WILLIAM R. T AMA YO, SBN 084965
DAVID F. OFFEN -B ROWN. SBN 0633 2 1 2 ELI ZABETH ESPARZA -CERVANTES, SBN 205412
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMEh'T OPPORTUN ITY COMMISSION
3 San Francisco District Office
350 The Embarcadero, Suite 500
4 San Francisco, CA 94105- 1260 Telephone No. (415) 625-5658
5 Fax No. (4 15) 625 -5657

6 Attorneys for Plaintiff

7

UNITED STATES DISTruCT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTER]" DISTRICT OF CALlFOR.t""i IA

9

SACRAMENTO DIVISION

10 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

C IVI L ACTION NO.

OPPORTUNIIT COMMISSION.
11

Plaintiff,

12

v.

COt'llPLAI"'T- C IVIL RIGHTS EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION

(42 U.S.c. §§ 20~, etseq. ) 13 PARAGARY'S MANAGEMENT GROUP

dIbIa Paragary's Bill" and Oven, Blue Clue,
14 Cafe Bernardo, Centro Cocina. Esquire

Grill, KBar, Monkey Bill", Spataro; 15 PARAMOOR, INC. dIbIa Paragary's

Management Group, Paragary'S Bar and 16 Oven, Blue Clue, Cafe Bernardo, Cenlro

Cocina, Esquire Grill, KBar, Monkey Bar, 17 Paragary's Bar and Oven, Spataro; and
PDK PARTNERSHIP. l8

J URY TRIAL DEMAND

Defendants. 19

20

NATURE OFTHE ACTION

21

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

22 Rights Act of 1991 10 correct unlawful employment practices on the basis ofscx and to provide

23 appropriate relief to Charging Party Leticia Fernandez and other similarly situated individuals (the

24 claimants) who were adversely affetted by such practices. As alleged below, defendants

25 PARAGARY'S MANAGEMEh'T GROUP, PARAMOOR, INC., and PD K PARTNERSHIP

26 subjetted the claimants to a hostile work environment based on their sex, female and disparate

27 treatment based on their sex and national origin, Mexican female.

28 If!

1

J URISDICTION AND VENUE

2

L Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuanllQ 28 U.S.c. §§45\, 1331, 1337, 1343,

3 and \345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to §706(f) (1) and (3) nfTitlc VII of the

4 Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended (Title VII). 42 USc. §2000e-5(f) (I) and (3), and §l02 afme

5 Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.c. §1981a.

6

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

7 in Sacramento County, California, within the jurisdiction of the United States District Coun for the

8 Eastern District of Califomia's Sacramento Division.

9

PARTIES

10

3. Plaintiff, tbe Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). is the agency of

11 the United States of America charged wim the administration, interpretation, and enforcement of

12 Title VII and is expressly authorized to bring this action by §706(1) (1) and (3) ofTille VII, 42

I3 U.S.c. §2000e-5(f) (I) and (3).

14

4. AI all relevant limes, Defendants are and were corporations doing business in the

15 State of Cali fomia, and have continuously had at least 15 employees.

16

s.

At all relevant times, Defendants have continuously been employers engaged in an

17 industry affecting commerce, within the meaning of §701(b), (g), and (b) of Title VII, 42 U.s.C. §

IS 2000e (b), (S), and (b).

19

6. All of the acts and failures to act alleged herein were duly performed by and

20 attributable to all Defendants, eacb acting as a successor, agent, employee or under the direction and

21 control of the olbers, except as otherwise, specifically allcSed. Said acts and failures to act were

22 within the scope of such agency and/or employment, and each Defendanl participated in, approved

23 and/or ratified the unlawful acts and omissions by other Defendants complained ofhere:in.

24 Whenever and wherever reference is made in this Complaint 10 any act by a Defendant or

2S Defendants, such allegations and reference shall also be deemed 10 mean the acts and failures to act

26 of eacb Defendant acting individua1!y, jointly, and/or sever.tlly.

27

STATF.MEJ'Io'T O F C LAIMS

28

7. More than thirty days prior to the institution oftbis lawsuit, Leticia Fernandez filed a

2.

I charge of discrimination with the EEOC alleging violar.ions ofTitle VII by Defendants. All

2 conditions prccal.ent to the institution of this lawsuit ha,'c been fulfilled.

J

8. Since at le&1 Mayof200I , Defendants ha,'c mgaged in unlawful practices al their

4 Sacramento County business in violation of §70J <aJ (1) ofTitle VII, 42 V.S.c. §2000e-2 <a) (I).

5 These practices, which continued on a regular basis, included subjec::ting the daimants \0 harassment

6 on the basis of their sell , female, which created an offensive, abusive, intimidating, and hostile work

7 environment. The harassment included both vernal and physical acts, The claimants were also

8 subjected to sex and national origin discrimination based on their sex. female, and national origin,

9 Mexican. lnc discrimination included but was nOllimited providing different Imns and COIiditions

10 of employment to Mexican females such as requiring them 10 do Ihe WOOt or non-Mexican female

11 employees, and denying Mexican females breaks and requested leave.

12

,.

The effect of the pm;tices complained of in paragraph 8 above has been 10 deprive

13 thc claimants of equal cmployment opportuni ties and to othcrwisc adversely affect them because of

14 their sex, femalc or their national origin, Mexican.

l'

10. Thc unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 8 a/)Q\'C were and arc

16 intentional.

17

11. The unlawful emplo)ment practices complained of in paragraph 8 a/)Q\'C were donc

18 with malicc and/or reckless disregard for thc federally protected rights ofthc claimants.

I'

PRAYER fOR RELIEf

20

WHEREfORE, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court:

21

A. Grant a pennancnt injunction enjoining Dcfendants, thcir officers, successors,

22 assigns, and all persons in active concen or participation with them, from engagiog in harassment

2l based on sex and any othCf employment practice which discriminates on the basis of sex.

24

B. Order Defrndants to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which

" provide equal employment opportunities for their employees and which endicatc the cffects of their
26 past and prescnt unlawful employment practices.

27

c. Order Dcfendants to make wholc the claimants by providing appropriatc backpay

18 with prejudgment interest, in amounlS to be dctennined at trial, and other affinnative reliefnccessary
J.

1 10 eradicate the dfe<:ts orils unlawful employment practices, induding but not limited to front pay.

2

O. Order DefendanllO make whole the claimants by providing for past and future

3 pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described above, with interest, in

• amounts to be determined at triaL

5

E. Order Defendants 10 make whole lhe claimants by providing compensation for past

6 and future nonpecuniary losses caused by the above unlawful conduct, including pain and suffering,

,7 emotional distress, indignity, loss of enjoyment of life, loss ofself-esteem, and humili ation, in amounts 10 be detennined at triaL
• III
10 III

11 III

12 III

13 III
I. III
15 III 16 III
17 11/
I' III
I. III
20 11/ 21 III 22 III 23 11/ 24 III 25 III 26 III 27 III
28 III
4.

I

E. Order Defendants 10 pay the claimants punitive damages for their malicious and

2 reckless conduct described above, ill amounts to be detennined at trial.

3

F. Granl such funher relief as the Coun deems proper.

4

G. Award the EEOC its costs in this action.

5

JURYTRJAI. DEMAND

6

The EEOC requests ajury trial on all questions of fact raised by its complaint.

7

Respectfully submined.

8

JAMES LEE

Deputy Qencnl.i Counsel

9

U. S.

EMPLOYMEl\'T

iO

II

12 September 29, 2005
il

14

15

i6

17

18

i9

20

U. S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

21

San Francisco District Office

350 The Embarcadero, Suite 500

22

San Francisco, California 94\05-1260

l3

Attorneys for PlainliffU.S. Equal Employment

Opponunily Commission

24

25

26

27

28
5.

 
 1 WILLIAM R. TAMAYO, SBN 084965 DAVID F. OFFEN-BROWN, SBN 063321
2 ELIZABETH ESPARZA-CERVANTES, SBN 205412 U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
3 San Francisco District Office
350 The Embarcadero, Suite 500 4 San Francisco, CA 94105-1260
Telephone No. (415) 625-5658 5 Fax No. (415) 625-5657

6 Attorneys for Plaintiff

7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SACRAMENTO DIVISION

10 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
11

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:05-CV-01983-LKK-DAD

Plaintiff,

12

v.

-FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT CIVIL RIGHTS EMPLOYMENT

DISCRIMINATION 13 PARAGARY'S MANAGEMENT GROUP (42 U.S.e. §§ 2000e, et seq.)

14

d/b/a Paragary's Bar and Oven, Blue Clue, Cafe Bernardo, Centro Cocina, Esquire

15

Grill, KBar, Monkey Bar, Spataro; PARAMOOR, INC. d/b/a Paragary's

16

Management Group, Paragary's Bar and Oven, Blue Clue, Cafe Bernardo, Centro

17

Cocina, Esquire Grill, KBar, Monkey Bar, Paragary's Bar and Oven, Spataro; PDK

18 PARTNERSHIP; and PK PARTNERSHIP.

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

Defendants. 19

20 As no pleading has been filed responding to the complaint initiating this lawsuit, the EEOC

21 hereby files its First Amended Complaint as permitted by Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 (a).

22

NATURE OF THE ACTION

23

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

24 Rights Act of 1991 to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of sex and to provide

25 appropriate relief to Charging Party Leticia Fernandez and other similarly situated individuals (the 26 claimants) who were adversely affected by such practices. As alleged below, defendants 27 PARAGARY'S MANAGEMENT GROUP, PARAMOOR, INC., PDK PARNTERSHIP and PK

28 PARTNERSHIPsubjectethdeclaimantos ahostileworkenvironmebnat seodntheirsex, female

u -- - u

-- -- - .o -- u

- - - --.o-

.o--

.o--

--_u

--

1 and disparatetreatment based on their sex and national origin, Mexican female.

2

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3

1. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§451, 1331, 1337, 1343,

4 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to §706(t) (1) and (3) of Title VII ofthe

5 Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended (Title VII), 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5(t) (1) and (3), and §102 of the

6 Civil Rights Act of 1991,42 U.S.C. §1981a.

7

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

8 in Sacramento County, California, within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the

9 Eastern District of California's Sacramento Division.

10

PARTIES

11

3. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), is the agency of

12 the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation, and enforcement of

13 Title VII and is expressly authorized to bring this action by §706(t) (1) and (3) of Title VII, 42

14 U.S.C. §2000e-5(t) (1) and (3).

15

4. At all relevant times, Defendants are and were corporations doing business in the

16 State of California, and have continuously had at least 15 employees.

17

5. At all relevant times, Defendants have continuously been employers engaged in an

18 industry affecting commerce, within the meaning of §701(b), (g), and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §

19 2000e (b), (g), and (h).

20

6. All of the acts and failures to act alleged herein were duly performed by and

21 attributable to all Defendants, each acting as a successor, agent, employee or under the direction and 22 control of the others, except as otherwise, specifically alleged. Said acts and failures to act were 23 within the scope of such agency and/or employment, and each Defendant participated in, approved

24 and/or ratified the unlawful acts and omissions by other Defendants complained of herein. 25 Whenever and wherever reference is made in this Complaint to any act by a Defendant or 26 Defendants, such allegations and reference shall also be deemed to mean the acts and failures to act 27 of each Defendant acting individually, jointly, and/or severally.

28 III 2.

-- - ---

1

STATEMENT OF CLAIMS

2

7. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Leticia Fernandez filed a

3 charge of discrimination with the EEOC alleging violations of Title VII by Defendants. All

4 conditions precedent to the institution ofthis lawsuit have been fulfilled.

5

8. Since at least May of 2001, Defendants have engaged in unlawful practices at their

6 Sacramento County business in violation of §703 (a) (1) of Title VII, 42 V.S.C. §2000e-2 (a) (1).

7 These practices, which continued on a regular basis, included subjecting the claimants to harassment

8 on the basis of their sex, female, which created an offensive, abusive, intimidating, and hostile work

9 environment. The harassment included both verbal and physical acts. The claimants were also

10 subjected to sex and national origin discrimination based on their sex, female, and national origin,

11 Mexican. The discrimination included but was not limited providing different terms and conditions

12 of employment to Mexican females such as requiring them to do the work of non-Mexican female

13 employees, and denying Mexican females breaks and requested leave.

14

9. The effect of the practices complained of in paragraph 8 above has been to deprive

15 the ~laimants of equal employment opportunities and to otherwise adversely affect them because of

16 their sex, female or their national origin, Mexican.

17

10. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 8 above were and are

18 intentional.

19

11. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 8 above were done

20 with malice and/or reckless disregard for the federally protected rights of the claimants.

21

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

22

WHEREFORE, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court:

23

A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendants, their officers, successors,

24 assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with them, from engaging in harassment

25 based on sex and any other employment practice which discriminates on the basis of sex.

26

B. Order Defendants to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which

27 provide equal employment opportunities for their employees and which eradicate the effects of their

28 past and present unlawful employment practices. 3.

1

c. Order Defendants to make whole the claimants by providing appropriate backpay

2 with prejudgment interest, in amounts to be determined at trial, and other affirmative relief necessary

3 to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices, including but not limited to front pay.

4

D. Order Defendant to make whole the claimants by providing for past and future

5 pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described above, with interest, in

6 amounts to be determined at trial.

7

E. Order Defendants to make whole the claimants by providing compensation for past

8 and future nonpecuniary losses caused by the above unlawful conduct, including pain and suffering,

9 emotional distress, indignity, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of self-esteem, and humiliation, in

10 amounts to be determined at trial.

11 III

12 III

13 III

14 III

15 III

16 III

17 III

18 III

19 III

20 III

21 III

22 III

23 III

24 III

25 III

26 III

27 III

28 III 4.

1

F. Order Defendants to pay the claimants punitive damages for their malicious and

2 reckless conduct described above, in amounts to be determined at trial.

3

G. Grant such further relief as the Court deems proper.

4

H. Award the EEOC its costs in this action.

5

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

6

The EEOC requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its complaint.

7

Respectfully submitted,

8 9 10 11 12 November 1'7 , 2005

JAMES LEE Deputy General Counsel
U. S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 1801 L Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20~
/

13

YO

14

15

16

17

18

19

Attorneys for Plaintiff U.S. Equal Employment

20

Opportunity Commission

21

U. S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

22

San Francisco District Office

350 The Embarcadero, Suite 500

23

San Francisco, California 94105-1260

24

25

26

27

28 5.

 
 1 WILLIAM R. TAMAYO -- #084965 (CA) JONATHAN T. PECK -- #12303 (VA)
2 CINDY O'HARA -- #114555 (CA) EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
3 COMMISSION San Francisco District Office
4 350 The Embarcadero, Suite 500 San Francisco, California 94105
5 Telephone: (415) 625-5653 Facsimile: (415) 625-5657
6 Attorneys for Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
7

8

9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11

12 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY ) Case No. 2:05-CV-01983-MCE-DAD

COMMISSION,

)

13

) CONSENT DECREE

Plaintiff,

)

14

)

v.

)

15

)

PARAGARY’S MANAGEMENT GROUP )

16 d/b/a Paragary’s Bar and Oven, Blue Clue, )

Cafe Bernardo, Centro Cocina, Esquire )

17 Grill, KBar, Monkey Bar, Spataro;

)

PARAMOOR, INC. d/b/a Paragary’s

)

18 Management Group, Paragary’s Bar and )

Oven, Blue Clue, Cafe Bernardo, Centro )

19 Cocina, Esquire Grill, KBar, Monkey Bar, )

Paragary’s Bar and Oven, Spataro; PDK )

20 PARTNERSHIP; and PK Partnership.

)

)

21

Defendants.

)

_______________________________________ )

22

Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“Commission”) filed this

23

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

24

1991 to correct alleged unlawful employment practices on the basis of discrimination

25

based on sex, and to provide appropriate relief to Leticia Fernandez and similarly

26

situated women, whom the Commission alleged were adversely affected by such

27

practices.

28

CONSENT DECREE

Page 1

1 The Commission alleged that Defendant Paramoor, Inc. (“Paramoor”) subjected Ms.

2 Fernandez and similarly situated women to unlawful harassment based on their sex, in

3 violation of Title VII. Defendant denies the above allegations and claims. The

4 Commission and Defendant Paramoor now seek to resolve this action as to each other

5 and as between Paramoor and Leticia Fernandez (“Fernandez”) and Juana Jimenez

6 (“Jimenez”) without further contested litigation through the instant Consent Decree.

7 This resolution does not constitute an admission of liability on the part of Paramoor,

8 nor constitute a finding on the allegations stated in the Commission’s Complaint.

9

The Court has reviewed this Consent Decree in light of the pleadings, the record

10 herein, and the applicable law, and now approves this Consent Decree.

11

THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED:

12 GENERAL PROVISIONS

13

1. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties to this

14 action. This Court retains jurisdiction over this Consent Decree during its term.

15

2. This Consent Decree constitutes a full and final resolution of the

16 Commission’s claims against all named Defendants in this action.

17

3. This Consent Decree will become effective upon its entry by the Court.

18

4. This Consent Decree is final and binding upon the parties to it, their

19 successors and assigns.

20

5. The Commission and Paramoor will each bear its own costs and attorneys

21 fees in this action.

22 GENERAL INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

23

6. Paramoor and its current officers, agents, employees, and all persons in

24 active concert or participation with them is enjoined from discriminating based on sex

25 or permitting the existence of a work environment that is hostile to employees based on

26 their sex as prohibited under Title VII.

27 ///

28 ///

CONSENT DECREE

Page 2

1

7. Paramoor and its current officers, agents, employees, and all persons in

2 active concert or participation with them is enjoined from engaging in, implementing or

3 permitting any action, policy or practice which retaliates against Fernandez or Jimenez,

4 or any other employee or former employee, for having testified or participated in any

5 manner in the Commission’s investigation and the proceedings in this case.

6 SPECIAL INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

7

Non-Discrimination Policies and Complaint Procedures

8

8. Within thirty (30) days of the entry of this Consent Decree, Paramoor will

9 issue a written anti-harassment policy, in English and Spanish. Said policy will

10 incorporate the following policy statement:

11

Paramoor, Inc. is firmly committed to creating and maintaining a

workplace free of unlawful discriminatory harassment; to swiftly and

12

firmly respond to any acts of harassment of which the company becomes

aware; to implementing a disciplinary system that is designed to strongly

13

deter future acts of unlawful harassment or retaliation; and to actively

monitor its workplace in order to ensure tolerance, respect and dignity for

14

all employees. Paramoor encourages its employees to come forward with

complaints of unlawful discrimination or harassment, and will not

15

retaliate against individuals who report harassment in the workplace.

16

9. In order to accomplish the objectives reflected in the policy statement

17 referenced in Paragraph 8 of this Decree, Paramoor will make sure that its written anti-

18 harassment policy (a) includes definitions of discriminatory harassment, with specific

19 reference to harassment based on sex; (b) includes examples to supplement the

20 definitions of harassment based on sex; (c) provides for substantial discipline and/or

21 corrective action for incidents of discriminatory harassment; (d) includes strong non-

22 retaliation language, (e) provides for substantial discipline for incidents of retaliation; (f)

23 provides that complaints of harassment and/or retaliation will be accepted irrespective

24 of whether they are made verbally or in writing; (g) explains that Defendant will

25 conduct a prompt and thorough investigation after a complaint is made or received

26 and, where appropriate, will take remedial action upon conclusion of an investigation;

27 ///

28 ///

CONSENT DECREE

Page 3

1 and (h) indicates that, promptly upon the conclusion of the investigation of a complaint,

2 Defendant will communicate to the complaining party the results of the investigation

3 and a description of the remedial actions taken or proposed, if any.

4

10. The above-referenced written anti-harassment policy will contain a

5 complaint procedure that will encourage employees to come forward with complaints

6 about violations of the harassment policy. As part of the policy, Defendant will provide

7 its employees with convenient, confidential and reliable mechanisms for reporting

8 incidents of harassment. Defendant’s anti-harassment policy will notify employees that

9 they may lodge a complaint with their immediate supervisor, with any other member of

10 management or with Human Resources Representative Laura Herman. The complaint

11 procedure will provide a method for employees to make complaints in Spanish.

12 Paramoor’s written complaint procedure will be posted, in Spanish and English, in a

13 prominent place accessible to all employees.

14

11. Within ten (10) days of the completion of its revised anti-harassment

15 policy, Paramoor will distribute it to all workers, and will provide copies to all new and

16 returning workers as they enter or re-enter the workforce.

17

Training

18

12. Paramoor will use an outside consultant, paid for by Paramoor, to train all

19 employees, once within every twelve (12) months period during the term of this decree

20 (three trainings total), concerning sex discrimination, including the legal prohibitions on

21 harassment. Said trainings will be of no less than two hours in length per training, and

22 will be introduced by a member of upper management for Paramoor. Said trainings

23 will be conducted in both Spanish and English.

24

13. In addition to the training referenced in Paragraph 12, Paramoor will

25 provide at least two hours additional training to Laura Herman on what to do when she

26 or a member of Paramoor management or supervisory staff receives a complaint of

27 sexual harassment, how to investigate such complaints, and the steps to take once the

28 investigation is completed.

CONSENT DECREE

Page 4

1

Record Keeping and Reports

2

14. Within ten (10) days of the completion of the revision of its anti-

3 harassment policy, Paramoor will send a copy of said policy to counsel for the

4 Commission.

5

15. Within thirty (30) days after completing each training session described in

6 Paragraph 12 and 13, Paramoor will mail to counsel for the Commission a report

7 containing the date of training, the name and position of the individual from upper

8 management who introduced the training, an outline of the training content, a list of all

9 attendees, and copies of all materials distributed at the training.

10

16. Once every six (6) months, to be measured beginning at the date of entry

11 of this Consent Decree and continuing for the duration of this Consent Decree,

12 Paramoor will notify the counsel for the Commission whether it has received any

13 complaints of sexual harassment from its employees (whether said complaints were

14 filed with an administrative agency or simply raised to a management official at the

15 workplace), what steps were taken in response to any such complaint, and how the

16 situation was resolved.

17

Reference Letter and Referrals

18

17. Paramoor will prepare individual letters of reference for Leticia Fernandez

19 and Juana Jimenez. Each letter will state their dates of employment, job title, wage rate,

20 and that their employment with Paramoor ceased with the closure of the Gold River

21 Paragary’s Bar and Oven. The letter will further state that any inquiries regarding their

22 employment or requests for confirmation thereof should be directed to Paramoor

23 Human Resources Representative Laura Herman, giving Ms. Herman’s contact

24 information. Paramoor further agrees that Ms. Herman, if contacted, will not reference

25 Ms. Fernandez and Ms. Jimenez’s harassment complaints, and will not provide negative

26 references.

27 ///

28 ///

CONSENT DECREE

Page 5

1 MONETARY RELIEF

2

18. Paramoor will pay the sum of $60,000.00 as damages and in complete

3 satisfaction of the Commission’s claims against Paramoor as set forth in its Complaint.

4 This sum will be allocated by the Commission, at its sole discretion, among Ms.

5 Fernandez and Ms. Jimenez. This sum will be paid by check made out directly to each

6 individual designated by the Commission, at addresses to be provided to Paramoor

7 counsel by counsel for Plaintiff Commission. Said checks will be sent by Paramoor

8 within ten (10) days of transmission of the names and addresses of the individuals to

9 whom the sum is being allocated and the amount of allocation to each individual, with a

10 copy of the checks and any transmittal letter to Cindy O’Hara as counsel for the

11 Commission.

12 EXPIRATION OF CONSENT DECREE

13

19. This Consent Decree constitutes a full and final resolution of all the

14 Commission’s claims against Paramoor in this action. This Consent Decree will be in

15 effect for three years, and will expire at midnight of the date three years after its entry by

16 the Court, provided that Paramoor has substantially complied with the terms of this

17 Consent Decree. Paramoor will be deemed to have complied substantially if the Court

18 has not made any findings or orders during the term of the Decree that Paramoor has

19 failed to comply with any of the terms of this Decree.

20 ///

21 ///

22 ///

23 ///

24 ///

25 ///

26 ///

27 ///

28 ///

CONSENT DECREE

Page 6

1

E-filing concurrence: I, Cindy O’Hara, attorney for Plaintiff Commission, attest

2 that I have obtained the concurrence of Alden Parker, attorney for Defendant Paramoor,

3 for the lodging of this Consent Decree.

4 5 On Behalf of Plaintiff Commission:

On Behalf of Defendant:

6 Dated: April 15, 2009
7 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
8 COMMISSION
9 /S/ William Tamayo
10 WILLIAM TAMAYO, Regional Attorney

Dated: April 15, 2009
BARHAM PARKER
/S/ Alden Parker ALDEN PARKER Attorneys for Defendant Paramoor

11 /S/ Jonathan Peck
12 JONATHAN PECK, Supervisory Trial Attorney
13
14 /S/ Cindy O’Hara CINDY O’HARA, Senior Trial Attorney
15

16
17 It is so ordered.
18

ORDER

19 Dated: April 28, 2009 20 21 22

________________________________ MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

23

24

25

26

27

28

CONSENT DECREE

Page 7

 
 Case: 2:05-cv-1983 As of: 10/30/2016 04:12 PM PDT 1 of 5
CIVIL,CLOSED
U.S. District Court Eastern District of California − Live System (Sacramento) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:05−cv−01983−MCE−DAD

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Paragary's Management Group, et al. Assigned to: Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr Referred to: Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd Cause: 28:451 Employment Discrimination
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 09/29/2005 Date Terminated: 04/29/2009 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by Cindy S. O'Hara Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Phillip Burton Federal Building, 5 West 450 Golden Gate Avenue, POB 36025 San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 522−3035 Fax: (415) 522−3425 Email: cindy.ohara@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Forgan Offen−Brown U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Phillip Burton Federal Building, 5 West 450 Golden Gate Avenue, POB 36025 San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 522−3104 Fax: (415) 522−3425 Email: david.offen−brown@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Evangelina Patricia Hernandez U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 350 The Embarcadero Ste 500 San Francisco, CA 94105 (415) 625−5622 Fax: (415) 625−5657 Email: Evangelina.Hernandez@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elizabeth Esparza−Cervantes US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 350 The Embarcadero Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94105 (415) 625−5658 Fax: (415) 625−5657 Email: elizabeth.esparza−cervantes@eeoc.gov TERMINATED: 09/21/2007

V. Defendant

Case: 2:05-cv-1983 As of: 10/30/2016 04:12 PM PDT 2 of 5

Paragary's Management Group, et al. Doing business as Paragary's Bar and Oven Doing business as Blue Clue Doing business as Cafe Bernardo Doing business as Centro Cocina Doing business as Esquire Grill Doing business as KBar Doing business as Monkey Bar Doing business as Spataro

Defendant
Paramoor, Inc Paragary's Bar and Oven Doing business as Paragary's Management Group Doing business as Blue Clue Doing business as Cafe Bernardo Doing business as Centro Cocina Doing business as Esquire Grill Doing business as KBar Doing business as Monkey Bar Doing business as Spataro

represented by Alden John Parker Fisher & Phillips, LLP 621 Capitol Mall Suite 1400 Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 210−0400 Fax: (916) 210−0401 Email: aparker@fisherphillips.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael J. Christian Jackson Lewis P.C. 400 Capitol Mall Suite1600 Sacramento, CA 95814 916−341−0404 Fax: 916−341−0141 Email: christim@jacksonlewis.com TERMINATED: 05/03/2006

Defendant PDK Partnership

Defendant PK Partnership

Date Filed 09/29/2005
09/29/2005
09/29/2005

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against Paragary's Management Group, et al., filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Offen−Brown, David) No filing fee required − Govt pltf. Modified on 9/30/2005 (Sherman, T). (Entered: 09/29/2005)
2 SUMMONS ISSUED as to *Paragary's Management Group, et al.* with answer to complaint due within *20* days. Attorney *David Forgan Offen−Brown* *US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission* *350 The Embarcadero, Suite 500* *San Francisco, CA 94105−1260*. (Sherman, T) (Entered: 09/30/2005)
3 CIVIL NEW CASE DOCUMENTS ISSUED; Initial Scheduling Conference set for 12/5/2005 at 3:30 PM in Courtroom 4 (LKK) before Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton. (Attachments: # 1 Consent Forms # 2 VDRP Forms) (Sherman, T) (Entered: 09/30/2005)

Case: 2:05-cv-1983 As of: 10/30/2016 04:12 PM PDT 3 of 5

10/03/2005
11/17/2005 11/17/2005 11/17/2005 11/21/2005 11/22/2005
11/28/2005 11/28/2005 11/28/2005
11/28/2005
12/02/2005 12/02/2005 12/12/2005 12/15/2005
12/15/2005 04/26/2006 04/28/2006 05/03/2006

4 SUMMONS ISSUED as to *Paramoor, Inc, PDK Partnership* with answer to complaint due within *20* days. Attorney *William R. Tamayo* *US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission* *350 The Embarcadero, Suite 500* *San Francisco, CA 94105−1260*. (Sherman, T) (Entered: 10/03/2005)
5 First AMENDED COMPLAINT against PK Partnership, Paramoor, Inc, PDK Partnership, Paragary's Management Group, et al., filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.(Esparza−Cervantes, Elizabeth) (Entered: 11/17/2005)
6 CIVIL COVER SHEET by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Esparza−Cervantes, Elizabeth) (Entered: 11/17/2005)
7 DECLINE to PROCEED BEFORE US MAGISTRATE JUDGE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Esparza−Cervantes, Elizabeth) (Entered: 11/17/2005)
8 STIPULATION and PROPOSED ORDER : STATUS (PRETRIAL SCHEDULING) CONFERENCE REPORT by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Esparza−Cervantes, Elizabeth) (Entered: 11/21/2005)
9 SUMMONS ISSUED as to *PK Partnership* with answer to complaint due within *20* days. Attorney *Elizabeth Esparza−Cervantes* *US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission* *350 The Embarcadero, Ste 500* *San Francisco, CA 94105−1260*. (Duong, D) (Entered: 11/22/2005)
10 SUMMONS RETURNED EXECUTED by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Paramoor, Inc served on 11/2/2005, answer due 11/22/2005. (Esparza−Cervantes, Elizabeth) (Entered: 11/28/2005)
11 SUMMONS RETURNED EXECUTED by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1New Case Opening Documents)(Esparza−Cervantes, Elizabeth) Modified on 11/30/2005 (Duong, D). (Entered: 11/28/2005)
12 CERTIFICATE of SERVICE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 3 Civil New Case Documents for LKK, 4 Summons,, 1 Complaint , Notice and Acknowledgment of Receipt (Esparza−Cervantes, Elizabeth) Modified on 11/30/2005 (Duong, D). (Entered: 11/28/2005)
13 CERTIFICATE of SERVICE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 2 Summons,, 3 Civil New Case Documents for LKK, 1 Complaint , and Notice and Acknowledgment of Receipt (Attachments: # 1 Notice and Acknowledgment of Receipt (California Service Waiver), used Per Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (h) (1))(Esparza−Cervantes, Elizabeth) (Entered: 11/28/2005)
14 ORDER of RECUSAL: Judge Lawrence K. Karlton recused himself and the case is now reassigned to Judge Frank C. Damrell, Jr for all further proceedings. Signed by Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 12/2/05. (Duong, D) (Entered: 12/02/2005)
15 CIVIL NEW CASE DOCUMENTS ISSUED; (Attachments: # 1 VDRP Forms) (Duong, D) (Entered: 12/02/2005)
16 ANSWER to COMPLAINT by Paramoor, Inc.(Parker, Alden) (Entered: 12/12/2005)
17 ORDER of RECUSAL. Judge Frank C. Damrell, Jr recuses as the judge to whom this case is assigned. Case reassigned to Judge Morrison C. England, Jr for all further proceedings signed by Judge David F. Levi on 12/13/2005. (Reader, L) (Entered: 12/15/2005)
18 CIVIL SCHEDULING ORDR DOCUMENTS ISSUED for MCE; (Reader, L) (Entered: 12/15/2005)
19 STIPULATION Substitution of Attorney by Paramoor, Inc. (Christian, Michael) (Entered: 04/26/2006)
20 PROPOSED ORDER Substitution of Attorney re 19 Stipulation by Paramoor, Inc. (Christian, Michael) (Entered: 04/28/2006)
21 ORDER signed by Judge Morrison C. England Jr. on 5/3/06 GRANTING Substitution of Attorney. Basham Parker LLP added and Jackson Lewis LLP terminated as attorney of record for Defendant Paramoor Inc. (Donati, J) (Entered: 05/03/2006)

Case: 2:05-cv-1983 As of: 10/30/2016 04:12 PM PDT 4 of 5

12/12/2006 07/03/2007 09/21/2007 09/30/2008
12/05/2008 12/10/2008 02/02/2009 02/04/2009 03/02/2009 03/04/2009
03/04/2009 03/09/2009 03/25/2009 03/27/2009
04/15/2009 04/29/2009

22 NOTICE of Unavailability of Counsel for Plaintiff EEOC. (Esparza−Cervantes, Elizabeth) Modified on 12/13/2006 (Krueger, M). (Entered: 12/12/2006)
23 NOTICE of CHANGE of ADDRESS by Alden John Parker. (Parker, Alden) (Entered: 07/03/2007)
24 NOTICE of APPEARANCE by Evangelina Patricia Hernandez on behalf of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Attorney Hernandez, Evangelina Patricia added. (Hernandez, Evangelina) (Entered: 09/21/2007)
25 MINUTE ORDER (Text Only): A review of the docket shows that there has been no activity in this case since 9/21/2007. A Status Conference is SET for 12/19/2008 at 9:00 AM in Courtroom 7. A Joint Status Report shall be filed on or before 12/5/2008 with all parties participating. Plaintiff shall serve a copy of this minute order on any defendant(s) who has not yet appeared. The parties are reminded that failure to file a Joint Status Report timely may result in the imposition of sanctions, an order to show cause, and/or dismissal of the action. Signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 09/24/08.(Schultz, C) (Entered: 09/30/2008)
26 JOINT STATUS (PRETRIAL SCHEDULING) CONFERENCE REPORT by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Attorney O'Hara, Cindy S added. (O'Hara, Cindy) Modified on 12/8/2008 (Marciel, M). (Entered: 12/05/2008)
27 ORDER signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 12/9/08 ORDERING the Scheduling Conference reset for 2/6/2009 at 09:00 a.m. in Courtroom 7 (MCE) before Judge Morrison C. England Jr. (Becknal, R) (Entered: 12/10/2008)
28 STIPULATION and PROPOSED ORDER for continue status conference by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (O'Hara, Cindy) (Entered: 02/02/2009)
29 STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 2/4/09: Status Conference RESET for 3/5/2009 at 02:00 PM in Courtroom 7 (MCE) before Judge Morrison C. England Jr.. (Kaminski, H) (Entered: 02/04/2009)
30 PLAINTIFF(S) STATUS REPORT by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (O'Hara, Cindy) (Entered: 03/02/2009)
31 MINUTE ORDER (Text Only): On the Court's own motion and pursuant to Local Rule 78−230(h), the Status Conference, scheduled for hearing on 3/5/2009, is submitted without oral argument. The hearing date of 3/5/2009 is vacated. If the Court determines that oral argument is needed, it will be scheduled at a later date.Signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 3/4/2009. (Deutsch, S) (Entered: 03/04/2009)
32 DEFENDANT(S) STATUS REPORT by Paramoor, Inc. (Parker, Alden) (Entered: 03/04/2009)
33 MINUTE ORDER (Text Only): The 3/5/2009 Status Conference is reset for hearing on 3/26/2009 at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 7. Signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 3/9/2009. (Deutsch, S) (Entered: 03/09/2009)
34 MINUTE ORDER (Text Only): The status conference, scheduled for hearing on 3/26/2009, is VACATED. If the Court determines that a status conference is needed, it will be scheduled at a later date. (Schultz, C) (Entered: 03/25/2009)
35 ORDER RE: SETTLEMENT AND DISPOSITION signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 3/27/09 ORDERING that pursuant to the representations of the attorney forDefendants, the Court has determined that this case is settled; In accordance with the provisions of Local Rule 16−160, dispositional documents are to be filed on or before 4/15/09; Failure to comply with this Order may be grounds for the imposition of sanctions on any and all counsel as well as any party or parties who cause non−compliance with this Order. (Becknal, R) (Entered: 03/27/2009)
36 STIPULATION and PROPOSED ORDER for Consent Decree by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (O'Hara, Cindy) (Entered: 04/15/2009)
37 CONSENT DECREE signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 4/28/09. It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that this Court has jurdisction over the subject matter and the parties to this action. This Court retains jurisdiction over this Consent Decree during its term. This Consent Decree constitutes a full and final

Case: 2:05-cv-1983 As of: 10/30/2016 04:12 PM PDT 5 of 5
resolution of the Commission's claims against all named dfts in this action. The Commission and Paramoor will each bear its own costs and atty's fees in this action.(Kastilahn, A) (Entered: 04/29/2009)