Case 2:03-cv-03881-BWK Document 32 Filed 11/01/2005 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
v.
RED ROBIN DINER

:

CIVIL ACTION

:

:

:

:

:

NO. 03-3881

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

DAVID R. STRAWBRIDGE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

November 1, 2005

Before the Court is a Motion to Enforce Settlement (Document No. 24) which has been

referred for Report and Recommendation by the Honorable Bruce W. Kauffman. Upon receipt of

the Order of reference, this Court conducted a telephone conference with counsel and determined

it would be appropriate to schedule the matter for a hearing. The agreed date was November 1, 2005.

On the hearing date, counsel for the parties advised the Court that they had entered into a

final agreement to settle the underlying case which they sought to have placed on the record in open

court. The Court conducted a colloquy with counsel for the parties and with the sole stockholders

and officers of the defendant for the purpose of determining whether they all fully understood and

agreed to the terms as set out in the Consent Decree and as modified by the proposed Order. As a

result of that colloquy, the Court is in fact satisfied that the parties in fact fully understand and agree

to all terms and conditions of this settlement and that it has been freely entered into.

Accordingly, this Court recommends:

1. That the Consent Decree (attached to this Report and Recommendation) entered into

by counsel be approved by the Court and entered upon the docket of the Court

Case 2:03-cv-03881-BWK Document 32 Filed 11/01/2005 Page 2 of 2 together with the Court’s Order modifying the posting period as reflected in paragraph 12 of the Consent Decree to six (6) months.
2. That the Motion to Enforce Settlement (Document No. 24) be DENIED as moot. 3. That the matter be CLOSED for statistical purposes. A form of Order is attached.
BY THE COURT: /s/ David R. Strawbridge DAVID R. STRAWBRIDGE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
2

Case 2:03-cv-03881-BWK Document 32-2 Filed 11/01/2005 Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
v.
RED ROBIN DINER

:

CIVIL ACTION

:

:

:

:

:

NO. 03-3881

O R D E R

BRUCE W. KAUFFMAN, J.

AND NOW, this

day of November, 2005, upon a careful review of the

Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge David R. Strawbridge, it is

ORDERED that:

1. The Report and Recommendation be APPROVED and ADOPTED;

2. The Consent Decree attached to the Report and Recommendation is

APPROVED; subject only to a modification of the posting period as

reflected in paragraph 12 of the Consent Decree to six (6) months; and

3. The Clerk shall mark the matter CLOSED for statistical purposes.

BY THE COURT:

BRUCE W. KAUFFMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

 
 United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Philadelphia District Office 21 S. 5th Street, Suite 400 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Iris Santiago-Flores, Trial Attorney IASF-9222

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )

COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

RED ROBIN DINER,

)

)

)

Defendant.

)

)

CIVIL ACTION NO.
COMPLAINT JURY TRIAL DEMAND

NATURE OF THE ACTION

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

Rights Act of 1991 to correct unlawful employment practices that discriminate on the basis of sex

and to provide appropriate relief to Bonnie Hopwood, Catherine Mileski, and a class of female

employees who were adversely affected by such practices. The Commission alleges that

Ms.Hopwood, Ms. Mileski, as well as other female employees were subjected to sexual harassment

through regular, sexually explicit, insulting, and derogatory comments and conduct which created

a sexually hostile and offensive work environment for them as females. The Commission alleges

that although complaints about such offensive conduct were brought to Defendant’s attention, no

remedial action was undertaken to stop the sexual harassment. As a result of the sexually hostile

work environment, and Defendant’s lack of response, Ms. Hopwood was constructively discharged.

Consequently, Ms. Hopwood, Ms. Mileski, and a class of female employees suffered severe

emotional distress and damages.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 451, 1331, 1337, 1343 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to § 706(f) (1) and (3) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. "§ 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3)" ("Title VII") and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981A. 2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were and are now being committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "Commission"), is the agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title VII, and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Section 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000(e)-5(f) (1) and (3). 4. At all relevant times, Defendant Employer, Red Robin Diner, has continuously been and is now doing business in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and has continuously had at least fifteen (15) employees. 5. At all relevant times, Defendant Employer has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701(b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(b), (g) and (h).
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 6. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, the Charging Parties, Ms.
2

Hopwood and Ms. Mileski, filed charges of employment discrimination with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by Defendant Employer. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled.
7. Since at least April, 2000, Defendant Employer has engaged in unlawful employment practices at its Philadelphia, Pennsylvania facility in violation of Section 703(a) (1) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a) (1), by subjecting the Charging Parties, Ms. Hopwood and Ms. Mileski, as well as a class of female employees to a sexually hostile and abusive work environment. Specifically, Defendant’s Owner and Defendant’s Manager/Cook engaged in a continuing pattern of sexual harassment against a class of female employees which was widespread, unwelcome, and uninvited. The offensive conduct includes, but is not limited to (1) inappropriate and unwelcome touching; (2) inappropriate sexually-oriented remarks, name-calling and/or jokes; and (3) demeaning and hostile conduct toward the female employees, as follows:
(A) Bonnie Hopwood was hired as a Waitress by Defendant on or about April 5, 2000. On or about October 21, 2000, CP Hopwood voluntarily left Defendant’s employment. In November 2000, Ms. Hopwood was re-employed by Defendant and worked the same shift on Fridays and Saturdays. She remained employed until May 26, 2001, when she was constructively discharged.
(B) Catherine Mileski was hired as a Waitress by Defendant on or about April 19, 2000 and remained employed with Defendant until May 26, 2001.
(C) Defendant’s dress code for waitresses mandated that they wear a black skirt, a white blouse, a reversible red/black vest, a red tie, and black stockings. On a consistent basis, when the waitresses reported to work wearing pants instead of the required uniform skirt, Defendant’s Owner would grab or pat the waitresses on the buttocks or hips and ask, “where is your skirt?.”
3

Defendant’s Owner would demand that Waitresses wear their skirts so they could “show their legs” to get “more tips.” Regularly, Defendant’s Owner would tell the waitresses “Don’t you know you’re supposed to wear a skirt? I need to see your legs.”
(D) On one occasion, while Ms. Hopwood was walking towards the dining room to hang up her coat, Defendant’s Owner grabbed her by the shoulder, pushed her against the wall, and forced a kiss on her lips. Ms. Hopwood objected and quickly pushed him away, yelling “what are you doing?”.... “don’t touch me.” In response, Defendant’s Owner stated, “I don’t like you anyway. I like your sister better.”
(E) On another occasion, Defendant’s Owner intentionally rubbed against Ms. Hopwood’s frontal area while he passed by her. While passing her, he placed his hands on her hips and said, “This will probably fit.” Defendant’s Owner also grabbed Ms. Mileski’s hand, pulled her close to him, and forced a kiss on her lips. On another occasion, Defendant’s Owner approached Ms. Mileski from behind, lifted her skirt and placed his hands on her thighs. On another occasion, Defendant’s Owner grabbed Ms. Mileski’s left breast without any warning.
(F) A class of female employees have been similarly subjected to inappropriate and unwelcome touching, grabbing, and/or kissing by Defendant Owner on a regular basis.
(G) In addition to the above, Ms. Hopwood, Ms. Mileski, and a class of female employees have been subjected to verbal abuse, hostility, and derogatory comments by Defendant because of their sex, female. Defendant’s Manager/ Cook regularly cursed at and humiliated female employees. On a regular basis, Defendant’s Manager/Cook would whistle, hiss, and/or make “farm animal” noises to get the attention of the waitresses, and called them “stupid,” “worthless,” “mules,” “bitches,” and “assholes.” In addition, Defendant’s Manager/Cook persistently told sexually-
4

oriented jokes in the presence of female employees and encouraged the male staff to treat the female employees in a degrading and hostile manner.
(H) Complaints about this offensive conduct were brought to the attention of Defendant’s Management. However, no corrective action was ever attempted, and Defendant’s managers responded with disbelief, inaction, or acts of reprisal.
(I) Defendant has no sexual harassment policy or complaint procedure. 8. As a direct consequence of the sexually hostile work environment, and Defendant’s failure to take any corrective action, Ms. Hopwood was constructively discharged on May 26, 2001. 9. The effect of the practices complained of in paragraphs 7 and 8 above has been to deprive Ms. Hopwood, Ms. Mileski, and a class of female employees of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees because of their sex (female). 12. The acts complained of in paragraphs 7 and 8 above were intentional. 13. 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 the Charging Parties, and the class of female employees.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant Employer, its officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in sexual harassment, constructive discharge, and any other employment practice which discriminates on the basis of sex.
5

B. Order Defendant Employer to institute and carryout policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for women, which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices.
C. Order Defendant Employer to make whole Ms. Hopwood , Ms. Mileski, and a class of affected female employees by providing appropriate back pay with prejudgment interest, in amounts to be determined at trial, and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices, including but not limited to rightful-place reinstatement.
D. Order Defendant Employer to make whole Ms. Hopwood, Ms. Mileski, and a class of affected female employees by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described in paragraphs 7 and 8 above, including but not limited to out-of-pocket losses in amounts to be determined at trial.
E. Order Defendant Employer to make whole Ms. Hopwood, Ms. Mileski, and a class of affected female employees by providing compensation for past and future nonpecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices complained of in paragraphs 7 and 8 above, including pain and suffering, humiliation, embarrassment, and loss of life's pleasures, in amounts to be determined at trial.
F. Order Defendant Employer to pay Ms. Hopwood, Ms. Mileski, and a class of female employees, punitive damages for its malicious and reckless conduct described in paragraphs 7 and 8 above, in amounts to be determined at trial.
G. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public interest.
H. Award the Commission its costs of this action.
6

JURY TRIAL DEMAND The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its complaint.
Gwendolyn Young Reams Associate General Counsel
/S/ JACQUELINE H. McNAIR Regional Attorney
/S/ JUDITH A. O’BOYLE Supervisory Trial Attorney
_____/S/________________ IRIS SANTIAGO-FLORES Trial Attorney U.S. EEOC, Philadelphia District Office 21 S. 5th Street, Suite 400 Philadelphia, PA 19106 (215) 440-2684 (215) 440-2828
7

 
 ,"

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )

COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

RED ROBIN DINER,

)

)

)

Defendant.

)

Civil Action No. 03-3881 Judge Bruce Kauffman

CONSENT DECREE
This Consent Decree is entered into by the Plaintiff, the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Conunission(the "EEOC" or the "Commission") and the Defendant, Red RobinDiner ("Red Robin "), its directors, officers. agents, employees, successors or assigns.
The Commission brought this action on June 30, 2003, in the United States District Court for the Eastern DistrictofPennsylvania to enforce theprovisions ofTitle VIIofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991,42 U.S.c. § 2000e , ~ ~ ("Title VIr') . The EEOCalleged that Red RobinDinervialatedTitle VII, by subjectingBonnieHopwood, Catherine Mileski, and a class of female employees to unlawful sexual harassment. The Commission further alleged that as a result of the sexual harassment and the disparate treatment in the terms and conditions of her employment, Ms. Hopwood was constructively discharged, Red Robin denies all of the allegations.
As a result of settlement discussions, and in an attempt to avoid further litigation costs. the parties to this action do hereby agree to entryof this Consent Decree (hereinafter referred to as the

"Decree") which shall resolve fully and finally all claims 'Yhich were raised by the EEOC in its Complaint filed on behalf of Ms. Hopwood, Ms. Mileski, and the class of female employees. It is the intent of the parties that this Decree shall be a final and binding settlement between the parties signatory hereto, their successors and assigns, in full disposition of all claims alleged in the Commission's Complaint against Red Robin.
The Parties hereby agree that: 1. This Decree is entered into in compromiseof the claims asserted in this civil action. Red Robin denies any wrongdoing, and this Decree shall, under no circumstances, be construed or deemed to be evidence of (i) any wrongdoing, fault, or liability; or (ii) any infirmity in the defenses that Red Robin asserted. 2. The EEOC is the agency of the United States government authorized by Congress to investigate allegations of unlawful employment discrimination, to bring civil:actions based upon these allegations of unlawful practices, and to seek relief for individuals affected by such practices. 3. The parties stipulate that, pursuant to Title Vll and 28.USC § 1331, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania has jurisdiction over both the subject matter and the parties in this case. The parties further stipulate that venue is appropriate in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania . 4. The rights of Red Robin Diner and for those w hom the Commission seeks relief are protected adequately by this Decree. S. The entry of this Decree will further the objectives of Title VII and will be in the best interests of the part ies and those for whom the Commission 'seeks relief.

NON-DISCRIMINATION

6. Red Robin agrees to (i) comply fullywith all of the provisions of Title VD:, and (ii) will

avoid engaging in any employment practice which operates to harass individuals or deny equal

employment

opportunity
,

based

on

sex

in

violation

of

Title

V.'ll.

NON-RETALIATION

7. Red Robin shall not engage in any employment practices which retaliate in any manner

againstany person,including ,nlly class memberorperson identified in this litigation,becauseof that

person's cooperationwith the EEOC with respect to the Commission's administrative investigation

or this civil action. Red Robin agrees to comply with Title VII's prohibition of retaliation because

of the filing of a charge, the giving of testimony or assistance, or participation in this matter, or in

any investigation, hearing or proceeding under Title VII. Nothing in this Consent Decree, either by

inclusion or exclusion, shall be construed to limit Red Robin's obligations under Title VII or the
EEOC's authorityto process or litigate any charge of discrimination under Title vn which may be

filed against Red Robin in the future.

NON-ADMISSION

8. This Decree, being entered with the consent ofthe Commission and Red Robin shall not

constitute an adjudication or finding on the merits of the case and shall not be construed as an

admission of liability by Red Robin Diner.

DURATION OF THE DECREE

9. The Consent Decree shall be in effect for an initial period ofthree (3) years from the date

it is entered by the Court.

3

MONETARY COMPENSATION
10. Red Robin Diner agrees to pay the sum total of Fifteen Thousand dollars($15,OOO) to resolve this matter as follows:
(A) Red Robin shall issue a check payable to Bonnie Hopwood, and named class member, Patricia Shepherd.' As ordered by the Court, these checks shall be issued on or before November 16,2005 . These checks shall be sent, via United States first class mail return receipt requested, to Ms. Hopwood and Ms. Shepherd, with a copy of each to Iris Santiago-Flores,SeniorTrial Attorney, at EEOC Philadelphia District Office, 21 S. 5th Street, The Bourse, Suite 400, Philadelphia, Pa. 19106. Red Robin shall also provide Ms. Santiago-Flores with any return receipts returned by the United States Postal Service. The monetary relief shall be as follows:
(B) Defendant Red Robin shall pay to Bonnie Hopwood monetary relief in the amount of Ten Thousand dollars ($10,000.00).
(C) Red Robin shall pay to Patricia Shepherd monetary relief in the amount of Five Tbousand dollars ($5,000.00).
(D) In order to receive the monetary relief set forth above, Bonnie Hopwood and Patricia Shepherd will be required to execute a Release. Each class member shall be required to executea Release in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A. The Commissionwill provideMs. Hopwood and Ms. Shepherd with a Release. Upon receipt ofthe signed Releases, the Commission will forward them to counsel for Red Robin.
1 No re lief is sought for Ms. Mileski who i s now deceased .
4

EQUITABLE RELIEF

11. Red Robin Diner agrees to the following injunctive relief:

SEXUAL HARASSMENT POLICY AND COMPLAINT PROCEDURE:

(A) Red Robin agrees to disseminate to all employees a sexual harassment policy and

employee complaint procedureoutliningDefendant'spolicyagainstsexualharassment anddetailing

the steps an employee should use to complain of discrimination at its Philadelphia facility. as

follows:

(l ) Red Robin shall maintain a writtenprocedureagainst sexual harassment and for

receiving and investigating discrimination complaints received from employees, beginningas ofthe

date of this Decree;

(2) Within sixty (60) days of the execution of this Decree, Red Robin shall

disseminate said sexual harassment policy and employee complaint procedure to all employees,

supervisors, and managers at the Philadelphia faci lity;

(3)RedRobin shallconduct aninvestigation intothecomplaintsina discrete manner

through designated employees, who will report to the Complainant regarding the result of the

investigation within fifteen (15) days after the complaint is received;
.
(4) Red Robin shall make all efforts to prevent unlawful retaliation against

complainants, and its written policy will state that retaliation against complainants is prohibited

under Title VII.

..~ ., ,
;.

(5) Red Robin shall disseminate the written complaint procedurereferenced in this

Section by paycheck enclosure or by hand delivery within sixty (60) days of the execution of this

Decree.

5

POSTING OF NOTICE 12. Red Robin agrees that it shall post a copy of the Notice attached as Exhibit B in its
Philadelphia restaurant, and in all locations at the facility where employee notices are regularly posted. The Noticeshall be posted for one (1) year from the date this Decree is entered by the Court, unless otherwise ordered by the Court. Should the posted copy of the Notice become defaced, marredor otherwisemade unreadable,Red Robin agrees to immediately post a readablecopy of the Notice.
TRAlNING
13. Red Robin agrees that it will hire an external source to conduct training at its Philadelphiafacilityon Title VII, andspecificallysexual harassment andretaliation, within 120 days of the date of this Decree. The training will be mandatory for all managers, supervisors, and other
persons with authorityover other employees, regardingtheirobligations underTitle vn. Rea Robin
further agrees to conduct training of all new employees, as well as new and existing managers, supervisors, and other persons with authority over other employees, regarding their rights and obligations under Title VII, at least once per year for three (3) years from the date of the Court's approval of the Decree. Red Robin agrees that within fourteen'{ld) days of each training session given, it will provide written verification to the Commission of the date(s) that the training was conducted, will provide an outline of the topics covered; will identify the instructors who provided. the training and their qualifications, and the duration of the training.
DISPUTE RESOLUTION AND COMPLIANCE t 4. In the event that the EEOC determines that a violation of this Decree has occurred, it
will, before exercising any remedy provided by law, provide notice to Red Robin identifying the
6

alleged violations. Red Robin will have fifteen (15) days in whichto investigate and respond tothe
allegations, unless the Commissiondetermines there to be exigent circumstances. If these exigent circumstances exist, the Commission mayimmediately applyto the Courtforrelief. Thepartiesshall engage in a good faith effort to resolve any dispute as to compliance prior to seeking review by the Court. Upon motion of either party, the Courtmayschedule ~ hearing for the purposeof reviewing compliance withthis Decree. The party seeking Court intervention shall be required to givenotice to the opposing party ten (18) days before moving -for such review. The Court may conduct expedited discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for purposes of determining compliance with this Decree or defending against a claim of non-compliance. The Court will have all equitable powers, includinginjunctive relief, to enforce this Decree.
MISCELLANEOUS 15. Nothing in this Decree, eitherby inclusionor exclusion, shall be construed to limit Red
RobinDiner's obligationsunderTitle vn or the EEOC's authorityto process or litigateanycharge
of discrimination that may be filed against Red Robin in the future. 16. If any provision(s) of theConsent Decree is found to be unlawful, only the specific
provision/a) inquestionshallbe affectedandthe otherprovisions willremainin full force andeffect. 17. Theterms of the Decreeare andshallbe bindingupon thepresent and future employees,
agents, trustees, administrators, successors, representatives, and assigns of Red Robin Diner. 18. The Decree constitutes the entire agreement and commitments of the parties. Any
modifications to this agreementmust be mutually agreed upon andmemorialized in a writing signed by Red Robin and the Commission.
19. When this Decree requires the submission by Red Robin of any docwnents to the
7

Commission, if not otherwise indicated in the Decree or Attachments, they shall be mailed by certified mail to the Regional Attorney, Philadelphia District Office, 21 S. 5lh Street, The Bourse, Suite 400, Philadelphia, PA. 19106.
20. Failure by the Commission to seek enforcement of this Decree with regard to one provision shall not be construed as a waiver of its rights to do so with regard to the same OT other provisions 0 f this Decree.
21. Each party to this Decree shall bear its own expenses, costs and attorneys' fees. 22. This Consent Decree shall be filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District Court of Pennsylvania.
23. The Court retains jurisdiction over this case in order to enforce the terms oflhe Consent Decree.

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMM:ISSION

RED ROBfN DINER

James L. Lee
Deputy General Counsel

Gwendolyn Young Reams Associate General Counsel Washington, D.C.
10.
Jacqueline H. McNair Regional Attorney
~~a.Q!~~ udith A. O'Boyle Supervisory Trial Attorney

~dJd'~ Francis Recchuiti, ~
Vangrossi & Recchuiti 319 Swede Street Norristown, PA 19401
8

U.S. EEOC Philadelphia District Office
21 S. 5th Street, Suite 400
Philadelphia, PA 19106
(215) 440 -2828

DATE

DATE

APPROVED AND SO ORDERED:

DATE

THE HONORABLE BRUCE KAUFFMAN

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )

COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

RED ROBIN DINER,

)

)

)

Defendant.

)

Civil Action No. 03-3881
Judge Bruce Kauffman

RELEASE

Pursuant to the terms of the Consent Decree entered into by the Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission ("EEOC") and Red Robin Diner in the above-captioned case, I,

,

do hereby waive , remit, release and forever discharge Red Robin Diner, its subsidiary companies,

and any and all ofthe officers, directors, age nts, employees , and members of such entities from

any and all claims, demands or causes of action under Title VlI , arising from any right or

entitlement now existing until the date of execution of this Release for facts arising from or

allegations made in EEOC v. Red Robin Diner, Civil Action No.03-388! , based on claims of

sexual harassment and constructive discharge occurring prior to this date. This Release is freely

executed in return for the good and valuable consideration set forth in the above-referenced

Consent Decree.

Date:

. 2005

SIGNATURE:

_

Sworn to and Subscribed

Before me this

day

of

, 2005.

Exbibit A

EXHIBITB

NOTICE TO ALL RED ROBIN DINER EMPLOYEES

This Notice is being posted pursuantto a Consent Decree entered by the federal court in EEOC v. Red Robin Diner, Civil Action Number 03-CV~3881 (E:D. PA.), resolving a lawsuit filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") against Red Robin Diner.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of) 964,42 U.S .c. Section 2000e, et seq., as amended ,
("Title Villi), prohibits discrimination against employees and applicants for emp loyment based
upon race, color, sex, religion, or national origin. Title VII further prohibits retaliation against employees or applicants who avail themselves of the rights under Title VII by engaging in
protected activities, such as fling a charge of discrim ination and/or testifying or participating in a
Cormnission investigation. The EEOC is the federal agency which investigates charges of unlawful employment discrimination. The EEOC has the authority to bring lawsuits in federal
court to enforce Title VIT.

In its lawsuit, the EEOC alleged that Red Robin Diner subjected employees to harassment
based on their sex and constructively discharged one of them in violation of Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"). Red Robin denies these allegations. To resolve the case, Red Robin and the EEOC have entered into a Consent Decree. The Decree is not, under any circumstances, an admission of liabilityby Red Robin .

If you believe you have been discri mina ted against, you may contact the EEOC at (215) 440-2600. The EEOC charges no fees and has employees who speak languages other than
English.

THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND MUST NOT BE DEFACED BY ANYONE

This Notice must remain posted for One (1) year from the date below and most not

be altered, defaced or covered by any other material. Any questions about this

Notice or compliance witb its terms may be' directed to the: Regional Attorney,

EEOC Philadelphia District Office, 21 South 5tb Street, Philadelpbia, PA 19106.

~k IIrn.jgvDj t;J.gd,n ~r. i;

:& quaiElllployment Opportunity

Red Robin blner

I

Commission

DATED: ~~/'~dO{;1"/DATED: dee.tt-d'- ~ zc:cs

 
 Equal Employment Opportunity Com’r v. Red Robin Diner, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d...

2004 WL 1505358 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania.
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSIONER v.
RED ROBIN DINER
No. Civ.A. 03–3881. | Filed June 30, 2003. | April 4, 2004.
Attorneys and Law Firms
represented by Iris Santiago–Flores, Equal Employment, Opportunity Com, Phila District Office, Philadelphia, PA, Lead Attorney, Attorney to be Noticed, Jacqueline H. McNair, Equal Employment, Opportunity Commission, for Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Plaintiff.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
HART, Magistrate J.
*1 The Plaintiff has filed a motion to compel answers to interrogatories and document requests in this sexual harassment case. The Defendant has refused to respond to any of the discovery requests, citing the Scheduling Order, in which the Honorable Bruce Kauffman, to whom the case is assigned, included the following language:
Interrogatories and Requests for Production may be utilized only to the extent the parties’ Initial Disclosures appear incomplete.
Scheduling Order, at ¶ 2. The Defendant complains that the Plaintiff has requested discovery without even alleging that the initial disclosures were incomplete. Neither side has provided the initial disclosures, which makes it impossible for the court to determine what, if anything, is lacking.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(2), the court may limit discovery if it determines that the discovery is unreasonably cumulative, burdensome,

unreasonably expensive, or if the party seeking discovery already had ample opportunity to obtain the discovery. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(2). The Defendant implies that the discovery obtained during the administrative proceedings render the requests at issue duplicative and burdensome to “a small family business.” See Response, at 3. We do not find that the 19 numbered interrogatories and 22 numbered document requests are burdensome. In fact, review of the Plaintiff’s requests reveals that the Plaintiff has strictly limited the information sought. For example, when asking for a list of the employees, the Plaintiff has limited it, not only by time frame—April, 2000 through June, 2001, but also seeks only information regarding employees who worked the shifts that the individual plaintiffs did. Therefore, we do not find the requests to be burdensome, even to “a small family business.”
As for the objection that the Defendant may have provided relevant information during the administrative investigation, although we see some overlap between the information now sought at that sought in the administrative proceeding, we also note that many of the interrogatories seek more detailed information. Where appropriate, we see no harm in instructing the Defendant that it may refer to prior disclosures, produced in either in the administrative proceeding or in its initial disclosures, in responding to these requests. To the extent the Plaintiff seeks information that has not been produced previously, we expect the Defendant to provide full and complete responses within ten days of the entry of the attached Order.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 4th day of April, 2004, upon consideration of the Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories and Document Requests, the response, thereto, the Scheduling Order entered in the case, and for the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED. To the extent the information sought has been previously provided, the Defendant may refer Plaintiff to the prior production, specifically. To the extent the Plaintiff seeks information not previously disclosed, the Defendant shall answer the interrogatories and produce the requested documents within ten days of the entry of this Order.
	  

1

Equal Employment Opportunity Com’r v. Red Robin Diner, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d... 2