Case 4:05-cv-04186-JPG-PMF Document 1-1 Filed 09/29/2005 Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURl. ·
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINdt:S.:~~<) ")~

(J '
I . .·(A

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

)

COMMISSION,

)

' ' I : ., ....
t..·1.,...,

)

Plaintiff, v.

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

Q j

~

05- Lli~Lo . ~f~

)

J.D STREETT & COMPANY, INC., d/b/a

) COMPLAINT

HARRISBURG BP,

) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

)

Defendant.

)

NATURE OF THE ACTION

This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended by the Civil

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

appropriate reliefto Beverly Sanders, Connie Stacey, Tammy Thompson, Julie Wolf and other

women who were adversely affected by such practices. The Complaint alleges that these women

and others were sexually harassed by their co-worker whose wife managed the store where they

worked. The Complaint further alleges that the sexual harassment was so severe or pervasive

that it resulted in the constructive discharge of one or more of the affected women.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

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

1343 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Section 706(f)(1) and (3) of

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

VII") and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a.

2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed within the

jurisdiction ofthe United States District Court for Southern District of Illinois.

Case 4:05-cv-04186-JPG-PMF Document 1-1 Filed 09/29/2005 Page 2 of 5
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "Commission"), is the agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title VII, and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Section 706(±)(1) and (3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(l) and (3). 4. At all relevant times, Defendant J.D. Streett & Company, Inc. has continuously been doing business in the State of Illinois and the city of Harrisburg, and has continuously had at least 15 employees. 5. At all relevant times, J.D. Streett & Company, Inc., has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701 (b), (g) and (h) ofTitle VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(b), (g) and (h). 6. At all relevant times, Beverly Sanders, Connie Stacey, Tammy Thompson, Julie Wolf and other women for whom the EEOC is seeking relief, worked at a J.D. Streett & Company, Inc.'s BP store (formerly Zephyr) located at 630 North Commercial St. in Harrisburg, Illinois ("Harrisburg BP").
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 7. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Beverly Sanders and Connie Stacey filed charges with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by J.D. Streett & Company, Inc. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled. 8. Since at least July 2000, J.D. Streett & Company, Inc. has engaged in unlawful employment practices at the Harrisburg BP, in violation of Section 703(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a), as follows:
2

Case 4:05-cv-04186-JPG-PMF Document 1-1 Filed 09/29/2005 Page 3 of 5
(a) J.D. Streett & Company, Inc. subjected Beverly Sanders to unlawful sexual harassment during her employment. The unlawful conduct was unwelcome, sexual in nature, and directed at Sanders because of her sex. The unlawful conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a hostile working environment for Sanders, which altered the terms or conditions of her employment. The hostile working environment created by Defendant made Sanders' working conditions so intolerable that she had no choice but to quit.
(b) J.D. Streett & Company, Inc. subjected Connie Stacey, Tammy Thompson, Julie Wolf and other female employees to unlawful sexual harassment during their employment. The unlawful conduct was unwelcome, sexual in nature, and directed at them because of their sex. The unlawful conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a hostile working environment for them, which altered the terms or conditions of their employment.
9. The effect of the practices complained of in paragraphs 8 above has been to deprive Beverly Sanders, Connie Stacey, Tammy Thompson, Julie Wolf and other women of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees because of their sex.
10. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs 8 above were intentional.
3

Case 4:05-cv-04186-JPG-PMF Document 1-1 Filed 09/29/2005 Page 4 of 5
11. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs 8 above were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Beverly Sanders, Connie Stacey, Tammy Thompson, Julie Wolf and other women.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining J.D. Streett & Company, Inc., its officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in harassment, constructive discharge and any other employment practice which discriminates on the basis of sex. B. Order J.D. Streett & Company, Inc. to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for women, and which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices. C. Order J.D. Streett & Company, Inc. to make Beverly Sanders, Connie Stacey, Tammy Thompson, Julie Wolf and other women whole by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from its unlawful employment practices in amounts to be determined at trial. D. Order J.D. Streett & Company, Inc. to make Beverly Sanders, Connie Stacey, Tammy Thompson, Julie Wolf and other women whole by providing compensation for past and future non-pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described in paragraphs 8 above, including, but not limited to, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of reputation, and humiliation, in amounts to be determined at trial.
4

Case 4:05-cv-04186-JPG-PMF Document 1-1 Filed 09/29/2005 Page 5 of 5
E. Order J.D. Streett & Company, Inc. to pay punitive damages for its malicious and reckless conduct described in paragraphs 8 above in amounts to be determined at trial.
F. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public
interest.
G. Award the Commission its costs of this action.
JURY TRIAL DEMAND
The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its Complaint.
Respectfully submitted,
JAMES L. LEE Deputy General Counsel
GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel
~-~
RjO(B(ERtT oG.mJO~HYNSVi>N
BARBA~. SEELY
Supervisory Trial Attorney
- - - - ··-:?
w /-//-./;:_/...,c.::·_::;:/-------
NffiLVIN D. KENNEDY
Senior Trial Attorney EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION St. Louis District Office Robert A. Young Federal Bldg. 1222 Spruce, Room 8.100 St. Louis, MO 63103 (314) 539-7915
5

 
 Case 4:05-cv-04186-JPG-PMF Document 30 Filed 03/29/2006 Page 1 of 10

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )

COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

and

)

)

CONNIE STACEY, BEVERLY SANDERS,)

TAMMY THOMPSON, JULIE WOLF and )

GRACE BELLAMY,

)

)

Plaintiff/Intervenors, )

)

vs.

)

)

J.D. STREETT & COMPANY, INC., d/b/a )

HARRISBURG BP,

)

Defendant.

)

Case No.: 05-4186-JPG JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

COMPLAINT

This is an action to correct and remedy wrongful discrimination by Defendant against

Plaintiffs in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3)

(“Title VII”); 42 U.S. § 1981. There is an actual controversy between the Plaintiffs and Defendant.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. Jurisdiction of this Court for Count I of this Complaint is invoked pursuant to 28

U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343. Count I is authorized and initiated pursuant to Section 706(f)(1) and (3)

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

VII”) and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991.

2. Venue in this Court is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), in that substantially

all of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in the Southern District of Illinois.

- 1 -

Case 4:05-cv-04186-JPG-PMF Document 30 Filed 03/29/2006 Page 2 of 10
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff Connie Stacey (“Stacey”), is a resident of Saline County, Illinois and a citizen of the United States. At all relevant times herein, Stacey was employed as a sales associate by J.D. Streett & Company, Inc., d/b/a/ Harrisburg BP. 4. Plaintiff Beverly Sanders (“Sanders”), is a resident of Saline County, Illinois and a citizen of the United States. At all relevant times herein, Sanders was employed as a sales associate by J.D. Streett & Company, Inc., d/b/a/ Harrisburg BP (hereafter “J.D. Streett”) 5. Plaintiff Tammy Thompson (“Thompson”), is a resident of White County, Illinois and a citizen of the United States. At all relevant times herein, Thompson was employed as a sales associate by J.D. Streett. 6. Plaintiff Julie Wolf (“Wolf”), is a resident of White County, Illinois and a citizen of the United States. At all relevant times herein, Wolf was employed as a sales associate by J.D. Streett. 7. Plaintiff Grace Bellamy (“Bellamy”), is a resident of Saline County, Illinois and a citizen of the United States. At all relevant times herein, Bellamy was and continues to be employed by J.D. Streett as a sales associate. 8. At all relevant times Defendant J.D. Streett has continuously been doing business in the State of Illinois and the city of Harrisburg, and has continuously had at least fifteen (15) employees. 9. At all relevant times Defendant J.D. Streett has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701(b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(b), (g) and (h).
- 2 -

Case 4:05-cv-04186-JPG-PMF Document 30 Filed 03/29/2006 Page 3 of 10
STATEMENT OF FACTS 10. Stacey was a part-time employee of J.D. Streett beginning on or about July, 2001. 11. Sanders was a part-time employee of J.D. Streett beginning in the latter part of 2001. 12. Thompson was a part-time employee of J.D. Streett beginning in April, 2002. 13. Wolf was a part-time employee of J.D. Streett between 2000 and 2001. 14. Bellamy was and is a part-time employee of J.D. Streett beginning on July 6, 2000. 15. At all relevant times Plaintiffs worked at the Harrisburg BP location. 16. J.D. Streett owned and continues to operated the Harrisburg BP. 17. At all relevant times Judy Goolsby was employed by J.D. Streett as a manager for the Harrisburg BP location. 18. At all relevant times Judy Goolsby was the manager responsible for supervising Plaintiffs’ employment. 19. At all relevant times Judy Goolsby was married to Clyde “Tubby” Goolsby. 20. Tubby Goolsby was employed by J.D. Streett to perform general maintenance at the Harrisburg BP location on an ongoing basis between 2000 and 2003 and was supervised by Judy Goolsby. 21. Beginning in the early part of 2001 and continuing until June, 2003, Tubby Goolsby subjected Plaintiffs to unlawful sexual harassment during the course of their employment. 22. The unlawful conduct was unwelcome, sexual in nature, and was directed at Plaintiffs because of their sex. 23. The unlawful conduct was sufficiently severe and/or pervasive to create a hostile working environment for Plaintiffs which altered the terms and conditions of their employment.
- 3 -

Case 4:05-cv-04186-JPG-PMF Document 30 Filed 03/29/2006 Page 4 of 10
24. Plaintiffs complained of the unlawful conduct to manager Judy Goolsby who took no action in response to their complaints.
25. On May 29, 2003 Sander’s quit working as a result of the hostile work environment. 26. The hostile working environment created by J.D. Streett made Sander’s working conditions so intolerable that she had no choice but to quit. 27. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Plaintiffs Sanders and Stacey filed charges with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by J.D. Streett. 28. Stacey and Sanders’ charges contained sufficient allegations of class-wide discrimination.
COUNT I (Discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-2(a) by Defendant J.D. Streett)
29. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege Paragraphs 1 through 28 as though fully set forth herein. 30. From approximately 2001 and continuing until June, 2003 Plaintiffs were subjected to various forms of sexual harassment by Tubby Goolsby which created a sexually hostile work environment for them. By way of example but not limited to the following acts:
A. Goolsby began engaging in physically intimidating behaviors such as blocking Plaintiffs’ access through doorways so that Plaintiffs had difficulty passing by him without making some physical contact;
B. Goolsby repeatedly made comments of a sexual nature to Plaintiffs by way of example and by no means exhaustive; “Ask Judy (Goolsby) I fuck like a stallion”; “I can keep you up all night”; “Come break in my new couch” “If you had me you would leave your old man”;
- 4 -

Case 4:05-cv-04186-JPG-PMF Document 30 Filed 03/29/2006 Page 5 of 10
C. Goolsby repeatedly made comments about Plaintiffs’ breasts and nipples (sometimes in front of customers);
D. Goolsby repeatedly tried to kiss and hug Plaintiffs; E. Goolsby pinched and grabbed Plaintiffs on various parts of their body
including but not limited to Plaintiffs’ breasts, buttocks, stomachs and backs; F. Goolsby repeatedly made offensive sexual gestures with his tongue and body; G. Goolsby made sexually inappropriate comments directed at Thompson’s
fourteen (14) year old daughter in Thompson’s presence (i.e. “I’d love to see her in some tight skimpy shorts” “She’s my girlfriend”); H. On one occasion Goolsby approached Stacey, leaned into her face so closely that she could feel his breath and he began making a kissing sound; I. On numerous occasions Goolsby would approach Plaintiffs from behind and begin to pantomime sexual acts directed at Plaintiffs which included grinding, groping of himself and attempted groping of Plaintiffs; J. On numerous occasions Goolsby would kiss, hug, place his hands on Plaintiffs; and K. On numerous occasions Goolsby would rub his body up against Plaintiffs. 31. On each occasion Tubby Goolsby was told by Plaintiffs that his conduct was unwelcome and to stop. 32. From approximately 2001 and continuing until June, 2003 Tubby Goolsby engaged in conduct that attempted to and did intimidate Plaintiffs because of their rejection of Goolsby’s sexually harassing behavior. By way of example but not limited to the following acts:
- 5 -

Case 4:05-cv-04186-JPG-PMF Document 30 Filed 03/29/2006 Page 6 of 10
A. On numerous occasions Goolsby would become angry and would go around the store threatening Plaintiffs, cursing, tearing pictures and other items off of the walls and then throwing various items directly at Plaintiffs or in close proximity to where Plaintiffs were working;
B. On numerous occasions Goolsby would throw various objects (i.e. a hand full of coins, boxes, papers and miscellaneous items) at Plaintiffs causing said items to strike Plaintiffs;
C. On numerous occasions Goolsby struck Thompson on her arm thereby leaving bruises; and
D. On numerous occasions Goolsby grabbed Thompson’s arm and hand and squeezed so tightly that it left a bruise.
33. Goolsby’s conduct was unwelcome and intentional. 34. Plaintiffs were in fear for their safety as a result of these and other similar acts done by Tubby Goolsby. 35. Manager Judy Goolsby witnessed Tubby Goolsby’s inappropriate behavior on several occasions but took no action to stop it. 36. J.D. Streett had a duty to provide Plaintiffs with a work environment safe from harm committed or allowed by its other employees. 37. J.D. Streett placed manager Judy Goolsby in its Harrisburg B.P. station to be its eyes and ears to carry out this duty. 38. At all relevant times Judy Goolsby had notice that Tubby Goolsby was sexually harassing Plaintiffs which included repeated and unwanted physical touching.
- 6 -

Case 4:05-cv-04186-JPG-PMF Document 30 Filed 03/29/2006 Page 7 of 10
39. At all relevant times Judy Goolsby intentionally or recklessly failed to take any action in response to Tubby Goolsby’s harassing conduct.
40. Plaintiffs repeatedly complained to manager Judy Goolsby about Tubby Goolsby’s inappropriate behavior to which Judy Goolsby would either laugh at the behavior, ignore it or make comments in an attempt to minimize Tubby’s behavior (i.e. “He didn’t mean anything by it.”).
41. On or about May 29, 2003 Sanders quit as a result of the behavior and managements refusal to investigate or otherwise respond to Plaintiffs’ complaints of sexual harassment.
42. Plaintiffs’ complained to District Manager Greg Groves (“Groves”) about Tubby’s Goolsby’s inappropriate behavior and Judy Goolsby’s failure to prevent it.
43. When Plaintiffs’ complained to Groves, manager Judy Goolsby would alter Plaintiffs’ work schedules (i.e. take them off schedule and/or schedule them at times when she knew they were unavailable to work).
44. Judy Goolsby threatened the Plaintiffs with termination if they continued to complain about Tubby Goolsby’s inappropriate behavior.
45. In June of 2003 manager Judy Goolsby was fired from her position for reasons unrelated to Plaintiffs’ sexual harassment allegations.
46. In June of 2003 Thompson contacted Regional Manager Mike Cadadall on behalf of the Plaintiffs to complain about the sexual harassment and managers Judy Goolsby and Groves’ failure to take any action.
47. In June, 2003 Cadadall sent Groves to the Harrisburg BP to meet with Plaintiffs regarding their allegations of sexual harassment and requested that they write written statements detailing the events.
- 7 -

Case 4:05-cv-04186-JPG-PMF Document 30 Filed 03/29/2006 Page 8 of 10
48. On information and belief J.D. Streett failed to conduct any investigation or otherwise respond to Plaintiffs’ complaints.
49. The effect of the practices complained of herein has been to deprive Plaintiffs of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affected the terms and conditions of their employment because of their sex and refusal to tolerate sexual harassment.
50. The unlawful employment practices complained of herein were intentional. 51. The unlawful employment practices complained of herein were done with malice or with reckless indifference to Plaintiffs federally protected rights. 52. Plaintiffs have suffered both actual damages and compensatory damages in the form of emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish and loss of enjoyment of life. Additionally, Plaintiffs have incurred costs and expenses in this action including attorney fees. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully requests that this Court enter a judgment: A. Directing Defendant J.D. Streett to pay them compensatory and punitive damages for injuries suffered by them as the result of violations of Title VII by the Defendant, including but not limited to, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life and other nonpecuniary losses, occurring in the past and reasonably certain to occur in the future; B. Directing J.D. Streett to make Plaintiffs whole for all they would have received but for Defendant’s discriminatory acts including but not limited to, wages, bonuses and all other lost employment benefits; C. Directing J.D. Streett to make Plaintiffs whole for all special damages they have incurred as a result of Defendant’s discriminatory acts;
- 8 -

Case 4:05-cv-04186-JPG-PMF Document 30 Filed 03/29/2006 Page 9 of 10

D. Awarding Plaintiffs the costs and expenses of this action together with reasonable
attorney fees, as provided for under 42 U.S.C. §2000e(5);
E. Granting such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
Respectfully submitted, Connie Stacey, Beverly Sanders, Tammy Thompson Julie Wolf and Grace Bellamy, Plaintiffs

BY /s/Kristen Glasford Kristen Glasford, one of Plaintiffs’ attorneys Attorney #6281800 Rhode & Jackson, P.C. 1405 W. Main Carbondale, IL. 62901 Phone: (618) 529-8092 Fax: (618) 529-8582 Email: kglasford@rhodeandjackson.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Rhode & Jackson, P.C. Kristen Glasford #6281800 Shari Rhode #02324598 1405 West Main Carbondale, IL. 62901 Phone: (618) 529-8092 Fax: (618) 529-8582 kglasford@rhodeandjackson.com srhode@rhodeandjackson.com

Machicao and Associates Teresa Machicao Hopkins 207 South Market Street Marion, IL 62959 Phone: (618) 997-3170 Fax: (618) 997-7851 teresamachicao@juno.com

- 9 -

Case 4:05-cv-04186-JPG-PMF Document 30 Filed 03/29/2006 Page 10 of 10
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Kristen Glasford, hereby certify that on March 29, 2006, I electronically filed a copy of Plaintiff/Intervenors’ Motion to Intervene and Complaint in the above-referenced case, with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing(s) to the following:
James L. Lee Gwendolyn Young Reams Robert G. Johnson Barbara A. Seely Melvin D. Kennedy Equal Employment Opportunity Commission St. Louis District Office Robert A. Young Federal Building 122 Spruce Street, Room 8.100 St. Louis, Mo. 63103
Kevin J. Lorenz Laura B. Staley William B. Jones McMahon, Berger, Hanna, Linihan, Cody & McCarthy 2730 N. Ballas Road, Suite 200 St. Louis, MO. 63131 Phone: (314) 567-7375 Fax: (314) 567-5968
/s/Kristen Glasford Kristen Glasford, one of Plaintiffs’ attorneys Attorney #6281800 Rhode & Jackson, P.C. 1405 W. Main Carbondale, IL. 62901 Phone: (618) 529-8092 Fax: (618) 529-8582 Email: kglasford@rhodeandjackson.com
- 10 -

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )

COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

and

)

)

CONNIE STACEY, BEVERLY SANDERS,)

TAMMY THOMPSON, JULIE WOLF and )

GRACE BELLAMY,

)

)

Plaintiff/Intervenors, )

)

vs.

)

)

J.D. STREETT & COMPANY, INC., d/b/a )

HARRISBURG BP,

)

Defendant.

)

Case No.: 05-cv-4186-JPG

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on defendant J.D. Streett & Company, Inc.’s

(“J.D. Streett”) motion to dismiss the claims of plaintiff/intervenor Julie Wolf (“Wolf”) (Doc.

34) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and motion for summary judgment

(Doc. 45) on those same claims. Wolf has responded to the motions (Docs. 38 & 47), and J.D.

Streett has replied to those responses (Docs. 39 & 49).

I. Procedural History

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) brought this suit on

September 29, 2005, alleging unlawful employment practices by J.D. Streett based on sexual

harassment of plaintiff-intervenors Connie Stacey, Beverly Sanders, Tammy Thompson, Wolf

and other unnamed women employees by a co-worker at a store owned by J.D. Streett. The

lawsuit stemmed from the EEOC’s investigation of two charges filed by Stacey and Sanders,

respectively, on November 25, 2003, both of which alleged that they, as well as other female employees, were subjected to sexual harassment. The EEOC investigated the charges and made a determination that there was reasonable cause to believe that J.D. Streett had violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act because Stacey, Sanders and other female employees were subject to sexual harassment and a sexually hostile work environment. The EEOC then unsuccessfully attempted conciliation with J.D. Streett before filing this lawsuit to seek relief for Sanders, Stacey, Thompson, Wolf and other women adversely affected by J.D. Streett’s alleged unlawful practices. The Court allowed the plaintiff-intervenors to join this lawsuit pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a) and 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1).
J.D. Streett’s two pending motions raise several issues: whether Wolf has exhausted her administrative remedies, whether Wolf is the real party in interest (J.D. Streett erroneously refers to this issue as one of standing), and whether Wolf is judicially estopped from asserting her claims in this litigation. The second and third questions arise because on July 16, 2003, Wolf filed a petition for bankruptcy under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. §§ 1301 1330. She did not list her cause of action against J.D. Streett on her schedules of assets. J.D. Streett claims that as a consequence of Wolf’s bankruptcy proceedings, the bankruptcy trustee (“Trustee”) is the only party who can pursue this litigation. It also argues that her failure to list her cause of action in her schedules judicially estops her from pursuing it now. The Court believes the real party in interest is a threshold issue that should be addressed before turning to J.D. Streett’s other arguments. Only then can the Court determine if the proper plaintiff in this case has made contradictory representations in Court such that judicial estoppel should apply, see Cannon-Stokes v. Potter, 453 F.3d 446, 448 (7th Cir. 2006).
2

II. Summary Judgment Standard Summary judgment is appropriate where “the pleadings, depositions, answers to
interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); see Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986); Spath v. Hayes Wheels Int’l-Ind., Inc., 211 F.3d 392, 396 (7th Cir. 2000). The reviewing court must construe the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of that party. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986); Spath, 211 F.3d at 396. Where the moving party fails to meet its strict burden of proof, a court cannot enter summary judgment for the moving party even if the opposing party fails to present relevant evidence in response to the motion. Cooper v. Lane, 969 F.2d 368, 371 (7th Cir. 1992).
In responding to a summary judgment motion, the nonmoving party may not simply rest upon the allegations contained in the pleadings but must present specific facts to show that a genuine issue of material fact exists. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e); Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322-26; Johnson v. City of Fort Wayne, 91 F.3d 922, 931 (7th Cir. 1996). A genuine issue of material fact is not demonstrated by the mere existence of “some alleged factual dispute between the parties,” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 247, or by “some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts,” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986); Michas v. Health Cost Controls of Ill., Inc., 209 F.3d 687, 692 (7th Cir. 2000). Rather, a genuine issue of material fact exists only if “a fair-minded jury could return a verdict for the [nonmoving party] on the evidence presented.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252; accord Michas, 209 F.3d at 692.
3

III. Real Party In Interest J.D. Streett asks the Court to grant summary judgment in its favor on the grounds that
Wolf lacks standing to pursue this claim. In truth, the issue is whether Wolf can proceed as the real party in interest, not standing. Standing has to do with whether Wolf has alleged that she suffered an injury caused by the defendant that is redressable by the Court. See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992). It is undisputed that she meets that standard. The real party in interest question has to do with who is allowed to pursue a cause of action. The defendant claims it is not Wolf, and Wolf does not contradict this assertion in her response brief.
Federal actions must be pursued by the real party in interest. Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(a). Where the debtor has filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition, the trustee of the debtor’s estate is the real party in interest in causes of action that accrued prior to the bankruptcy petition because when a party files the petition, all her property, including any causes of action she may have as of the commencement of the bankruptcy case, becomes property of the estate for administration by the trustee. See 11 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1); Polis v. Getaways, Inc. (In re Polis), 217 F.3d 899, 900 (7th Cir. 2000). Only if the cause of action is exempted or abandoned by the trustee pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 554 may the debtor pursue it herself.
In this case, it is clear that the Trustee of Wolf’s Chapter 7 estate is the real party in interest for the claims in this case. The sexual harassment of which Wolf complains ended in 2001 when she stopped working for J.D. Streett. At that time, any cause of action for sexual harassment she might have had had accrued. Two years later, when she filed her Chapter 7 petition for bankruptcy, her cause of action became a part of the bankruptcy estate subject to the control of the Trustee. That Wolf may not have been aware of her cause of action or failed to list
4

it in her bankruptcy schedule did not prevent it from inclusion in the estate, for the estate includes “every conceivable interest of the debtor, future, nonpossessory, contingent, speculative, and derivative.” Lincoln Office Supply Co. v. Taylor (In re Carousel Int’l Corp.), 89 F.3d 359, 362 (7th Cir. 1996) (internal quotations and citations omitted); see 5 Collier on Bankruptcy § 541.08 (15th ed. rev. 2006). Furthermore, Wolf did not exempt this property in her bankruptcy proceedings, and the Trustee did not abandon it. In fact, the absence of this cause of action from Wolf’s bankruptcy schedule and the Trustee’s representation to the Bankruptcy Court that there were no assets in Wolf’s estate indicate that the Trustee did not even know this cause of action existed. Thus, the Trustee is the real party in interest in this action.
Wolf does not ask the Court to allow her to substitute the real party in interest as a plaintiff in this case. However, even if she had made such a request, the Court would deny it. Rule 17(a) provides a way to remedy the erroneous filing of a cause of action by someone who is not the real party in interest:
No action shall be dismissed on the ground that it is not prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest until a reasonable time has been allowed after objection for ratification of commencement of the action by, or joinder or substitution of, the real party in interest. . . . Courts have interpreted this provision to apply only where “substitution of the real party in interest is necessary to avoid injustice.” 6A Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice & Procedure § 1555 (2d ed. 1990 & Supp. 2006). Thus, it generally applies to situations in which the commencement of the action by the wrong party is an honest mistake, such as where the real party in interest is difficult to determine or where the mistake is excusable. Id. On the other hand, if the error was intentional, the Court may dismiss the case without offering the real party in interest an opportunity to ratify or join the action. See, e.g., Feist v. Consolidated Freightways Corp., 100 F. Supp. 2d 273, 277-80 (E.D. Pa. 1999), aff’d, 216 F.3d 1075 (3d Cir.
5

2000). In this case, neither party addresses the issue of whether Wolf’s bringing her claims in
this case in her own name was an excusable, honest mistake, in which case the Court should allow the Trustee an opportunity to be substituted for Wolf, or whether it was intentional, in which case the Court should dismiss the case. The Court asks whether Wolf’s error was understandable and concludes that it was not. It appears that the identity of the real party in interest was not difficult to determine in this case. Wolf knew about the facts giving rise to her cause of action in 2001, so her cause of action accrued at that time, well before she filed her bankruptcy petition in 2003. The bankruptcy law that includes such causes of action as property of the estate is clear, and Wolf has had counsel since the commencement of this action. Indeed, she has offered no reasonable explanation for why she brought this suit in her own name. Wolf suggests that the question is more complicated because she did not know until after her bankruptcy filing that she might be able to “piggyback” on the EEOC filings of other plaintiffs (see the Court’s March 29, 2006, order (Doc. 28) for a fuller explanation of the “piggybacking” or “single-filing” doctrine). Her lack of knowledge about the viability of her cause of action, however, does not delay the accrual of that claim or provide an excuse for attempting to bring a cause of action that now belongs to someone else.
Furthermore, since Wolf supposedly learned in July 2005 that she might have had a viable claim against J.D. Streett, she has not moved to reopen her bankruptcy case to add that asset to her schedule. The Court believes that this indicates at the most an intent to defraud the Court and her creditors, and at the least inexcusable neglect. In any case, it does not reflect that Wolf made an honest mistake in filing this litigation in her own name. Further, in the spirit of Local Rule 7.1(c), the Court construes Wolf’s utter failure to address the real party in interest
6

issue (or standing, as J.D. Streett refers to it) in her response to the summary judgment motion as an admission of the merits of J.D. Streett’s position.
For all these reasons, the Court finds that Wolf’s claims are not being prosecuted by the real party in interest, that such error was not an honest, excusable mistake, that substitution of the real party in interest is not necessary to achieve justice, and that therefore, dismissal of Wolf’s claims is proper. IV. Judicial Estoppel
Even if Wolf had been a real party in interest, the Court would dismiss her claims based on judicial estoppel. The doctrine of judicial estoppel holds that “[w]here a party assumes a certain position in a legal proceeding, and succeeds in maintaining that position, he may not thereafter, simply because his interests have changed, assume a contrary position.” Davis v. Wakelee, 156 U.S. 680, 689 (1895); accord In re Cassidy, 892 F.2d 637, 641 (7th Cir. 1990). Its goal is “to prevent the perversion of the judicial process” that occurs from litigants’ “playing fast and loose with the courts.” Cassidy, 892 F.2d at 641 (internal quotations and citations omitted). The doctrine only applies to intentional self-contradiction that is used to obtain an unfair advantage in the courts. Id. For example, judicial estoppel has been applied to prevent a bankruptcy debtor from pursuing post-bankruptcy a cause of action that pre-existed the bankruptcy but which was not listed as an asset in the bankruptcy schedule. See Cannon-Stokes v. Potter, 453 F.3d 446, 448 (7th Cir. 2006). In that case, the court held that “a debtor in bankruptcy is bound by her own representations, no matter why they were made, at least until the debtor moves to amend the disclosures and pay the creditors their due. . . .” Id. at 449.
Wolf argues that J.D. Streett has not presented any evidence that her failure to list this cause of action in her bankruptcy schedule was intentional. This is not entirely true, and the
7

argument is not entirely on point. First, it is not Wolf’s intentions during the bankruptcy proceeding alone that are at issue; it is her overall intention in making contradictory representations. To the extent that Wolf is intentionally pursuing this suit knowing that she did not list it on her bankruptcy schedules, she is intentionally contradicting her former statement to the Bankruptcy Court.
Second, although J.D. Streett has not presented direct evidence of Wolf’s intentions, it has pointed to undisputed circumstantial evidence which, even if viewed in Wolf’s favor, demonstrate that her positions are intentionally contradictory. The undisputed facts establish that Wolf’s cause of action accrued at the latest in 2001, that she erroneously represented to the Bankruptcy Court she did not own this asset, and that the Bankruptcy Court believed her and gave her a benefit by discharging all of her debt. Now she comes to this Court with a contradictory assertion – that her cause of action is worth something – and seeks to obtain a benefit for herself. Furthermore, Wolf’s actions reflect that she intends to pursue contradictory positions. As the Court noted earlier in this order, had Wolf truly realized that she had made an honest mistake in her bankruptcy filing, she could have moved to reopen her bankruptcy proceedings to correct her erroneous schedules. That she has not done so is evidence that her pursuit of this case in light of her failure to list her cause of action was no unintentional error. See, e.g., Cannon-Stokes, 453 F.3d at 448 (if the debtor “were really making an honest attempt to pay her debts, then as soon as she realized that [the cause of action] had been omitted [from her bankruptcy schedules], she would have filed amended schedules and moved to reopen the bankruptcy, so that the creditors could benefit from any recovery. [The debtor] never did that; she wants every penny of the judgment for herself.”).
On the other side, Wolf argues that her contradictory positions are inadvertent and that
8

she did not honestly believe at the time of her bankruptcy petition that she possessed such a cause of action because the EEOC had not yet begun to investigate the circumstances of her employment at J.D. Streett. However, she offers no evidence, not even her own affidavit, of her intentions or her ignorance of her asset at the time she filed for bankruptcy. Thus, the Court gives no credence to these unsupported allegations.
In sum, the evidence in the record and the reasonable inferences to be drawn from it, even if viewed in Wolf’s favor, demonstrate that her positions are intentionally contradictory. For the foregoing reasons, judicial estoppel bars Wolf from proceeding with this case. Had the Court held that Wolf could pursue this action as a real party in interest, it would grant J.D. Streett’s summary judgment motion based on judicial estoppel and would dismiss Wolf’s claims with prejudice. V. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court: • GRANTS J.D. Streett’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 45); • DISMISSES Wolf’s claims in this case with prejudice; • DENIES J.D. Streett’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 34) as moot in light of the Court’s ruling
on the summary judgment motion; and • DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to enter judgment accordingly at the close of the case. IT IS SO ORDERED. Date: October 30, 2006
s/ J. Phil Gilbert J. Phil Gilbert, District Judge
9

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )

COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

and

)

)

CONNIE STACEY, BEVERLY SANDERS,)

TAMMY THOMPSON, JULIE WOLF and )

GRACE BELLAMY,

)

)

Plaintiff/Intervenors, )

)

vs.

)

)

J.D. STREETT & COMPANY, INC., d/b/a )

HARRISBURG BP,

)

Defendant.

)

Case No.: 05-cv-4186-JPG

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on consideration of the proposed consent decree

submitted to the Court, the motion to dismiss with prejudice filed by four of the five

plaintiff/intervenors (Doc. 55) and the motion to clarify filed by the plaintiff Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) and the defendant J.D. Streett & Company, Inc. (“Streett”)

(Doc. 56).

The Court construes the plaintiff/intervenors’ motion to dismiss as pursuant to Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). Rule 41(a)(2) provides that only the Court may dismiss an

action after an adverse party has filed an answer or motion for summary judgment and in the

absence of a stipulation of dismissal of an entire case from all the parties. The Court hereby

GRANTS the motion to dismiss (Doc. 55) and DISMISSES with prejudice the claims of

plaintiff/intervenors Connie Stacey, Beverly Sanders, Tammy Thompson and Grace Bellamy in

this case in light of the proposed consent decree . After reviewing the EEOC and Streett’s motion to clarify and the plaintiff/intervenors’
motion to dismiss, the Court is satisfied as to the issues it intended to raise at the conference regarding the proposed consent decree. The Court therefore GRANTS the motion to clarify (Doc. 56), VACATES the telephone status conference, and APPROVES the proposed consent decree between plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) and defendant J.D. Streett & Company, Inc. Accordingly, it will enter the proposed consent decree with this order.
The Court further finds that pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) there is no just reason for delaying the entry of judgment as to the plaintiff/intervenors’ claims and DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to enter a Rule 54(b) judgment accordingly. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: January 25, 2007
s/ J. Phil Gilbert J. PHIL GILBERT DISTRICT JUDGE
2

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, et. al,
Plaintiff,
v.
J.D. STREETT & COMPANY, INC., d/b/a HARRISBURG BP,
Defendant.

) ) ) ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 05-4186 JPG ) ) ) ) ) ) )

CONSENT DECREE

Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (hereinafter the "Commission")

has instituted this action alleging that J.D. Streett & Company, Inc. (hereinafter the "Defendant"

or “J.D. Streett”) subjected Beverly Sanders, Connie Stacey, Tamala Buchanan (formerly

Thompson) and Grace Bellamy to sexually harassing conduct and discrimination in violation of

Section 703(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a). J.D. Streett denies the allegations asserted

against it by the Commission.

For purposes of settlement and compromise only, 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 of this 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 the Title VII will be carried out by

the implementation of this Decree, (iii) this Decree is intended to and does resolve all matters in

controversy in this lawsuit among the parties, and (iv) 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 or any executive order, law, rule or regulation dealing with or in connection with sexual harassment or sex discrimination in the workplace, or as a finding by any governmental agency or authority of wrongdoing.
2. Defendant shall not discriminate against its employees with respect to hiring, promotion, firing, compensation, or other terms, conditions or privileges of employment on the basis of sex.
3. Defendant shall not discriminate or retaliate against any person because he or she: (a) has opposed any practices alleged in this lawsuit as unlawful under Title VII; (b) has participated in any investigation by the Commission connected with or leading up to this lawsuit; (c) has participated in this lawsuit; or (d) has benefitted or will benefit in any way as a result of this Consent Decree.
II. Relief for Charging Party 1. Defendant will pay a total of $250,000 ("Settlement Sum") as compensatory damages to Beverly Sanders, Connie Stacey, Tamala Buchanan and Grace Bellamy. Within twenty (20) days after execution of the Decree, Defendant will mail a check to Kristen Glasford
2

made payable to the law firm of Rhode & Jackson in the amount of the Settlement Sum. The Settlement Sum shall be distributed equally, $62,500 each, to Sanders, Stacey, Buchanan and Bellamy, less costs, expenses and attorneys’ fees attributable to each of them. Sanders, Stacey, Buchanan and Bellamy shall each execute a waiver of all existing claims against Defendant. The terms of said waivers shall be negotiated separately between Defendant and attorneys Kristen Glasford and Teresa Machicao Hopkins.
III. Posting and Policies 1. Defendant shall post and cause to remain posted the Notice attached hereto as Exhibit A, in locations visible to all employees, for a period of two (2) years, starting from the date of entry of this Decree, at all convenience stores and/or gas stations owned or operated by J.D. Streett. 2. Defendant shall post and cause to remain posted the Policy on Sexual Harassment attached hereto as Exhibit B, in locations visible to all employees, for a period of two (2) years, starting from the date of entry of this Decree, at all convenience stores and/or gas stations owned or operated by J.D. Streett. 3. Defendant shall post and cause to remain posted the posters required to be displayed in the workplace by EEOC regulation 29 C.F.R. §1601.30 at all convenience stores and/or gas stations owned or operated by J.D. Streett. 4. Defendant shall, within six (6) months from the date of entry of this Decree, provide sexual harassment training to all management and non-management employees at all convenience stores and/or gas stations owned or operated by J.D. Streett.
3

IV. Reporting, Record-keeping, and Access 1. Every six (6) months during the effective period of this Decree, Defendant shall provide written notification to the EEOC's Regional Attorney in its St. Louis District Office of any internal complaint of sex discrimination or sex harassment, made by any employee any convenience stores and/or gas stations owned or operated by J.D. Streett, including the name(s) of the employee(s), a description of the investigation of the complaint(s), the finding of the investigation and a description of action taken, or resolution of the complaint(s). 2. Within forty-five (45) days of the entry of this Decree, Defendant shall prepare and submit to the EEOC's Regional Attorney in its St. Louis District Office a letter affirming that the notices have been posted and that the posters have been posted as required by Section III, above. 3. Within forty-five (45) days of the completion of the training required under Section III, subsection 4, Defendant shall prepare and submit to the EEOC's Regional Attorney in its St. Louis District Office a letter affirming completion of said training. The letter shall include the names of all employees who attended the training.
V. Term and Effect of Decree 1. By entering into this Decree the parties do not intend to resolve any charges of discrimination currently pending before the Commission other than Charge Numbers 280-200401201 (Sanders) and 280-2004-01225 (Stacey). 2. This Decree shall be binding upon the parties hereto, their successors and assigns. Defendant shall affirmatively notify any purchasers of the obligations of this Consent Decree prior to any sale which may take place.
4

3. This Decree shall be for a period of two (2) years. During the Decree's term the Court shall retain jurisdiction of this cause for purposes of compliance.
4. Each party shall bear that party's own costs and attorneys’ fees, except as stated in section II, paragraph 1.

DATE: January 25, 2007

s/ J. Phil Gilbert UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5

6

EXHIBIT A (J.D. Streett & Company, Inc. letterhead)
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES Federal law prohibits discrimination against any employee or applicant for employment because of the individual's race, national origin, color, religion, sex, disability or age (forty and over) with respect to hiring, promotion, firing, compensation, or other terms, conditions or privileges of employment. It also prohibits sexual harassment of employees and retaliation against employees because they have opposed practices they believe discriminate or are unlawful on the basis of race, national origin, color, religion, sex, disability or age (forty and over) or because they have filed charges with the EEOC or participated in or cooperated with an EEOC investigation. J.D. Streett & Company, Inc. supports and will comply with such Federal law in all respects and will not take any action against employees because they have exercised their rights under the law. Specifically, J.D. Streett & Company, Inc. will not tolerate sexual harassment or discrimination against any employee, with regard to the terms and conditions employment because of his or her sex. Furthermore, J.D. Streett & Company, Inc. will not tolerate retaliation against any employee because an employee reports, protests or opposes any employment practice which is believed by such employee to be unlawful under Federal law. Employees should feel free to report instances of sexual harassment or sex discrimination to any management official at any time. J.D. Streett & Company, Inc. has established policies
7

and procedures to investigate promptly any such reports and to protect the employee(s) making such reports from retaliation.
President J.D. Streett & Company, Inc.
8

EXHIBIT B 9

10

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

https://ecf.ilsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?733305245814555-L_35...

CJRA_B, CLOSED
U.S. District Court Southern District of Illinois (Benton) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:05-cv-04186-JPG-PMF

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. J.D. Streett & Company Inc Assigned to: Judge J. Phil Gilbert Referred to: Mag Judge Philip M. Frazier Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

Date Filed: 09/29/2005 Date Terminated: 01/25/2007 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by Barbara A. Seely Equal Employment Opportunity Commission - St. Louis, MO Generally Admitted 1222 Spruce Street Room 8.100 St. Louis, MO 63103 314-539-7800 Email: barbara.seely@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gwendolyn Y. Reams Equal Employment Opportunity Commission - St. Louis, MO 1222 Spruce Street Room 8.100 St. Louis, MO 63103 314-539-7915 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James L. Lee Equal Employment Opportunity Commission - St. Louis, MO 1222 Spruce Street Room 8.100 St. Louis, MO 63103 314-539-7915 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Melvin D. Kennedy Equal Employment Opportunity Commission - St. Louis, MO

1 of 10

8/22/2007 11:28 AM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:ilsd - Docket Report
Intervenor Plaintiff Grace Bellamy TERMINATED: 01/25/2007
Intervenor Plaintiff
2 of 10

https://ecf.ilsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?733305245814555-L_35...
Generally Admitted 1222 Spruce Street Room 8.100 St. Louis, MO 63103 314-539-7915 Email: melvin.kennedy@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert G. Johnson Equal Employment Opportunity Commission - St. Louis, MO 1222 Spruce Street Room 8.100 St. Louis, MO 63103 314-539-7915 Email: robert.johnson@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kristen L. Glasford Rhode & Jackson, P.C. Generally Admitted 1405 West Main Street P.O. Box 99 Carbondale, IL 62901 618-529-8092 Fax: 618-529-8582 Email: kglasford@rhodeandjackson.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Kristen L. Glasford (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shari R. Rhode Rhode & Jackson, P.C. Generally Admitted 1405 West Main Street P.O. Box 99 Carbondale, IL 62903 618-529-8092 Fax: 618-529-8582 Email: srhode@rhodeandjackson.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
8/22/2007 11:28 AM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:ilsd - Docket Report
Beverly Sanders TERMINATED: 01/25/2007
Intervenor Plaintiff Connie Stacey TERMINATED: 01/25/2007
Intervenor Plaintiff Tammy Thompson TERMINATED: 01/25/2007
Intervenor Plaintiff Julie Wolf TERMINATED: 10/30/2006
3 of 10

https://ecf.ilsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?733305245814555-L_35...
represented by Kristen L. Glasford (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shari R. Rhode (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Kristen L. Glasford (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shari R. Rhode (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Kristen L. Glasford (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Teresa A. Machicao-Hopkins Machicao & Associates 207 South Market Marion, IL 62959-2515 618-997-3170 Email: teresamachicao@juno.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shari R. Rhode (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Kristen L. Glasford (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shari R. Rhode (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
8/22/2007 11:28 AM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:ilsd - Docket Report
V. Defendant J.D. Streett & Company Inc doing business as Harrisburg BP
4 of 10

https://ecf.ilsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?733305245814555-L_35...
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Kevin J. Lorenz McMahon, Berger et al. - St. Louis 2730 North Ballas Road Suite 200 St. Louis, MO 63131 314-567-7350 Email: lorenz@mcmahonberger.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michelle M. Cain McMahon, Berger et al. - St. Louis 2730 North Ballas Road Suite 200 St. Louis, MO 63131 314-567-7350 Email: Cain@mcmahonberger.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William B. Jones McMahon, Berger et al. - St. Louis 2730 North Ballas Road Suite 200 St. Louis, MO 63131 314-567-7350 Email: jones@mcmahonberger.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Burton D. Garland, Jr. The Lowenbaum Partnership, LLC Generally Admitted 222 South Central Suite 901 Clayton, MO 63105 314-746-4845 Fax: 314-746-4848 Email: bgarland@lowenbaumlaw.com TERMINATED: 03/30/2006
Laura B. Staley McMahon, Berger et al. - St. Louis 2730 North Ballas Road
8/22/2007 11:28 AM

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

https://ecf.ilsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?733305245814555-L_35...

Suite 200 St. Louis, MO 63131 314-567-7350 Fax: 314-567-5968 Email: staley@mcmahonberger.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 09/29/2005 10/17/2005 11/28/2005 11/28/2005 11/30/2005 12/01/2005 12/06/2005
12/13/2005 12/14/2005
12/14/2005 12/19/2005

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT against J.D. Streett & Company, Inc., filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(lmb) (Entered: 09/29/2005)
2 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. J.D. Streett & Company Inc waiver sent on 9/29/2005, answer due 11/28/2005. (Kennedy, Melvin) (Entered: 10/17/2005)
3 MOTION to Dismiss Or In Alternative for a More Definite Statement by J.D. Streett & Company Inc. Responses due by 1/3/2006 (Garland, Burton) (Entered: 11/28/2005)
4 MEMORANDUM in Support re 3 MOTION to Dismiss Or In Alternative for a More Definite Statement filed by J.D. Streett & Company Inc. (Garland, Burton) (Entered: 11/28/2005)
5 Motion and Order to Appear Pro Hac Vice granting appearance of Attorney Kevin J. Lorenz for J.D. Streett & Company, Inc. $100.00 fee paid, receipt number 300 108760. (lmb) (Entered: 11/30/2005)
6 ORDER that Streett to file on or before December 16, 2005, the appropriate corporate disclosure statement . Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 12/1/05. (jep) (Entered: 12/01/2005)
7 CJRA TRACK B assigned: Final Pretrial Conference set for 10/6/2006 at 09:30 AM in Benton Court House before Judge J. Phil Gilbert. Jury Trial set for 10/23/2006 at 09:00 AM in Benton Court House before Judge J. Phil Gilbert. (by:kjr) (Entered: 12/06/2005)
8 Corporate Disclosure Statement by J.D. Streett & Company Inc. (Garland, Burton) (Entered: 12/13/2005)
9 NOTICE of Scheduling and Discovery Conference set for 1/17/2006 09:15 AM via telephone before Judge Philip M. Frazier. Counsel for plaintiff to initiate the conference call. The number for the Court for this conference is 618-439-7750. Lead counsel must particiate in the conference call. (krm) (Entered: 12/14/2005)
10 ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY. Signed by Judge Philip M. Frazier on 12/13/2005. (krm) (Entered: 12/14/2005)
11 NOTICE AND ORDER continuing the Scheduling and Discovery Conference set for 1/17/2006 09:15 AM to 2/9/2006 09:15 AM via telephone before Judge Philip M. Frazier. Counsel for plaintiff to initiate the conference call. The number for the

5 of 10

8/22/2007 11:28 AM

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

https://ecf.ilsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?733305245814555-L_35...

12/29/2005 01/16/2006 01/24/2006 01/24/2006 01/25/2006 01/27/2006 02/01/2006
02/13/2006 02/14/2006 02/14/2006 02/14/2006 02/14/2006 02/20/2006

Court for this conference is 618-439-7750. Lead counsel must particiate in the conference call. Signed by Judge Philip M. Frazier on 12/19/2005. (Text entry only) (krm) (Entered: 12/19/2005)
12 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 3 MOTION to Dismiss Or In Alternative for a More Definite Statement filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Kennedy, Melvin) (Entered: 12/29/2005)
13 REPLY to Response to Motion re 3 MOTION to Dismiss Or In Alternative for a More Definite Statement filed by J.D. Streett & Company Inc. (Lorenz, Kevin) (Entered: 01/16/2006)
15 Motion and Order to Appear Pro Hac Vice granting appearance of Attorney William B. Jones for J.D. Streett & Company Inc. $100 fee paid,receipt number 300-109794 (Attachments: # 1 Order) (jep) (Entered: 01/25/2006)
16 Motion and Order to Appear Pro Hac Vice granting appearance of Attorney Laura B. Staley for J.D. Streett & Company Inc. $100 fee paid,receipt number 300-109794 (Attachments: # 1 Order) (jep) (Entered: 01/25/2006)
14 MOTION to Intervene by Grace Bellamy, Beverly Sanders, Connie Stacey, Tammy Thompson, Julie Wolf. (Glasford, Kristen) (Entered: 01/25/2006)
17 NOTICE of Appearance by Shari R. Rhode on behalf of Grace Bellamy, Beverly Sanders, Connie Stacey, Julie Wolf (Rhode, Shari) (Entered: 01/27/2006)
18 NOTICE AND ORDER continuing the Scheduling and Discovery Conference set for 2/9/2006 09:15 AM to 3/10/2006 09:15 AM via telephone before Judge Philip M. Frazier. Counsel for plaintiff to initiate the conference call. The number for the Court is 618-439-7750. Lead counsel must participate in the conference call. Entered by Judge Philip M. Frazier on 2/1/2006. (krm) THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED. (Entered: 02/01/2006)
19 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 14 MOTION to Intervene for Movants Thompson Wolf, and Bellamy filed by J.D. Streett & Company Inc. (Staley, Laura) (Entered: 02/13/2006)
20 MOTION to Strike 19 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to Intervene by Grace Bellamy, Beverly Sanders, Connie Stacey, Tammy Thompson, Julie Wolf. (Glasford, Kristen) (Entered: 02/14/2006)
21 RESPONSE in Opposition re 20 MOTION to Strike 19 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to Intervene filed by J.D. Streett & Company Inc. (Staley, Laura) (Entered: 02/14/2006)
22 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by J.D. Streett & Company Inc. (Garland, Burton) (Entered: 02/14/2006)
23 MOTION to Withdraw 20 MOTION to Strike 19 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to Intervene by Grace Bellamy, Beverly Sanders, Connie Stacey, Tammy Thompson, Julie Wolf. (Rhode, Shari) (Entered: 02/14/2006)
24 REPLY to Response to Motion re 14 MOTION to Intervene filed by Grace Bellamy, Beverly Sanders, Connie Stacey, Tammy Thompson, Julie Wolf.

6 of 10

8/22/2007 11:28 AM

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

https://ecf.ilsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?733305245814555-L_35...

02/22/2006 03/02/2006 03/10/2006
03/29/2006 03/29/2006 03/29/2006 03/30/2006
04/17/2006 04/17/2006 04/17/2006 04/17/2006 05/04/2006 05/05/2006 05/05/2006 05/15/2006

(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Glasford, Kristen) (Entered: 02/20/2006)
25 ORDER granting 23 Motion to Withdraw andfinding as moot 20 Motion to Strike . Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 2/22/06. (jep) (Entered: 02/22/2006)
26 RESPONSE in Opposition re 14 MOTION to Intervene (SUR-REPLY) filed by J.D. Streett & Company Inc. (Staley, Laura) (Entered: 03/02/2006)
27 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Philip M. Frazier: Scheduling and Discovery Conference held on 3/10/2006, and continued to 7/18/2006, 9:15 AM via telephone before Judge Frazier. Proposed scheduling order is not required at this time. 10/23/2006 trial date is vacated. (Court Reporter N/A.) (krm) (Entered: 03/14/2006)
28 ORDER GRANTING 14 MOTION to Intervene filed by Connie Stacey, Beverly Sanders, Tammy Thompson, Julie Wolf, and Grace Bellamy. Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 3/29/06. (jep) (Entered: 03/29/2006)
29 ORDER DENIES 3 MOTION to Dismiss Or In Alternative for a More Definite Statement filed by J.D. Streett & Company Inc. Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 3/29/06. (jep) (Entered: 03/29/2006)
30 Intervenor COMPLAINT, filed by Grace Bellamy, Beverly Sanders, Connie Stacey, Tammy Thompson, Julie Wolf.(Glasford, Kristen) (Entered: 03/29/2006)
31 ORDER granting 22 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Appearance of Attorney Burton D. Garland, Jr terminated. Signed by Judge Philip M. Frazier on 3/30/2006. (krm) Text Entry Only. No Document Will Be Mailed. (Entered: 03/30/2006)
32 Defendant's ANSWER to Complaint with Jury Demand (EEOC Complaint) by J.D. Streett & Company Inc.(Staley, Laura) (Entered: 04/17/2006)
33 Defendant's ANSWER to Intervenor Complaint (Stacey, Sanders, Bellamy and Thompson) by J.D. Streett & Company Inc.(Staley, Laura) (Entered: 04/17/2006)
34 MOTION to Dismiss Intervenor Wolf by J.D. Streett & Company Inc. Responses due by 5/22/2006 (Staley, Laura) (Entered: 04/17/2006)
35 MEMORANDUM in Support re 34 MOTION to Dismiss Intervenor Wolf filed by J.D. Streett & Company Inc. (Staley, Laura) (Entered: 04/17/2006)
36 STRICKEN PER DOC. 37 - MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 34 MOTION to Dismiss Intervenor Wolf filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Kennedy, Melvin) Modified on 5/5/2006 (bkc). (Entered: 05/04/2006)
37 NOTICE STRIKING ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOCUMENTS striking 36 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. See attached document for specifics. (bkc) (Entered: 05/05/2006)
38 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 34 MOTION to Dismiss Intervenor Wolf filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Kennedy, Melvin) (Entered: 05/05/2006)
39 REPLY to Response to Motion re 34 MOTION to Dismiss Intervenor Wolf filed by J.D. Streett & Company Inc. (Staley, Laura) (Entered: 05/15/2006)

7 of 10

8/22/2007 11:28 AM

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

https://ecf.ilsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?733305245814555-L_35...

06/15/2006
07/14/2006 07/20/2006 07/25/2006 07/31/2006
09/14/2006 09/14/2006
10/06/2006 10/12/2006 10/17/2006 10/30/2006

40 NOTICE TO COUNSEL: Due to a conflict on the Court's calendar, of Scheduling and Discovery Conference set for 7/18/2006 09:15 AM is continued to 7/25/2006 09:15 AM before Judge Philip M. Frazier via telephone. Counsel for Plaintiff is to place the conference call between the Court (618-439-7750) and counsel. Lead counsel must participate in the call.(krm) TEXT ENTRY ONLY. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED. (Entered: 06/15/2006)
41 NOTICE by J.D. Streett & Company Inc to Withdraw William B. Jones' Entry of Appearance (Staley, Laura) (Entered: 07/14/2006)
42 Motion and Order to Appear Pro Hac Vice granting appearance of Attorney Michelle M. Cain for J.D. Streett & Company Inc. $100.00 fee paid, receipt number 300 113206. (Attachments: # 1 Order) (bkl) (Entered: 07/24/2006)
43 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Philip M. Frazier: Scheduling and Discovery Conference held on 7/25/2006. Settlement Conference set for 12/12/2006 09:15 AM before Judge Frazier in Benton. Separate order to enter.(Court Reporter N/A.) (krm) (Entered: 07/25/2006)
44 ORDER FOR AND NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE: Settlement Conference set for 12/12/2006 09:15 AM in U.S. Courthouse, Courtroom No. 2, 301 West Main St., Benton, Illinois, before Mag Judge Philip M. Frazier.Settlement statements are to be submitted to Judge Frazier on or before 12/5/2006 (see instructions for submission in this order). Signed by Judge Philip M. Frazier on 7/31/06. (mta) (Entered: 07/31/2006)
45 MOTION for Summary Judgment by J.D. Streett & Company Inc. Responses due by 10/17/2006 (Lorenz, Kevin) (Entered: 09/14/2006)
46 MEMORANDUM in Support re 45 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by J.D. Streett & Company Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit EXH A Voluntary Petition# 2 Exhibit EXH B Schedule B Personal Property# 3 Exhibit EXH C Notice Chapter 7 Meeting of Creditors# 4 Exhibit EXH D Discharge of Debtor)(Lorenz, Kevin) (Entered: 09/14/2006)
47 RESPONSE in Opposition re 45 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Julie Wolf. (Glasford, Kristen) (Entered: 10/06/2006)
48 Set/Reset Hearings: Final Pretrial Conference set for 3/2/2007 at 09:30 AM in Benton Court House before Judge J. Phil Gilbert. Jury Trial set for 3/12/2007 at 09:00 AM in Benton Court House before Judge J. Phil Gilbert. (by:kjr) (Entered: 10/12/2006)
49 REPLY to Response to Motion re 45 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by J.D. Streett & Company Inc. (Lorenz, Kevin) (Entered: 10/17/2006)
50 MEMORANDUM AND OPINION, Granting 45 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by J.D. Streett & Company Inc.; Dismissing Wolf's claims with prejudice; Denying as moot 34 MOTION to Dismiss filed by J.D. Streett & Company Inc.; and Directing the Clerk of Court to enter judgment accordingly at the close of the case. Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 10/30/06. (bkl) (Entered: 10/30/2006)

8 of 10

8/22/2007 11:28 AM

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

https://ecf.ilsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?733305245814555-L_35...

11/28/2006
12/11/2006 12/12/2006 01/22/2007 01/23/2007 01/24/2007 01/25/2007
01/25/2007 01/25/2007

51 ORDER STRIKING AND RESCHEDULING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE: Upon the Court's own motion, the Settlement Conference set for 12/12/2006 at 9:15 a.m. is STRICKEN but is RESCHEDULED for the same date, 12/12/2006, at 10:00 AM in U.S. Courthouse, Courtroom No. 2, 301 West Main St., Benton, Illinois, before Magistrate Judge Philip M. Frazier. Signed by Judge Philip M. Frazier on 11/28/06. (mta) (Entered: 11/28/2006)
52 NOTICE of Appearance by Teresa Angelica Machicao-Hopkins on behalf of Tammy Thompson (Machicao-Hopkins, Teresa) (Entered: 12/11/2006)
53 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Philip M. Frazier: Settlement Conference held on 12/12/2006; case settled; 60-day Order of Dismissal to enter plus Consent Decree of the parties. (Court Reporter N/A.) (mta) (Entered: 12/12/2006)
54 ORDER setting a Telephone Status Conference set for 1/26/2007 09:00 AM in Benton Court House before Judge J. Phil Gilbert. Plaintiff is responsible for placing the call. Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on January 22, 2007. (vlm, ) (Entered: 01/22/2007)
55 MOTION to Dismiss by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Grace Bellamy, Beverly Sanders, Connie Stacey, Tammy Thompson, Julie Wolf. Responses due by 2/26/2007 (Glasford, Kristen) (Entered: 01/23/2007)
56 MOTION to Clarify by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Kennedy, Melvin) (Entered: 01/24/2007)
57 MEMORANDUM AND OPINION Granting 55 MOTION to Dismiss with prejudice the claims of plaintiff/intervenors Connie Stacey, Beverly Sanders, Tammy Thompson, and Grace Bellamy; Granting 56 MOTION to Clarify filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission; Vacating telephone status conference and approving the proposed consent decree between plaintiff EEOC and Defendant J.D. Streett & Company, Inc. Connie Stacey; Tammy Thompson; Grace Bellamy and Beverly Sanders terminated. The Court directs the clerk of Court to enter a Rule 54(b) judgment accordingly.Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 1/25/07. (bkl) (Entered: 01/25/2007)
58 CONSENT DECREE re 57 Memorandum & Opinion. Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 1/25/07. (bkl) (Entered: 01/25/2007)
59 CLERK'S JUDGMENT (NGJ/bkl) dismissing with prejudice the claims of plaintiff/intervenors against defendant J.D. Streett & Company, Inc. The remainder of the claims in this case are addressed by a consent decree entered this day. Approved by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 1/25/07. (bkl) (Entered: 01/25/2007)

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt
08/22/2007 11:28:55

9 of 10

8/22/2007 11:28 AM

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

https://ecf.ilsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?733305245814555-L_35...

PACER Login:
Description:
Billable Pages:

hs0328
Docket Report
6

Client Code: eeoc

Search Criteria:

4:05-cv-04186-JPG-PMF

Cost:

0.48

10 of 10

8/22/2007 11:28 AM