EXHIBIT "A"

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION
".

SHEILA A. ZEREHI-CARTER, Plaintiff
v.
FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION, Defendant.

)

)

CIVIL ACTION NO:

)

5:98-CV-483-BO(2)

)

)

COMPLAINT

) JURY TRIAL DEMAND

)

)

PLAINTIFF, SHEILA A. ZEREHI-CARTER (hereinafter "Zerehi-Carter"), by and through undersigned counsel, avers as follows in support of her cause of action against Defendant, FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION (hereinafter "Federal Express"):
1. Plaintiff, Zerehi-Carter, is a female adult individual formerly employed by Federal Express at its facility located in Raleigh, Wake County, North Carolina, and she is a resident of Durham, County, North Carolina.
2. Defendant, Federal Express, is a North Carolina corporation, organized and existing under the laws of the State of North Carolina and is authorized to do business in North Carolina; and at all times relevant to this action has employed in excess of 15 employees.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 3. Jurisdiction of this court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§451, 1331, 1137, 1343 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Sections 706(f) (1) and (3) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII"), as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e. The court has
1

-
jurisdiction over pendant state claims. 4. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed within the
jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, Western Division.
5. At all times relevant, Defendant Federal Express has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce.
COUNT I "VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.c. § 2000e, et seq," 6. Plaintiff Zerehi-Carter incorporates by reference all prior paragraphs as though fully set forth herein at length. 7. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Zerehi-Carter filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) alleging violations of Title VII by Defendant Federal Express. See Exhibit "A" attached hereto. 8. From on or about March 5, 1995 through February 1, 1996, Defendant Federal Express through its agents, employees, and/or representatives, acting in the course and scope of their employment, intentionally engaged in an unlawful employment practice by creating a hostile work environment, engaged in unlawful employment practices at its Raleigh, North Carolina facility, in violation of Section 703(a)(1) of Title VII, 42. U.S.C. § 2000(e)(a) (1). The unlawful practice included subjecting Zerehi-Carter to a sexually hostile work environment. The harassment consisted of unwelcome touching, sexual advances, such as slapping Zerehi-Carter on the buttocks, joking about her breasts. Zerehi-Carter was subjected to verbal harassment, insults, threats, and ridicule.
2

9. The conduct complained of in Paragraph 8 of this Complaint deprived Zerehi-Carter of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affected her status as an employee, because of her sex.
10. The employment practices complained of in paragraph 8 of this Complaint were intentional, pervasive and were committed with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Zerehi-Carter.
11. The harassment Plaintiff Zerehi-Carter has described herein was pervasive and based on Plaintiffs sex, female.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Zerehi-Carter respectfully requests that an award of damages, backpay, costs, attorneys fees and other such relief as the Court deems just under the circumstances.
COUNT II "NEGLIGENCE" "NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION AND RETENTION" 12. Plaintiff Zerehi-Carter incorporates by reference all prior paragraphs as though fully set forth herein at length. 13. Defendant Federal Express owed a duty to Plaintiff Zerehi-Carter as an employee to provide a safe and secure work environment, free from sexual harassment, intimidation, and free from the threat of physical harm. 14. Defendant Federal Express negligently breached this duty including, but not limited to the following respects:
3

a. By hiring and retaining employees who freely and openly engaged in sexual harassment of female employees, including Plaintiff Zerehi-Carter; b. By failing to provide proper supervision and control of its employees, so
as to prevent the sexual harassment of its female employees, including Plaintiff Zerehi-Carter; c. By condoning the ongoing and continual sexual harassment and misconduct by its employees, of its female employees including Plaintiff ZerehiCarter; d. By failing to take appropriate corrective measures against those employees who the Defendant Federal Express knew or should have known were engaging in sexual harassment and misconduct towards its female employees, including Plaintiff Zerehi-Carter. e. By allowing to exist and persist an environment at its facility which permitted the open and continual sexual harassment and misconduct directed towards its female employees, including Plaintiff Zerehi-Carter. 15. As a direct and proximate result of defendant's negligence as described herein, Plaintiff Zerehi-Carter suffered intense emotional distress, mental anguish and suffering, all to her damage in an amount in excess often thousand dollars ($10,000.00). WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Zerehi-Carter respectfully requests judgment in her favor, compensatory damages plus interest, costs, attorney's fees and such other relief as the law allows and the Court deems just under the circumstances.
4

COUNT III "NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS" 16. Plaintiff Zerehi-Carter incorporates by reference each preceding paragraph as though fully set forth herein at length. 17. Defendant Federal Express owed Plaintiff Zerehi-Carter a duty to provide a safe and secure work environment, free of sexual harassment, intimidation, and other factors which created a hostile environment. Defendant Federal Express failed to properly supervise, investigate, and discipline its employees when it learned or should have learned of the hostile environment. It was reasonably foreseeable that employees such as Plaintiff Zerehi-Carter would suffer severe emotional distress when such a hostile environment develops. 18. The sexual harassment and the generally hostile environment all constitute extreme and outrageous conduct of Defendant Federal Express through its agents, employees, and/or representatives, acting in the course and scope of their employment. This conduct was intended to cause severe emotional distress and indicated a reckless indifference to the likelihood that such conduct would cause severe emotional distress. The said conduct did cause severe emotional distress to the Plaintiff Zerehi-Carter and caused Plaintiff Zerehi-Carter mental anguish and great suffering. 19. As a direct and proximate result of the defendant's misconduct, Plaintiff ZerehiCarter suffered intense emotional distress, mental anguish and suffering, all to her damage in an amount in excess often thousand dollars ($10,000.00).
5

COUNT IV "PUNITIVE DAMAGES" 20. Plaintiff Zerehi-Carter incorporates by reference each preceding paragraph as though fully set forth herein at length. 21. The foregoing conduct of Defendant Federal Express was a wilful and wanton disregard of the health and well being of Plaintiff Zerehi-Carter as supervisory personnel were continually put on notice of the harassment ofPlaintiffZerehi-Carter, yet did nothing. 22. The foregoing willful and wanton disregard was a proximate cause of Plaintiffs injuries and losses and Plaintiff Zerehi-Carter is entitled to recover damages in an amount in excess of $10,000.00. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Zerehi-Carter prays that she have and recover as follows: 1. A trial by jury as to all issues so triable; 2. Damages for pecuniary and nonpecuniary losses from Defendant Federal Express for discrimination based upon sex in an amount to be determined by a jury, but in an amount in excess of $1 ,000,000; 3. Interest and attorney's fees from Defendant Federal Express to the extent permitted by law; 4. Costs of this action to be taxed to the Defendant Federal Express; and 5. For such and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
6

This the JttjLday of~ 1998.
HOLLOWELL, PEACOCK & MEYER, P.A.
BY: ~<>-b \\. (),I~ Deborah N. Meyer N. C. State BarNo. 19186 Deborah A. Pople N. C. State Bar No. 23970 CrossPointe Plaza, Suite 300 2840 Plaza Place Post Office Box 31208 Raleigh, North Carolina 27622-1208 Telephone: (919) 783-5657 Attorneys for Plaintiff
7

EXHIBIT "A"

CHAR' OF DISCRIMINATION

Thls form ls affected by the Prlvacy Act of 1974j See Prlvacy Act Statement before

completlng thls form.

I

,.

. State or local Agency, ifany

AGENCY
0 FEPA
~ EEOC

CHARGE NUMBER
141960316

and EEOC

NAME (Indicat~ Hr., Hs .. Hrs.)

. I
I .... ,

Ms. Sheila A. Zerehi-Carter

. . I ' ", . '.
~

STREET ADDRESS

CITY. STATE AND ZIP CODE

HOME TELEPHONE (Includ~ Ar~a Cod)
(919) 49~-7614
DATE OF BIA TH

3.311 Shannon Road Apartment #37-C. Durham. NC 27707

10/16/'1b

NAMED IS THE EMPLOYER, LABOR ORGANIZATION, EMPLOYMENT AGENCY APPRENTICESHIP COMMITTE F,

I I STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT AGENCY WHO DISCRIMINATED AGAINST ME (Irll1or~ than on~ list b~lo",.)

NAME

NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES, MEMBERS TELEPHONE (Includ~ Ar~a Co ~~)

Federal Exoress
STREET ADDRESS

Cat A (1'1-100)
CITY, STATE AND ZIP CODE

(919) 840-2575
COUNTY

1220 International Drive Building R Raleigh NC 2 621

181

NAIIE

TELEPHONE NUMBER (Includ~ Ar~a Cod)

STREET ADDRESS

CITY. STATE AND ZIP CODE

COUNTY

CAUSE OF DISCRIMINATION BASED ON (Ch~ck ..ppropriat~ box(~s)}

o o o DRACE

COLOR

lXl SEX

RELIGION

NATIONAL ORIGIN

o o IXl RETALIATION DAGE

DISABILITY

OTHER (Sp~ctry)

DATE DISCRIMINATION TOOK PLA E

EARLIEST

LATEST

12/01/95 12/01/95 0 CONTINUING ACTION

THE PARTI CULARS ARE (Ir additional spac~ is n~~d~d. attach ~xtr.. sheet(s)):

I.

From around March 1995 through December 1995, I was subjected to

sexual harassment by my male co-workers. I have been employed

with Federal Express since March 5, 1995 in the position of

Handler. Federal Express employs more than 15 persons.

II.

No reason was given to me for the sexual harassment.

Federal Express has a sexual harassment policy.

III.

I believe that I was discriminated against on account of my sex, Female, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as Amended.

I.

From around November 9, 1995, and continuing until I was placed

on medical leave effective February 1, 1996, I was subjected to

harassment, in that, my co-workers called me names, talked loudl:y

to me, and placed me on assignments with those persons who

sexually harassed me.

II.

I reported the continual harassment to Gary Sheehan (Male) , Sr.

Manager, but he stated that there was nothing he could do about

it. He told me that I was placed on assignments with those

persons who sexually harassed me because I was "trained."

Text Continued on Attached Sheet(s)
o** ** I want thls charge flIed wlth both the EEOC and the State or NOTARY. (When necessary for State and Local Requlrements)

local Agency. lf any. I wlll advlse the agencles lf I change my

address or telephone nu.ber and cooperate fully wlth them ln the I swear or afflrm that I have read the above charge and that

processlng of my charge ln accordance with thUr procedures.

lt ls true to the best of my knowledge, lnformat10n and bell f.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foreg01ng ls true

and correct.

--_...__ ...

SIGNATURE OF COMPLAINANT

Date 10 /}/'//n' 1 UJ ~har tnPi'P~a;.1.lf J(SIig~natu~r~~ ) ...

:EOC ~OHII :JII' (Hev. 00/9<1)

"

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS DATI
,4Day. month. and year)
CHARGING PARlY COpy

InltlalS~Chg Apr 10 16:38 1996 CP

# 141960316, Attachment Page 1

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Form 5 - Charge of Discrimination, Additional Text

III.

Federal Express does have a harassment policy, but it does not address any particulars.
I believe that I was discriminated against in retaliation for opposing sexual harassment in March and October 1995.

_____ - - - - - - - - - - -_ _ _ _- - 1

-.

VERIFICAnON
NORTH CAROLINA
LA Ja.AL COUNTY
SHEILA A. ZEREHI-CARTER, being first duly sworn, deposes and says that she is the Movantllntervenor in the above entitled action and that she has read the foregoing Motion to Intervene and attached Complaint, and that the same is true to her own knowledge except as to those matters stated upon information and belief, and as to those matters she believes the same to be true.

SWORN TO and subscribed before me

a4. Of~ this the

day

1998.

~ut~.d!f1 OTARY PUBLIC

My Commission Expires:

r _, ' ~"'''''''''''''*' ~~'!t'"~~~ t\~ nTC- . F...U...\.'nv1./"",,)~.-:'

f l "*O.I.ARY) \: : ! ...

0

-

...

0

-

i i.... \ '" \.C:CPOi/BUe "" UN1" ,.... ~~ ~ ., ~7~00 ", TI J'

••
•

•

•

•

•

•

•

~v•,••,~ •~r.'-J.".

.....

"""'''' ".""

3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned attorney for Plaintiff hereby certifies that on this date she served the foregoing Motion to Intervene to all parties in this action by depositing a copy thereof in the United States mail, postage prepaid, and addressed as follows:
C. Gregory Stewart General Counsel Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 1801 "L" Street, N.W. Washington, D. C. 20507
Gwendolyn Young Reams Associate General Counsel Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 1801 "L" Street, N.W. Washington, D. C. 20507
Mindy E. Weinstein Regional Attorney Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 129 West Trade Street, Suite 400 Charlotte, North Carolina 28202
Rosemary J. Fox Supervisory Trial Attorney Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 129 West Trade Street, Suite 400 Charlotte, North Carolina 28202
Erania Ebron-Fubara Senior Trial Attorney Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 129 West Trade Street, Suite 400 Charlotte, North Carolina 28202
4

ThiSthe).!idldayO~ 1998.
HOLLOWELL, PEACOCK & MEYER, P.A.
BY:~f\~ Deborah N. Meyer N. C. State BarNo. 19186 Deborah A. Pople N. C. State Bar No. 23970 CrossPointe Plaza, Suite 300 2840 Plaza Place Post Office Box 31208 Raleigh, North Carolina 27622-1208 Telephone: (919) 783-5657 Attorneys for Movant
5

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION

No.5:98-CV-483-BO(2)

FILED

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

)

COMMISSION,

)

Plaintiff

)

)

and SHEILA A. ZEREHI-CARTER,

)

Plaintiff-Intervenor,

)

)

v.

)

)

FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION,

)

Defendant.

)

)

lMAR 92000
DAVID w. DANIEL, ClERK
US DISTRICT COURT
f. DIST. N. CARoLINA
ORDER

ORDER This matter is before the Court on Defendant Federal Express' Motion for Summary Judgment. The underlying suit has been brought on behalf of Sheila A. Zerehi-Carter by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"), alleging sexual harassment in violation ofTitle VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.c. § 2000e, et seq. ("Title VII") and Title I ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981 ,et seq. ("Title I"). Ms. Zerehi-Carter intervened in the action, asserting state law claims of negligence and infliction of emotional distress. For the Reasons discussed below, Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.
BACKGROUND This dispute arises out of Plaintiff Sheila A Zerehi-Carter's employment as a package "handler" at Federal Express. I PlaintiffZerehi-Carter was hired on March 6, 1995 and assigned to

1 In presenting the facts, this Court accepts all well-pleaded allegations in the Plaintiffs' complaint as true and draws all reasonable inferences from those facts in her favor.
1

work the evening shift at Federal Express' Raleigh-Durham Ramp ("RDUR"). RDUR workers include ramp agents and handlers, with the former having more operational experience than the latter. Ramp agents have authority to assign handlers to perform certain duties in the ramp area, including loading and sorting duties. During a typical night, RDURramp agents and handlers divide into several different teams. Few women are employed in this part of Federal Express' operation, and Zerehi-Carter was often the only woman on duty. (Fitzgerald Deposition, Exhibit B).
Plaintiff Zerehi-Carter claims that, from her first day on the job, she was subjected to unwelcome sexual advances, conduct and language. In mid-March, 1995, Plaintiff Zerehi-Carter claims that a co-worker, Anthony Hall, touched or slapped her buttocks with his hand as they passed by one another in the ramp area. Plaintiff Zerehi-Carter asserts that she shoved Hall back and protested that he should not touch her in that way again, and also that this exchange was viewed by other RDUR workers. Plaintiff Zerehi-Carter alleges that she reported the incident immediately to her supervisor, Brenda Fitzgerald, who failed to follow standard Federal Express procedures regarding sexual harassment. There is no documentation of Fitzgerald's counseling of Hall, and Fitzgerald was later counseled by Federal Express for failure to document the incident and otherwise follow established procedures.
Plaintiff Zerehi-Carter claims that after she reported Hall's conduct to Fitzgerald, Hall labeled her a "snitch" and her fellow employees at RDUR became hostile towards her. Hall allegedly hit her with a box during a shift in which they were both assigned to work in the belly of an airplane. Plaintiff contends that six male co-workers repeatedly commented inappropriately on her anatomy, especially her breasts and buttocks, made inappropriate sexual advances, and surrounded her with lewd and inappropriate discussions of their sexual behavior. She alleges that this behavior continued throughout her employment.
2

Plaintiff Zerehi-Carter asserts that she reported these incidents to Fitzgerald, who failed to show any concern or take any action other than to caution Plaintiff about her poor attitude and inability to get along with her RDUR co-workers. She further claims that her efforts to seek help from Federal Express officials outside ofRDUR met little success, with Personnel Representative Glendell Wilson failing to return her many phone calls. Plaintiff contends that it was only after she sent an e-mail message to Fitzgerald on October 20, 1995 that action was taken to investigate her allegations. This e-mail was sent seven months after the initial "touching" behavior that was the subject of Plaintiffs initial complaints.
While Federal Express conducted its investigation, Plaintiff Zerehi-Carter alleges that the continuing harassment made her uncomfortable and afraid to be in close quarters with certain ofher male co-workers. Complaining of sleeplessness, weight loss, anxiety and bouts of crying, she sought medical and psychological treatment during October, 1995. Plaintiff Zerehi-Carter was prescribed anti-depressants and attended psychotherapy sessions. She alleges that she reported her safety concerns to Fitzgerald in early November and thereafter took a month-long leave of absence from November l7, 1995 to December 18, 1995.
Federal Express' internal investigation ended in December, 1995 with a determination that Plaintiff Zerehi-Carter had not been subjected to sexual harassment. Plaintiff claims that Federal Express failed to interview several witnesses to the events in question, despite the fact that she prepared a list of witnesses for the investigators.
In mid-December, Plaintiffleamed that Federal Express had completed its investigation and had decided not to take action against her co-workers. Plaintiffalleges that she was told by Federal Express manager Gary Sheehan that he could not do anything to protect her at work since no evidence of harassment had been discovered.
3

Plaintiff Zerehi-Carter returned to work at Federal Express' RDUR ramp area, resuming work on the evening shift with many of the same employees whom she had previously accused of harassment. On January 3, 1996, Plaintiff was involved in an altercation with Anthony Hall, the employee who she reported as having made inappropriate contact with her buttocks in mid-March, 1995. At this time, Hall was assigned to act as a "Feeder Captain," with authority to assign handlers like Zerehi-Carter to certain tasks. While the subject of the altercation itself was work-related, and not sexual in nature, Plaintiff claims that after this altercation Hall stood behind her manager "licking his tongue out" at her. (Defendant's Exhibit 26)
Plaintiff Zerehi-Carter claims that her symptoms returned that night and that she had previously been advised by her physicia~ and her therapist to stay away from her harassers. Thus, in her January 3 letter reporting the aitercation with Hall, Plaintiff wrote that "I look forward to settle [sic] this matter and getting back in my Fed-Ex uniform to come to work." (Id.) Further, she indicated in the letter that "I can't stress the importance ofnot having me on an assignment with him [Hall] or any ofthe others that are involved in this investigation ... I feel that they are trying to cause me to loose [sic] my job for what I had to do." (Id.) The next day, she wrote to Glendell Wilson, stating that "I don't have a problem doing my job at FedEx[,] the problem again is my safety and well being there." (Defendant's Exhibit 27) Plaintiff alleges that the matter was not settled, that she was not offered an acceptable accommodation away from her alleged harassers and that thereafter she decided that she could not return to work. Her February 4 letter to Wilson states that "he [Gary Sheehan] told me that it was impossible for them to put me on a different work assignment from those people that have bothered me." (Id.) She was placed on medical leave effective February 1, 1996.
On April 10, 1996, Plaintiff filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC. On June 19,
4

1998, the EEOC brought the instant Complaint against Defendant Federal Express. On July 15, 1998, PlaintiffZerehi-Carter filed a Motion to Intervene. Defendant filed its Answer to the EEOC's Complaint on August 31, 1998. This Court granted Plaintiff Zerehi-Carter's Motion to Intervene on October 2, 1998. Her Complaint was received the same day. Defendant filed its Answer to PlaintiffZerehi-Carter's Complaint on November 23, 1998. On July 2, 1999, Defendant moved for summary judgment. Plaintiffs EEOC and Zerehi-Carter responded on July 26 and August 2, 1999, respectively. Defendant filed its Replies on August 19, 1999. All issues are fully briefed and ripe for ruling.
ANALYSIS
, ,
1. Standard for Summary Judgment A court may grant summary judgriIent only ifthere is no genuine issue as to any material fact
as and the movant is entitled to judgment' a matter of law. Rule 56(c) F.R.C.P.; Celotex Corp. v.
Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). The court must determine "whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so
as a one-sided that one party must prevail matter oflaw." Anderson v. Libertv Lobby. Inc., 477 U.S.
242, 251-52, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2512, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). The movant bears the initial burden to show the court that there is an absence of a genuine issue concerning any material fact and that the non-movant cannot prevail. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 325, 106 S.Ct. at 2553. In order to survive the motion, the non-movant must then show that there is "evidence from which a jury might return a verdict in his favor." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 257, 106 S.C!. at 2514. Rule 56(e) F.R.C.P. The court must accept all of a non- movant's evidence as true and will view all inferences drawn from the underlying facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Id. at 255,106 S.Ct. at 2513.
5
.,,'

2. Timeliness ofPlaintiffs , Claims Defendant first asserts that Plaintiffs' claims are untimely. Plaintifffiled her charge with the
EEOC on May 14, 1996, more than 180 days after the occurrence of all but one of the specific instances of harassment she alleges. Allegations of discrimination which precede 180 days before the filing of the complaint are untimely, unless a plaintiff initially complains to a state or local agency, in which case the charge may be filed up to 300 days after the alleged discriminatory act. EEOC v. Commercial Office Products Co., 486 U.S. 107, 108 S.Ct. 1666, 100 L.Ed. 96 (1988). Thus, Defendant argues that all but one of the alleged violations must be dismissed, as they took place before November 17, 1995.
This is not necessarily so. Incidents of sexual harassment occurring more than 180 days before a charge is filed are not time-barred if "they can be related to a timely incident as a series of separate but related acts amounting to a continuing violation." Beall v. Abbott Laboratories, 130 F.3d 614, 620 (4th Cir. 1997) (internal citations omitted). In Beall, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals found that the only alleged incident to occur within the 180 days was an incident in which a fellow employee yelled at the plaintiff while she was driving. The Court found that "although perl)aps revealing [the employee] to be "unpleasant and sometimes cruel," this incident clearly is insufficient to give rise to a claim of harassment ... Title VII simply does not guarantee freedom from insensitive remarks that do not create an objectively abusive work environment.." Id. at 621.
Here, however, the single alleged incident to fall within the 180 day period is clearly a part ofthe ongoing pattern ofharassment and hostile work environment ofwhich PlaintiffZerehi-Carter complains. As in Beall, the January 3, 1996 incident at the loader in which Plaintiffand Hall yelled at one another might, by itself, fail to give rise to a claim of harassment. But here Hall allegedly followed up his behavior with a licking or tonguing gesture directed at Plaintiff. This behavior is
6

not merely unpleasant or insensitive. As an independent act, it is arguably sexual in nature. As part ofthe ongoing behavior of which PlaintiffZerehi-Carter complains, including allegations of sexual comments and contact by Hall and others, as well as Hall's labeling of her as a "snitch" for complaining of harassment, it takes on a clear overtone of hostility based, at its root, in Plaintiff's gender. Plaintiff's complaint asserts a continuing pattern ofhostile behavior that is sexual in nature, and Hall's alleged conduct on January 3,1996 clearly fits within this pattern. The incident did not occur in a vacuum, and there is little doubt that, even if the alleged "licking" behavior was not explicitly sexual in nature, it was a part of the ongoing harassment alleged by Plaintiff.
Defendant asserts that Plaintiff EEOC is barred from raising the continuing violation theory because of the following exchange in Plaintiff's deposition:
Q: Were you in any way sexually harassed when you returned to work, Ms. Carter?
A: Sexually harassed. Nope. (Deposition of Sheila Zerehi-Carter at 231) Defendant fails to cite the immediately preceding question and answer:
Q: Did you continue to be harassed when you returned to work, Ms. Carter? A: I was continuing to be treated hostile. Yes. I was continuing to be treated,
of course, different and alienated from. When I did return. Yes. (Id.) This omission is telling. Plaintiff Zerehi-Carter's response clearly indicates that her hostile treatment by co-workers, which she claims was in retaliation for her allegations of sexual harassment, continued upon her return to work. The fact that she denies having been sexually harassed on that date is of little consequence. She is a layman, and the term "sexual harassment" is a term of art. Whether or not certain behavior rises to the level of sexual harassment is a legal
7

question. Plaintiff may have defined that term in her own mind as referring to explicit sexual language or inappropriate touching. No effort was made to elicit an explanation as to what she considered to be sexual harassment. Clearly she was upset and threatened by this "licking" behavior, as indicated in her January 3, 1996 letter. (Defendant's Exhibit 26). Additionally, Plaintifflinks this behavior and the other hostility she experienced that night, to the prior alleged incidents of sexual harassment and to her reporting ofthem. (Deposition of Plaintiff Sheila Zerehi-Carter at 267-8)
In any event, this Court finds that Plaintiff Zerehi-Carter's allegations present a reasonable basis for this Court to find a continuing pattern of sexual harassment constituting a hostile work environment and spanning the length ofher employment. Thus, the alleged events occurring before November 17, 1995 will not be dismissed as time-barred.'
3. Viability o(Plainti(fs' Sexual Harassment Claims Next, Defendant argues that, even ifthis Court accepts Plaintiffs allegations as true, they do
not state a proper claim ofsexual harassment against Federal Express. Title VII ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it "an unlawful employment practice for an employer ... to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because ofsuch individual's race, color, religion, sex, ornational origin." 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(l). The United States Supreme Court has held that this language "is not limited to 'economic' or
'This Court notes that several of the alleged incidents of explicit sexual harassment occurred just prior to the l80-day cutoff. This Court further notes that Plaintiff Zerehi-Carter took two medical leaves during the l80-day period so that she could obtain medical and psychological treatment, and that she suffered from anxiety and panic attacks during this time. While the above analysis demonstrates that equitable tolling is not needed to preserve her claims, it is possible that such relief would be available if Plaintiff Zerehi-Carter could sufficiently prove that the delay was caused by mental illness. See Boos v. Runyon, 201 F.3d 178 (2nd Cir. 2000).
8

'tangible' discrimination. The phrase 'tenns, conditions, or privileges of employment' evinces a congressional intent 'to strike at the entire spectrum of disparate treatment of men and women' in employment," which includes requiring people to work in a discriminatorily hostile or abusive environment. Meritor Savings Bank. FSB v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 64, 106 S.C!. 2399, 2404,91 L.Ed.2d 49 (1986); citing Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power v. Manhart, 435 U.S. 702, 707, n. 13,98 S.C!. l370, 1374,55 L.Ed.2d 657 (1978).
In order to prevail in its claim of sexual harassment due to a hostile work environment, Plaintiff EEOC must establish that: (1) the subject conduct was unwelcome; (2) it was based on the sex of Zerehi-Carter; (3) it was sufficiently pervasive to alter Zerehi-Carter's conditions of employment and to create an abusive work environment; and (4) it was imputable on some factual basis to Federal Express. Spicer v. Com. of. Va. Dept. of Corrections, 66 F.3d 705, 710 (4th Cir. 1995); Harris v. Forklift System. Inc., 510 U.S. 17,21-22, 114 S.C!. 367, 370, 126 L.Ed.2d 295, (1993). Defendant disputes each of these conditions.
First, Defendant argues that Plaintiff EEOC has not shown that the alleged conduct was unwelcome and based on sex. Defendant argues that the alleged conduct is "vague and ambiguous" and only takes on "a supposed sexual character through the distorted view of [Zerehi-Carter's] subjective interpretations." (Defendant'S Memorandum at 13). A brieflist of the alleged incidents will help to detennine whether the conduct complained of was unwelcome and based on sex. Plaintiffs allege that male Federal Express employees: (I) made cat calls at Zerehi-Carter; (2) told another female employee "you have competition coming now" whenZerehi-Carter arrived; (3) made inappropriate contact with her buttocks on one occasion; (4) repeatedly asked her for dates and for sexual favors, with one employee telling her "you know you want me"; (5) called her gender-based names like "skank" on the line; (6) de~cribed their sex lives in front of and to her in graphic
9

language; (7) attempted to hug her; (8) made sexual or "licking" gestures with their mouths and tongues; (9) commented derisively on her breast size in front of her; (10) told her to "stop shaking your [breasts]"; (II) commented on the size of her buttocks; (12) stared at her buttocks and said "oooh" as she crawled into the belly of an airplane; (l3) alienated and tormented her, refusing to discontinue the conduct when she complained to them and labeling her a "snitch" for reporting her complaints to management.
Based on the above, this Court finds that Plaintiffhas sufficiently established that the alleged conduct was sexual in nature and that it was unwelcome.
Next, Defendant argues that the conduct Plaintiffs complain of is not objectively offensive enough to alter the conditions ofZerehi-Carter's employment. Defendant suggests that the behavior described above may only seem egregious to Zerehi-Carter due to her unreasonable sensitivity, and that an objective observer would not consider the conduct to be sexual in nature, or to be sufficiently pervasive or severe to constitute a hostile work environment.
In order to create a hostile work environment, the alleged conduct must be "so objectively offensive as to alter the 'condition' of the victim's employment." Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services. Inc., 523 U.S. 75, 81,118 S.C!. 998,1003,140 L.Ed.2d201 (1998). "When the workplace is permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim's employment and create an abusive working environment, Title VII is violated.'; Harris v. Forklift Systems. Inc., 510 U.S. 17,21,114 S.Ct. 367, 370, 126 L.Ed.2d 295 (1993) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). "Conduct that is not severe or pervasive enough to create' an objectively hostile or abusive work environment--an environment that a reasonable person would find hostile or abusive--is beyond Title VII's purview." Harris, 510 U.S., at 21, 114 S.Ct. at 370, citing Meritor, 477 U.S., at 67, 106 S.Ct., at 2405-2406.
10

The guidelines used to detennine whether a work environment is hostile or abusive include (I) the frequency of the discriminatory conduct; (2) its severity; (3) whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and (4) whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee's work perfonnance. Harris, 510 U.S. at 23,114 S.Ct at 371-2.3
With these guidelines finnly in mind, this Court finds that the incidents alleged in Plaintiffs' filings rise to the level of severity and pervasiveness required by the United States Supreme Court. Plaintiffs' complaints have set forth behavior that would be highly offensive to any reasonable person. This is not a case of stray remarks in which the plaintiffs complaint arises out of the "genuine but innocuous differences in the ways men and women routinely interact with members of the same sex and of the opposite sex." Oncale, 523 U.S. at 81,118 S.C! at 1003 (1998). Rather, the sustained level of abuse alleged by Plaintiffs would certainly constitute an alteration in the condition of Zerehi-Carter's employment, creating an environment of fear and humiliation. The alleged misconduct often took place in a predatory manner-with a male employee cornering her in a secluded part of the ramp area. In her words, "it would be just like a rapist ... no one would hear that person doing it or see them doing it." (Deposition of Plaintiff Sheila Zerehi-Carter at 2156). There is no doubt that such behavior would substantially interfere with the work perfonnance of any reasonable person.
Based on the above, this Court finds that the alleged conduct was sufficiently pervasive, persistent and severe to alter the conditions of her employment.
Finally, Defendants contend that Plaintiffs' allegations of sexual harassment are not imputable to Federal Express. The Fourth Circuit has held that an employer can be held laible for
'The Fourth Circuit has recently noted that this is the proper set of guidelines. Smith v. First Union Nat. Bank, No. 98-2200, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 683 (4th Cir. Jan. 19,2000).
11

sexual harassment by a co-worker ifit "knew or should have known of the harassment." Katz v. Dole, 709 F.2d 251, 256 (4th Cir. 1983). Here, PlaintiffZerehi-Carter reported the alleged conduct of her co-workers to her supervisors, and thus Federal Express had notice of her complaints. On several occasions, she reported incidents of harassment to her supervisor, Brenda Fitzgerald. Plaintiff Zerehi-Carter alleges that Fitzgerald did not adequately investigate or document these complaints, did not direct her to report the complaints to anyone else, and actually discouraged her from contacting Glen Wilson, the personnel representative. Despite this, Plaintiff Zerehi-Carter states that she contacted Wilson several times, leaving voice-mail messages which he failed to return. These allegations, which must for the purposes of this motion be viewed in the light most favorable to the Plaintiffs, would suffice to place Federal Express on notice of the alleged harassment.
Defendants argue that Federal Express took immediate and appropriate action in response to PlaintiffZerehi-Carter's complaints. This is a matter offactual dispute best left to the trier offact. Plaintiffs have alleged a breakdown in Federal Express' response to Zerehi-Carter's complaints and advanced evidence to support this contention. First, Zerehi-Carter's supervisor, Brenda Fitzgerald, failed to comply with Federal Express' sexual harassment policy, for which she was later counseled by Gary Sheehan. (Sheehan Dep. at 35) When Zerehi-Carter reported Hall's inappropriate touching of her buttocks, Fitzgerald failed to document this, failed to report it to her superiors, and failed to prevent the harassing behavior from continuing. In fact, there is no evidence that Fitzgerald ever received training on Federal Express' sexual harassment policy. There is no evidence to dispute Zerehi-Carter's contention that she complained repeatedly to Fitzgerald after several of the alleged incidents, with no result. There is no evidence to dispute Zerehi-Carter's contention that she made repeated complaints to Glen Wilson and that these complaints went unanswered until her email of
12

October, 1995. There is no evidence to suggest why Federal Express completed its investigation with a finding that no sexual harassment had occurred without having interviewed several of the witnesses Plaintiff Zerehi-Carter allegedly listed for them.
In short, Plaintiff has alleged facts sufficient to show that Federal Express knew or should have known ofthe offensive behavior, and that the adequacy ofFederal Express' response is a matter of factual dispute. There is no evidence of a prompt and effective response by the Defendant. Additionally, Plaintiff Zerehi-Carter has alleged facts to show that she took advantage of the corrective opportunities presented to her, and even went beyond these to seek redress at a higher level within Federal Express. See Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 806-8,118 S.Ct. 2275,2292-3, 141 L.Ed.2d 662 (1998).
Thus, this Court finds that the facts plead provide a reasonable basis upon which the alleged discriminatory behavior may be imputed to Federal Express.
For all ofthese reasons, this Court finds that Plaintiff EEOC's sexual harassment claims are viable and survive Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.
4. Viability o{Plainti{{Zerehi-Carter's Tort Claims Finally, Defendant asserts that there is no basis upon which Federal Express may be held
liable for the tortious conduct of its agents, and that Plaintiff cannot establish proper claims of negligent supervision and retention or negligent infliction of emotional distress.
At the outset, this Court must consider whether there is a proper basis to hold Federal Express liable for the tortious conduct of its agents. As a general rule, liability of a principal for the torts of his agent may arise in three situations: when the agent's act is expressly authorized by the principal; when the agent's act is committed within the scope ofhis employment and in furtherance
13

of the principal's business; or when the agent's act is ratified by the principal. Mullins v. Mechanics & Farmer's Bank, 994 F.Supp. 680, 689-90 (M.D.N.C. 1997); Hogan v. Forsyth County Country Club Co., 79 N.C.App. 483, 491, 340 S.E.2d 116, 121-122 (1986). It is the third situation, ratification by the principal, upon which Plaintiff Zerehi-Carter bases her claims.
The Courts of North Carolina have not applied a strict test for an employer's ratification of an employee's conduct. "The jury may find ratification from any course of conduct on the part of the principal which reasonably tends to show an intention on his part to ratify the agent's unauthorized acts." Equipment Co. v. Anders, 265 N.C. 393, 144 S.E.2d 252 (1965). "Such course ofconduct may involve an omission to act." Brown v. Burlington Industries, 93 N.C.App. 431,437, 378 S.E.2d 232, 236 (1989).
Here, Plaintiff Zerehi-Carter has alleged facts sufficient to raise a triable issue as to the inadequacy and untimeliness of Defendant's response to her complaints. Both its actions and its several alleged omissions would provide ajury with a reasonable basis upon which to conclude that Defendant ratified its employees' unauthorized acts.
To establish a proper claim for negligent supervision and retention, Plaintiff must further show that the employees committed a tortious act resulting in injury to her and that prior to the act, the employer knew or had reason to know ofthe employees' conduct. Pleasants v. Barnes, 221 N.C. 173,19 S.E.2d 627 (1942). In Brown, a North Carolina court examining a similar case of sexual harassment found that a supervisor's "omission ofaction was a course of conduct which a jury could conclude reasonably tends to show ratification of [the harassing employee's] acts." 93 N.C.App. at 437,378 S.E.2d at 236.
As discussed at length above, PlaintiffZerehi-Carter has alleged facts which, when viewed in a light most favorable to her, are sufficient to establish (I) the existence of tortious conduct; (2)
14

Defendant's knowledge ofthis conduct; and (3) that Defendant's actions or omissions served to ratify this conduct. Accordingly, Plaintiff Zerehi-Carter's claim for negligent retention and supervision survives summary judgment.
To establish a viable claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress in North Carolina, a plaintiff must show: (I) the defendant negligently engaged in conduct, (2) it was reasonably foreseeable that such conduct would cause severe emotional distress, and (3) the conduct did, in fact, cause severe emotional distress. See Johnson v. Ruark Obstetrics and Gynecology Assocs., P.A., 327 N.C. 283, 304 (1990).
With regard to the first element, this Court's analysis in Section 3 above demonstrates that PlaintiffZerehi-Carter has alleged facts sufficient to support a conclusion that Defendant's reaction to her complaints of sexual harassment was untimely, ineffective, and failed to meet the requirements of its own policy. Should the trier offact find Plaintiffs allegations to be truthful, they would support a finding that Federal Express acted negligently in response to her complaints. With regard to the second element, this Court further finds that failure to respond promptly and effectively to allegations of sexual harassment renders the effects of such harassment reasonably foreseeable. PlaintiffZerehi-Carter alleges that hernumerous complaints went unheeded, that she was repeatedly
assigned to work with her harassers, a~d that no effective action was taken to protect her. These
allegations, iftrue, would establish that any emotional distress resulting from further harassment was reasonably foreseeable.
The third and final element of the Ruark test is a much closer call. While Plaintiff alleges that her fear and anxiety resulted from her co-workers' behavior, and claims that her therapist and physician advised her not to work with her alleged harassers, Plaintiffhas produced no corroborating medical records or depositions. While such material would be helpful to this Court's determination
15

of the cause and extent of Plaintiffs emotional distress, it is not necessary. The Supreme Court of North Carolina has found that "sparse" or "limited" allegations of severe emotional distress are sufficient to state a claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress. See McAllister v. Ha, 347 N.C. 638, 646, 496 S.E.2d 577,583 (1998).
Here, this Court finds that Plaintiff Zerehi-Carter has alleged facts which, when viewed in the light most favorable to her, are sufficient to raise a triable issue as to the cause and severity of her emotional distress. Thus, she has met the Ruark test and has stated a proper claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress under North Carolina law.
Thus, Plaintiffhas alleged facts sufficient to establish viable claims for negligent supervision and retention and negligent infliction of emotional distress. Accordingly, Defendant will not be granted summary judgment as to those claims.
CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. SO ORDERED.
This ~ day of March, 2000.
T RRENCE W. BOYLE CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT
16

 
 .~.

United States District Court
Eastern' District of North Carolina
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,

~SE~ J U2t:0i

and SHEILA A. ZEREHI-CARTER, Plaintiff-Intervenor,

v.
FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION, Defendant.

Judgment in a Civil Case Case Number: 5 :98-CV-483-BO(2)
bo J /3 ~ p. ~ 0 I

This action came before the Court for a trial by jury.
IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Defendant's Rule 50 Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law following the presentation of Plaintiff and Plaintiff Intervenor's evidence, is GRANTED and this case is hereby DISMISSED.

JUDGMENT FILED AND ENTERED THIS 10th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2001, AND COPIES MAILED TO:

Deborah N. Meyer, Esq. HOLLOWELL, PEACOCK & MEYER P. O. Box 31208 Raleigh, NC 27622-1208

Erania Ebron-Fubara, Esq. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 129 W. Trade St. Suite 400 Charlotte, NC 28202

C. Everett Thompson, II, Esq. 208 N. Road St. Elizabeth City, NC 27909

September 10, 2001

DAVID W. DANIEL, CLERK

(by) Deputy Clerk

 
 UNI1ED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-2343 CA-98-483
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Plaintiff - Appellant
and SHEILA A. ZEHERI -CAR1ER
Intervenor/Plaintiff
v. FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION
Defendant - Appellee

FILED January 31, 2002
F'LED

DAVIDW. DANIEL. CLERK

US
BY

OISiRICT

CODUERPT..CELDENRCK

ORDER
Appellant has filed a consent motion to dismiss. The Court dismisses this appeal, upon such terms as have been agreed to by the parties, pursuant to Rule 42(b) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. The Clerk of this Court will issue a certified copy of this order to the Clerk of the District Court as and for the mandate.
For the Court - By Direction
/s/ Patricia S. Connor CLERK
A True Copy. Teste: Patri . Co nor, Clerk BY~~~~~_ _ _ __ _

\00·

 
 CM/ECF - NCED - Docket Report

https://ecf.nced.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?644859498533098-L_3...

CLOSED, USMJ_Denson
U.S. District Court EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA (Western Division)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 5:98-cv-00483-BO

EEOC v. Federal Express Corp Assigned to: Judge Terrence W. Boyle Demand: $0 Case in other court: 01-02343 Cause: 42:2000 Job Discrimination (Sex) Plaintiff EEOC
Intervenor Plaintiff Sheila A. Zeheri-Carter
V. Defendant Federal Express Corporation
1 of 12

Date Filed: 06/19/1998 Date Terminated: 09/10/2001 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff
represented by Erania Ebron-Fubara E.E.O.C. 129 W. Trade St. Suite 400 Charlotte, NC 28202 704-344-6682 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Deborah N. Meyer Meyer Law Offices, P.A. 401 Harrison Oaks Blvd. Suite 321 Cary, NC 27513 919-678-8200 Fax: 678-8280 Email: dmeyer@meyerlawnc.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by C. Everett Thompson, II C. Everett Thompson, II, Attorney at Law 101 West Main St. Elizabeth City, NC 27909 252-335-7200 Fax: 252-338-5297 Email: cet@cetlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kacey Sewell Ragsdale
6/4/2007 1:35 PM

CM/ECF - NCED - Docket Report

https://ecf.nced.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?644859498533098-L_3...

Poyner & Spruill, LLP P. O. Box 10096 Raleigh, NC 27605 919-783-2957 Fax: 919-783-1075 Email: Kragsdale@poyners.com TERMINATED: 08/08/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Leslie R. Stacks Poyner & Spruill 100 N. Tryon St. Suite 4000 Charlotte, NC 28202-4010 704-342-5285 TERMINATED: 04/12/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Parmele P. Calame Poyner & Spruill pcalame@poynerspruill.com 301 South College St. 2300 Suite 2300 Charlotte, NC 28202-6039 704-342-5250 Fax: 342-5264 TERMINATED: 06/15/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Renee J. Montgomery Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein P.O. Box 389 Raleigh, NC 27602 919-828-0564 Fax: 834-4564 Email: reneemontgomery@parkerpoe.com TERMINATED: 08/18/1999 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 06/19/1998

#

Docket Text

1 Complaint filed alleging violation of Title VII for sexual harassment in employment (bb) (Entered: 06/23/1998)

2 of 12

6/4/2007 1:35 PM

CM/ECF - NCED - Docket Report

https://ecf.nced.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?644859498533098-L_3...

06/19/1998 07/15/1998 07/15/1998 07/23/1998 08/18/1998 08/31/1998 08/31/1998 09/01/1998 09/10/1998
10/01/1998 10/02/1998 10/02/1998 10/02/1998 10/06/1998
10/28/1998 11/05/1998
11/23/1998 12/28/1998 12/29/1998

(bb) (Entered: 06/23/1998)
2 Motion to intervene by Sheila A. Zerehi-Carter as plaintiff (bb) (Entered: 07/16/1998)
3 Memorandum by Sheila A. Zerehi-Carter in support of [2-1] motion to intervene by Sheila A. Zerehi-Carter as plaintiff (bb) (Entered: 07/16/1998)
4 Waiver of Service Returned Executed as to Federal Express Corp 6/30/98 Answer due on 8/31/98 for Federal Express Corp (bb) (Entered: 07/23/1998)
Motion(s) submitted: [2-1] motion to intervene by Sheila A. Zerehi-Carter as plaintiff submitted to Chief Judge Boyle (bb) (Entered: 08/18/1998)
5 Notice of Appearance pro hac vice by Colby s. Morgan, Jr., Memphis, TN, for def't Federal Express Corporation (bb) (Entered: 09/01/1998)
6 Answer to Complaint by Federal Express Corp (bb) (Entered: 09/01/1998)
7 Request for Discovery Plan: Discovery Plan due by 10/1/98 (bb) (Entered: 09/01/1998)
8 Return of service executed as to Federal Express Corp 8/28/98 by Cert. mail re: Motion to Intervene, proposed complaint in intervention; return receipt attached; Answer due on 9/17/98 for Federal Express Corp (bb) (Entered: 09/10/1998)
9 Discovery Plan filed by EEOC, Federal Express Corp, Sheila A. Zerehi-Carter (bb) (Entered: 10/02/1998)
Case submitted to: USMJ Denson for scheduling (bb) (Entered: 10/02/1998)
10 Order granting [2-1] motion to intervene by Sheila A. Zerehi-Carter as plaintiff signed by Chief Judge Boyle; served. (bb) (Entered: 10/02/1998)
11 Intervenor's complaint by Sheila A. Zeheri-Carter against Federal Express Corp (bb) Modified on 12/01/1998 (Entered: 11/23/1998)
12 Order on Scheduling by Magistrate Denson setting Discovery cutoff 4/30/99 Deadline for filing of all motions 5/31/99 Jury Trial scheduled for 10/12/99 before Judge Boyle Place: Raleigh; served (bb) Modified on 12/01/1998 (Entered: 10/06/1998)
Summons(es) issued for Federal Express Corp (bb) (Entered: 10/29/1998)
13 Return of service executed as to Federal Express Corp 10/30/98 by cert. mail; served on CT Corporation; return receipt attached. Answer due on 11/19/98 for Federal Express Corp (bb) Modified on 12/01/1998 (Entered: 11/10/1998)
14 Answer by Federal Express Corp to [13-1] intervenor complaint (bb) (Entered: 11/23/1998)
15 Motion by Federal Express Corp to extend time to respond to discovery (bb) (Entered: 12/30/1998)
16 Order granting [15-1] motion to extend time signed by Clerk Daniel; served. (bb) (Entered: 12/30/1998)

3 of 12

6/4/2007 1:35 PM

CM/ECF - NCED - Docket Report

https://ecf.nced.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?644859498533098-L_3...

01/06/1999 01/07/1999 02/03/1999 02/04/1999 03/17/1999 04/05/1999 04/09/1999
05/25/1999
05/26/1999 06/30/1999 06/30/1999 07/02/1999 07/02/1999 07/02/1999 07/14/1999 07/16/1999 07/26/1999 07/26/1999 07/26/1999

17 Motion by Sheila A. Zeheri-Carter to extend time to respond to discovery; cy to Clerk w/prop. order (bb) (Entered: 01/07/1999)
18 Order granting [17-1] motion to extend time; signed by Clerk Daniel; served . (bb) (Entered: 01/07/1999)
19 Motion by Sheila A. Zeheri-Carter to extend time to respond to discovery requests (bb) (Entered: 02/05/1999)
20 Order granting [19-1] motion to extend time signed by Clerk Daniel; served. (bb) (Entered: 02/05/1999)
Jury trial Target Date set at 10/1/99 before Chief Judge Terrence W. Boyle (js) (Entered: 03/17/1999)
Rec'd proposed consent order regarding extension of discovery and motion filing deadline; forwarded to USMJ Denson for approval (bb) (Entered: 04/07/1999)
21 Consent Order; the time for completing discovery in this case is extended until 5/31/99; motions 6/30/99; signed by USMJ Denson; served. (bb) (Entered: 04/12/1999)
22 Joint Motion by EEOC, Federal Express Corp, Sheila A. Zeheri-Carter to extend time to complete discovery and serve expert witness reports (bb) (Entered: 06/01/1999)
23 Order granting [22-1] motion to extend time, reset discovery due for 6/11/99 signed by Clerk Daniel; served. (bb) (Entered: 06/01/1999)
24 Motion by Federal Express Corp to extend time (fdc) (Entered: 07/01/1999)
25 Order granting [24-1] motion to extend time signed by David W. Daniel, Clerk. Counsel to serve. (fdc) (Entered: 07/01/1999)
26 Motion by Federal Express Corp for summary judgment (bb) (Entered: 07/06/1999)
27 Memorandum by Federal Express Corp in support of [26-1] motion for summary judgment (bb) (Entered: 07/06/1999)
Rec'd appendix in support of Defedant Federal Express motion for summary judgment (bb) (Entered: 07/06/1999)
28 Consent Motion by Federal Express Corp to extend time to serve supplemental Expert Witness Report (bb) (Entered: 07/14/1999)
29 Order granting [28-1] motion to extend time signed by USMJ Denson; served. (bb) (Entered: 07/19/1999)
30 Consent Motion by Sheila A. Zeheri-Carter to extend time to respond to motion for summary judgment; cy to Clerk w/prop. order (bb) (Entered: 07/27/1999)
31 Response by EEOC to [26-1] motion for summary judgment (bb) (Entered: 07/27/1999)
32 Affidavit by Erania Ebron-Fubara, counsel for EEOC Re: [31-1] motion response w/attached excerpts of deposition transcripts (bb) (Entered: 07/27/1999)

4 of 12

6/4/2007 1:35 PM

CM/ECF - NCED - Docket Report

https://ecf.nced.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?644859498533098-L_3...

07/29/1999
07/29/1999 07/30/1999
08/02/1999 08/02/1999 08/05/1999 08/05/1999 08/18/1999 08/19/1999
08/20/1999 08/23/1999 08/24/1999
09/01/1999
10/05/1999
02/08/2000 03/09/2000 03/20/2000

33 Order granting [30-1] motion to extend time until Aug. 2, 1999, for Plaintiff Intervenor to respond to Defendant's motion for summary judgment; signed by Clerk Daniel; served. (bb) (Entered: 07/29/1999)
34 Motion by Federal Express Corp to extend time to file reply brief; cy to Clerk w/prop. order (bb) (Entered: 07/29/1999)
35 Order granting [34-1] motion to extend time, Response to motion reset to 8/19/99 for [26-1] motion for summary judgment signed by David W. Daniel, Clerk. Served. (fdc) (Entered: 07/30/1999)
36 Response by Sheila A. Zeheri-Carter to [26-1] motion for summary judgment (bb) (Entered: 08/04/1999)
Rec'd Appendix in Support of Plaintiff-Intervenor's memo in opposition to motion for summary judgment (bb) (Entered: 08/04/1999)
Deposition of Gary Sheehan submitted by EEOC (bb) (Entered: 08/06/1999)
Deposition of Glendell Wilson submitted by EEOC (bb) (Entered: 08/06/1999)
37 Notice of attorney appearance for Federal Express Corp by Leslie R. Stacks (bb) (Entered: 08/18/1999)
38 Reply by Federal Express Corp to response to [26-1] motion for summary judgment w/attached Exhibit A (deposition of Sheila Carter) (bb) (Entered: 08/20/1999)
39 Reply by Federal Express Corp to EEOC's response to [26-1] motion for summary judgment (bb) (Entered: 08/20/1999)
Motion(s) submitted: [26-1] motion for summary judgment submitted to Chief Judge Boyle (bb) (Entered: 08/23/1999)
40 Motion by counsel for Federal Express Corp for Renee J. Montgomery, Patricia Munchel and Parker-Poeto withdraw as attorney ; Poyner & Spruill has been retained (bb) (Entered: 08/24/1999)
41 Order granting [40-1] motion for Renee J. Montgomery, Patricia Munchel and Parker-Poeto withdraw as attorney (Terminated attorney Renee J. Montgomery for Federal Express Corp, attorney Renee J. Montgomery for Federal Express Corp signed by Alexander B. Denson, USMJ. OB Ref: BO # 13, p. 125; served. (fdc) (Entered: 09/01/1999)
42 Document filed by intervenor-plaintiff Sheila A. Zeheri-Carter titled: Notification of Subsequently Decided Authority; cy to Chief Judge Boyle (bb) (Entered: 10/06/1999)
43 Subsequently Decided Authority pursuant to LR 4.07 by intervenor-plaintiff Sheila A. Zeheri-Carter; cy to Chief Judge Boyle (bb) (Entered: 02/11/2000)
44 Order denying [26-1] motion for summary judgment signed by Chief Judge Boyle. OB Ref: BO-14, p. 198; served (bb) (Entered: 03/09/2000)
45 Joint motion by EEOC, Federal Express Corp, Sheila A. Zeheri-Carter for mediated settlement conference (bb) (Entered: 03/21/2000)

5 of 12

6/4/2007 1:35 PM

CM/ECF - NCED - Docket Report

https://ecf.nced.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?644859498533098-L_3...

03/29/2000 03/29/2000 03/29/2000 03/29/2000 03/30/2000
04/12/2000 06/29/2000 08/17/2000 09/06/2000 09/27/2000
10/12/2000 10/30/2000
10/30/2000
11/02/2000 11/08/2000

46 Notice of attorney appearance for Federal Express Corp by Parmele P. Calame (bb) (Entered: 03/29/2000)
47 Notice of appearance by out of state counsel for Federal Express Corp. (bb) (Entered: 03/29/2000)
48 Motion by Federal Express Corp for Leslie R. Stacks to withdraw as attorney (bb) (Entered: 03/29/2000)
Motion(s) submitted: [48-1] motion for Leslie R. Stacks to withdraw as attorney submitted to Chief Judge Boyle w/prop. order (bb) (Entered: 03/29/2000)
49 Order denying [45-1] joint motion for mediated settlement conference; the court finds that it would be appropriate in this case to make available a judicial officer as mediator if the parties wish to proceed by order of the court; signed by Chief Judge Boyle; served. (bb) (Entered: 03/30/2000)
50 Order granting [48-1] motion for Leslie R. Stacks to withdraw as attorney (Terminated attorney Leslie R. Stacks for Federal Express Corp signed by Chief Judge Boyle; served. (bb) (Entered: 04/12/2000)
Called Ms. Ebron to get status of case. This case is being mediated on 6/30/00. (js) (Entered: 06/29/2000)
Pre-trial conference set at 11:00 on Tuesday, 10/3/00, 6th floor ctrm., Raleigh, NC before USMJ Alexander B. Denson. served. (js) (Entered: 08/17/2000)
51 Motion by Federal Express Corp for local counsel to be excused from all court proceedings (bb) (Entered: 09/07/2000)
52 Order granting [51-1] motion for local counsel to be excused from the pre-trial conference. The Clerk is DIRECTED to hold this motion open until Chief Judge Boyle rules on the need forlocal counsel's presence at trial; signed by USMJ Denson; served. (bb) (Entered: 09/27/2000)
53 Pretrial order filed signed by USMJ Denson; ETT 3 days (bb) (Entered: 10/13/2000)
54 Order setting aside the Court's order of March 8, 2000 on summary judgment; the court will conduct a hearing on summary judgment and reconsider the issues raised in the defendant's summary judgment motion; signed by Chief Judge Boyle. OB Ref: BO-16, p. 123; served (bb) (Entered: 10/30/2000)
Issued Notice of Hearing: Motion hearing on Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment set 12/12/00 at 2:00 p.m. at Elizabeth City, NC before Chief Judge Terrence W. Boyle ; cys to Chief Judge Boyle; counsel; court reporter; courtroom clerk; USMS; CSO; Boyle criminal and civil team; Carol Morgan (bb) (Entered: 10/30/2000)
Sent corrected notice of hearing on Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment; original notice had wrong case no. (bb) (Entered: 11/02/2000)
Issued Amended Notice of Hearing: Motion hearing before Chief Judge Terrence W. Boyle re Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment changed to Friday, December 15, 2000 at 9:00 a.m. in Raleigh; cys to Chief Judge Boyle; counsel; Carol Morgan; Boyle Civil and Criminal Teams; USMS; CSOs; court reporter;

6 of 12

6/4/2007 1:35 PM

CM/ECF - NCED - Docket Report

https://ecf.nced.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?644859498533098-L_3...

11/27/2000 12/11/2000 12/15/2000 12/22/2000 04/23/2001 04/30/2001 05/02/2001 05/08/2001 06/15/2001
07/06/2001 07/17/2001 07/17/2001 07/24/2001 08/06/2001

courtroom clerk (bb) (Entered: 11/08/2000)
55 Order denying [51-1] motion for local counsel to be excused from all court proceedings signed by Chief Judge Boyle; served. (bb) (Entered: 11/29/2000)
56 Notice of attorney appearance for Federal Express Corp by Wade Forsman, Memphis, TN (bb) (Entered: 12/14/2000)
Motion hearing re: [26-1] motion for summary judgment before Chief Judge Terrence W. Boyle at Raleigh; Sharon Kroger, Ct. Reporter 1.0 hrs. (bb) (Entered: 12/18/2000)
Transcript Filed - regarding hearing on 12/15/00 at Raleigh, on summary judgment before Chief Judge Boyle Court Reporter - Sharon Kroger; forwarded to Chief Judge Boyle (bb) (Entered: 12/22/2000)
Jury trial set at 10:00 8/13/01 in the United States Courtroom, Second Floor, Post Office and Courthouse, 306 E. Main Street, Elizabeth City, NC before Chief Judge Terrence W. Boyle; Trial Calendar Served. (fdc) (Entered: 04/23/2001)
57 Motion by Sheila A. Zeheri-Carter for Kevin S. Joyner to withdraw as attorney ; Deborah Meyer continues to represent Plaintiff-Intervenor (bb) (Entered: 04/30/2001)
Motion(s) submitted: [57-1] motion for Kevin S. Joyner to withdraw as attorney submitted to CHief Judge Boyle (bb) (Entered: 05/02/2001)
58 Order granting [57-1] motion for Kevin S. Joyner to withdraw as attorney signed by Chief Judge Boyle; served. (bb) (Entered: 05/08/2001)
59 Document filed by defendant Federal Express Corp titled: Notice of Substitution of L.R. 2.04 counsel. Kacey Coley Sewell (with Poyner & Spruill) should be substituted for Parmele Price Calame (also with Poyner & Spruill). As a result, from this point forward, Kacey Coley Sewell, will serve as L.R. 2.04 Counsel to Federal Express in this action. (fdc) (Entered: 06/18/2001)
60 Motion by Federal Express Corp with memorandum in support to reopen the deposition and Rule 35 examination of Plaintiff-Intervenor (bb) (Entered: 07/12/2001)
61 Consent Response by Sheila A. Zeheri-Carter, EEOC to [60-1] motion to reopen the deposition and Rule 35 examination of Plaintiff-Intervenor (bb) (Entered: 07/17/2001)
Motion(s) submitted: [60-1] motion to reopen the deposition and Rule 35 examination of Plaintiff-Intervenor submitted to Chief Judge Boyle (bb) (Entered: 07/17/2001)
Motion(s) submitted: [60-1] motion to reopen the deposition and Rule 35 examination of Plaintiff-Intervenor submitted to Chief JudgeBoyle (bb) (Entered: 07/24/2001)
62 Voir dire questions by EEOC; cy to Chief Judge Boyle (bb) (Entered: 08/07/2001)

7 of 12

6/4/2007 1:35 PM

CM/ECF - NCED - Docket Report

https://ecf.nced.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?644859498533098-L_3...

08/06/2001 08/06/2001 08/06/2001 08/06/2001 08/06/2001 08/06/2001 08/06/2001 08/06/2001 08/06/2001 08/06/2001 08/06/2001
08/06/2001 08/06/2001
08/06/2001 08/06/2001

63 Request for Jury Instructions by EEOC; cy to Chief Judge Boyle (bb) (Entered: 08/07/2001)
64 Trial brief by EEOC; cy to Chief Judge Boyle (bb) (Entered: 08/07/2001)
65 Motion by EEOC with memorandum in support in limine requesting Court to Take Judicial Notice of Defendnat's 10-K Report (bb) (Entered: 08/07/2001)
66 Motion by EEOC with memorandum in support in limine to Bar Admission of Exhibits or Testimony Regarding Employees Who Have Not Experienced Sexual Harassment; cy to Chief Judge Boyle (bb) (Entered: 08/07/2001)
67 Motion by EEOC with memorandum in support in limine to Bar Admission of Exhibits or Testimony Regarding Zerehi-Carter's Disciplinary History; cy to Chief Judge Boyle (bb) (Entered: 08/07/2001)
68 Motion by EEOC for leave to file Motion in Limine under seal Re: Exclusion of Non-Relevant Medical Records, et al; cy to Chief Judge Boyle w/proposed sealed Motion in Limine attached in sealed envelope (bb) (Entered: 08/07/2001)
69 Voir dire questions by Federal Express Corp; cy to Chief Judge Boyle (bb) (Entered: 08/07/2001)
70 Request for Jury Instructions by Federal Express Corp; cy to Chief Judge Boyle (bb) (Entered: 08/07/2001)
71 Trial brief by Federal Express Corp; cy to Chief Judge Boyle (bb) (Entered: 08/07/2001)
72 Motion by Federal Express Corp with memorandum in support to bifurcate Punitive Damages Claims (bb) (Entered: 08/07/2001)
73 Motion by Federal Express Corp in limine on Anticipated Evidentiary Issues regarding physical contact experienced by another frmal employee; testimony by Benji Williams regarding statements regarding harassment; any evidence regarding retaliation; regarding damages not produced to Defendant during discovery; regarding training that Carter received through subsequent employment regarding sexual harassment; cy to Chief Judge Boyle (bb) (Entered: 08/07/2001)
74 Memorandum by Federal Express Corp in support of [73-1] motion in limine; cy to Chief Judge Boyle (bb) (Entered: 08/07/2001)
75 Motion by Federal Express Corp in limine to Exclude a Report and Testimony from Carter's Treating Physician and from Carter Regarding Any Alleged Diagnoses, Treatment or Causation of Medical or Emotional Disorders; cy to Chief Judge Boyle (bb) (Entered: 08/07/2001)
76 Memorandum by Federal Express Corp in support of [75-1] motion in limine; cy to Chief Judge Boyle (bb) (Entered: 08/07/2001)
77 Motion by Federal Express Corp for Kacey C. Sewell and firm of Poyner and Spruill to withdraw as attorney to substitute C. Everett Thompson; cy faxed to Chief Judge Boyle w/prop. order (bb) (Entered: 08/07/2001)

8 of 12

6/4/2007 1:35 PM

CM/ECF - NCED - Docket Report

https://ecf.nced.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?644859498533098-L_3...

08/06/2001 08/06/2001 08/06/2001 08/06/2001
08/08/2001
08/08/2001
08/13/2001 08/13/2001 08/13/2001
08/13/2001 08/13/2001 08/13/2001 08/14/2001 08/14/2001 08/14/2001 09/10/2001
09/10/2001

78 Voir dire questions by Sheila A. Zeheri-Carter; cy to Chief Judge Boyle (bb) (Entered: 08/07/2001)
79 Request for Jury Instructions by Sheila A. Zeheri-Carter; cy to Chief Judge Boyle (bb) (Entered: 08/07/2001)
80 Trial brief by Sheila A. Zeheri-Carter; cy to Chief Judge Boyle (bb) (Entered: 08/07/2001)
81 Motion by Sheila A. Zeheri-Carter with memorandum in support in limine to suppress evidence regarding Carter's being tested for any condition that could be construed as sexually transmitted disease; cy to Chief Judge Boyle (bb) (Entered: 08/07/2001)
82 Order granting [60-1] motion to reopen the deposition and Rule 35 examination of Plaintiff-Intervenor signed by Chief Judge Boyle; served. (bb) (Entered: 08/08/2001)
83 Order granting [77-1] motion for Kacey C. Sewell and firm of Poyner and Spruill to withdraw as attorney (Terminated attorney Kacey Coley Sewell for Federal Express Corp signed by Chief Judge Boyle; served. (bb) (Entered: 08/08/2001)
84 Notice of attorney appearance for Federal Express Corp by C. Everett Thompson II (bb) (Entered: 08/14/2001)
85 Notice of attorney appearance for Federal Express Corp by Mary Jane Palmer (bb) (Entered: 08/14/2001)
86 Notice of Filing by Federal Express Corp SEALED response to Plaintiff's Motions in Limine to Bar Admission of Exhibits or Testimony Regarding Carter's Medical Conditions or Treatment, Dating Activity and Sexual Behavior (bb) (Entered: 08/14/2001)
Jury selection held before Chief Judge Terrence W. Boyle at Elizabeth City. Court Reporter: Sandra Graham (bb) (Entered: 08/14/2001)
Jury impaneled (bb) (Entered: 08/14/2001)
Jury trial held before Chief Judge Terrence W. Boyle ; Plaintiff's evidence began. Court Reporter: Sandra Graham 6.0 hrs. (bb) (Entered: 08/14/2001)
Jury trial held before Chief Judge Terrence W. Boyle . Court Reporter: Sandra Graham; 5.0 hrs (bb) (Entered: 08/14/2001)
Rule 50 Motion in open court by Federal Express Corp , for directed verdict (bb) (Entered: 08/14/2001)
Oral Order granting [0-0] motion for directed verdict Entered by Chief Judge Boyle; written ruling to follow. (bb) (Entered: 08/14/2001)
87 Order granting [0-0] motion for directed verdict and dismissing this action in its entirety; signed by Chief Judge Boyle. OB Ref: BO-18, p. 200; served (bb) (Entered: 09/10/2001)
88 Judgment for Federal Express Corp against Sheila A. Zeheri-Carter, EEOC; ORDREED AND ADJUDGED that the Defendant's Rule 50 Motion for

9 of 12

6/4/2007 1:35 PM

CM/ECF - NCED - Docket Report

https://ecf.nced.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?644859498533098-L_3...

09/10/2001 09/21/2001 10/05/2001 10/10/2001
10/22/2001 10/26/2001 10/29/2001
11/02/2001 11/08/2001
11/16/2001 11/16/2001 11/19/2001 11/19/2001 11/20/2001 11/21/2001
12/03/2001
12/03/2001

Judgment as a Matter of law following the presentation of Plaintiff and Plaintiff Intervenor's evidence, is GRANTED and this case is hereby DISMISSED; signed by Rebecca Bowen, Dep. Clerk. OB Ref: BO-18, p. 201; served (bb) (Entered: 09/10/2001)
Case closed permanent (bb) (Entered: 09/10/2001)
89 Motion by Federal Express Corp with memorandum in support for attorney fees and costs (bb) (Entered: 09/26/2001)
90 Motion by EEOC to extend time to respond to Defendant's Motion for Attorney's Fees; cy to Clerk w/p.o. (bb) (Entered: 10/09/2001)
91 Order granting [90-1] motion to extend time, Response to motion reset to 10/26/01 for [89-1] motion for attorney fees and costs signed by Clerk d. Daniel; served. (bb) (Entered: 10/10/2001)
Transcript Filed - regarding trial at E. City before Chief Judge Boyle Court Reporter - Sandra Graham (bb) (Entered: 10/22/2001)
92 Motion by EEOC to extend time to respond to Motion for Attorney's Fees; cy to Clerk w/p.o. (bb) (Entered: 10/29/2001)
93 Order granting [92-1] motion to extend time, Response to motion reset to 11/16/01 for [89-1] motion for attorney fees and costs signed by Clerk Daniel; served. (bb) (Entered: 10/29/2001)
94 Notice of appeal by EEOC (rp) (Entered: 11/08/2001)
Notice of Appellate Action to USCA and counsel re: [94-1] appeal by EEOC Appeal Pkg. mailed consisting of Dkting Statement, Transm. Sheet and Index (rp) (Entered: 11/08/2001)
95 Notice of attorney appearance for EEOC by BOBBY C. SIMPSON (rp) (Entered: 11/21/2001)
96 Response by EEOC in opposition to [89-1] motion for attorney fees and costs (rp) (Entered: 11/21/2001)
Notice of Docketing ROA from USCA Re: [94-1] appeal by EEOC USCA NUMBER: 01-2343 Case Manager: Amy Brandon (rp) (Entered: 11/19/2001)
97 Notice of cross-appeal by Federal Express Corp (rp) (Entered: 11/21/2001)
USCA appeal fees received: APPEAL FEE $ 105.00 RECEIPT # 105 9615 (rp) (Entered: 11/21/2001)
Notice of Appellate Action to USCA and counsel re: [97-1] cross appeal by Federal Express Corp Appeal Pkg. mailed consisting of Dkting Statement, Transm. Sheet and Index (rp) (Entered: 11/21/2001)
Notice of Docketing ROA from USCA Re: [97-1] cross appeal by Federal Express Corp USCA NUMBER: 01-2384 Case Manager: Amy Brandon (rp) (Entered: 12/03/2001)
98 Order THE COURT CONSOLIDATES 01-2343 AND 01-2384 FOR PURPOSES OF BRIEFING AND ORAL ARGUMENT signed by Patricia S.

10 of 12

6/4/2007 1:35 PM

CM/ECF - NCED - Docket Report

https://ecf.nced.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?644859498533098-L_3...

12/13/2001 12/18/2001 12/21/2001
01/31/2002 02/04/2002
02/04/2002 02/05/2002
02/06/2002
02/06/2002 02/15/2002 02/15/2002 03/25/2002
10/29/2002 11/19/2002

Connor. (rp) (Entered: 12/03/2001)
Motion(s) submitted: [89-1] motion for attorney fees and costs submitted (rp) (Entered: 12/14/2001)
Certificate to USCA and counsel re: [97-1] cross appeal, [94-1] appeal certifying that the record in this case is complete for purposes of the appeal. Cy. to Judge (rp) (Entered: 12/18/2001)
99 Order THE COURT DISMISSES THIS APPEAL, UPON SUCH TERMS AS HAVE BEEN AGREED TO BY THE PARTIES, PURSUANT TO RULE 42(b) OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE signed by Patricia S. Connor. (rp) (Entered: 12/21/2001)
100 Withdrawal of motion for attorney fees (bb) Modified on 03/18/2002 (Entered: 02/11/2002)
101 Order THE COURT DISMISSES THIS APPEAL, UPON SUCH TERMS AS HAVE BEEN AGREED TO BY THE PARTIES, PURSUANT TO RULE 42(b) OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE signed by Patricia S. Connor. (rp) Modified on 03/18/2002 (Entered: 02/04/2002)
**Remove appeal flag - no further appeals pending (rp) (Entered: 02/04/2002)
102 Order granting in part, denying in part [89-1] motion for attorney fees and costs signed by Chief Judge Boyle. - cys dist.; THIS ORDER VACATED BY ORDER ENTERED AND FILED 3/25/02, DOCKET ENTRY 105 (rp) Modified on 03/25/2002 (Entered: 02/05/2002)
103 Judgment for Federal Express Corp against Sheila A. Zeheri-Carter, EEOC signed by Dep. Clerk Rebecca Bowen. OB Ref: BO-19, p. 209; served; THIS JUDGMENT VACATED BY ORDER OF CHIEF JUDGE BOYLE ENTERED AND FILED 3/25/O2; SEE DOCKET ENTRY #105 (bb) Modified on 03/25/2002 (Entered: 02/06/2002)
Sent memo regarding retrieval of trial exhibits to counsel (bb) (Entered: 02/06/2002)
Per EEOC, they do not want their exhibit back (bb) (Entered: 02/15/2002)
104 Motion by EEOC with memorandum in support to vacate [102-1] judgment order (bb) (Entered: 02/19/2002)
105 Order granting [104-1] motion to vacate [102-1] judgment order granting in part and denhying in part Defendant's Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs, entered Feb. 6, 2002; Defendant's motiont o withdraw its Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs is GRANTED; signed by Chief Judge Boyle. OB Ref: BO-20, p. 101; served (bb) (Entered: 03/25/2002)
Memo to counsel concerning retrieval of sealed documents submitted in this case (bb) (Entered: 10/29/2002)
Returned SEALED Attachment to Document #68 to Kerith Cohen, EEOC atty. for Erania Ebron-Fubara; receipt signed (bb) (Entered: 11/21/2002)

11 of 12

6/4/2007 1:35 PM

CM/ECF - NCED - Docket Report
12/13/2002

https://ecf.nced.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?644859498533098-L_3...
SEALED DOCUMENTS filed by Defendant, returned to defendant's counsel this date; received receipt for documents from counsel (bb) (Entered: 12/27/2002)

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

06/04/2007 14:37:35

PACER Login:

hs0328

Client Code:

Description:

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

Billable Pages: 7

Cost:

eeoc 5:98-cv-00483-BO 0.56

12 of 12

6/4/2007 1:35 PM

 
 -

FILED
United States District Court, fE9 t (!,~C';

Eastern District of North Carolina l
[,AVID W. DANIEL, CLERK

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

EUS!JDISISTT. RN.ICCTA~COOLUlRNTA

Plaintiff,

and SHEILA A. ZEREHI-CARTER, Plaintiff-Intervenor,

v.

Judgment in a Civil Case

Case Number: 5:98-CV-483-BO

FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION, Defendant.

X Decision by Court. This action came to trial or hearing before the Court. The issues have been tried or heard and a decision has been rendered.
IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Defendant Federal Express is allowed to recover costs in the amount of $6,846.69 from the Plaintiffs, but is not entitled to attorneys' fees.
JUDGMENT FILED AND ENTERED THIS 6th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2002, AND COPIES MAILED TO:
Erania Ebron-Fubara, Esq. EEOC 129 W. Trad Street Suite 400 Charlotte, NC 28202
Deborah N. Meyer, Esq. HOLLOWELL, PEACOCK & MEYER P. O. Box 31208 Raleigh, NC 27622-1208
C.Everett Thompson, II, Esq. 208 N. Road Street Elizabeth City, NC 27909

February 6, 2002

DAVID W. DANIEL, CLERK