.Case 2:04-cv-70420-AC-RSW Document 1 Filed 02/05/2004 Page 1 of 7
'.
UNITED STATES DlSTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVTSION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
• Plai nti ff,
v.
MEADE LEXUS, Defendant.

JUDGE : Woods, George E. DECK : S. Division Civil Deck FILE DATE : 02/05/2004 @ 13:00:50 CASE NO : 2:04CV70420
MAGInR},)E JUDGE R. STEVEN WI-lALEN
COMPLAINT AND JURY TRIAL DEMAND

NATURE OF THE ACTION This is an action under TiUe Vll of the Civil Rights Act of1964, and Title I ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1991, to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis ofsex, and to provide appropriate relief to employees, Melissa Angotti, Isabella Ziemer, and other similarly situated individuals, who were adversely affected by such practices. The EEOC alleges that Defendant, Meade Lexus, ("Defendant" or "Lexus") subjected Angotti, Ziemer, Olson, Rosinski, laddou-Mio and other similarly situated employees ("Claimants") to a sexually hostile work environment and that the Defendant, despite knowledge ofthe harassment, failed to take prompt and effective action to correct and prevent the harassment.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE I. Jurisdiction ofthis Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S-C. §§ 451 , 1331, 1337, 1343, and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Sections 706(t)(l) and (3) ofTitle VlI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U_S.c. 2000e-5(t)(I) and (3) ("Title VU") , and

Case 2:04-cv-70420-AC-RSW Document 1 Filed 02/05/2004 Page 2 of 7

Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a, 28 U.s.C. §§ 451, 1331, 1337, 1343

and 1345.

2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful wcre and are now being committed

within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Eastem District of Michigan,

Southern Division.

3. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, ("EEOC" or the

"Commission") is the agency of the United States of America charged with the administra\I<.Hl,

interpretation and enforcement ofTitle VIT, and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Section

706(1)(1) and (3) ofTitie VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-5(f)(l) and (3).

4. At all relevant times, Defendant, Lexus, has contimLOusly been a corporation doing

bllsincss in Southfield, Michigan, and has continuously had a\ least 15 employees. 5. At all relevant tilnes, Defendant Employerhas continuously be~n an employer engaged

in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning oC Sections 701 (b), (g), and (h) of Title VII,

42 U.S.C. §§ 2000c(b), (g), and (h).

STATEMENT OF CLAIMS

6.

More than thirty (30) days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Melissa Angotti,

Isabella Ziemer, Katie Olson, Lauren Rosinski and Lana Jaddou-Mio, filed a charge with the

Commission alleging violations ofTiUe Vll by Defendant Employer. All conditions precedent \0 the

institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled.

7. Since al least October of 2002, Defendant Employer has engaged in unlawful

employment practices at its Southfield, Michigan facility, in violation of Section 703(a), 42 U.S.C.

§ 2000e-2(a). The Defendant's unlawful employment practices include, but arc not limited to the

following:

2

Case 2:04-cv-70420-AC-RSW Document 1 Filed 02/05/2004 Page 3 of 7

a. A male co-worker and then supervisor at Defendant Employer's Southfield,

1\.1ichigan rae.ility engaged in behavior thaI created a hostile work environment
for all 0 r the Claimants,

b. Throughout the Claimant's employment, they were subjected to unwelcome

sexual talk, innuendos, touching, staring, and intimidation by male co-worker

and then supervisor Annand Hasanaj. Examples of such conduct include:

i.

Hasanaj made sexual comments to the Claimants conceming their

personal sex lives, i.e. asking them if they were virgins and telling

them that they needed an experienced man to show them how 10 make

lovc and telling them that they had sexy hot bodies.

ii. IIasanaj pUI his fingers under the bra strap of Angotti and rubbed her

shoulder where the strap had been setting despite her protests that he

stop;

iii. Hasanaj would make sexual gestures with his tongue;

c. Complaints about Hasanaj were made about Hasal1aj's unwelcome remarks

and behavior. In spite of its knowledge of the harassment and the sexually

hostile work environmcnt, the Defendant railed to take reasonable care to

prevent the harassment, and to take effective corrective action reasonably

designed to end the harassment.

8. The effect ofthe unlawful conduct complained of in paragraph 7, above, has been to

deprive the Claimants ofequal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely atTect their status

as employees because ofthcir sex, female.

9, The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 7, above, were and

3

Case 2:04-cv-70420-AC-RSW Document 1 Filed 02/05/2004 Page 4 of 7
are intentional. 10. As the result Mthe unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 7,
above, the Claimants have suffered emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish aIld loss of enjoyment orlile.
11. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 7, above, were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights ofthe Claimants.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, the Commission respectrully requests that this Court: A. GRANT a pem1anent injunction enjoining Defendant Employer, its officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in sexual harassment and aIly other employment practice which discriminates on the basis of sex; B. ORDER Defendant Employer to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for women, aIld which eradicate the effects of its pasl and present unlawful employment practices; C. ORDER Derendant Employer to provide training on Title Vll of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and its prohibitions against sexual harassment to all of its employees at its Meade Lexis of Southfield facility as well as its human resources department;. D. ORDER Defendant Employer to make whole all Claimants by providing appropri.ate back pay with prejudgment interest, in amoUIlts to be determined at trial, and other affinnativc relief necessary to eradicate the efrects ofits unlawful employment practices;
ORDER Defendant Employer to make Whole all Claimants by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices descrihed in paragraph 7, above, in amounts to be proven at trial;
4

Case 2:04-cv-70420-AC-RSW Document 1 Filed 02/05/2004 Page 5 of 7

F. ORDER Defendant Employer to make whole all Claimants by providing compensation

tor past and futuro nonpecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices complained of in

paragraph 7, above, in amounts to be proven at trial; G. ORDER Defendant Employer to pay all Claimants punitive damages for its malicious

or reckless conduct described in paragraph 7, above, in amounts to bc proven at trial;

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

interest; and

1.

AWARD the Commi~sion its costs for this action.

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

The Commission requests ajnry trial on all questions of fact raised by its Complaint.

Respectfully submitted,

ERIC S. DRElBAND General Counsel

JAMESN. LEE Deputy Oelleral Counsel

DATED: February 05,2004

Regional Attorney
ROBERT K. DAWKINS (P38289) Supervisory Trial Attorney
TAMMY C. KLEIN (P60256) TIial Attorney
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION DETROIT DISTRICT OFFICE Patrick V. McNamara Building 477 Michigan Avenue, Room 865 Detroit, Michigan 48226 Telephone: (313)226-5673
5

Wood rzsv Case 2:04-cv~ -70420-A7C0-R1S-W20 Document 1 Filed 02/05/2004QP/ age 6 of 7
JS 44 11/99 . C'V.IL COVER SHEET COUNTY IN WHICH THIS ACTION AROSE: -=:O:..::a:::kl::::an.;,;:;;{:...,-:---c:-
Th'e JS-44 civil eov~r sheet and the information contalMd herein neither replace nor suppl$l'I'Iant the filing and service of pleadings or other paper$ as required
by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required
for use of tile Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheat

I. (II) PLAINTIFFS
U.S. EQUAL i\MPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMlSSION

DEFENDANTS
04-70420 MEADE LEXUS

(b) County of Residence of First Listed

County of Re5idence of First Listed

Oakland

(C) Attorn.y's (Firm Name. Address. and Tolephone Number)
Tammy C. Klein (P60256) (313) 226~5673

NOTe: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES. :O:U;:SEO"::TH"E::CCLO:CC:CA::T:::,O:::N-:-::O;:"F:::TH:7;E:-A
AllorneyS (If KnownL UDGE R. STEVEN WHALE MAGISTRATE l

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

477 Michilran Avenue. Room 865. Detroit. Mf dR'l'l'"

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an "X' in On. Box

1t;~f"1=~. Government
VPI.intiff
o •U,S, Government Defendant

o 3 Fedoral Question (U ,So Government Not I
o 4 Diversity (Indicate Citizenship of In Item lit)

JUDGE : Woods, George E.

~~iKE

D•ASTE

:Division Civil Deck 02/05/2004 @ 13:00:50

CASE NO : 2:04CV10420

'11 One Box for PlaintiH
If;1 Box for OafMdant)
PLA DEF
'Iaco 04 04
,te
05 0 5
SI.t.
06 0 6

IV. NATURE OF SUIT
CONTRACT

(Place an "X" in One 90>
TORTS

< STATUTES

0 110 Insurance Cl 120 Marine [J 130 Miller Act 0 140 Negotiable Instrument p 150 Recovery of
Overpayment and Enforcement of Judgment
0 151 Modlcare Act

PEf\SONA~ INJURY Cl 31 0 Airplane [J 315 Airplane Product
liability [J
320 Assault Libel
And Slander
0 330 fedel"S1 EmplOyers'

PERIl· [J 362 p,
M,
0 365 ~111~:'n'tI:r~19 .. Cl

0 3M Asbestos Per!;lonal 0

Injury Product

Liability

0

0 152 Recovery of Defaulted

liability

Student Loans

0 S4Q Marine

(Excl. Vll!terans)

1:1 345 Marine Prodl,Jct

0 153 R&oolJery 0'/ OV(lrp(lymr.nl

Liability

of Veteran'a Benefits 0 350 Motor Vohiclo

0 1aO Stoc~holders' Suits

0 355 Motor Vehicle

0 190 Other ContrGlct

Producl LI,blli1y

0

195 Contract f>roduct l.i<lbility

0

360 Other Personal Injury

0

PER$ONA~ P~OPERTY

o 370 Other rrallo

0

o 371 Truth in Lending

aao o

Other Personal

Property D::Image 0 385 Property Damage

1:1

Product Liability Cl

REAL PROPERTY

/-QI\(IL RIGHTS

PRISONER PETITIONS

0
0 0

~r 210 Land COodOmnatlOn, (

220 Foreclosure

1m 442 E ployment

230 Renl Lease 8. EjO)<;tnH;mt D 443 ousing/

240 Torts to Land

Acoommodatlons

0 0 51 0 Motions to Vacate

Sentel1ce

0

Habeas Corpl,lt;l:

0 530 General

0

0 245 Ton Product Liability CI 444 Welfare

0 535 Death p(iJr'lalty

0 290 All Other Re<'ll Pr('!pl'!r1y 0 440 Other Civil Rigllts 0 540 MilindilllTfUS & Olher p

Cl 5S0 Civil Rights

0 555 ~rl$On Condi\ion

ofPrupll!ty 21: 681
630 uquO( Laws
640 R.R. ~ Truok

.- .. '_'O'T'U •...rrtIwar 26 USC 117
PROPERTY RIGH IS

650 Airline Regs.
660 Occupational Salety/Heal,h
690 Other

0 a20 Copyrights 1:1 630 potent 1:1 840 Tr::ldemark

LABOR

SQCIAL SECURity

11 0 fair Labor t)iBnd~rQ~
A~
720 Labor/Mgml. Relations
730 LaborlMgmt. Heportiflg 8. Di5G11l5Ur~ Ad
740 Railway Labor Act
790 Other Labor Litigation
791 Empl. Ret. Inc. SeclJrlty AC1.

0 661 HIA (1 3%ff) 0 662 Black Lung (923) 0 863 DIWCIDI'NW (405(9)) t:J 004 S610 Til,. XVI 0 865 RSI (405(g))
FEDERAL TAX SUITS
1:1 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff or DQlendanl)
LI 871 IRS~Third P<'.Irty 26 USC 7609

~ Reapportionment ,.A.rLlst
~ 430 Banks and Banking CJ 450 CommercellCC
o 480 Depottatlon
o 470 RIiI(;kQt~l;l'r Inllu/:Il)ced & Corrupt Org~niz.~liClr'l!l
o B10 Selective Sarvice o 850 Secu Ptll.ls/Com moli ih~~1
E;.;~h;,n8'::
t:J 875 C\J$tomer Chaliango t2 ,ISC l410
o 891 Agricultural Acts, o 892 f;i:-:;onufllic Stabilization Act o 89$ EnvirQnmtlnh:il ro.-hl.ttefl' o 894 Energy Allocation Act o 895 Freedom 01
Information Act
o 900 Acf~~~~!ti~?l UndEif E4uol Access to JIJ~t«",.Q
o 950 constitutionality of
Stale St8tl,Jtaa D 890 Oll1tlr Statutory Ac:~nM

V.ORIGIN

(PLACE AN "X" IN ONE BOX ONLY)

\~~\ II riginal

D 2 Removed from

0 3 Rem~nded from

roca€lding

State Court

Appellate Court

0 4 ~~i nstatad
Roo 6r)ed

Transferred from

o another dist~ict 5 (.p.cify)

o 6 Mylti district

Litigation

~USE OF ACTION (Cite the U.S. Civil Slalute (lnder which you are filing and write brief $tatement of cause. Do not c;ilu juri$CI!ct onal !i\tatutee unless diver!!lity.,

Appeal 10 Di$trict
o 7 Judge from MiilglW:;;Ite

This is an action under Title VII ofthc Civil Rights Act of 1964, and Title I of the Civil Right. Aet of 1991. to correct unlawful employment

VII. REQUESTED IN COMPLAINT:

o CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION UNDER F.R.C.P, 23

$DEMMD

CHECK YES only If d
JURY DEMAND:

(See
VIII. RELATED CASE(S) Instructions):

IF ANY

Is oU. DATE:;; J

IGNATURE OF ATIORNEY OF RECORD
. '£;fuoc ~\ '1CJ-1NlUd- ~./

Case 2:04-cv-70420-AC-RSW Document 1 Filed 02/05/2004 Page 7 of 7
P.URSUp"NlT.O LOCAL RULE 83.11

1.

Is this a case that has been previously dismissed?

If yes, give the following information: Court: ___________________________________

DYes
c:J

Case No.: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Judge: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____

2.

Other than stated above, are there any pending or previously

discontinued or dismissed companion cases in this or any other

DYes

court, including state court? (Companion cases are matters in which it appears substantially similar evidence will be offered or the same

~

or related parties are present and the cases arise out of the same

transaction or occurrence.)

If yes, give the following information: Court: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___

Case No.; _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Judge: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Notes:

 
 Case 2:04-cv-70420-AC-RSW Document 10 Filed 08/02/2004 Page 1 of 10

/0

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

Case Number: 04 CV-70420-DT

v.

HON. GEORGE E. NOODS

MEADE LEXUS,

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _D_e_f_e n_d_a_n t_. _ _ _ _ 1

,

(,'"

-;
':")
,
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS, _·1

~

.:t,'"''

'.:,:::.::..:.1.-

-n

, r""·· (-:~
<on

'P'- i,'i

J> c;

r;,?

"Jt'....)
This matter having come before the Court on Defendant's motion

to dismiss [Doc. No.3];

The Court having reviewed the pleadings submitted herein, and

being otherwise fully informed in the matter;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's motion to dismiss shall

be, and hereby is, DENIED; and

IT lS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that this action is STAYED, until

October 31, 2004, so that the part Scan

in earnest

conciliation efforts. The parties will report to Magistrate Judge

Whalen for a status conference in November 2004. In the event that

conciliation

not been achieved, and no further progress would

be achieved, the Court will lift the stay and issue a Scheduling

Order.

Case 2:04-cv-70420-AC-RSW Document 10 Filed 08/02/2004 Page 2 of 10

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Equal Opportunity Commission ("the EEOC") instituted

this action against Defendant Meade Lexus ("Meade") on behalf of

five individuals: Melissa Angotti ("Angotti"), Isabella Ziemer

("Ziemer"), Katie Olsen ("Olsen"), Lauren Rosinski ("Rosinski") and

Lana Jaddou-Mio ("Jaddou"Mio"). The EEOC contends that

women

were subject to unlawful sexual harassment by a Meade employee,

Armand Hasanaj ( "Hasanaj ,,) . I The Court will not engage in a

lengthy discuss

the fact.ual background. Instead, the Court

focuses on the facts necessary to resolve the instant motion.

The following facts are undisputed. Angotti and Ziemer filed

their charges of discrimination with the EEOC on February 7, 2003

alleging sexual harassment and ret.aliation. Olsen, Rosinski and

Jaddou"Mio filed their charges of discrimination alleging sexual

harassment on July 14th, July 1 and July 30 th , respect

The

parties agree that the EEOC commenced an inVestigation into the

charges. Both parties argue, however, that. the other party did not

zealously part

in the

stigatory stage of these five

charges. In particular, Meade complains that the EEOC prematurely

issued cause determinations for the five charging parties. On the

other hand, the EEOC submits that Meade was forded ample time to

provide information prior to the determination.

Armand Hasanaj was a co-worker to some of the women, and a supervisor to others. See Def. 's Br. at 2-3; Plf. 's Br. at 1-2.
2

Case 2:04-cv-70420-AC-RSW Document 10 Filed 08/02/2004 Page 3 of 10

The EEOC issued s cause determinations, along with its:

conciliation proposal, for all five charging parties on

September 24, 2003. See Def. 's Ex. 9. Both parties point to the

following volley of letters to substantiate

ir respective

positions on whether the EEOC fulfilled its statutory duty to

conciliate prior to instituting this federal action. Following the

EEOC's cause determinations

concil ion proposal, Meade

transmitted a letter, dated October 7, 2003, informing the EEOC

that it did not receive the September 24th letters until October Y".

See Def. 's Ex. 11. Meade opted to "postpone Ollr response to the

proposed conciliation" because Meade wanted to revisit the cause

determinations. See id. Thereafter, in an October 9, 2004 letter,

the EEOC indicated that althoclgh cause determinations had already

been made, the investigator, Diane M. Roberson ("Roberson"),

remained "willing to review any additional information [Meade]

wish led] to send prior to any formal conciliation discussions. //

Def. 's Ex. 12. On October 16, 2003, Meade submitted a letter in

response to Roberson's, stating, in part, "[a] ssuming that you

[Roberson] are unwilling to revisit the cause findings as

requested, [Meade is) prepared to move to conciliation.// Def. '13

Ex. 13. Meade complained that the determination letters were

conclusory.

id. Meade proceeded to reiterate the reasons why

it believed that the EEOC should not have issued its cause

determinations. See id. In an October 29'h correspondence, the

EEOC confi:t'med that it received and considered the information

3

Case 2:04-cv-70420-AC-RSW Document 10 Filed 08/02/2004 Page 4 of 10

contained in Meade's October 16 th letter. See Def. 's Ex. 14. The

EEOC indicated, however, that

cause determinations would not be

altered. See id. The EEOC expressed an interest in entertaining

a counteroffer to its proposed conciliation package, and requested

that Meade make its offer by November 5, 2003. See id. Also on

October 29th, Meade issued a responsive letter asserting that it

could not supply a meaningful counterof without an explanation

·of the reasonable cause for the EEOC's belief that Title VII has

violated in

of these cases." Def. 's Ex. 15. As a

t

of Meade's letter. the EEOC determined that any further

conciliation efforts would be futile and thus issued its formal

notice that it deemed the conciliation efforts unsuccessful. See

Def. 's Ex. 16. These notices were dated November 7th for Jaddou-

Mio, November loth for Angotti, Olsen and Ziemer, and November 13 th

for Rosinski. See Def. 's Ex. 16.

Currently

this Court is Meade's motion to dismiss.

Meade contends that dismissal is appropriate because the EEOC did

not engage in good faith efforts at conciliation prior to filing

suit as required by Title VII. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Defendant seeks dismissal pursuant to FED.R,CIV.P. 12 (b) (1) for lack of jurisdiction. Defendant contends that Plaintiff's failure to conciliate this matter before instituting this federal lawsuit precludes this court act
4

Case 2:04-cv-70420-AC-RSW Document 10 Filed 08/02/2004 Page 5 of 10

Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(b), the EEOC investigates all

charges of discrimination and if it determines that there is "not

reasonable cause to believe that the charge is true," the charge is

dismi

Provided

is reasonable cause to believe the

charge is true, the EEOC "shall endeavor to eliminate any such

alleged unlawful employment practice by informal methods of

conference, conciliation, and persuasion." 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5(b).

If informal methods fail, the EEOC may, under 42 U.S.C.

§ 2000e-5 (f) ,

a civil action "against any respondent not a

government, governmental agency, or political subdivision named in

the charge."

III. DISCUSSION

The parties agree that conciliation efforts are a prerequisite

to filing an action in federal court.

42 U.S.C. §2000e-5(b);

Equal Employment Opportunity Comm'n v. Keco Indus., Inc., 748 F.2d

1097, 1101 (6th Cir. 1984). The parties also agree that the EEOC

must conciliate in good tho See

, 748 F.2d at 110:2. The

EEOC may file suit after the employer rejects the EEOC's

conciliation

s.

Meade urges this Court to find that

the EEOC failed to conciliate, and on this basis, dismiss the

instant lawsuit. The EEOC maintains that it fulfilled its

statutory duty to conciliate. In the

i ve , the EEOC

requests this Cou~t to stay this action to permit further

5

Case 2:04-cv-70420-AC-RSW Document 10 Filed 08/02/2004 Page 6 of 10

conciliation. Meade does not respond to the EEOC's alternative

request.

Meade initially suggests that the conciliation efforts were

inadequate because the investigat

leading up to the cause

determination was not satisfactory. See Def. 's Br. at 9-11. The

Court will not inquire into the adequacy of the underlying

investigation. As the Sixth Circuit aptly

sed, a di ct

court commits reversible e];'ror by "inquir ling] into the sufficiency

of the Commission's investigation."

, 748 F.2d at 1100. This

is because "the nature and extent of an EEOC investigation into a

discrimination claim is a matter within the discretion of that

agency.

The purpose of the EEOC's invest

ion of a

discrimination charge is to determine if there is a basis for that

charge. The reasonable cause of determination issued as a result

of the investigation is

igned to notify the employer of the

EEOC's findings and to provide a basis for later conciliation

proceedings."

, 748 F.2d at 1100. This Court will, however,

inquire into whether there has been sufficient good faith

conciliation. The primary goal of Title VII is to encourage

voluntary compl

See Occidental Life Ins. Co. of Cal. v.

Equal Employment Opportunity Comm'n, 432 U.S. 355, 367-68 (1977).

Thus, adequate conciliation is essential. The Court thus must

determine whether a genuine ef

to concil e has been made by

the EEOC.

6

Case 2:04-cv-70420-AC-RSW Document 10 Filed 08/02/2004 Page 7 of 10

The Court recognizes that the EEOC "should be given wide

latitude in shaping both the general framework of conciliation and

the

fie of

made" lest

Court become embroiled in the

details of offers and counteroffers. See Equal Employment

Opportunity Comm'n V. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 650 F.2d 14, 18 (2d

Cir. 1981). The Court does, however, examine the conoil ion

process to determine whether the EOC has provided a "fair

opportunity" for settlement, See "'-"-""'-'U-"~.....""".......,......,""'-'-, 650 F. 2d Olt

19, Courts have explained that the EEOC fulfills its statutory

duty to conciliate "if it outlines to the employer the reasonOlble

COluse for

1 f that

VII has

viol ,offers an

opportunity for voluntary compliance, and responds in a reasonable

and flexible manner to the reasonable attitudes of the employer."

Equal Employment Opportunity Comm'n v. Klingler Elec. Co:t:p., 636 F.

2d 104, 107 (5th Cir. 1981) (citation omitted) i accord, Equal

Employm!iilnt Opportunity Comm'n v. Asplundh Tree Expert Co., 340 F.3d

1256, 1259 (11th Cir. 2003). The Sixth Circuit emphasized: "The

district court should only detelCmine whether the EEOC made an

attempt at conciliation. The form and substance of those

conciliations is within

discretion of the EEOC as the agency

created to administer and enforce our employment discrimination

laws and is beyond judicial review."

, 748 F.2d at 1102.

Meade submits that the EEOC's conciliation efforts fall

"woefully short" because the EEOC simply presented proposed

concil ion agreements along with what Meade characterizes as

7

Case 2:04-cv-70420-AC-RSW Document 10 Filed 08/02/2004 Page 8 of 10

Gonclusory cause determination letters and indicated a willingness

to consider counter-proposals. Def. 's Br. at 11; Def. 's Ex. 9.

Meade contends that the EEOC was required to do the following;

"[O]utline .

the reasonable cause for the Commission's belief

that Title VII had been violated, offer an opportunity for

voluntary compliance, and respond in a reasonable and flexible

manner to the Company's reasonable attitudes." Def. 's Br. at 1l.

Meade contends that the initial conciliation proposal was

ive because the EEOC did not sufficiently notify Meade of the

EEOC's findings. Meade suggests that the EEOC should have

submitted a detailed explanation of its reasonable cause

determination. The Sixth Circuit does not, however, require such

specificity. Rather, the Sixth Circuit endorses the view the EEOC

determination simply "places the defendant on notice of the charges

against him." Keco, 748 F.2d at 1100 (summarizing persuasive

decision) .

Both parties accuse the other of

ling to engage in good

faith conciliation. Meade submits that it could not provide a

reasonable counteroffer because it needed more information

concerning

isely how

legedly violated Title VII. The EEOC

on the other hand, submits that Meade's letters were not responsive

to its conciliat proposal, and desp repeated invitations to

submit a counteroffer, Meade l"efused. The EEOC believed it had no

choice but to proceed with the instant lawsuit because Meade did

not submit a counterof by the deadline supplied in the EEOC's

8

Case 2:04-cv-70420-AC-RSW Document 10 Filed 08/02/2004 Page 9 of 10

October 29th correspondence.

Upon review of the parties'

correspondence,

Court finds

ther party communicated

effectively. The Court ascribes the failure to both parties. The

Court is not satisfied that the appropriate remedy is to dismiss

the instant lawsuit. Rather, the Court finds that the interests of

justice will be best served by the Court's continued involvement in

this matter. By retaining oversight, the Court is hopeful that the

parties will engage in earnest settlement discussions.

In arriving at this conclusion, the Court notes that a number

of circuit court of appeals hold that the failure to conciliate is

not a jurisdictional bar requiring dismissal of the complaint.

See, ~, Klingler Elec. Corp., 636 F. 2d 104, 107 (5th Cir.

1981); Sears. Roebuck & Co., 650 F.2d at 19. Instead imposing

the draconian sanction of dismissal, select courts advocate staying

the act pending appropriate conciliation ef s. See Klingler,

636 F.2d at 107. The Court recognizes that at least one circuit

holds that dismi

is appropriate.

Asplundh, 340 F.3d at

1261. Other courts find that although federal courts have the

authori ty to issue a stay, a dismissal, without prej udice, is

equally appropriate. See Brennan v. Ace Hardware Corp., 495 F.2d

368, 376 (8th Cir. 1974) (construing analogous conciliation efforts

under the Age Discrimination and Employment Act of 1967). The

Sixth Circuit is silent on this issue. The Court finds that given

the current posture of the instant case, the better approach is to

Case 2:04-cv-70420-AC-RSW Document 10 Filed 08/02/2004 Page 10 of 10

stay the action, temporarily, to enCOUl"age the part to engage in

meaningful settlement discussions. Therefore, the Court will

temporarily stay

action until October 31, 2004. The Court

will, however, schedule a status conference with the Magistrate

Judge in this case, to be held in November 2004, to

ain the

parties' progress. If the Court is not convinced that the parties

made significant nrndrp,~s, or that

efforts would not

be productive, the Court will lift the stay and require this case

to proceed on an expedited schedule. The Court will issue a

Scheduling Order once the stay is lifted.

IV. CONCLUSlON

For

reasons set forth above, Defendant's motion to dismiss

for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is DENIED, and this action

lS temporarily STAYED COll"lstent with

terms of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

AUG 2·2004
Dated:J'1:11y__ , 2004 Detroit, Michigan
Copies mailed this date to:
Robert Y. Weller II, Esq. Joseph P. Shelton, Esq.

UNIT D

10

 
 Case 2:04-cv-70420-AC-RSW Document 13 Filed 09/28/2004 Page 1 of 7

7

UNITED STATES DlSTRlCT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

F/teo

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

U

SCLDES:'E. P 2

8 200'

...

't
,-..r::

r ~ • JU'I

"

• '.,J'''';;;

fEASTE ' t", COUFfr

FiN MICHIGAN

Plaintiff,

Case No. 04-70420 Hon. Judge Avem Cohn

v.

MEADE LEXUS GROUP, INC., Defendants.

ADELE RAPPORT (P44833) ROBERT K. DAWKINS (P38289) TAMMY C, KLEIN (P60256) Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 477 Michigan Avenue, Room 865 Detroit, Michigan 48226 (313) 226-5673

Joseph P. Shelton (GA Bar# 640630) Fisher & Phillips, LLP 1500 Resurgens Plaza 945 East Paees Ferry Road Atlanta, GA 30326 (404) 231-1400

CONSENT DECREE On February 5, 2004, this matter was commenced by the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "Commission") against Meade Lexus ("Defendant" or "Meade LcxlIs") on behalf of the Charging Parties, Melissa Angotti ("Charging Party" or "Angotti"), Isabella Ziemer ("Charging Party" or "Ziemer"), Katie Olsen ("Charging Party" or "Olsen"), Lauren Rosinski ("Charging Party" or "Rosinski"), Lana Juddou-Mio ("Charging Party" or "Iaddou-Mio"). The settlement is also on behalf of Charging Parties, Pamela Glaspie ("Charging Party" or "Glaspie"), and RtlwiJu Rizka ("Charging Party" or "Rizka"), The Commission's

Case 2:04-cv-70420-AC-RSW Document 13 Filed 09/28/2004 Page 2 of 7

Complaint alleged that the Charging Parties were sexually harassed and subjected to a

hostile work environment.

FINAL DISPOSITION

1. Tln'ough this Consent Decree, ("Decree") the Commission, on behalf of

Melissa Angotti, Isabella Ziemer, Katie Olson, Lauren Rosinski, Lana Jaddou-Mio,

Pamela Glaspie, Ruwida Rizka and Meade Lexus, desire to forever resolve all issues

raised, presented or joined in Civil Action Number 04-70420, without the burden,

expense and potential delay of further litigation of all issues set forth in this lawsuit, and

intend to be bound by the promises made herein,

STIPULATED FACTS

2.

The Parties stipulate and agree that the EEOC is the agency of the United

States government authorized to investigate allegations of unlawful employment

discrimination, to bring civil actions to prohihit unlawful employment practices and to

seek relieffor individuals affected by the practices complained orin this lawsuit.

3.

Meade Lexus is an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce

within the meaning of Section 701(g) and (h) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,

as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2000e(g) and (h). Meade Lexus had at least fifteen (15)

employees for twenty (20) or more calendar weeks during the relevant time period,

4.

Pursuant to Title VII, the Parties acknowledge the jurisdiction of the

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan over the subject matter

and Parties to this case for this purpose of entering this Decree, and, if necessary,

enforcing the provisions of this Decree.

5. Venue is appropriate in the Eastem District of Michigan, Southern

Case 2:04-cv-70420-AC-RSW Document 13 Filed 09/28/2004 Page 3 of 7
Division. For purposes of this Decree and proceedings related to this Decree only, Meade Lexus agrees that all statutory conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled.
MONETARY SETTLEMENT 6. Meade Lexus agrees to pay monetary relief in the amount of $85,000, within thirty (30) days of the acceptance and signing of this Decree. The Commission will determine the allocation of the damages between the Charging Parties and will advise Defendant of the amounts to be paid to each individual. Payment of all applicable federal, state and local taxes including, but not limited to any FICA and/or Social Security taxes on the monetary amount set forth above shall be the sole responsibility of Angotti, Ziemer, Olsen, Rosinski, laddou-Mio, Glaspie and Rizka. Meadc Lexus will issue a Form 1099 to them as required by the fRS. The funds are to be paid directly to Angotti, Ziemer, Olsen, Rosinski, Jaddou-Mio, Glaspie and Rizka, via Certified Mail, to the Charging Parties with a copy of the check sent to Adele Rapport, Regional Attorney, United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 477 Michigan Avenue, Room 865, Delroit, Michigan 48226, within fifteen (15) days of the issuance of payment.
NON-DISCRIMINATION 7. Meade Lcxus, its officers, agents, employees, successors, assigns and all persons in active concert of participation with it, shall comply with the provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and agree that it will not discriminate against any and all individuals who work for Meade Lexus.

Case 2:04-cv-70420-AC-RSW Document 13 Filed 09/28/2004 Page 4 of 7
NON-RETALIATION 8, Meade Lexus, through its directors, officers, agents, successors, assigns and employees, will not retaliate against any person known to it who participated or cooperated in the investigation and civil action by the EEOC of Charge of Discrimination No: 230-A3-00585; 230-A3-00586; 230-2004-00561; 230-A3-02083; 230-2003-02090; 230-2003-02236; and 230-2004-00943, filed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.
DISPUTE RESOLUTION AND COMPLIANCE 9, The Parties agree that this Court shall retain julisdiction and will have all available equitable powers, including injunctive relief, to enforce this Decree, Upon motion of either Party, the Court may schedule a hearing for the pmpose of reviewing compliance of this Decree, The Parties shall engage in a good faith effort to resolve any dispute as to compliance prior to seeking review by the Court, and shall be required to give notice to each other ten (10) days before moving for such review. If such review is deemed necessary by either Party, discovery will be conducted in an expedited fashion. More specifically, documents and other discovery materials shall be exchanged amongst the Parties within five (5) days of Notice.
POSTING OF NOTICE 10. Meade Lexus shall post a mUlually agreeable Notice, attached as Attachment A, ill at least one (1) conspicuous localed at its Southfield, Michigan facility for a period of eighteen (18) months. In addition, Meade Lexus will continue to post all employment discrimination Notices as required by applicable law at all times in one (1) conspicuolls place at its Southfield, Michigan location,

Case 2:04-cv-70420-AC-RSW Document 13 Filed 09/28/2004 Page 5 of 7
NON-ADMISSION OF LIABILITY 11. Meade Lexus has denied all allegations set forth in Civil Action Number 04-7420, along with any and all inferences of wrongdoing, and neither its consent to the entry of this Decree, nor any of the terms or conditions set forth herein, including, but not limited to paragraphs 7 and 8 above, shall constitute an adjudication or finding on the merits of the case or be construed as an admission of liability, wrongdoing, guilt, and/or violation of federal law, which Meade Lexus expressly denies.
ALLOCATION OF COST 12. The Parties agree to pay their respective costs and attorney fees associated with the drafting and enforcement of this Decree.
SEVERABILITY CLAUSE 13. If any provision of this Decree is found to be Wlenforceablc by a Court, only (he specific provision in question shall be affected and the other enforceable provisions shall remain in full force.
TRAINING 14. Meade LexllS agrees to provide training to its managers, employees, supervisors and human resources personneL The training will emphasize Title VII and its prohibitions against sexual harassment in the workplace, including an employer's obligation to take prompt, effective, remedial action, to stop existing harassment and prevent future harassment, once it has notice that a problem exists. The training will also locus on Title VII's prohibitions against retaliation. The training program should be completed within one (1) year of the signing and entry of this Decree. A list of attendees shall be provided to Adele Rapport, Regional Attomey, United States Equal Employment

Case 2:04-cv-70420-AC-RSW Document 13 Filed 09/28/2004 Page 6 of 7
Opportunity Commission, 477 Michigan Avenue, Room 865, Detroit, Michigan 48226, within thirty (30) days of the completion of such training,
ENTIRE AGREEMENT 15. This Decree constitutes the entire agreement and commitments of the Parties. Any modifications to this agreement must be mutually agreed upon in writing and signed by the Parties hereto.
DURATION 16. The Partics agree that the duration of this Decree shall be for a period of three (3) years.
Respectfully submitted,

ADELE RAPP T (P44833) ROBERT K. DAWKlNS (P38289) TAMMY C. KLEIN (P60256) Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission
477 Michigan Avenue, Room 865 Detroit, Michigan 48226

P P.

ON (GA Bar#640630)

sher & Phillips, LLP

1500 Rcsurgcns Plaza

945 East Paces Ferry Road

Atlanta, GA 30326

so
AVERN COHN United States District Judge Dated: September 28, 2004

Case 2:04-cv-70420-AC-RSW Document 13 Filed 09/28/2004 Page 7 of 7
EXHBIT A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES This Notice is heing posted as a result of a Consent Decree entered between the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Meade Lexus, in EEOC v. Meade Lexlls, Civil Case No. 04·7420, to infonn you of your rights guaranteed by federal law under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,42 U.S.C. § 2000 (e). The Title VU prohibits harassment and discrimination against any employee on the basis of sex with regard to any term or condition of employment including hiring, layoff, recall, promotion, discharge, pay and fringe henefits or in retaliation for the opposition to unlawful employment practices. This Notice is posted as part of a resolution to a lawsuit filed hy the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Meade Lexus denies that it engaged i n unlawful activity, a nd guarantees that it will not discriminate against i ts employees. The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is the federal agency whieh investigates charges of unlawful employment discrimination and, if necessary, files lawsuits in federal court to enforce the anti-discrimination provisions of the Title VII. Any employee who believes that he/she is the victim of discrimination or retaliation has the legal right to file a charge of discrimination with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Meade Lexus supports and will comply with this federal law in all respects. Meade Lexus will not take any action against any employees because they have exercised their rights under the Title VII.

 
 Case 2:04-cv-70420-AC-RSW Document 14 Filed 09/28/2004 Page 1 of 6

Co

ORIGINAL

UNlTED STATES DlSTRlCT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

Civil Action No.: 04-70420

v.

Honorable Judge Avem Cohn

MEADE LEXUS,

Detendant.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

AND JURY TRIAL DEMAND

·f'

~

" ""',

0':.,": "'.:, ,~ ..,,!

",r.,",:::

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND JURY DEM@D

,"

L

r"· ',0, °

..........

This is an action under Title VII ofthe Civil Rights Actof1964, ~dT~~e I of~ Civil Rights

Act of1991, to correct nnlawful employment practices on the basis ofsex, and to provide appropriate

relief to employees, Melissa Angotti, Isabella Ziemer, Lana .Iaddon-Mio, Lauren Rosinski, Katie

Olsen, Ruwida Rizka and Pamela Glaspie, who were adversely affected by such practices. The EEOC

alleges that Defendant, Meade Lexus, ("DefendaIlt" or "Lexns") subjected AIlgolli, Ziemer, Olsen,

Rosinski, Jaddon-Mio, Rizka, Glaspie ("Claimants") to a sexually hostile work environment and that

the Defendant, despite knowledge of the harassment, failed to take prompt and effective action to

correct and prevent the harassment.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. Jurisdiction ofthis Court is iIlvoked pursuant to 28 U.S.c. §§ 451,1331,1337,1343,

Case 2:04-cv-70420-AC-RSW Document 14 Filed 09/28/2004 Page 2 of 6

and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Sections 706(1)(1) and (3) ofTitle VII

of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U,S.C. 2000e,5(f)(I) and (3) ('Title VII"), and

Section 102 ofthe CivllRights Actof1991,42D.S.C. § 1981a,28 U,S.C. §§ 451,1331,1337,1343

and 1345,

2, The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were and are now being committed

within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court lor the Eastern District of Michigan,

Southem Division,

3. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, ("EEOC" or the

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

interpretation and enforcement ofTitle VTT, and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Section

706(f)(1) and (3) oCTitle VII, 42 U,S,C. §§ 2000e-5(1)(1) and (3),

4. At all relevant times, Defendant, Laxus, has continuously been a corporation doing

business in Southfield, Michigan, and has continuously had at least 15 employees,

5, At all relevant times, Defendant Employer has continuously been an employer engaged

in an industry affecting cormnerce within the meaning of Sections 701 (b), (g), and (h) of Title Vll,

42 U,S.c. §§ 2000c(b), (g), and (h),

STATEMENT OFCLATMS

6,

More than thirty (30) days prior to the institution 0 r this lawsuit, Melissa Angotti,

Isabella Ziemer, Katie Olson, Lauren Rosinski, LanaJaddou-Mio, RuwidaRizka, and Pamela Glaspie

filed a charge with the Commission allegil1g violations or Title VII by Dcf'endant Employer. All

conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled.

7, Since at least October of 2002, Defendant Employer has engaged in unlawful

2

Case 2:04-cv-70420-AC-RSW Document 14 Filed 09/28/2004 Page 3 of 6

employment practices at its Southfield, Michigan facility, in violation of Section 7U3(a), 42 U.S.C.

§ ZUUUe-Z(a). The Defendant's unlawful employment practices include, but are not limited to the

following:

a. A male co-worker and then supervisor at Defendal1t Employer's Southfield,

Michigan facility engaged in behavior that created a hostile work enviromnent

for all of the Claimants.

h. Throughout the Claimants' employment, they were subjected (0 unwelcome

sexual talk, innuendo, touching, staring, and intimidation by male co-worker

(and then supcrvisor) Armand Hasanaj. Examples of such conduct inc.lude:

i.

Hasanaj making sexual comments to the Claimants concerning their

personal sex lives, i.e., asking them if they were virgins and telling

them that they needed an experienced man to show lhem how (0 make

love and lelling them thaI they had sexy bodies.

ii. Hasanaj putting his fingers under the bra strap of Angotti and rubbing

her shoulder where the strap had been despite her protests that he stop;

and

111. Hasanaj making sexual gestures with his tongue.

c. Complaints about Hasanaj were made about Hasanaj's unwelcome remarks

and behavior. In spite of its knowledge of the harassment and the sexually

hostile work environment, the Defendant failed to take reasonable care to

prevcnt the harassment, and to take effective corrective action reasonably

designed to end the harassment

3

Case 2:04-cv-70420-AC-RSW Document 14 Filed 09/28/2004 Page 4 of 6
The effect of the unlawful conduct complained of in paragraph 7, above, has been to deprive the Claimants ofequal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees because of their sex, female.
9. The unlawrul employment practices complained of in paragraph 7, above, were and are intentional.
10, As the result of the unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 7, above, the Claimants have suffered emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish and loss of cnj oyment of life.
11. The unlawful employment practices complained ofin paragraph 7, above, were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of the Claimants.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Courl: A. GRANT a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant Employer, its officers,
successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, trom engaging in sexual
harassment and any other employment practice which discriminates on the basis of sex; B. ORDER Defendant Employer to institute and carry out policies, practices, and
programs whieh provide equal employment opportunities for women, and which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful cmployment practiccs;
C. ORDER Defendant Employer to provide training on Title vrr orlhe Civil Rights
Act of1964, as amended, and its prohibitions against sexual harassment to all of its employees at its Meade Lexis of Southfield facility as well as its human resources department;.
D. ORDER Defendant Employer to make whole all Claimants hy providi11g appropriate
4

Case 2:04-cv-70420-AC-RSW Document 14 Filed 09/28/2004 Page 5 of 6

back pay wjlh prejudgment interest, in amounts to be detemlined at trial, and other anirmative relief

necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices;

E. ORDER Defendant Employer to make whole all Claimants byproviding compensation

for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described in

paragraph 7, above, in amounts to be proven at trial;

F. ORDER Defe:ndant Employer to make whole all Claimants by providing compensation

for past and future nonpecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices complained of in

paragraph 7, above, in amounts to be proven at trial;

G. ORDER Defendunt Empioyerto pay all Claimants punitive damages for its malicious

or reckless conduct described in paragraph 7, above, in amounts to be proven at trial;

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

interest; and

L AWARD the Commission its costs for this action.

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its Compiaint.

Respectfully submitted,

ERIC S. DREIBAND General Counsel

DATED: September 28, 2004

JAMESN. LEE Deputy General Counsel
(li,.lL
ADELE RAPPOR Regional Attorney

ROBERT K. DA WKlNS (P38289)

5

Case 2:04-cv-70420-AC-RSW Document 14 Filed 09/28/2004 Page 6 of 6 Supervisory Trial Attorney TAlVIMY C. KLEIN (P60256) Trial Attorney EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION DETROIT DISTRlCT OFFICE Patrick V. McNamara Building 477 Michigan Avenue, Room 865 Detroit, Michigan 48226 Telephone: (313)226-5673
6

 
 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:mied - Docket Report

https://ecf.mied.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?731960736017091-L_3...

U.S. District Court Eastern District of Michigan (Detroit) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:04-cv-70420-AC-RSW

CLOSED

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Lexus Assigned to: Honorable Avern Cohn Referred to: Honorable R. Steven Whalen Cause: No cause code entered

Date Filed: 02/05/2004 Date Terminated: 09/28/2004 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by Adele Rapport Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 477 Michigan Avenue Room 865 Detroit, MI 48226 313-226-5670 Email: Adele.Rapport@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert K. Dawkins Equal Employment Opportunities Commission 477 Michigan Avenue Suite 865 Detroit, MI 48226 313-226-4600 Fax: 313-226-2778 Email: robert.dawkins@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tammy C. Klein Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 477 Michigan Avenue Suite 865 Detroit, MI 48226 313-226-6701 Fax: 313-226-5673 Email: Tammy.Klein@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

1 of 3

7/12/2007 11:23 AM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:mied - Docket Report

https://ecf.mied.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?731960736017091-L_3...

V. Defendant Meade Lexus

represented by Joseph P. Shelton Fisher & Phillips 945 E. Paces Ferry Road Suite 1500 Atlanta, GA 30326-1125 404-240-4259 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Y. Weller Abbott Nicholson 300 River Place Suite 3000 Detroit, MI 48207-4225 313-566-2500 Email: ryweller@anqey.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 02/05/2004 04/22/2004 05/03/2004 06/07/2004 06/14/2004 06/14/2004
06/14/2004 06/17/2004

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against Meade Lexus, Receipt No. USA.(CGre, ) (Entered: 02/07/2004)
2 STIPULATION AND ORDER to Extend Time to Answer. Signed by Judge George E Woods. (SMar, ) (Entered: 04/23/2004)
3 MOTION to Dismiss by Meade Lexus. (Attachments: # 1 Document Continuation # 2 Document Continuation)(CGre, ) (Entered: 05/04/2004)
4 STIPULATION AND ORDER Extending time. Response due by 6/14/2004. Signed by Honorable George E Woods. (BSoc, ) (Entered: 06/09/2004)
5 RESPONSE to 3 Motion to Dismiss filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (JLam, ) (Entered: 06/16/2004)
6 Appendix by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Related document: 5 Response to Motion filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits)(JLam, ) (Entered: 06/16/2004)
7 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 6 Appendix. (JLam, ) (Entered: 06/16/2004)
8 ORDER for response and no oral hearing re 3 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Meade Lexus Signed by Honorable George E Woods. (TMcg, ) (Entered: 06/17/2004)

2 of 3

7/12/2007 11:23 AM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:mied - Docket Report

https://ecf.mied.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?731960736017091-L_3...

06/25/2004 08/02/2004 08/19/2004 08/27/2004 09/28/2004 09/28/2004

9 REPLY to Response re 3 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Meade Lexus. (CGre, ) (Entered: 06/29/2004)
10 ORDER denying 3 Motion to Dismiss.- Signed by Honorable George E Woods. (SMar, ) (Entered: 08/04/2004)
11 NOTICE of reassignment from Judge George E. Woods to Judge AVERN COHN. (Attachments: # 1)(TMcg, ) (Entered: 08/19/2004)
12 NOTICE TO APPEAR: Status Conference set for 9/14/2004 02:15 PM before Honorable Avern Cohn. (JCas, ) (Entered: 08/27/2004)
13 CONSENT DECREE Signed by Honorable Avern Cohn. (SSchoe, ) (Entered: 09/30/2004)
14 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against Meade Lexus.(KWil, ) (Entered: 10/01/2004)

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

PACER Login:
Description:
Billable Pages:

07/12/2007 12:22:32

hs0328 Client Code: clearinghouse

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

2:04-cv-70420-AC-RSW

1

Cost:

0.08

3 of 3

7/12/2007 11:23 AM