit must identify specifically the documents they wish to shield from disclosure. Mailed notice (rmm, ) (Entered: 02/22/2006)
24 MOTION by Plaintiff U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to compel answers to discovery (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1, Defendant's Interrogatory Answers# 2 Exhibit Exhibit 2, Defendant's Privilege Log# 3 Exhibit Exhibit 3, Defendant's Responses to Requests for Production)(Cohen, Ethan) (Entered: 04/04/2006)
25 EEOC's NOTICE of Motion by Ethan M.M. Cohen for presentment of motion to compel, 24 before Honorable Ronald A. Guzman on 4/11/2006 at 09:30 AM. (Cohen, Ethan)(Linked document has incorrect case number) Modified on 4/5/2006 (gma, ). (Entered: 04/04/2006)
26 NOTICE of Correction regarding notice of motion25 (Incorrect Case Number on PDF) (gma, ) (Entered: 04/05/2006)
27 RESPONSE by Glenview Car Wash in Opposition to MOTION by Plaintiff U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to compel answers to discovery24 (Attachments: # 1 # 2)(Wartman, Bradley) (Entered: 04/10/2006)
28 NOTICE by Glenview Car Wash re response in opposition to motion27 (Wartman, Bradley) (Entered: 04/10/2006)
29 MINUTE entry before Judge Ronald A. Guzman : MOTION by Plaintiff U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to compel answers to discovery [DOC. NO. 24] is referred to Magistrate Judge Nolan. Mailed notice (cjg, ) (Entered: 04/10/2006)
30 MINUTE entry before Judge Ronald A. Guzman : Status hearing held on 4/12/2006. Dispositive motions with supporting memoranda due by 7/31/2006. Status hearing continued to 8/2/2006 at 9:30 AM. Mailed notice. (tlp, ) (Entered: 04/12/2006)
32 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ORDER:Case referred to Magistrate Judge Nan R. Nolan for Discovery Motion(s) specified: Motion by plaintiff U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to compel answers to discovery 24. Signed by Executive Committee on 4/14/2006. (rmm, ) (Entered: 04/18/2006)
31 MINUTE entry before Judge Nan R. Nolan : Initial status and motion hearing on plaintiff's motion to compel [24-1] is set for 04/25/06 at 9:00 a.m. before Magistrate Judge Nolan in courtroom 1858. Parties shall deliver a copy of an initial status report to chambers, room 1870, at least three business days before the initial status hearing. If the parties have recently prepared and filed an initial status report, the submission of the previously filed initial status report is sufficient. For further details visit the Court's website at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov. Mailed notice (lxs, ) (Entered: 04/17/2006)

5 of 9

5/8/2007 12:14 PM

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.0 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket... https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?999927857081935-L_35...

04/19/2006 04/19/2006 04/20/2006 04/20/2006 04/21/2006
04/21/2006 04/21/2006 04/21/2006 04/21/2006 04/24/2006 04/24/2006 04/25/2006

33 MOTION by Defendant Glenview Car Wash to compel Defendant's Motion to Compel Depositions of Noticed Plaintiffs (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit GroupExhibitA# 2 Exhibit ExhibitB# 3 Exhibit ExhibitC# 4 Exhibit ExhibitD)(Andjelkovich, Peter) (Entered: 04/19/2006)
34 Defendant's Motion to Compel Depositions of Noticed Plaintiffs NOTICE of Motion by Peter W. Andjelkovich for presentment of motion to compel, 33 before Honorable Ronald A. Guzman on 4/25/2006 at 09:30 AM. (Andjelkovich, Peter) (Entered: 04/19/2006)
35 STATUS Report Defendant's Initial Status Report by Glenview Car Wash (Andjelkovich, Peter) (Entered: 04/20/2006)
36 NOTICE by Glenview Car Wash re status report35, set motion and R&R deadlines/hearings,, 31 Notice of Filing of Defendant's Initial Status Report (Andjelkovich, Peter) (Entered: 04/20/2006)
37 RESPONSE by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in Opposition to MOTION by Defendant Glenview Car Wash to compel Defendant's Motion to Compel Depositions of Noticed Plaintiffs33 (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Filing Notice of Filing Response to Defendant's Motion to Compel)(Cohen, Ethan) (Entered: 04/21/2006)
38 MOTION by Defendant Glenview Car Wash to compel Defendant's Motion to Compel Plaintiff Elmer Bethancourth to Answer Deposition Questions (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit1 Deposition)(Andjelkovich, Peter) (Entered: 04/21/2006)
39 Motion to Compel Plaintiff Elmer Bethancourth to Answer Deposition Questions NOTICE of Motion by Peter W. Andjelkovich for presentment of motion to compel38 before Honorable Ronald A. Guzman on 4/25/2006 at 09:30 AM. (Andjelkovich, Peter) (Entered: 04/21/2006)
40 REPLY by Glenview Car Washin Support of MOTION by Defendant Glenview Car Wash to compel Defendant's Motion to Compel Depositions of Noticed Plaintiffs33 (Andjelkovich, Peter) (Incorrect PDF Linked) Modified on 4/24/2006 (gma, ). (Entered: 04/21/2006)
41 NOTICE by Glenview Car Wash re reply to response to motion, 40 to Compel Noticed Depositions (Andjelkovich, Peter) (Entered: 04/21/2006)
42 REPLY by Glenview Car Washin Support of MOTION by Defendant Glenview Car Wash to compel Defendant's Motion to Compel Depositions of Noticed Plaintiffs33 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit 3)(Andjelkovich, Peter) (Entered: 04/24/2006)
43 NOTICE of Correction regarding reply to response to motion, 40 (Incorrect PDF Linked) (gma, ) (Entered: 04/24/2006)
44 MINUTE entry before Judge Nan R. Nolan :Initial status and motion hearing held. Plaintiff's motion to compel 24 is entered and continued. Defendant's motion to compel 38 shall be briefed as follows: Plaintiff's response is due by 05/02/06, defendant's response is due by 05/08/06. Ruling is set for 05/17/06 at 9:30 a.m. Mailed notice (lxs, ) (Entered: 04/25/2006)

6 of 9

5/8/2007 12:14 PM

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.0 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket... https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?999927857081935-L_35...

04/25/2006
05/02/2006
05/02/2006 05/02/2006
05/04/2006 05/04/2006 05/05/2006 05/05/2006 05/08/2006 05/08/2006 05/08/2006 05/08/2006 05/09/2006 05/09/2006

45 MINUTE entry before Judge Ronald A. Guzman : Defendant's motion to compel deposition of noticed plaintiffs [doc. no. 33] and motion to compel plaintiff Bethancourth to answer deposition [doc. no.39] is referred to Magistrate Judge Nolan pursuant to Executive Committee Order entered 4/14/06. Mailed notice (cjg, ) (Entered: 05/02/2006)
46 RESPONSE by Fidencio Antimo, Elmer Bethancourth, Diego Perez to MOTION by Defendant Glenview Car Wash to compel Defendant's Motion to Compel Plaintiff Elmer Bethancourth to Answer Deposition Questions38 and Plaintiff-Intervenors' Motion for a Protective Order (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Rios, Sylvia) (Entered: 05/02/2006)
47 MEMORANDUM motion to compel, 24, motion to compel38, response in opposition to motion27 by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2)(Cohen, Ethan) (Entered: 05/02/2006)
54 EMERGENCY MOTION by Intervenor Plaintiffs Fidencio Antimo, Elmer Bethancourth, Diego Perez, Jacobs, Burns, Orlove, Stanton & Hernandez for a cease and desist order preventing defendant from inquiring into plaintiff-intervenor's and other employees immigration status. (cdy, ) (Entered: 05/09/2006)
48 MOTION by Defendant Glenview Car Wash for settlement Conference (Wartman, Bradley) (Entered: 05/04/2006)
49 NOTICE of Motion by Bradley J. Wartman for presentment of motion for settlement48 before Honorable Ronald A. Guzman on 5/9/2006 at 09:30 AM. (Wartman, Bradley) (Entered: 05/04/2006)
55 MINUTE entry before Judge Ronald A. Guzman : Plaintiffs' emergency motion for a protective order is granted in part and denied in part. (cdy, ) (Entered: 05/09/2006)
56 ORDER. Signed by Judge Ronald A. Guzman on 5/5/2006.(cdy, ) (Entered: 05/09/2006)
50 REPLY by Defendant Glenview Car Wash to motion to compel38 (Wartman, Bradley) (Entered: 05/08/2006)
51 NOTICE by Glenview Car Wash re reply50 (Wartman, Bradley) (Entered: 05/08/2006)
52 REPLY by Defendant Glenview Car Wash to motion to compel, 33 Plaintiffs' Depositions (Wartman, Bradley) (Entered: 05/08/2006)
53 NOTICE by Glenview Car Wash re reply52 (Wartman, Bradley) (Entered: 05/08/2006)
57 SUR-REPLY by Defendant Glenview Car Wash to motion to compel, 24 (Attachments: # 1)(Wartman, Bradley) (Entered: 05/09/2006)
58 NOTICE of Motion by Bradley J. Wartman for presentment of before Honorable Nan R. Nolan on 5/17/2006 at 09:30 AM. (Wartman, Bradley) (Entered: 05/09/2006)

7 of 9

5/8/2007 12:14 PM

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.0 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket... https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?999927857081935-L_35...

05/09/2006 05/15/2006 05/19/2006 05/24/2006 05/24/2006 05/25/2006
05/30/2006 06/01/2006 06/09/2006 06/13/2006
06/21/2006 06/26/2006 06/28/2006

59 MINUTE entry before Judge Ronald A. Guzman : Motion for settlement and to stay 48 is granted in part and denied in part, Motion hearing held on 5/9/2006 regarding motion for settlement48 Settlement Conference set for 5/23/2006 at 02:00 PM. Mailed notice (cjg, ) (Entered: 05/12/2006)
60 MINUTE entry before Judge Nan R. Nolan : Motion hearing on plaintiff's motion to compel 24 and ruling on defendant's motion to compel 38 set for 05/17/06 at 9:30 a.m. is stricken. Status hearing is set for 05/24/06 at 9:00 a.m. Mailed notice (lxs, ) (Entered: 05/15/2006)
61 MINUTE entry before Judge Ronald A. Guzman : Settlement Conference scheduled for 5/23/06 is reset for 5/24/2006 at 02:00 PM. Mailed notice (cjg, ) (Entered: 05/19/2006)
62 MINUTE entry before Judge Nan R. Nolan : Motion hearing held. Defendant's motion to file sur-reply 57 is entered and continued to 05/25/06 at 9:00 a.m. Mailed notice (lxs, ) (Entered: 05/24/2006)
63 MINUTE entry before Judge Ronald A. Guzman : Settlement conference held on 5/24/2006. Mailed notice (cjg, ) (Entered: 05/25/2006)
64 MINUTE entry before Judge Nan R. Nolan : Motion hearing held. Plaintiff's motion to compel 24 is entered and continued. For the reasons stated in open court defendant's motion to compel 38 is resolved and defendant's motion 57 is granted. Status hearing set for 6/1/2006 at 09:00 AM. Mailed notice (lxs, ) (Entered: 05/26/2006)
65 MINUTE entry before Judge Ronald A. Guzman : Settlement Conference set for 6/8/2006 at 02:00 PM. on request of parties. Mailed notice (cjg, ) (Entered: 05/30/2006)
66 MINUTE entry before Judge Nan R. Nolan : Status hearing set for 06/01/06 is stricken and reset to 06/13/06 at 9:00 a.m. Plaintiff's motion to compel 24 is entered and continued. Mailed notice (lxs, ) (Entered: 06/01/2006)
67 MINUTE entry before Judge Ronald A. Guzman : Settlement conference held. Status hearing set for 6/22/2006 at 09:30 AM for a report on settlement. Mailed notice (jms, ) (Entered: 06/09/2006)
68 MINUTE entry before Judge Nan R. Nolan : Status hearing held. Parties report that an agreement has been reached to settle the case. All matters relating to the referral of this action having been concluded, the referral is is closed and the case is returned to the assigned judge. Judge Nan R. Nolan no longer referred to the case. Mailed notice (lxs, ) (Entered: 06/14/2006)
69 MINUTE entry before Judge Ronald A. Guzman : Status hearing scheduled for 6/22/06 is reset for 6/29/2006 at 09:30 AM. on request of parties. Mailed notice (cjg, ) (Entered: 06/21/2006)
70 STIPULATION of Dismissal (Rios, Sylvia) (Entered: 06/26/2006)
71 MINUTE entry before Judge Ronald A. Guzman : Status hearing scheduled for 6/29/06 is reset to 7/10/2006 at 09:30 AM. on parties request. Mailed notice (cjg, ) (Entered: 06/28/2006)

8 of 9

5/8/2007 12:14 PM

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.0 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket... https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?999927857081935-L_35...

07/05/2006 07/05/2006
07/05/2006 07/07/2006

73 NOTICE TO ALL GLENVIEW CAR WAH INC. EMPLOYEES Signed by Judge Ronald A. Guzman on 7/5/2006:(gcy, ) (Entered: 07/10/2006)
74 MINUTE entry before Judge Ronald A. Guzman : Enter Consent Decree. This action is dismissed in its entirety. Civil case terminated. Mailed notice (hp, ) (Entered: 07/10/2006)
75 CONSENT DECREE Signed by Judge Ronald A. Guzman on 7/5/2006:Mailed notice(hp, ) (Entered: 07/10/2006)
72 MINUTE entry before Judge Ronald A. Guzman : Status hearing scheduled for 7/10/06 is stricken, case settled. Mailed notice (cjg, ) (Entered: 07/07/2006)

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

05/08/2007 12:14:50

PACER Login: hs0328

Client Code: nniles

Description: Docket Report Search Criteria: 1:05-cv-05568

Billable Pages: 5

Cost:

0.40

9 of 9

5/8/2007 12:14 PM