• Case 1:03-cv-06343-RML

Document 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------------------------x

• FILED Filed 12/18/2003 Page 1 of 5 IN ClERK·S OFFICE US. DISTRICT COURT E.D N.V

'

DEC 18 2003 <Jx,0

* *8ROOKLYN OFFICE

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY: COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,

ev 03 6343

ROCHDALE VILLAGE, INC., Defendant.
-- ----------------------- -- -- -- -- -------- ----------- x

• •

COMPLAINT AND JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

BLOCK, J..

LEvY, M,j,

NATURE OF THE ACTION
This is an action under Title VII ofthc Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I oflhe Civil Rights Act of 1991 to correct unlawful discrimination on the basis of sex and to make whole Jeanine Latimer, Quantasha Hicks, and other similarly situated individuals affectcd by sex discrimination by Rochdale Village, Inc. (and hereinafter referenced as "Rochdale"). These allegations will be described in greater detail in paragraph scven (7), below.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE I. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 451, 1331, 1337, 1343, and 1345. This action is authorized and institutcd pursuant to Sections 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §2000c et!@l. ("Title VII") and

• Case 1:03-cv-06343-RML

Document 1

• Filed 12/18/2003

Page 2 of 5

Section 102 oflhe Civil Rights ActofJ991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981A. 2. The unlawful employment practices alleged below were and arc now being
committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court fol' the Easlem District of New York.
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("the Commission"), is an agency oflhe United States of Amedca charged with the administration, interpretation, and enforcement of Title VII, and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Section 706(f)(I), 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5(f)(l). 4. At all relevant times, Rochdale has continuously been a corporation under the laws of New York, is now doing business in New York, and has continuously had at least flfieen employees. 5. At all relevant times, Rochdale has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry afTecting commerce within the meaning of Section 701(b), (g), and (h) of Title VI!, 42 U,S,C, §2000e-(b),(g), and (h).

STATEMENT OF CLAi.'vlS 6. Morethan thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit Jeanine Latimer filed a charge of discrimination with thc Commission alleging violations of Title VII by Rochdale. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled. 7. Since at least SeptemberJ997, Rochdale has engaged in unlawful employment practices at its Rochdale location in violation of Sections 703(a) and 704 ofTitJe VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2(a) and 2000e-3. The practices include the refusal to select female applicants

• Case 1:03-cv-06343-RML

Document 1

•Filed 12/18/2003

Page 3 of 5

including;, but not limited 10, Jeanine latimer and Quantasha !Iicks, for permanent or long (erm positions as Groundskeepers and Maintenance Workers. In addition Rochdale has refused to permit females to apply for positions us Groundskcepers and Maintenance Workers.
8. The effect of the practices complained of above in paragraph seven (7) has been to deprive Jeanine Latimer, Quanmsha }ftcks, and other similarly situated employees ofequal employment opportunities, and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees because of theif sex, female.
9. The aggrieved employees suffered physical and emotional pain, induding but not limited to mental anguish, humiliation, embarrassment, inconvenience and loss of enjoyment of life as the result of the unlawful employment practices complained of above in paragraph seven (7).
10. The unla\vful cmployment practices complained ofabove in paragraph seven (7) were intentional.
11. The unlawful employmcnt practices complained of above in paragraph seven (7) were done with malice and/or reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Jeanine Latimer, Quantasha Hicks, and other similarly situated employees.
12. Since at least SeptemberJ997 and continuing through at least March 21, 2002 Rochdale failed to keep records required by law, by destroying such records, including but not limited to, employment applications.
PRAYER FOR RE1JEF
Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Rochdale, its officers, successors assigns and all persons in active conceit or participation with it, from engaging in any employment

• Case 1:03-cv-06343-RML

Document 1

•Filed 12/18/2003

Page 4 of 5

practices which discriminate on the basis ofsex. B. Order Rochdale to institute and cany out policies, practices and programs which
provide equal employment opportunities for female employees, and which eradicate the effects of
its past and present unlawful employment practices.
C. Order Rochdale to make whole all those individuals adversely affected by the unlawful employment practices described above, by providing appropriate backpay with prejudgment interest, in amounts to be proved at trial, and other affirmative reliefllccessaryto
eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices, including but not limited to Iightful-
or place reinstatement the aggrieved individuals.
D. Order Rochdale to make whole all those individuals adversely affected by the unlav"ful employment practices described above by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses, including medical expenses in amounlS to be determined at trial,
E, Order Rochdale to make whole all those individuals adversely affected by the unlawful employment practices described above by providing compensation for non-pecuniary losses, including pain and suffering and humiliation in amounts to be determined at trial,
F, Order Rochdale to pay punitive damages to all those individuals adversely affected by the nnlawful employment practices described above for its malicious andlor reckless conduct, in amollnts to be determined at trial.
G. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper. H. Award the Commission its costs in this action.

• Case 1:03-cv-06343-RML

Document 1

•Filed 12/18/2003

Page 5 of 5

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

The Commission requests ajury trial Oil all questions offact raised by its Complaint.

Dated:
New York, New York

Respectfully submitted,

Eric S. Dreiband Gencral Counsel
James L Lee
Deputy General Counsel
Gwendolyn Young Reams
Associate General COllnscl
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
1801 "L" Street, N.W. WashinglonD.C. 20507

lherine E. Bissell (KB 183 I) Regional Attorney
Lisa Sirkin

New York District Office 33 Whitehall 81 5th FL New York NY 10004 (212) 336-3698
(212) 336-3623 (facsimile)

 
 • Case 1:03-cv-06343-RML

Document 3

•Filed 02/10/2004

rPage 1,of.9,,.~!t

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------------------------x

FILED
IN CLERK'S OFFICE U.S. DISTRICT COURT E.D.N.Y.
DEC 18 2003 .ct 6.1 .

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,

-against-

ROCHDALE VILLAGE, INC., Defendant.
---------------------------------------------------------------x
CONSENT DECREE

BLOCK, J.
T'lAJ AA31

Plaintiff, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (hereinafter the "Commission" or "EEOC"), has instituted this action alleging that Defendant Rochdale Village, Inc ("Rochdale") failed to hire Jeanine Latimer, Quantasha Hicks and other women for Maintenance and Groundskeepingjobs because of their sex in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e et seq. (hereinafter "Title VII"). EEOC also alleges that Rochdale failed to maintain employment records required by law. Defendant Rochdale denies that it violated Title VII with respect to the employment of Maintenance and Groundskeeping employees
For purposes of settlement, the parties have advised the Court that they wish to resolve the instant controversy without the expense, delay, and burden of further litigation;
THEREFORE, it is the finding ofthis Court, made on the pleadings and on the record as a whole and upon agreement of the parties, that: (i) this Court has jurisdiction over the parties to and the subject matter of this action, (ii) the requirements of Title VII will be carried

• Case 1:03-cv-06343-RML

Document 3

• Filed 02/10/2004

Page 2 of 9

out by the implementation of this Decree, and (iii) the terms of this Decree constitute a fair and equitable settlement of all issues in this lawsuit.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED as follows: I. General Provisions
1. This Decree, being entered with the consent of the parties for purposes of settlement, shall not constitute an adjudication on the merits of this lawsuit and shall not be construed as an admission by Defendant of any violation of Title VII.
2. Defendant shall neither discriminate against any job applicant nor employee on the basis of sex nor retaliate against any person because she or he has opposed any practices alleged in this action as unlawful under Title VII, has participated in an investigation
,
conducted under Title VII with respect to this complaint, or because she has participated in this lawsuit or has benefitted in any way as a result of this Consent Decree.
II. Relief for Aggrieved Parties 3. Defendant agrees to pay a total ofNINTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($90,000.00) in full settlement of any and all claims for monetary damages covered by the complaint including, but not limited to, claims for punitive damages, backpay, compensatory damages and interest on backpay to the women who are identified through a claims procedure. This payment is to be called the Claims Fund. This payment is to be divided among all eligible claimants based upon a schedule that EEOC will provide Rochdale. Rochdale will prepare and tender the award checks in accordance with the provisions hereafter noted. Within ten (10) days of the Court's approval of this decree, the entire sum shall be placed in an interest-bearing account for the benefit of the claimants qualified for monetary relief.

2

• Case 1:03-cv-06343-RML

Document 3

• Filed 02/10/2004

Page 3 of 9

4. The parties agree that eligible claimants shall be those individuals who

filled out a claims form and are found to have applied or were refused an application for

positions as Groundskeepers and Maintenance Workers from January 1, 1997 and the date of the Courts approval of the claims process in this Decree and were denied employment because of their sex in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
5. The Claims Fund shall be divided among those persons described in paragraph

4 above. Based upon the evidence provided by the qualified claimants, EEOC shall award appropriate monetary relief which may include backpay, pecuniary and non-pecuniary compensatory damages. EEOC shall divide the entire Claims Fund among the claimants, no portion of the fund shall remit to Rochdale. The EEOC shall determine what portion, if any, of an award to a claimant is for backpay and lost benefits (such portion hereinafter referred to as the "Backpay Amount"). The balance of each award will be classified as compensatory damages for emotional distress. Backpay Amounts constitutes "wages" within the meaning of Sections 3121(a), 3306(b) and 3401 (a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and, as such, are subject to

withholding ("Wage Withholding") for federal, state and local income taxes as well as to payment of federal, state and local employment taxes ("Employment Taxes"). Wages Withholding amounts will be deducted from any Backpay Amount and paid from the Claims Fund to the appropriate taxing authorities. Any and all Employment Taxes attributable to a Backpay Amount, including the employer's share, will be paid from the Claims Fund None of

the amounts paid to claimants shall be for punitive damages. Other than the Wage Withholding for Backpay Amount discussed above, Claimants shall be responsible for any federal, state, local

3

• Case 1:03-cv-06343-RML

Document 3

• Filed 02/10/2004

Page 4 of 9

income tax and employee social security taxes that are due on payments made to them from the Claims Fund.
6. Defendant will post a notice, see exhibit E in a method similar to how it recruited for positions as Groundskeepers or Maintenance Workers. That notice would inform women who applied for positions as Groundskeepers or Maintenance Workers from January I, 1997 through the entry of the Decree, that they must contact the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission's New York District Office for a Claims Form. See Exhibit B. Rochdale will also
maintain a supply of claims forms that it will provide to women who request them. All claimants will have 90 days from the date of the notice to submit a claims form. EEOC will have 90 days onc,e the claims submission period ends to make award determinations and notify claimants.
7. Once the EEOC makes the award determination it shall notify each claimant of the award and ofthe faimess hearing. See Exhibit A. Rochdale will issue checks after the Consent Decree is finalized by the Court, subject to the fairness hearing detailed in Exhibit A. The Parties agree that no award shall be issued to any claimant under this Decree until Rochdale receives a release of claims that were subject to this action attached as Exhibit B. In the event that any claimant objects to the EEOC determination, the Court will set a Fairness Hearing to determine their claim. See Exhibit A
8. Upon Defendant's receipt of a fully executed release in the form attached hereto as Exhibit B, Defendant will provide the following:
A. back pay check in the gross amount listed on a back pay schedule, reduced only by any applicable deductions for the employee's portion of FICA and by applicable federal and state income tax withholdings;

4

,.'

• Case 1:03-cv-06343-RML

Document 3

•Filed 02/10/2004

Page 5 of 9

B

check for compensatory damages, and interest on the back pay in the full

amount listed; and

C. statement itemizing the deductions from the back pay check.

9. Defendants shall offer Jeanine Latimer and Quantasha Hicks the next

openings for a groundskeeping or maintenance positions at Rochdale Village Inc. Both above

named individuals must meet any pre-employment or job performance requirements that other

applicants meet.

III. Postings and Policies

10. Rochdale shall post and cause to remain posted copies of the notice

attached hereto as Exhibit D in locations visible to all employees who work for Rochdale for a

period of two (2) years starting from the date of entry of this Decree.

IV. Training II. Within six (6) months of the entry of this Decree, Rochdale shall provide its management employees with no fewer than four (4) hours of training regarding Federal employment discrimination law conducted by an outside agency approved by the Commission. At least one hour of the training shall pertain to the prevention of sex discrimination.

12. After the aforementioned training has been completed, Rochdale shall provide at least two (2) hours of training regarding Federal employment discrimination law to all persons hired or promoted into management positions conducted by an outside agent approved

5

•

• Case 1:03-cv-06343-RML

Document 3

• Filed 02/10/2004

Page 6 of 9

by the Commission. At least one-half hour of each such training shall pertain to the prevention of sex discrimination.

V. Reporting, Record-keeping, and Access 13. Within 48 hours of delivering any check or statement of deductions to an aggrieved person pursuant to Part II of this Decree, Rochdale shall forward a copy of the check or statement to the EEOC's Regional Attomey in its New York District Office. 14. Within 1 month of the entry of this Decree, Rochdale shall prepare and submit to the EEOC's Regional Attorney in its New York District Office a letter indicating as follows: A. that the notices have been posted as required by Part III of this Decree, and
B. that the policy has been issued and distributed as required by Part III of this Decree.
The signed copies of Exhibit D shall be enclosed with the letter. 15. Within 3 months of the date of entry of this Decree and every 6 months
thereafter for the duration of this Decree, Rochdale shall prepare and submit to the EEOC's Regional Attorney in its New York District Office, a report listing the following information with respect to each person who worked in the Maintenance and Groundskeeping job classification at Rochdale during the relevant reporting period:
A. name,
6

• Case 1:03-cv-06343-RML

Document 3

•Filed 02/10/2004

Page 7 of 9

B. sex, C. last known residential phone number, D. last known residential address,

E. date of application if hired after F. date of hire, G. date oftennination, reason and by whom (if applicable), H. date and nature of promotion or transfer to Maintenance and
Groundskeeping jobs. 16. For the first report described in paragraph 15, above, the reporting period

sha.ll begin with the date of entry of this Decree and end with the date seven days prior to the report. For succeeding reports, the reporting period shall begin with the date seven days prior to the last report and end with the date seven days prior to the current report
17. Rochdale shall maintain all documents utilized in preparing the reports described in paragraph 15, above, for a period of one year after the date of expiration of this

Decree. 18. Within 60 days of providing any training pursuant to Part IV of this
Decree, Rochdale shall send to the EEOC's Regional Attorney in its New York District Office a description of the training, the name, address and phone number of the individual or firm that provided the training, and the names, addresses, and phone numbers of all employees who

attended.

19. During the tenn of this Decree Defendant shall allow representatives of the

7

• Case 1:03-cv-06343-RML

Document 3

•Filed 02/10/2004

Page 8 of 9

Commission, upon reasonable advance notice, to review Defendant's compliance with this

Decree by inspecting and photocopying relevant documents and records, interviewing employees and management officials on their premises,· and inspecting their premises.
20. Rochdale will maintain all records of applicants for employment for at least one year from the date the applicant applied.

VI. Term and Effect of Decree

21. Compliance with this Decree resolves all issues between the Commission and Rochdale arising out of the Complaint in this action. Except as provided in this Decree, this Decree in no way affects the Commission's right to process pending and future charges against Rochdale in accordance with Commission procedures, and to commence civil actions under Title VII or any other statute enforced by the Commission The parties have entered into this Decree to avoid the delay, expense, and uncertainty of further litigation with respect to matters resolved

herein, as well as to further the goal of cooperation. 22. This Decree shall be binding upon the parties hereto, their successors and

assigns. Defendants shall affirmatively notify any purchasers of the obligations of this Consent Decree prior to any sale which may take place.

23. This Decree shall be for a period of two years. During the Decree's term the Court shall retain jurisdiction of this case for purposes of compliance.
24. No party shall contest the validity of this Consent Decree nor the

jurisdiction of the Federal District Court to enforce this Consent Decree and its terms or the right of any party to bring an enforcement action upon breach of any term of this decree by any party.

Nothing in this Decree shall be construed to preclude the EEOC from enforcing this Decree in

8

• Case 1:03-cv-06343-RML

Document 3

•Filed 02/10/2004

Page 9 of 9

the event that Rochdale fails to perform the promises and representations contained herein. If the EEOC determines that Rochdale has not complied with the terms of this Consent Decree it shall give Rochdale thirty (30) days from the receipt of'written notice to cure any noncompliance. EEOC will speciry the nature of the noncompliance. If the parties are unable to resolve the dispute, EEOC may seek to enforce the Decree by application to the Court. The Court shall retain jurisdiction over any such proceeding arising from an act, or failure to act, occurring during the duration of this Consent Decree.
25 Each party shall bear that party's own costs.

BY CONSENT:
/R~~~ar41l(lag{e,0Ing~~~
(7

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY CO ISSION:
Ka herine E. Bissell (KB 1831) Regional Attorney EEOC New York District Office 33 Whitehall St, 5th Floor New York, N.Y. 10004 (212) 336- 3698 (212) 336- 3623 (Facsimile)

9

 
 Case 1:03-cv-06343-RML Document 10 Filed 11/17/2004 Page 1 of 3

• ~

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION New York District Office
33 Whitehall Street, 51~ Floor New York, NY 10004·2112

Louis Graziano

Phone: (212) 336·3620

Trial Attorney Phone (212) 336·3698

TTY: (212) 336·3622

Fax (212) 336·3623

November 12, 2004 U. S. District Court Eastern District of New York 225 Cadman Plaza East Brooklyn, New York 11201 Hon. Robert M. Levy
Re: EEOC v. Rochdale Village, Inc. 03 CV 6343 (FB)(RML)
Your Honor:

I write to inform the Court that two weeks have past and no one has objected to redistribution of damages. I would respectfully request that the court issue an Order so that the damages can be distributed. This Order should require that defendant provide me with the interest in the damages account so that I can include that amount in the distribution!. The Order should further require that the defendant issue the check within five (5) days of receipt of the waiver that is attached as exhibit B of the Consent Decree. EEOC has attached a proposed Order for the Court.

My notes of the resolution indicate the following distribution:

Tracey Wright Sandra Swain Jeanine Latimer Quantasha Hicks Monique Alexander Shelia Davis

$ 6,576.92 $ 2,192.30 $44,090.18 $17,790.96 $15,346.15 $ 4,000.00
$89996.51

Respectfully submitted,
Louis Graziano Trial Attorney cc: Kevin McGill, Esq.

IThe $3.49 will also be included with the interest in the final recalculation.

Case 1:03-cv-06343-RML Document 10 Filed 11/17/2004 Page 2 of 3

Fll_EO

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------x

* * IN CLERKS OFFICE ..._ t"r" •.,"1" rf'\ NY: U.S.
NOV 172004
P.M.

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

TIME A.M. - - - - -

COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

Civil Action No. 03 CL 6343 ~) (RML)

-against-

ROCHDALE VILLAGE, INC., Defendant.
---------------------------------------------------------------x

ORDER
WHEREAS this Court has held a hearing regarding the distribution of damages in this case; and
iJ."
Whereas there are no objections to;.Court's final determination on the distribution NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: I. Defendant will provide EEOC an accounting of the interest that has accrued in the account where the Ninety Thousand Dollars and no cents ($90,000.00) damage fund was deposited within two days of the signing of this Order. 2. EEOC will distribute the accrued interest on a pro-rata basis to the claimants as part of the total damage award. 3. Five (5) days after defendant receives the release signed by the claimant,

Case 1:03-cv-06343-RML Document 10 Filed 11/17/2004 Page 3 of 3 •
defendant will issue checks consistent with the instruction in Part II of the Consent Decree. SOORDFRFD , (
ONIlED sTATES DfS'fltlC'f JUDGE
/'-1 /'rei HM7iOo

 
 Case 1:03-cv-06343-RML Document 12 Filed 02/16/2005 Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------------------)( EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYMENT COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
ROCHDALE VILLAGE, INC., Defendant.

* * u.s. ... IN CLCRi<S CrFICE ~- I""\t ,....,. 1"""'" N.V:
FE3 16 2005
P.M. _ _ _ __ TIME A.M. _ _ _ __
ORDER OF DISMISSAL 03-CV-6343 (RML)

LEVY, United States Magistrate Judge:

It having been reporlt:u tu the Court by counsel that the above action has been settled, and all funds distributed,

It is, on this _ _1!,,5!.!.thLL._ _ day of_-!:F.!<eb~ru..l!ary!:!o!.J._ _

Ordered, that this action is hereby dismissed without costs, and without prejudice to the right to reopen the action within 60 days if the settlement is not consummated.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to clost: tilt: case, forthwith.

SO ORDERED.

Dated:

Brooklyn, New York February 1:"-, 2005

ROBERT M. LEVY e::;:::r-
United States Magistrate Judge

 
 Eastern District of New York - Live Database Version 3.0.5 Release - D... https://ecf.nyed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?590198533190599-L_3...

U.S. District Court Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:03-cv-06343-RML

CLOSED

EEOC v. Rochdale Village, Inc. Assigned to: Magistrate-Judge Robert M. Levy Cause: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

Date Filed: 12/18/2003 Date Terminated: 02/16/2005 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff EEOC

represented by Katherine E. Bissell Equal Employment Opportunity Commission NY District Office 33 Whitehall Street 5th Floor New York, NY 10004 Fax: (212) 336-3623 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Louis Graziano EEOC-New York District Office 33 Whitehall Street 5th Flr. New York, NY 10004 212-336-3698 Fax: 212-336-3623 Email: louis.graziano@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Rochdale Village, Inc.

Date Filed 12/18/2003

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT Summons Issued against Rochdale Village, Inc., filed by EEOC.(Joe, Victor) Modified on 12/18/2003 (Joe, Victor). (Entered: 12/18/2003)

1 of 3

6/11/2007 10:37 AM

Eastern District of New York - Live Database Version 3.0.5 Release - D... https://ecf.nyed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?590198533190599-L_3...

01/14/2004 02/05/2004 02/10/2004 02/11/2004
06/04/2004
07/12/2004
10/26/2004 10/26/2004 10/27/2004

2 SCHEDULING ORDER: Initial Conference set for 4/20/2004 03:15 PM in Courtroom 619 before Magistrate-Judge Robert M. Levy. See attached order signed by Judge Robert M. Levy on 1/14/04. (Marino, Janine) (Entered: 01/14/2004)
4 Letter dated 2/3/04 from Louis Graziano, Esq. to USMJ Levy requesting an earlier date for the conference. (Nieves, Adrian) (Entered: 06/22/2004)
3 ORDER/CONSENT Decree. w/attachments . Signed by Judge Frederic Block on 2/3/2004. (Dobkin, David) (Entered: 02/10/2004)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Robert M. Levy : Kevin McGill, Louis Graziano. Following signing of consent decree, parties will advise court at conference on 6/4/04 at 10:30 (telephone) whether further action by the court is necessary, such as, in the event of objections, a fairness hearing. The 4/20/04 conference is adjourned to 6/4.Status Conference held on 2/11/2004. (Levy, Robert) (Entered: 02/11/2004)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Robert M. Levy : All parties present by telephone. The claims period is extended, on consent, through June 30, 2004. Accordingly, the claims review process shall end 90 days thereafter. Next conference: July 12, 2004 at 4:00 (tel) to schedule a fairness hearing. Status Conference held on 6/4/2004. (Vaughn, Terry) (Entered: 06/04/2004)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Robert M. Levy: Louis Graziano, plainitiff; Kevin J. McGill, defendant. The parties anticipate at least one objection and request that a fairness hearing be held. The parties consent to have all dispositive issues resolved by a magistrate judge and will execute a consent form, to be faxed from chambers to Mr. Graziano at (212) 336-3623. The fairness hearing is scheduled for October 27, 2004 at 11:00 in Courtroom 619, 6th floor of the Brooklyn Courthouse at 225 Cadman Plaza East, Brooklyn, NY 11201. Settlement Conference held on 7/12/2004. (Levy, Robert) (Entered: 07/12/2004)
5 ORDER for the Consent To Magistrate Judge . Signed by Judge Robert M. Levy on 7/21/04 & Signed by Judge Block on 7/22/04. (Sica, Michele) (Entered: 10/26/2004)
Case Reassigned to Judge Robert M. Levy. Judge Frederic Block no longer assigned to the case, as per doc. no. 5. (Barrett, C.) (Entered: 11/15/2004)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Robert M. Levy: Fairness Hearing held regarding allocation of proceeds of settlement agreement to the various claimants in this litigation. Lou Graziano, Esq. plaintiff; Kevin McGill, Esq., and Elizabeth Goldsmith (Personnel Director), defendant. Claimants Jeanine Latimer, Quantasha Hicks, Monique Alexander and Sheila Davis appeared and testified at the hearing. An evidentiary hearing was held on the timeliness of Ms. Davis' submissions. As explained in detail on the record, after hearing the evidence the court finds that Ms. Davis is entitled to $4,000. The recovery of each other remaining claimant shall be reduced by 5%, except that an additional $250 will be added to the recovery of Jeanine Latimer and Quantasha Hicks, respectively, because of their efforts in prosecuting this claim over the years and the emotional damages they alleged. All claimants present in the courtroom agree to the above-mentioned revisions of their recovery. However, as the awards to Sandra

2 of 3

6/11/2007 10:37 AM

Eastern District of New York - Live Database Version 3.0.5 Release - D... https://ecf.nyed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?590198533190599-L_3...

11/01/2004 11/05/2004
11/05/2004 11/12/2004 11/17/2004
02/09/2005 02/16/2005

Swain and Tracey Wright will be affected--if ever so slightly--Mr. Graziano will forthwith serve appropriate notice of the revised figures on Ms. Swain and Ms. Wright and advise the court expeditiously of their responses. Thereafter, the Court will enter an appropriate order.Confirmation Hearing held on 10/27/2004. (Tape #94: 0-end; 95: 0-773.) (Levy, Robert) (Entered: 10/27/2004)
6 Court Exhibit 1: Letter dated 3/1/04 from U.S. EEOC to Potential Claimant. This exhibit was presented at the Fairness Hearing held 10/27/04. (Vaughn, Terry) (Entered: 11/01/2004)
7 Letter dated 8/19/2004 from Louis Graziano to U.S.D.C., enclosing a letter from claimant Jeanine Latimer and providing the court with some background and further information re: Ms. Latimer's concerns. (w/o encl.) (Barrett, C.) (Entered: 11/05/2004)
8 Letter, with envelope postmarked 8/19/2004, from Jeanine Latimer, expressing her concern re: Rochdale Village and their common practice. (Barrett, C.) (Entered: 11/05/2004)
9 Letter from louis graziano to Hon. Roberet M. Levy Regarding Order to distribute damages. (Graziano, Louis) (Entered: 11/12/2004)
10 ORDER: This Court has held a hearing regarding the distribution of damages in this case; and Whereas there are no objections to the Court's final determination on the distribution. (See Order for further detail). Signed by Judge Robert M. Levy on 11/12/04. (Black, Amanda) (Entered: 11/17/2004)
11 Letter dated 10/22/04 from Louis Graziano,Esq. to Your Honor, submitting a report on the status of the claims process. (Williams-Jackson, Sandy) (Entered: 02/09/2005)
12 ORDER OF DISMISSAL without costs, and without prejudice to the right to reopen the action within 60 days if the settlement is not consummated. Signed by Judge Robert M. Levy on 2/15/05. (Black, Amanda) (Entered: 02/16/2005)

PACER Login:
Description:
Billable Pages:

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt
06/11/2007 11:37:03

hs0328

Client Code: eeoc

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

1:03-cv-06343-RML

2

Cost:

0.16

3 of 3

6/11/2007 10:37 AM

 
 EEOC LITIGATION SETTLEMENT REPORT - FEBRUARY 2004

http://www.eeoc.gov/litigation/settlements/settlement02-04.html

EEOC v. Rochdale Village No. CV-03-6343 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 3, 2004)
The New York District Office filed this Title VII gender discrimination suit, alleging that defendant, a housing complex, refused to select female applicants for permanent or long-term positions as groundskeepers and maintenance workers because of their sex. In addition, defendant failed to maintain employment records as required by law.
The case settled pursuant to a two-year consent decree that requires defendant to pay a total of $90,000 into a Claims Fund to be divided among individuals who applied or were refused an application for groundskeeper and maintenance worker positions. In addition, defendant will offer the two charging parties the next openings for groundskeeping or maintenance positions at the Rochdale Village site so long as they meet any pre-employment or job performance requirements. Defendant is prohibited from discriminating against any applicant or employee on the basis of sex and from retaliation. Further, defendant will provide at least four hours of training regarding federal employment discrimination law for its management employees and at least one hour of training shall be dedicated to the prevention of sex discrimination. Thereafter, defendant shall provide at least two hours of EEO training by an EEOC-approved outside instructor to all persons hired or promoted into management positions. Defendant will submit periodic reports to EEOC providing the name, gender, date of application, contact information, and hiring, promotion, and termination data for each person working in the maintenance and groundskeeping job classification at Rochdale during the reporting period. Additionally, defendant must maintain all records of applicants for employment for at least one year from the date of application.

1 of 1

6/11/2007 10:39 AM