Case 3:04-cv-05627-RBL Document 1-1 Filed 09/24/2004 Page 1 of 5

A. LUIS LUCERO, JR., REGIONAL ATTORNEY KATHRYN OLSON, SUPERVISORY TRIAL ATTORNEY
12 DAMIEN LEE, SENIOR TRIAL ATTORNEY EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
3 909 FIRST AVENUE, SUITE 400 SEATTLE, WA 98104
4 TEL: (206) 220-6893 FAX:(206) 220-6915
5 Damien.Lee@eeoc.gov

6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

9

AT TACOMA

10

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

)

11 COMMISSION,

)

)

12

Plaintiff,

)

)

13

v.

)

)

14

)

CENTRAL PARK LODGES LONG TERM

)

15 CARE, INC., d/b/a LINDEN GROVE HEALTH )

CARE CENTER,

)

16

)

Defendant.

)

17

)

CIVIL ACTION NO.
COMPLAINT JURY TRIAL DEMAND

18 NATURE OF THE ACTION
19
This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of the Civil 20
Rights Act of 1991 to correct unlawful employment practices based on race, and to provide 21
appropriate relief to Lorraine Moore (“Ms. Moore”), Cathy Wise (“Ms. Wise”), Kesha Gantt (“Ms. 22
Gantt”) and a class of similarly situated individuals (“Class Members”). The Equal Employment 23
Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) alleges that Central Park Lodges Long Term Care, Inc., d/b/a 24
Linden Grove Health Care Center (“Defendant”), discriminated against Ms. Moore, Ms. Wise, Ms. 25
Gantt and Class Members when it made race-based work assignments. The EEOC also alleges that 26
Defendant discriminated against Ms. Wise based on her race when she was not promoted, and 27

CPL LTC, INC./LINDEN GROVE COMPLAINT - PAGE 1

E Q U A L E M P L O YM E N T O PP O R T UN IT Y C O M M I SS IO N Seattle District Office Federal Office Building
909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington 98104-1061
Telephone (206) 220-6883 Fax (206) 220-6911 TDD (206) 220-6882

Case 3:04-cv-05627-RBL Document 1-1 Filed 09/24/2004 Page 2 of 5

subjected Ms. Gantt to harassment based on her race. Plaintiff seeks monetary relief, including

12 pecuniary and nonpecuniary compensatory and punitive damages and injunctive relief, on behalf of

3 Ms. Moore, Ms. Wise, Ms. Gantt and Class Members.

4

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

5

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

6 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to sections 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII

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

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

9

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

10 jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the District of Washington at Tacoma.

11

PARTIES

12

3. Plaintiff EEOC is the agency of the United States of America charged with the

13 administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title VII, and is expressly authorized to bring this

14 action by Section 706(f)(1) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1).

15

4. At all relevant times, Defendant Linden Grove has been a corporation continuously

16 doing business in the State of Washington and has continuously had at least 15 employees.

17

5. At all relevant times, Defendant Linden Grove has continuously been an employer

18 engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701(b), (g) and (h) of

19 Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§2000e-(b), (g) and (h).

20

STATEMENT OF CLAIMS

21

6. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Ms. Moore, Ms. Wise and

22 Ms. Gantt filed individual charges with the EEOC alleging violations of Title VII by Defendant

23 Linden Grove. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled.

24

7. Since December 24, 2003, Defendant Linden Grove engaged in unlawful employment

25 practices at its Puyallup, WA facility in violation of § 703(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a).

26 Defendant Linden Grove affected the terms and conditions of employment for Ms. Moore, Ms. Wise,

27 Ms. Gantt and the Class Members by subjecting them to disparate treatment in the terms and

CPL LTC, INC./LINDEN GROVE COMPLAINT - PAGE 2

E Q U A L E M P L O YM E N T O PP O R T UN IT Y C O M M I SS IO N Seattle District Office Federal Office Building
909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington 98104-1061
Telephone (206) 220-6883 Fax (206) 220-6911 TDD (206) 220-6882

Case 3:04-cv-05627-RBL Document 1-1 Filed 09/24/2004 Page 3 of 5

conditions of their employment because of their race, e.g., African American, Hispanic or Asian

12 American. In addition, Defendant Linden Grove affected the terms and conditions of Ms. Wise’s

3 employment since May 1, 2003 by not promoting her to the Staffing Coordinator position based on

4 her race, African American. Furthermore, Defendant Linden Grove affected the terms and

5 conditions of Ms. Gantt’s employment by subjecting her to harassment based on her race, African

6 American.

7

8. The effect of the practices complained of in paragraph 7 above has been to deprive

8 Ms. Moore, Ms. Wise, Ms. Gantt and the Class Members of equal employment opportunities and

9 otherwise adversely affect her status as an employee because of their race, e.g., African American,

10 Hispanic or Asian American.

11

9. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 7 above were

12 intentional.

13

10. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 7 above were done

14 with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Ms. Moore, Ms. Wise,

15 Ms. Gantt and the Class Members.

16

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

17

Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court:

18

A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant, its officers, successors, agents,

19 assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in any employment

20 practices which discriminate on the basis of race.

21

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

22 provide equal employment opportunities for all employees, and which eradicate the effects of its past

23 and present unlawful employment practices.

24

C. Order Defendant to make whole Ms. Moore, Ms. Wise, Ms. Gantt and the Class

25 Members by providing appropriate back pay with prejudgment interest, in amounts to be determined

26 at trial, and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment

27 practices described in paragraphs 7 above.

CPL LTC, INC./LINDEN GROVE COMPLAINT - PAGE 3

E Q U A L E M P L O YM E N T O PP O R T UN IT Y C O M M I SS IO N Seattle District Office Federal Office Building
909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington 98104-1061
Telephone (206) 220-6883 Fax (206) 220-6911 TDD (206) 220-6882

Case 3:04-cv-05627-RBL Document 1-1 Filed 09/24/2004 Page 4 of 5

D. Order Defendant to make whole Ms. Moore, Ms. Wise, Ms. Gantt and the Class

12 Members by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the

3 unlawful employment practices described in paragraphs 7 above, including past and future out-of-

4 pocket expenses, in amounts to be determined at trial.

5

E. Order Defendant to make whole Ms. Moore, Ms. Wise, Ms. Gantt and the Class

6 Members by providing compensation for past and future nonpecuniary losses resulting from the

7 unlawful practices complained of in described in paragraphs 7 above, including without limitation

8 emotional pain, suffering, and loss of enjoyment of life, in amounts to be determined at trial.

9

F. Order defendant to pay Ms. Moore, Ms. Wise, Ms. Gantt and the Class Members

10 punitive damages for its malicious and reckless conduct described in paragraphs 7 above, in amounts

11 to be determined at trial.

12

G. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public

13 interest.

14

H. Award the Commission its costs of this action.

15 //

16 //

17 //

18 //

19 //

20 //

21 //

22 //

23 //

24 //

25 //

26 //

27 //

CPL LTC, INC./LINDEN GROVE COMPLAINT - PAGE 4

E Q U A L E M P L O YM E N T O PP O R T UN IT Y C O M M I SS IO N Seattle District Office Federal Office Building
909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington 98104-1061
Telephone (206) 220-6883 Fax (206) 220-6911 TDD (206) 220-6882

Case 3:04-cv-05627-RBL Document 1-1 Filed 09/24/2004 Page 5 of 5

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

12

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

3

4

DATED this 24th day of September, 2004.

5

6 A. LUIS LUCERO, JR.
7 Regional Attorney

ERIC S. DREIBAND General Counsel

8 KATHRYN OLSON Supervisory Trial Attorney
9 DAMIEN LEE
10 Senior Trial Attorney

JAMES L. LEE Deputy General Counsel
GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel

11

BY: s/ A Luis Lucero

12

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

13 COMMISSION

COMMISSION

Seattle District Office

Office of the General Counsel

14 909 First Avenue, Suite 400

1801 "L" Street, N.W.

Seattle, Washington 98104

Washington, D.C. 20507

15 Telephone (206) 220-6915

Damien.Lee@eeoc.gov

16

Attorneys for Plaintiff

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

CPL LTC, INC./LINDEN GROVE COMPLAINT - PAGE 5

E Q U A L E M P L O YM E N T O PP O R T UN IT Y C O M M I SS IO N Seattle District Office Federal Office Building
909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington 98104-1061
Telephone (206) 220-6883 Fax (206) 220-6911 TDD (206) 220-6882

 
 Case 3:04-cv-05627-RBL Document 10 Filed 10/18/2004 Page 1 of 33

1

2

3

4

5

6

THE HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA

9 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

) CASE NO.: C04-5627 RBL

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, 10

) ) INTERVENORS’ COMPLAINT FOR

11 v.

Plaintiff,

) DAMAGES )

12 CENTRAL PARK LODGES LONG

) 1. RACE DISCRIMINATION AND

13

TERM CARE, INC., d/b/a LINDEN GROVE HEALTH CARE CENTER,

) )

RACIAL HARASSMENT IN VIOLATION OF TITLE VII OF THE

14

) CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964, 42

Defendants.

) U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.

15 ___________________________________ )

16

LORRAINE MOORE, CATHY WISE, KESHA GANTT, SADARAH

) 2. RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF ) TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS

17 YARBROUGH, BARBARA BERSHELL, ) ACT OF 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.

VERONICA BRADY, and NORMA 18 BALLARD,

) ) 3. RACE DISCRIMINATION AND

19

) Plaintiffs in Intervention, )

RACIAL HARASSMENT IN VIOLATION OF RCW 49.60

20

v.

)

CENTRAL PARK LODGES LONG 21 TERM CARE, INC., d/b/a LINDEN

) 4. RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF ) RCW 49.60

22 GROVE HEALTH CARE CENTER ; ) DONNA STROMSKI, individually and ) 5. NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION

23 the marital community thereof with ) AND/OR RETENTION

JOHN DOE STROMSKI; MARIETTA ) 24 ANDREASEN, individually and the ) DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

25 marital community thereof with JOHN ) DOE ANDREASEN, and DOES 1-10 )

26 inclusive,

)

27

Defendants in Intervention )

INTERVENORS’ COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

28

(C04-5627 RBL) - 1

S:\6000 FILES\6218 Lorraine Moore v. Linden Groves Nursing

Home\Complaint.doc

The Law Offices of GRANT & ASSOCIATES The Law Dome
3002 So. 47th Street Tacoma, Washington 98409
Telephone (253) 472-6213

EXHIBIT 1

Case 3:04-cv-05627-RBL Document 10 Filed 10/18/2004 Page 2 of 33

1

COMES NOW, Plaintiffs in Intervention, LORRAINE MOORE, CATHY WISE,

2 KESHA GANTT, SADARAH YARBROUGH, BARBARA BERSHELL, VERONICA
3 BRADY, and NORMA BALLARD by and through their attorneys of record, allege the
4 5 following:

6

I. NATURE OF THE CASE

7

1. This case involves race discrimination, racial harassment, and retaliation by

8 Defendants CENTRAL PARK LODGES LONG TERM CARE, INC., d/b/a LINDEN
9 GROVE HEALTH CARE CENTER and its agents. Plaintiffs in Intervention alleges
10

11 CENTRAL PARK LODGES LONG TERM CARE, INC., d/b/a LINDEN GROVE

12 HEALTH CARE CENTER; DONNA STROMSKI, individually and the marital
13 community thereof with JOHN DOE STROMSKI; MARIETTA ANDREASEN, 14
individually and the marital community thereof with JOHN DOE ANDREASEN 15 16 engaged in a pattern and practice of overt race discrimination and of ignoring and even
17 condoning the racial harassment.

18

2. Plaintiffs contend that they were subjected to racial harassment in that

19 employees and patients of Defendant LINDEN GROVE HEALTH CARE CENTER
20

21 referred to them as “niggers” and “colored.”

22

3. Plaintiffs assert claims under federal and state anti-discrimination and civil

23 rights laws. Plaintiffs seek legal redress for injuries inflicted upon them by Defendants

24 CENTRAL PARK LODGES LONG TERM CARE, INC., d/b/a LINDEN GROVE
25 HEALTH CARE CENTER; DONNA STROMSKI, individually and the marital
26

27 community thereof with JOHN DOE STROMSKI; MARIETTA ANDREASEN,

INTERVENORS’ COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

28

(C04-5627 RBL) - 2

S:\6000 FILES\6218 Lorraine Moore v. Linden Groves Nursing

Home\Complaint.doc

The Law Offices of GRANT & ASSOCIATES The Law Dome
3002 So. 47th Street Tacoma, Washington 98409
Telephone (253) 472-6213

EXHIBIT 1

Case 3:04-cv-05627-RBL Document 10 Filed 10/18/2004 Page 3 of 33

1 individually and the marital community thereof with JOHN DOE ANDREASEN, and

2 DOES 1-10.
3 4. Plaintiffs believe that as a result of the egregious and repetitive
4
5 discriminatory acts, a sizeable punitive damage award may be required to punish

6 Defendants for past discrimination and deter such behavior in the future.

7

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

8 5. Jurisdiction is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 based upon a federal
9
10 question under the laws of the United States. Specifically, this Court has jurisdiction

11 over Plaintiff’s claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended in

12 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.
13 6. Supplemental jurisdiction exists pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) for state
14 15 statutory claims under RCW § 49.60.010 et seq. and other torts.

16

7. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) and (2); and 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-

17 5(f)(3).

18 III. STATUTORY PREREQUISITES

19

20

8. Plaintiffs in Intervention has an absolute right, under 42 USC §2000e-5(f)(1),

21 to intervene in this action brought by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

22 (hereinafter “EEOC”).
23 9. In or about January 2004, Plaintiff MOORE filed an EEOC Charge based on
24 race discrimination against Defendant LINDEN GROVE, EEOC Charge No. 380-2004-
25
26 00919.

27

INTERVENORS’ COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

28

(C04-5627 RBL) - 3

S:\6000 FILES\6218 Lorraine Moore v. Linden Groves Nursing

Home\Complaint.doc

The Law Offices of GRANT & ASSOCIATES The Law Dome
3002 So. 47th Street Tacoma, Washington 98409
Telephone (253) 472-6213

EXHIBIT 1

Case 3:04-cv-05627-RBL Document 10 Filed 10/18/2004 Page 4 of 33

1

10. On May 24, 2004, the EEOC issued a reasonable cause determination to

2 Plaintiff MOORE. The EEOC found that Defendant LINDEN GROVE HEALTH CARE 3
CENTER violated Title VII by subjecting Plaintiff MOORE to discriminatory work 4
5 assignments due to her race, African American.

6

11. On January 26, 2004, Plaintiff WISE filed an EEOC Charge based on race

7 discrimination against Defendant LINDEN GROVE HEALTH CARE CENTER, EEOC
8 Charge No. 380-2004-01339.
9

10

12. On May 25, 2004, the EEOC issued a reasonable cause determination to

11 Plaintiff WISE. The EEOC found that Defendant LINDEN GROVE HEALTH CARE

12 CENTER violated Title VII by subjecting Plaintiff WISE to discriminatory work
13 assignments and terms and conditions of employment. Further, EEOC found
14
15 reasonable cause to believe Plaintiff WISE was denied promotional opportunities.

16

13. In or about January 2004, Plaintiff GANTT filed an EEOC Charge based on

17 race discrimination against Defendant LINDEN GROVE, EEOC Charge No. 380-2004-

18 01340.
19

20

14. On May 25, 2004, the EEOC issued a reasonable cause determination to

21 Plaintiff GANTT. The EEOC found Defendant LINDEN GROVE HEALTH CARE

22 CENTER violated Title VII by subjecting Plaintiff GANTT was subjected to

23 discriminatory work assignments and terms and conditions of employment, and that
24 she was subjected to harassment in violation of Title VII.
25

26

15. On May 17, 2004, Plaintiff YARBROUGH filed an EEOC Charge based on

27

INTERVENORS’ COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

28

(C04-5627 RBL) - 4

S:\6000 FILES\6218 Lorraine Moore v. Linden Groves Nursing

Home\Complaint.doc

The Law Offices of GRANT & ASSOCIATES The Law Dome
3002 So. 47th Street Tacoma, Washington 98409
Telephone (253) 472-6213

EXHIBIT 1

Case 3:04-cv-05627-RBL Document 10 Filed 10/18/2004 Page 5 of 33

1 race discrimination against Defendant LINDEN GROVE HEALTH CARE CENTER,

2 EEOC Charge No. 380-2004-02551.
3 16. On June 28, 2004, Plaintiff BARBARA BERSHELL filed an EEOC Charge
4
5 based on race discrimination against Defendant LINDEN GROVE HEALTH CARE

6 CENTER, EEOC Charge No. 380-2004-03043.

7

17. On July 2, 2004, Plaintiff VERONICA BRADY filed an EEOC Charge based on

8 race discrimination against Defendant LINDEN GROVE, EEOC Charge No. 380-2003-
9
10 03124.

11

18. On September 24, 2004, Plaintiff NORMA BALLARD filed an EEOC Charge

12 based on race discrimination against Defendant LINDEN GROVE, EEOC Charge No.

13 380-2004-04143.
14
15

IV. PARTIES

16 A. Plaintiffs

17

19. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff MOORE has been a citizen of the

18 United States and a resident of the State of Washington and has been entitled to
19 protection under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended in 1991, 42 U.S.C.
20
21 § 2000e et seq., 42 U.S.C. § 13981, RCW chapter 49.60, and the common law of the State

22 of Washington.

23

20. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff WISE has been a citizen of the

24 United States and a resident of the State of Washington and has been entitled to
25

26 protection under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended in 1991, 42 U.S.C.

27 § 2000e et seq., 42 U.S.C. § 13981, RCW chapter 49.60, and the common law of the State

INTERVENORS’ COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

28

(C04-5627 RBL) - 5

S:\6000 FILES\6218 Lorraine Moore v. Linden Groves Nursing

Home\Complaint.doc

The Law Offices of GRANT & ASSOCIATES The Law Dome
3002 So. 47th Street Tacoma, Washington 98409
Telephone (253) 472-6213

EXHIBIT 1

Case 3:04-cv-05627-RBL Document 10 Filed 10/18/2004 Page 6 of 33

1 of Washington.

2

21. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff GANTT has been a citizen of the

3 United States and a resident of the State of Washington and has been entitled to
4

5 protection under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended in 1991, 42 U.S.C.

6 § 2000e et seq., 42 U.S.C. § 13981, RCW chapter 49.60, and the common law of the State

7 of Washington. 8
22. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff YARBROUGH has been a citizen of 9 10 the United States and a resident of the State of Washington and has been entitled to
11 protection under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended in 1991, 42 U.S.C.

12 § 2000e et seq., 42 U.S.C. § 13981, RCW chapter 49.60, and the common law of the State

13 of Washington.

14

15

23. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff BERSHELL has been a citizen of the

16 United States and a resident of the State of Washington and has been entitled to

17 protection under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended in 1991, 42 U.S.C.

18 § 2000e et seq., 42 U.S.C. § 13981, RCW chapter 49.60, and the common law of the State
19 of Washington.
20

21

24. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff BRADY has been a citizen of the

22 United States and a resident of the State of Washington and has been entitled to
23 protection under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended in 1991, 42 U.S.C. 24
§ 2000e et seq., 42 U.S.C. § 13981, RCW chapter 49.60, and the common law of the State 25 26 of Washington.

27

INTERVENORS’ COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

28

(C04-5627 RBL) - 6

S:\6000 FILES\6218 Lorraine Moore v. Linden Groves Nursing

Home\Complaint.doc

The Law Offices of GRANT & ASSOCIATES The Law Dome
3002 So. 47th Street Tacoma, Washington 98409
Telephone (253) 472-6213

EXHIBIT 1

Case 3:04-cv-05627-RBL Document 10 Filed 10/18/2004 Page 7 of 33

1

25. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff BALLARD has been a citizen of the

2 United States and a resident of the State of Washington and has been entitled to 3
protection under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended in 1991, 42 U.S.C. 4
5 § 2000e et seq., 42 U.S.C. § 13981, RCW chapter 49.60, and the common law of the State

6 of Washington.

7 B. Named Defendant Corporations
8 26. Defendants CENTRAL PARK LODGES LONG TERM CARE, INC.,
9 10 d/b/a LINDEN GROVE HEALTH CARE CENTER and DOES 1-5 have at all relevant
11 times been an employer as defined by 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b), in that they have employed

12 fifteen (15) or more persons in each of twenty (20) or more calendar weeks in the

13 current or preceding year.

14

15

27. Defendants CENTRAL PARK LODGES LONG TERM CARE, INC.,

16 d/b/a LINDEN GROVE HEALTH CARE CENTER and DOES 1-5 are employers

17 under R.C.W. 49.60.040, in that they employs eight (8) or more persons.
18 28. Defendant CENTRAL PARK LODGES LONG TERM CARE, INC., d/b/a
19 LINDEN GROVE HEALTH CARE CENTER conduct business in the State of
20
21 Washington.

22 C. Named Individual Defendants

23

29. It is believed and is herein alleged that Defendant DONNA STROMSKI

24 is and has been a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Washington
25

26 at all times material hereto.

27

INTERVENORS’ COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

28

(C04-5627 RBL) - 7

S:\6000 FILES\6218 Lorraine Moore v. Linden Groves Nursing

Home\Complaint.doc

The Law Offices of GRANT & ASSOCIATES The Law Dome
3002 So. 47th Street Tacoma, Washington 98409
Telephone (253) 472-6213

EXHIBIT 1

Case 3:04-cv-05627-RBL Document 10 Filed 10/18/2004 Page 8 of 33

1

30. Defendant STROMSKI at all times material herein acted as an agent for

2 Defendant LINDEN GROVE HEALTH CARE CENTER in that she is the 3
Administrator of Defendant LINDEN GROVE HEALTH CARE CENTER. Defendant 4
5 STROMSKI was at all relevant times a managerial agent of Defendant LINDEN

6 GROVE HEALTH CARE CENTER.

7

31. On information and belief, Defendants STROMSKI and JOHN DOE

8 STROMSKI reside in the State of Washington, which is within this judicial district.
9

10

32. Defendant STROMSKI is married to JOHN DOE STROMSKI and all acts

11 done by her were done on behalf of or in furtherance of the interests of the marital

12 community.
13 33. It is believed and is herein alleged that Defendant MARIETTA
14
15 ANDREASEN is and has been a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State

16 of Washington at all times material hereto.

17

34. Defendant ANDREASEN at all times material herein acted as an agent

18 for Defendant LINDEN GROVE HEALTH CARE CENTER in that she was Director of
19

20 Nursing Services.

21

35. On information and belief, Defendants ANDREASEN and JOHN DOE

22 ADREASEN reside in the State of Washington, which is within this judicial district. 23
36. Defendant ANDREASEN is married to JOHN DOE ANDREASEN and 24
25 all acts done by him were done on behalf of or in furtherance of the interests of the

26 marital community.

27

INTERVENORS’ COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

28

(C04-5627 RBL) - 8

S:\6000 FILES\6218 Lorraine Moore v. Linden Groves Nursing

Home\Complaint.doc

The Law Offices of GRANT & ASSOCIATES The Law Dome
3002 So. 47th Street Tacoma, Washington 98409
Telephone (253) 472-6213

EXHIBIT 1

Case 3:04-cv-05627-RBL Document 10 Filed 10/18/2004 Page 9 of 33

1 D. Doe Defendants

2

37. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate,

3 governmental or otherwise, of Defendants sued herein as DOES 1-5, inclusive, are
4

5 currently unknown to Plaintiffs, who therefore sue said Defendants by such fictitious

6 names.

7

38. The true names and capacities of individual Defendants sued herein as

8 DOES 6-10, inclusive are currently unknown to Plaintiffs, who therefore sue said
9

10 Defendants by such fictitious names.

11

39. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that each of

12 the Defendants designated as a DOES 1-10 are legally responsible in some manner for
13 the events, incidents, and happenings described herein, and caused injuries and
14 15 damages to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs will seek leave of court to amend this Complaint to
16 substitute the true names and capacities for the Defendants designated herein as DOES

17 1-10 when the true names have been ascertained or in the alternative dismiss said
18 DOES 1-10 if their identities cannot be ascertained. 19
40. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon alleges, that at all 20
21 times mentioned herein, Defendants DOES 1-10 allowed, aided, encouraged and

22 incited others, including agents and employees of Defendant CENTRAL PARK
23 LODGES LONG TERM CARE, INC., d/b/a LINDEN GROVE HEALTH CARE
24 CENTER to engage in the acts of discrimination and retaliation alleged herein.
25

26

27

INTERVENORS’ COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

28

(C04-5627 RBL) - 9

S:\6000 FILES\6218 Lorraine Moore v. Linden Groves Nursing

Home\Complaint.doc

The Law Offices of GRANT & ASSOCIATES The Law Dome
3002 So. 47th Street Tacoma, Washington 98409
Telephone (253) 472-6213

EXHIBIT 1

Case 3:04-cv-05627-RBL Document 10 Filed 10/18/2004 Page 10 of 33

1

41. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon allege that at all

2 relevant times the individual DOE Defendants viz, Does 6-10, are and have been
3 residents of the United States and the State of Washington.
4

5

42. Defendants CENTRAL PARK LODGES LONG TERM CARE, INC., d/b/a

6 LINDEN GROVE HEALTH CARE CENTER; DONNA STROMSKI, individually and
7 the marital community thereof with JOHN DOE STROMSKI; MARIETTA 8
ANDREASEN, individually and the marital community thereof with JOHN DOE 9 10 ANDREASEN, and DOES 1-10 are hereinafter collectively referred to as
11 “DEFENDANTS.” Unless specified otherwise, whenever this Complaint refers to

12 “Defendant” or “Defendants,” such allegation shall be deemed to mean the acts of

13 Defendants acting individually, jointly and/or severally as so designated.

14

15

43. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon alleges, that at all

16 times mentioned herein, each of the Defendants were the agents, servants and

17 employees, co-venturers or co-conspirators of each of the remaining Defendants, and
18 were acting within the course, scope, and purpose of their employment, joint venture 19
or conspiracy, with the consent, knowledge, ratification and authorization of such 20
21 agency, employment, joint venture or conspiracy.

22

V. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

23 A. Plaintiff LORRAINE MOORE alleges the following:

24 44. Plaintiff MOORE was subjected to racial harassment, race discrimination;
25
26 retaliation in that she was constructively discharged. Plaintiff MOORE worked for

27 Defendant LINDEN GROVE HEALTH CARE CENTER as a part-time Licensed

INTERVENORS’ COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

28

(C04-5627 RBL) - 10

S:\6000 FILES\6218 Lorraine Moore v. Linden Groves Nursing

Home\Complaint.doc

The Law Offices of GRANT & ASSOCIATES The Law Dome
3002 So. 47th Street Tacoma, Washington 98409
Telephone (253) 472-6213

EXHIBIT 1

Case 3:04-cv-05627-RBL Document 10 Filed 10/18/2004 Page 11 of 33

1 Practical Nurse (LPN) from October 11, 2001 to March 12, 2002.

2

45. In December 2003, Plaintiff MOORE was assigned to care for the patients

3 on Hall 1 and Hall 2. Plaintiff MOORE was later assigned to work the North Wing
4

5 twice a week. On December 24, 2003, Plaintiff MOORE noticed the note posted at the

6 nurses’ station stating, “no caregivers of color at any time” to care for Patient 1. Two

7 days later, the note remained posted on the office work board. Plaintiff MOORE
8 believed the note was wholly offensive and inappropriate. She also discovered a
9 10 notation in the patient’s file, which stated that the resident prefers Caucasian
11 caregivers only. She submitted a written complaint to Defendant ANDREASEN,

12 stating that she was disappointed in the facility for posting a “racist note”. Defendant
13 ANDREASEN ignored Plaintiff MOORE’s complaints, as she never responded to 14
Plaintiff MOORE. After two full days, the note was taken down on December 26, 2003. 15 16 Plaintiffs allege Defendant ANDREASEN did not instruct anyone to remove the

17 posting. Instead, a Caucasian LPN took the note down as she believed that the note

18 was inappropriate and should not have ever been posted.
19 46. Since December 28, 2003, Plaintiff MOORE never worked on Hall 2,
20 21 where Patient 1 resided. Plaintiff MOORE was also forced to work the North Wing
22 twice each week. She was placed under closer scrutiny soon after complaining about

23 the racist note.

24 47. Plaintiff MOORE began receiving phone calls at home for insignificant
25
26 issues, for which a phone call was not warranted. At that point Plaintiff MOORE was

27 afraid of losing her license because of the possibility of Defendants lodging a bogus

INTERVENORS’ COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

28

(C04-5627 RBL) - 11

S:\6000 FILES\6218 Lorraine Moore v. Linden Groves Nursing

Home\Complaint.doc

The Law Offices of GRANT & ASSOCIATES The Law Dome
3002 So. 47th Street Tacoma, Washington 98409
Telephone (253) 472-6213

EXHIBIT 1

Case 3:04-cv-05627-RBL Document 10 Filed 10/18/2004 Page 12 of 33

1 complaint in retaliation for complaining about the discrimination. She witnessed other

2 African-American employees being falsely accused of patient abuse and subsequently

3 terminated.
4

5

48. Plaintiff MOORE could no longer work in an environment that condoned

6 discrimination and she could no longer afford to work only 32-hours each week.

7 Plaintiff MOORE alleges she was retaliated against for complaining about the racist
8 note and was eventually constructively discharged from her position at Defendant
9 10 LINDEN GROVE HEALTH CARE CENTER.

11

49. Additionally, Defendants denied Plaintiff MOORE’s requests to work the

12 day or evening shift. Plaintiff MOORE first worked at Defendant LINDEN GROVE
13 HEALTH CARE CENTER for five months on a part-time basis between October 2001
14 and March 2002. She returned to Defendant LINDEN GROVE HEALTH CARE
15
16 CENTER to work full-time in April 22, 2003. When she was first hired, she was

17 assigned the night shift, which only allowed her to work 32-hours-per-week. Plaintiff

18 MOORE requested the evening or day shift, which would provide her with 40 hours

19 each week.
20

21

50. Plaintiff MOORE was a single mother desperately needing to receive a

22 40-hour-per-week paycheck. Despite her repeated request for the evening or day shift,

23 Defendants hired other Caucasian LPNs for the evening or day shift.

24 B.
25

Plaintiff CATHY WISE alleges the following:

26

51. Plaintiff WISE was subjected to racial harassment, race discrimination and

27

INTERVENORS’ COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

28

(C04-5627 RBL) - 12

S:\6000 FILES\6218 Lorraine Moore v. Linden Groves Nursing

Home\Complaint.doc

The Law Offices of GRANT & ASSOCIATES The Law Dome
3002 So. 47th Street Tacoma, Washington 98409
Telephone (253) 472-6213

EXHIBIT 1

Case 3:04-cv-05627-RBL Document 10 Filed 10/18/2004 Page 13 of 33

1 retaliation. Plaintiff WISE is a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) who has worked for

2 Defendants since June 22, 2000.
3 52. Plaintiff WISE alleges she was denied promotional opportunities because
4
5 of her race. She applied for a Staffing Coordinator position twice, in May 2002 and in

6 May 2003. Plaintiff WISE was denied the promotion both times.

7

53. In May 2002, Plaintiff WISE and another Caucasian employee, were the

8 top two candidates for the Staffing Coordinator position. While Sheila had no staffing
9

10 experience, Plaintiff WISE had two years of prior staffing experience. Defendants

11 promoted the Caucasian employee. When the Caucasian employee quit in May 2003, it

12 was well known amongst Defendant LINDEN GROVE HEALTH CARE CENTER
13 employees that Plaintiff WISE should finally be promoted to the Staffing Coordinator
14 position.
15

16

54. Instead, Defendants promoted another Caucasian employee, who did not

17 even apply for the position. The Caucasian employee had less seniority and less
18 experience than Plaintiff WISE. The EEOC has determined Defendant LINDEN 19
GROVE HEALTH CARE CENTER has denied Plaintiff WISE promotional opportunities 20
21 because of her race.

22

55. Plaintiff WISE was also subjected to a hostile work environment. From

23 1999 through 2002, Plaintiff WISE provided patient care to a Caucasian patient, Patient 24
2, who frequently referred to African-American employees as “niggers.” Plaintiff WISE 25
26 was offended by the comments.

27

INTERVENORS’ COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

28

(C04-5627 RBL) - 13

S:\6000 FILES\6218 Lorraine Moore v. Linden Groves Nursing

Home\Complaint.doc

The Law Offices of GRANT & ASSOCIATES The Law Dome
3002 So. 47th Street Tacoma, Washington 98409
Telephone (253) 472-6213

EXHIBIT 1

Case 3:04-cv-05627-RBL Document 10 Filed 10/18/2004 Page 14 of 33

1

56. Plaintiff Wise complained to her immediate supervisor, a Caucasian LPN.

2 Defendants took no remedial action. Similarly, Caucasian patient, Patient 3, often used 3
the term “Nigger,” he sometimes stated, “Fuckin’ nigger.” Despite Defendants’ 4
5 knowledge of the racial epithets, Defendant LINDEN GROVE HEALTH CARE

6 CENTER managers ignored its patients’ inappropriate behavior, therefore condoning

7 racial harassment in the workplace. 8
57. Since filing her EEOC Charge in January 2004, Defendant LINDEN 9 10 GROVE HEALTH CARE CENTER managers have retaliated against Plaintiff WISE by
11 closely scrutinizing her. For instance, in April 2004, Defendant DONNA STROMSKI,

12 Administrator, and DEFENDANT MARIETTA ANDREASEN, Director of Nursing
13 Services, accused Plaintiff WISE of “bullying” a patient in giving her an Easter basket
14 filled with food. While it is not uncommon for caregivers to receive food from patients
15
16 and patients’ families at Defendant LINDEN GROVE HEALTH CARE CENTER,

17 Defendants made it an issue in Plaintiff WISE’s case. Plaintiff WISE insisted that the

18 Easter basket was a gift. The patient’s family subsequently confirmed that they bought

19 the basket as a token of their appreciation.
20

21

58. In June 2004, Defendant ANDREASEN summoned Plaintiff WISE and

22 another Caucasian LPN to her office to discuss a conflict that ensued between them.

23 The Caucasian LPN falsely accused Plaintiff WISE of not doing her job. Defendant
24 ANDREASEN told the women to try to work things out. She dismissed Plaintiff WISE
25 26 from her office and told her she still needed to talk to the Caucasian LPN.

27

INTERVENORS’ COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

28

(C04-5627 RBL) - 14

S:\6000 FILES\6218 Lorraine Moore v. Linden Groves Nursing

Home\Complaint.doc

The Law Offices of GRANT & ASSOCIATES The Law Dome
3002 So. 47th Street Tacoma, Washington 98409
Telephone (253) 472-6213

EXHIBIT 1

Case 3:04-cv-05627-RBL Document 10 Filed 10/18/2004 Page 15 of 33

1

59. Plaintiff WISE walked out of the office and closed the door behind her. As

2 Plaintiff WISE stood outside the office, she heard Defendant ANDREASEN say 3
something to the effect of, “Don’t worry, she won’t be here long.” Plaintiff WISE 4
5 believes she has been subjected to retaliation for complaining about the discrimination.

6 EEOC has also determined Defendant LINDEN GROVE HEALTH CARE CENTER has

7 subjected Plaintiff WISE to unlawful retaliation.

8 C.
9
10

Plaintiff KESHA GANTT alleges the following: 60. Plaintiff GANTT was subjected to pervasive racial harassment, race

11 discrimination, and retaliation in that she was constructively discharged. Plaintiff

12 GANTT worked as a Certified Nursing Assistant for Defendant LINDEN GROVE

13 HEALTH CARE CENTER from April 2003 through February 2004.

14

15

61. Plaintiff GANT alleges Caucasian employees frequently referred to

16 African-Americans as “colored.” The use of the term was not endearing. Plaintiff

17 GANTT was offended and objected to the term. Nevertheless, even Caucasian charge
18 nurses continued to use the term, “colored,” when referring to all African-Americans. 19
For instance, a Caucasian nurse would see an African-American entertainer on the 20 21 television, Plaintiff GANTT heard her refer to the entertainer as “colored”.

22

62. Other Caucasian employees made comments about the physical features

23 of African-Americans. For instance, in the summer 2003, Plaintiff GANTT appeared for
24 her shift with braids in her hair. Helen Shepard, Caucasian RN, comment to the effect
25
26 of, “I wish I could wear my hair like that but I can’t because those guys (referring to

27

INTERVENORS’ COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

28

(C04-5627 RBL) - 15

S:\6000 FILES\6218 Lorraine Moore v. Linden Groves Nursing

Home\Complaint.doc

The Law Offices of GRANT & ASSOCIATES The Law Dome
3002 So. 47th Street Tacoma, Washington 98409
Telephone (253) 472-6213

EXHIBIT 1

Case 3:04-cv-05627-RBL Document 10 Filed 10/18/2004 Page 16 of 33

1 African-Americans) don’t wash their hair everyday so they can do that. We (referring

2 to Caucasians) wash our hair everyday.” Helen Shepard’s comments initiated an
3 unsolicited “roundtable discussion” among several Caucasian employees about
4 5 African-Americans’ hair. Plaintiff GANTT was offended by the discussion.

6

63. Helen Shepard continued to make inappropriate race-based comments. In

7 or about September 2003, a Caucasian employee commented that Plaintiff GANTT
8 looked as if she was gaining weight. Helen Shepard stated to the effect of “All African-
9 10 American girls are built with booty.” Plaintiff GANTT was offended by her comments,
11 but felt that complaining was futile because race-based comments were common and

12 pervasive in the workplace.
13 64. Plaintiff GANTT eventually resigned her position at Defendant LINDEN
14 GROVE HEALTH CARE CENTER on February 2004. She found the working
15
16 environment was intolerable because in or about November 2003, a Caucasian patient

17 falsely accused Plaintiff GANTT of verbal abuse. Her immediate supervisor, Theresa
18 Duggins, Caucasian LPN, warned Plaintiff GANTT not to go into the patient’s room. 19
Plaintiff GANTT complied. However, the same allegations were made against her the 20 21 following day. Plaintiff GANTT complained to Defendant ANDREASEN, who
22 acknowledged that she was “aware of racial issues.” Defendant ANDREASEN told

23 Plaintiff GANTT not to worry about the allegations.

24 65. However, one month later, Plaintiff GANTT received a letter from the
25
26 State stating that it initiated an investigation, which subsequently found no misconduct

27 stemming from the verbal abuse allegations. She also saw other African-American

INTERVENORS’ COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

28

(C04-5627 RBL) - 16

S:\6000 FILES\6218 Lorraine Moore v. Linden Groves Nursing

Home\Complaint.doc

The Law Offices of GRANT & ASSOCIATES The Law Dome
3002 So. 47th Street Tacoma, Washington 98409
Telephone (253) 472-6213

EXHIBIT 1

Case 3:04-cv-05627-RBL Document 10 Filed 10/18/2004 Page 17 of 33

1 employees being terminated based on false allegations. Plaintiff GANTT observed how

2 the African-American employees were treated differently than the Caucasian
3 employees and eventually resigned from Defendant LINDEN GROVE HEALTH CARE
4 5 CENTER.

6

66. The EEOC investigated Plaintiff GANTT’s discrimination claims and

7 found reasonable cause to believe that Plaintiff GANTT was subjected to discriminatory
8 work assignments and terms and conditions of employment, and that she was subjected
9 10 to harassment in violation of Title VII.
11 D. Plaintiff SADARAH YARDBROUGH alleges the following:

12

67. Plaintiff YARBROUGH was also subjected to repeated race-based

13 comments by Caucasian employees and Caucasian patients, race discrimination and
14 retaliation. Plaintiff YARBROUGH has been a Certified Nursing Assistant for
15

16 Defendant LINDEN GROVE HEALTH CARE CENTER since September 2003.

17

68. Defendants failed to take prompt corrective action and ignored the racial

18 comments that were common in the work place. Plaintiff YARBROUGH was present 19
when a Caucasian employee who worked on the North Wing made an inappropriate 20
21 comment regarding another African-American employee’s hair. She complained about

22 how the African-American employee’s hair was “too” kinky and that she should take a

23 comb and comb through her hair.
24 69. Plaintiff YARBROUGH heard Caucasian employees commonly use the
25 26 term “colored” in the workplace. For instance, in or about December 2003, a Caucasian

27

INTERVENORS’ COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

28

(C04-5627 RBL) - 17

S:\6000 FILES\6218 Lorraine Moore v. Linden Groves Nursing

Home\Complaint.doc

The Law Offices of GRANT & ASSOCIATES The Law Dome
3002 So. 47th Street Tacoma, Washington 98409
Telephone (253) 472-6213

EXHIBIT 1

Case 3:04-cv-05627-RBL Document 10 Filed 10/18/2004 Page 18 of 33

1 CNA told Plaintiff YARBROUGH that she could not go into Patient 1’s room because

2 she did not want any “colored people” to go in there. Plaintiff YARBROUGH was 3
offended by the use of the derogatory term, but like the other Plaintiffs, believed it was 4 5 futile to complain because “colored” was frequently used when referring to African-
6 American employees. Additionally, she saw the racist note posted at the nurses’ station

7 stating no “caregivers of color” allowed to provide care for Patient 1.
8 70. Plaintiff YARBROUGH also contends she was subjected to discriminatory
9 10 work assignments. Like the other Plaintiffs, she believed she was assigned to inferior
11 job tasks. For instance, Plaintiff YARBROUGH was assigned to the utility room, which

12 meant she was in charge of cleaning all the bedpans and urinals by the end of her shift.

13 She noted that the Caucasian CNAs were rarely assigned the utility room’s urinal
14 cleaning duties.
15

16

71. In January 2004, Plaintiff YARBROUGH transferred to the North Wing to

17 work as a shower aid. As a shower aid, her job was to shower the patients in North
18 Wing in addition to her duties as a CNA. More than six months later, in July 2004, 19
Plaintiff YARBROUGH learned she was entitled to a raise because of her additional 20 21 shower aid duties. Plaintiff YARBROUGH did not receive her retroactive pay until
22 seven months later.

23 E. Plaintiff BARBARA BERSHELL alleges the following:

24 72. Plaintiff BERSHELL was subjected to racial harassment and race
25 discrimination. She worked for Defendant LINDEN GROVE HEALTH CARE CENTER
26

27 as a Certified Nursing Assistant from May 2003 through December 2003. A review of

INTERVENORS’ COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

28

(C04-5627 RBL) - 18

S:\6000 FILES\6218 Lorraine Moore v. Linden Groves Nursing

Home\Complaint.doc

The Law Offices of GRANT & ASSOCIATES The Law Dome
3002 So. 47th Street Tacoma, Washington 98409
Telephone (253) 472-6213

EXHIBIT 1

Case 3:04-cv-05627-RBL Document 10 Filed 10/18/2004 Page 19 of 33

1 her personnel file reveals that she performed her duties satisfactory. In fact, she was

2 often called to work extra shifts when there was a shortage of staff. Nevertheless,
3 Plaintiff BERSHELL was terminated on December 24, 2003 based on false allegations of
4 5 patient abuse. Plaintiff alleges she was terminated because of her race.

6

73. On December 24, 2003, Plaintiff BERSHELL arrived for her shift and was

7 sitting at the nurses station when she saw the note restricting “caregivers of color” to
8 care for Patient 1. She was told to leave immediately because a patient had accused her
9 10 of patient abuse. A patient allegedly complained that Plaintiff BERSHELL bruised her
11 arm as Plaintiff BERSHELL was attempting to maneuver her.

12

74. A few days later, Plaintiff BERSHELL called to inquire about her

13 employment. She spoke to Defendant ANDREASEN’S assistant, who told Plaintiff
14 BERSHELL that the bruise was not caused by her, but from another caregiver blood that
15

16 was drawn several weeks prior. Nevertheless, Plaintiff BERSHELL was told she was

17 terminated because she could have injured the patient. Plaintiff BERSHELL alleges that
18 her termination was a pretext for discrimination. 19
75. While employed at Defendant LINDEN GROVE HEALTH CARE 20 21 CENTER, Plaintiff BERSHELL was also subjected to racial harassment. Like the other

22 Plaintiffs, she also heard Caucasian employees use the term “colored” or “coloreds”

23 when referring to African-Americans at least two to three each times a week. When
24 Plaintiff BERSHELL objected, a Caucasian LPN stated to the effect of, “I like colored
25 26 people. I have nothing against colored people.” Plaintiff BERSHELL believed

27

INTERVENORS’ COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

28

(C04-5627 RBL) - 19

S:\6000 FILES\6218 Lorraine Moore v. Linden Groves Nursing

Home\Complaint.doc

The Law Offices of GRANT & ASSOCIATES The Law Dome
3002 So. 47th Street Tacoma, Washington 98409
Telephone (253) 472-6213

EXHIBIT 1

Case 3:04-cv-05627-RBL Document 10 Filed 10/18/2004 Page 20 of 33

1 complaining would be an exercise in futility, as “colored” was a common term in the

2 workplace.
3 76. Plaintiff BERSHELL also requested to work the evening shift. When she
4
5 was first hired she requested the evening shift, because she was afraid to work late

6 nights and she would be guaranteed 40 hours each week on the evening shift as

7 opposed to 32 hours each week on the night shift. She was told she would work the
8 night shift until there was an opening on the evening shift. As in Plaintiff Moore’s case,
9 10 other Caucasian CNAs were subsequently hired to work the evening shifts, despite
11 Plaintiff BERSHELL’s repeated requests for the evening shift.

12 F. Plaintiff VERONICA BRADY alleges the following:

13

77. Plaintiff BRADY was subjected to racial harassment and race

14

discrimination. Plaintiff BRADY was a Certified Nursing Assistant for Defendant 15

16 LINDEN GROVE HEALTH CARE CENTER from September 2002 through December

17 2003.

18

78. Caucasian employees and Caucasian patients subjected Plaintiff BRADY

19 to derogatory comments. Plaintiff BRADY was terminated for allegedly “double
20

21 padding” patients, a process in which two pads are placed under a patient. Plaintiff

22 BRADY alleges she was terminated because of her race.

23

79. The State’s investigation did not find any violation. Nevertheless,

24 Defendants terminated Plaintiff BRADY on December 8, 2003. Defendants are now
25

26 stating that Plaintiff BRADY was terminated for falsifying her employment application

27

INTERVENORS’ COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

28

(C04-5627 RBL) - 20

S:\6000 FILES\6218 Lorraine Moore v. Linden Groves Nursing

Home\Complaint.doc

The Law Offices of GRANT & ASSOCIATES The Law Dome
3002 So. 47th Street Tacoma, Washington 98409
Telephone (253) 472-6213

EXHIBIT 1

Case 3:04-cv-05627-RBL Document 10 Filed 10/18/2004 Page 21 of 33

1 by omitting one of her previous employers. While Plaintiff BRADY did omit a previous

2 employer, she later informed Defendants of her previous employer in or about July

3 2003, and was not terminated until December 2003.
4

5

80. On or about July 7, 2003, Plaintiff BRADY hand delivered to Debbie

6 Lacefield a copy of the Stipulation to Informal Disposition. Evidence shows that

7 Plaintiff Brady brought the document to work as soon as she received it from the State.
8 The complaints from a previous employer originated after she started to work for
9 10 Defendants.

11

81. The Stipulation to Informal Disposition provided Plaintiff BRADY be

12 placed on two years probation and reimburse the Nursing Assistant Program $500.00.

13 She did not lose her license due to misconduct.

14

15

82. Additionally, the reasons for Plaintiff BRADY’s termination remain

16 unclear. The form from unemployment indicated that Plaintiff BRADY was not

17 terminated, but “suspended pending license review.” In contrast, Defendant
18 STROMKI’S letter dated July 14, 2004 indicated that Plaintiff BRADY was terminated on 19
December 8, 2003 for “falsification of her employment application and the outstanding 20
21 DSHS complaint.”

22

83. Plaintiff BRADY was never told she was suspended pending the license

23 review and she immediately informed Defendants as soon as she became aware of an 24
inquiry action regarding her license. Plaintiff BRADY alleges the reasons for her 25
26 termination were pretext for discrimination.

27

INTERVENORS’ COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

28

(C04-5627 RBL) - 21

S:\6000 FILES\6218 Lorraine Moore v. Linden Groves Nursing

Home\Complaint.doc

The Law Offices of GRANT & ASSOCIATES The Law Dome
3002 So. 47th Street Tacoma, Washington 98409
Telephone (253) 472-6213

EXHIBIT 1

Case 3:04-cv-05627-RBL Document 10 Filed 10/18/2004 Page 22 of 33

1

84. While Plaintiff BRADY was employed at Defendant LINDEN GROVE

2 HEALTH CARE CENTER, she has also been subjected to discriminatory actions. Like 3
Plaintiffs MOORE and BERSHELL, Plaintiff BRADY requested to work the day or 4
5 evening shift. She again requested to work the day or evening shift in the summer 2003,

6 however two Caucasian CNAs were subsequently hired in the fall 2003.

7

85. Plaintiff BRADY also heard Caucasian employees and Caucasian patients

8 make racist comments. “Colored” was frequently used among Caucasian CNAs and
9

10 Caucasian patients. Ellen Norris, a Caucasian CNA, always referred to Plaintiff BRADY

11 as “that colored girl” or “that black girl” when talking to the patients. Plaintiff BRADY

12 complained about Ellen Norris’ discriminatory behavior to her immediate supervisor,
13 Theresa Duggin, Caucasian LPN, and subsequently to Defendant ANDREASEN.
14 Despite Plaintiff BRADY’s complaints, no prompt action was taken.
15

16

86. Plaintiff BRADY was also assigned to provide care to a Caucasian Patient

17 who often referred to her as “Black Bitch.” Plaintiff BRADY was uncomfortable
18 working with this patient and complained to her immediate supervisor and Defendant 19
ANDREASEN. However, she was still forced to provide care to this patient, without 20
21 employer intervention and corrective remedial action.

22 G. Plaintiff NORMA BALLARD alleges the following:

23

87. Plaintiff BALLARD was subjected to discriminatory work assignments,

24 terms and conditions of employment and harassment due to her race, African-American
25

26 and Filipino. Plaintiff BALLARD further alleges she was terminated based on her race.

27

INTERVENORS’ COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

28

(C04-5627 RBL) - 22

S:\6000 FILES\6218 Lorraine Moore v. Linden Groves Nursing

Home\Complaint.doc

The Law Offices of GRANT & ASSOCIATES The Law Dome
3002 So. 47th Street Tacoma, Washington 98409
Telephone (253) 472-6213

EXHIBIT 1

Case 3:04-cv-05627-RBL Document 10 Filed 10/18/2004 Page 23 of 33

1

88. Plaintiff BALLARD was employed with Defendant LINDEN GROVE

2 HEALTH CARE CENTER as a Certified Nursing Assistant from December 14, 2002 to
3 December 24, 2003, when she was wrongfully terminated.
4

5

89. During her employment, Caucasian patients and employees would make

6 derogatory race-based comments to her. For instance, a Caucasian patient referred to

7 Plaintiff BALLARD as “nigger,” while a Caucasian employee referred to her as
8 “colored.”
9

10

90. Another Caucasian employee referred to Plaintiff BALLARD as a

11 “dorper”, which is an animal developed in South Africa in the 1930s by crossing

12 Horned Dorsets with Black Headed Persians. Plaintiff BALLARD was offended by the 13
derogatory name-calling as she was part African-American and part Filipino. The other 14 15 Caucasian employees laughed when Plaintiff BALLARD was referred to as a “dorper.”
16 Plaintiff BALLARD alleges Defendants should have known about the racial harassment,

17 but failed to take prompt corrective action.
18 91. Plaintiff BALLARD was assigned arduous job duties based on her race.
19 20 Defendant LINDEN GROVE’s nurse supervisors frequently assign Plaintiff BALLARD
21 inferior jobs. For instance, Plaintiff BALLARD was repeatedly assigned to clean the day

22 room. Even though Plaintiff BALLARD was not assigned to work the day room, she
23 was instructed to clean up for another Caucasian CNA. 24
92. Plaintiff BALLARD alleges it was a common practice for Caucasian nurses 25
26 to order her to take care of patients who were not initially assigned to her care.

27

INTERVENORS’ COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

28

(C04-5627 RBL) - 23

S:\6000 FILES\6218 Lorraine Moore v. Linden Groves Nursing

Home\Complaint.doc

The Law Offices of GRANT & ASSOCIATES The Law Dome
3002 So. 47th Street Tacoma, Washington 98409
Telephone (253) 472-6213

EXHIBIT 1

Case 3:04-cv-05627-RBL Document 10 Filed 10/18/2004 Page 24 of 33

1 Caucasian nurses would relieve the Caucasian CNAs from taking care of “hoyer”

2 patients, who were patients that needed an easy lift. Plaintiff BALLARD repeatedly

3 complained about being assigned inferior jobs, but no action was taken.
4

5

93. Plaintiff BALLARD alleges she worked in a hostile work environment

6 based on her race. She further alleges she was terminated based on her race. Defendant

7 LINDEN GROVE terminated Plaintiff BALLARD for violating its “no call no show”

8 policy. Plaintiff BALLARD contends its reasons are pretext for discrimination as
9
10 Caucasian employees were not terminated under similar circumstances.

11

VI. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

RACE DISCRIMINATION AND RACIAL HARASSMENT IN VIOLATION

12

OF TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964,

13

42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (PLAINTIFFS AGAINST DEFENDANTS CENTRAL PARK LODGES LONG

14 TERM CARE, INC., d/b/a LINDEN GROVE HEALTH CARE CENTER AND DOES 1-5)

15

Plaintiffs MOORE, WISE, GANTT, YARBROUGH, BERSHELL, BRADY, and 16

17 BALLARD reallege each and every allegation as set forth in the preceding paragraphs 1

18 thru 93 with the same force and effect as though fully set forth herein.
19 94. Plaintiffs MOORE, WISE, GANTT, YARBROUGH, BERSHELL, BRADY,
20 and BALLARD were subjected to severe and pervasive racial harassment, including but
21
22 not limited to racial comments and discriminatory work assignments.

23

95. Plaintiffs complained about the hostile work environment and

24 discriminatory conduct to Defendants. Despite Defendants’ knowledge of the hostile
25 work environment and the race discrimination, Defendants failed to take prompt
26

27 corrective action.

INTERVENORS’ COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

28

(C04-5627 RBL) - 24

S:\6000 FILES\6218 Lorraine Moore v. Linden Groves Nursing

Home\Complaint.doc

The Law Offices of GRANT & ASSOCIATES The Law Dome
3002 So. 47th Street Tacoma, Washington 98409
Telephone (253) 472-6213

EXHIBIT 1

Case 3:04-cv-05627-RBL Document 10 Filed 10/18/2004 Page 25 of 33

1

96. The racial harassment was so severe and pervasive, it adversely impacted

2 Plaintiffs’ abilities to perform their work. 3
97. As a direct and proximate result of the above mentioned harassment and 4

5 discriminatory acts and omissions by Defendants CENTRAL PARK LODGES LONG

6 TERM CARE, INC., d/b/a LINDEN GROVE HEALTH CARE CENTER and Does 1-5,
7 Plaintiffs’ emotional well-being have been substantially injured. 8
98. Plaintiffs have suffered, and will continue to suffer pain and suffering, 9 10 extreme mental anguish and emotional distress because of the above-described acts and

11 omissions of Defendants. Plaintiffs have also suffered, and will continue to suffer, loss of

12 earnings, nonpecuniary losses and job opportunities as a result of the actions and

13 omissions of Defendants.
14

15

VII. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF TITLE VII OF THE

16

CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.

(Plaintiffs WISE, MOORE, and GANTT against Defendants CENTRAL PARK

17

LODGES LONG TERM CARE, INC., d/b/a LINDEN GROVE HEALTH CARE

18

CENTER and DOES 1-5)

19

Plaintiffs WISE, MOORE, and GANTT reallege the preceding paragraphs 1 thru

20 98 with the same force and effect, and incorporates the same as though fully set forth
21 herein. 22
99. Plaintiffs WISE, MOORE, and GANTT allege they engaged in protected 23 24 activity when they complained about racial harassment and race discrimination.

25

26

27

INTERVENORS’ COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

28

(C04-5627 RBL) - 25

S:\6000 FILES\6218 Lorraine Moore v. Linden Groves Nursing

Home\Complaint.doc

The Law Offices of GRANT & ASSOCIATES The Law Dome
3002 So. 47th Street Tacoma, Washington 98409
Telephone (253) 472-6213

EXHIBIT 1

Case 3:04-cv-05627-RBL Document 10 Filed 10/18/2004 Page 26 of 33

1

100. Plaintiffs MOORE, WISE, and GANTT further allege they engaged in

2 protected activity when they filed their Charges of Discrimination alleging sexual
3 harassment and discrimination with the EEOC.
4

5

101. As a result of complaining about the racial harassment and race

6 discrimination, Plaintiffs experienced adverse employment actions.
7 102. Plaintiffs MOORE and GANTT allege they were constructively
8 discharged. Plaintiff MOORE could no longer work at Defendant LINDEN GROVE
9
10 HEALTH CARE CENTER because it continued to refuse her requests for a 40-hour

11 work week. Instead, Defendants hired Caucasian LPNs to work the 40-hour work

12 week.
13 103. Plaintiff GANTT observed how African-American employees were
14
15 treated differently than Caucasian employees in that the African-American employees

16 were constantly accused of patient abuse. Plaintiff GANTT was also falsely accused of

17 patient abuse in which the State’s investigation revealed the allegations were
18 unsupported. Plaintiff GANTT eventually resigned because of the continued hostile
19 20 work environment and for fear of losing her license.

21

104. Plaintiff MOORE alleges they were closely scrutinized soon after

22 complaining about the discrimination.
23 105. Plaintiffs MOORE, WISE, and GANTT allege that their opposition to the
24 discrimination and/or hostile work environment was a substantial factor in the adverse
25
26 employment actions.

27

INTERVENORS’ COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

28

(C04-5627 RBL) - 26

S:\6000 FILES\6218 Lorraine Moore v. Linden Groves Nursing

Home\Complaint.doc

The Law Offices of GRANT & ASSOCIATES The Law Dome
3002 So. 47th Street Tacoma, Washington 98409
Telephone (253) 472-6213

EXHIBIT 1

Case 3:04-cv-05627-RBL Document 10 Filed 10/18/2004 Page 27 of 33

1

106. As a direct and proximate result of the retaliation referred to above,

2 Plaintiffs have suffered and will continue to suffer damages including, but not limited
3 to, earnings and employment benefits, as well as physical, emotional, and mental
4 5 distress.

6

VII. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

RACE DISCRIMINATION AND RACIAL HARASSMENT

7

IN VIOLATION OF RCW 49.60

8 (PLAINTIFFS AGAINST DEFENDANTS CENTRAL PARK LODGES LONG TERM CARE, INC., d/b/a LINDEN GROVE HEALTH CARE CENTER; DONNA

9

STROMSKI, individually and the marital community thereof with JOHN DOE

STROMSKI; MARIETTA ANDREASEN, individually and the marital community

10

thereof with JOHN DOE ANDREASEN and DOES 1-10)

11

12

Plaintiffs MOORE, WISE, GANTT, YARBROUGH, BERSHELL, BRADY, and

13 BALLARD reallege each and every allegation herein set forth above in the preceding

14 paragraphs 1 thru 106 with the same force and effect as though fully set forth herein.
15 107. Plaintiffs MOORE, WISE, GANTT, YARBROUGH, BERSHELL, BRADY,
16 and BALLARD allege that a substantial factor in the above-referenced hostile working
17
18 environment and discriminatory behavior was because of Plaintiffs’ race, African-

19 American.

20

108. The acts of Defendants as described herein violate RCW 49.60 et seq. as

21 they violate Plaintiffs’ right to be free from racial harassment and race discrimination in
22

23 employment.

24

109. The above-described hostile comments, and disparate treatment occurred

25 because of Plaintiffs’ race.

26 110. The above-described hostile comments, and disparate treatment were

27

INTERVENORS’ COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

28

(C04-5627 RBL) - 27

S:\6000 FILES\6218 Lorraine Moore v. Linden Groves Nursing

Home\Complaint.doc

The Law Offices of GRANT & ASSOCIATES The Law Dome
3002 So. 47th Street Tacoma, Washington 98409
Telephone (253) 472-6213

EXHIBIT 1

Case 3:04-cv-05627-RBL Document 10 Filed 10/18/2004 Page 28 of 33

1 unwelcome to Plaintiff and were sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the terms and

2 conditions of Plaintiff’s employment, creating a hostile working environment. 3
111. Defendants had actual, imputed, and/or constructive knowledge of the 4 5 unlawful actions of its managerial, supervisory, and other employees, but failed to take
6 prompt and effective remedial action.

7

IX. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

8

RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF RCW 49.60 (Plaintiffs MOORE, WISE, YARBROUGH, and GANTT against DEFENDANTS

9

CENTRAL PARK LODGES LONG TERM CARE, INC., d/b/a LINDEN GROVE

HEALTH CARE CENTER; DONNA STROMSKI, individually and the marital

10 community thereof with JOHN DOE STROMSKI; MARIETTA ANDREASEN and

11

DOES 1-10)

12

Plaintiffs MOORE, WISE, YARBROUGH and GANTT reallege the preceding

13 paragraphs 1 thru 111 with the same force and effect, and incorporates the same as
14 though fully set forth herein. 15
112. Because of the above-referenced opposition activity, Defendants and their 16 17 employees subjected Plaintiffs MOORE, WISE, YARBROUGH and GANTT to adverse

18 employment actions.

19

113. Plaintiffs MOORE and GANTT allege they were constructively

20 discharged. Plaintiff MOORE could no longer work at Defendant LINDEN GROVE
21

22 HEALTH CARE CENTER because it continued to refuse her requests for a 40-hour

23 work week. Instead, Defendants hired Caucasian LPNs to work the 40-hour work

24 week.

25 114. Plaintiff GANTT observed how African-American employees were
26

27 treated differently than Caucasian employees in that the African-American employees

INTERVENORS’ COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

28

(C04-5627 RBL) - 28

S:\6000 FILES\6218 Lorraine Moore v. Linden Groves Nursing

Home\Complaint.doc

The Law Offices of GRANT & ASSOCIATES The Law Dome
3002 So. 47th Street Tacoma, Washington 98409
Telephone (253) 472-6213

EXHIBIT 1

Case 3:04-cv-05627-RBL Document 10 Filed 10/18/2004 Page 29 of 33

1 were constantly accused of patient abuse. Plaintiff GANTT was also falsely accused of

2 patient abuse in which the State’s investigation revealed the allegations were
3 unsupported. Plaintiff GANTT eventually resigned because of the continued hostile
4 5 work environment and for fear of losing her license.

6

115. Plaintiff MOORE and YARBROUGH alleges they were closely

7 scrutinized soon after complaining about the discrimination.
8 116. Plaintiffs allege that in violation of RCW Chapter 49.60, their opposition
9
10 activity was a substantial factor in the above-referenced adverse employment action.

11

117. As a direct and proximate result of the retaliation referred to above,

12 Plaintiffs have suffered and will continue to suffer damages including, but not limited
13 to, earnings and employment benefits, as well as physical, emotional, and mental
14
15 distress.

16

X. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION and/or RETENTION 17 (PLAINTIFFS against Defendants CENTRAL PARK LODGES LONG TERM CARE,

18

INC., d/b/a LINDEN GROVE HEALTH CARE CENTER, and DOES 1-5)

19

Plaintiffs MOORE, WISE, GANTT, YARBROUGH, BERSHELL, BRADY, and

20 BALLARD reallege the preceding paragraphs 1 thru 117 with the same force and effect,
21 and incorporate the same as though fully set forth herein. 22
118. As Plaintiffs’ employer, Defendants CENTRAL PARK LODGES LONG 23
24 TERM CARE, INC., d/b/a LINDEN GROVE HEALTH CARE CENTER and DOES 1-5

25 owed and breached duties to Plaintiffs including, but not limited to: 1) the duty not to

26 employ or retain employees whom it knows or should know to be unfit or dangerous,

27

INTERVENORS’ COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

28

(C04-5627 RBL) - 29

S:\6000 FILES\6218 Lorraine Moore v. Linden Groves Nursing

Home\Complaint.doc

The Law Offices of GRANT & ASSOCIATES The Law Dome
3002 So. 47th Street Tacoma, Washington 98409
Telephone (253) 472-6213

EXHIBIT 1

Case 3:04-cv-05627-RBL Document 10 Filed 10/18/2004 Page 30 of 33

1 2) the duty to exercise care appropriate to the circumstances in supervising and/or

2 retaining employees, 3) the duty to exercise due diligence to determine whether an

3 employee is or has become unfit or dangerous.
4

5

119. Defendants CENTRAL PARK LODGES LONG TERM CARE, INC.,

6 d/b/a LINDEN GROVE HEALTH CARE CENTER and DOES 1-5 failed to exercise care

7 appropriate to the circumstances in retaining its employees who subjected Plaintiff to

8 sexual harassment.
9

10

120. Defendants CENTRAL PARK LODGES LONG TERM CARE, INC.,

11 d/b/a LINDEN GROVE HEALTH CARE CENTER and DOES 1-5 had actual,

12 constructive and/or imputed notice and knowledge of the unfitness of employees and

13 Defendants DOES 6-10, who have subjected Plaintiffs to repeated racial harassment.

14

15

121. Such notice and knowledge made foreseeable the injuries these

16 employees and patients inflicted upon Plaintiffs.

17

122. Despite such notice and knowledge, Defendants CENTRAL PARK

18 LODGES LONG TERM CARE, INC., d/b/a LINDEN GROVE HEALTH CARE
19
20 CENTER and DOES 1-5 failed to exercise ordinary care to discipline its employees

21 and/or Defendants DOES 6-10.

22

123. At all times material herein, Defendants CENTRAL PARK LODGES

23 LONG TERM CARE, INC., d/b/a LINDEN GROVE HEALTH CARE CENTER and
24 DOES 1-5 had the power, ability, authority, and duty to so intervene, monitor, review,
25

26 evaluate, control, regulate, discipline, restrict, and/or penalize the conduct of

27

INTERVENORS’ COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

28

(C04-5627 RBL) - 30

S:\6000 FILES\6218 Lorraine Moore v. Linden Groves Nursing

Home\Complaint.doc

The Law Offices of GRANT & ASSOCIATES The Law Dome
3002 So. 47th Street Tacoma, Washington 98409
Telephone (253) 472-6213

EXHIBIT 1

Case 3:04-cv-05627-RBL Document 10 Filed 10/18/2004 Page 31 of 33

1 themselves, their agents, and employees.

2

124. Despite said knowledge, power, and duty, Defendants CENTRAL PARK

3 LODGES LONG TERM CARE, INC., d/b/a LINDEN GROVE HEALTH CARE
4

5 CENTER and DOES 1-5 negligently failed to act so as to prevent, supervise, monitor,

6 review, evaluate, control, regulate, discipline, and/or penalize such conduct, acts, and

7 failures to act or to otherwise protect Plaintiffs. 8
125. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon alleges, that each of 9 10 the Defendants CENTRAL PARK LODGES LONG TERM CARE, INC., d/b/a LINDEN
11 GROVE HEALTH CARE CENTER and DOES 1-5 designated as a DOE is legally

12 responsible in some manner for the events, incidents, and happenings described herein,

13 and caused injury and damage to Plaintiffs.

14

15

126. As a direct and proximate result of the failure of Defendants CENTRAL

16 PARK LODGES LONG TERM CARE, INC., d/b/a LINDEN GROVE HEALTH CARE

17 CENTER and DOES 1-5 to protect Plaintiffs and to adequately monitor, review,
18 evaluate, control, regulate, discipline, and/or otherwise penalize the conduct, acts, and 19
failures to act by Defendant themselves, their agents, and employees, as alleged herein, 20
21 said conduct, acts, and failures to act were perceived by said Defendants, its agents, and

22 employees as, and in fact had the effect of, ratifying, encouraging, condoning,

23 exacerbating, increasing, and/or worsening said conduct, acts, and failures to act,

24 thereby causing reasonably foreseeable injury.
25

26

127. Defendants CENTRAL PARK LODGES LONG TERM CARE, INC., d/b/a

27

INTERVENORS’ COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

28

(C04-5627 RBL) - 31

S:\6000 FILES\6218 Lorraine Moore v. Linden Groves Nursing

Home\Complaint.doc

The Law Offices of GRANT & ASSOCIATES The Law Dome
3002 So. 47th Street Tacoma, Washington 98409
Telephone (253) 472-6213

EXHIBIT 1

Case 3:04-cv-05627-RBL Document 10 Filed 10/18/2004 Page 32 of 33

1 LINDEN GROVE HEALTH CARE CENTER and DOES 1-5 are responsible for the acts

2 of their employees alleged herein.
3 128. Defendants CENTRAL PARK LODGES LONG TERM CARE, INC., d/b/a
4
5 LINDEN GROVE HEALTH CARE CENTER and DOES 1-5 failure to exercise ordinary

6 care breached the above-referenced duties of care, proximately causing the injury and

7 damages to Plaintiff referenced herein. 8
129. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants CENTRAL PARK 9 10 LODGES LONG TERM CARE, INC., d/b/a LINDEN GROVE HEALTH CARE
11 CENTER and DOES 1-5 breach of the duties owed to Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs suffered

12 substantial emotional injuries in an amount to be proven at trial.
13 130. As a further direct and proximate result of Defendants CENTRAL PARK
14 15 LODGES LONG TERM CARE, INC., d/b/a LINDEN GROVE HEALTH CARE
16 CENTER and DOES 1-5 actions and omissions, Plaintiffs have suffered and will

17 continue to suffer mental anguish and severe emotional distress.
18 131. Therefore, Plaintiffs are entitled to general and compensatory damages for
19 20 her emotional injuries in an amount to be proven at trial.

21

XIV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

22

23

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that judgment be entered in her favor and against

24 Defendants as specified in all causes of action as follows:

25 1. That all Defendants be ordered to pay Plaintiffs actual, compensatory,

26

general and punitive damages according to proof at trial and as allowable 27

INTERVENORS’ COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

28

(C04-5627 RBL) - 32

S:\6000 FILES\6218 Lorraine Moore v. Linden Groves Nursing

Home\Complaint.doc

The Law Offices of GRANT & ASSOCIATES The Law Dome
3002 So. 47th Street Tacoma, Washington 98409
Telephone (253) 472-6213

EXHIBIT 1

Case 3:04-cv-05627-RBL Document 10 Filed 10/18/2004 Page 33 of 33

1

by law;

2

2. That Plaintiffs be awarded their costs of suit including reasonable

3 attorneys’ fees;
4

5

3. That Plaintiffs be awarded prejudgment interest; and

6

4. That this Court award such further relief as the Court deems just and

7 proper.
8 DATED this 27th day of September, 2004
9

Law Offices of GRANT & ASSOCIATES

10 ________________/s/________________
11 Artis C. Grant, Jr., WSBA No. 26204
12 Roxanne L. Rarangol, WSBA No. 30340
13 Attorneys for Lorraine Moore, Cathy Wise, Kesha Gantt, Sadarah Yarbrough, Barbara
14 Bershell, Veronica Brady, and Norma Ballard
15 3002 South 47th Street
16 Tacoma, WA 98409
17 Telephone: (253) 472-6213
18 Facsimile: (253) 473-9695
19 E-mail: agrant@lawdome.com
20 E-mail: rrarangol@lawdome.com
21

22

23

24

25

26

27

INTERVENORS’ COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

28

(C04-5627 RBL) - 33

S:\6000 FILES\6218 Lorraine Moore v. Linden Groves Nursing

Home\Complaint.doc

The Law Offices of GRANT & ASSOCIATES The Law Dome
3002 So. 47th Street Tacoma, Washington 98409
Telephone (253) 472-6213

EXHIBIT 1

 
 Case 3:04-cv-05627-RBL Document 12 Filed 11/09/2004 Page 1 of 34

1

2

3

4

5

6

THE HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA

9 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

) CASE NO.: C04-5627 RBL

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, 10

) ) INTERVENORS’ FIRST AMENDED

11 v.

Plaintiff,

) COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES )

12 CENTRAL PARK LODGES LONG

) 1. RACE DISCRIMINATION AND

13

TERM CARE, INC., d/b/a LINDEN GROVE HEALTH CARE CENTER,

) )

RACIAL HARASSMENT IN VIOLATION OF TITLE VII OF THE

14

) CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964, 42

Defendants.

) U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.

15 ___________________________________ )

16

LORRAINE MOORE, CATHY WISE, KESHA GANTT, SADARAH

) 2. RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF ) TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS

17 YARBROUGH, BARBARA BERSHELL, ) ACT OF 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.

VERONICA BRADY, and NORMA 18 BALLARD,

) ) 3. RACE DISCRIMINATION AND

19

) Plaintiffs in Intervention, )

RACIAL HARASSMENT IN VIOLATION OF RCW 49.60

20

v.

)

CENTRAL PARK LODGES LONG 21 TERM CARE, INC., d/b/a LINDEN

) 4. RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF ) RCW 49.60

22 GROVE HEALTH CARE CENTER ; ) DONNA STROMSKI, individually and ) 5. NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION

23 the marital community thereof with ) AND/OR RETENTION

JOHN DOE STROMSKI; MARIETTA ) 24 ANDREASEN, individually and the ) DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

25 marital community thereof with JOHN ) DOE ANDREASEN, and DOES 1-10 )

26 inclusive,

)

27

Defendants in Intervention )

INTERVENORS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

28

FOR DAMAGES (C04-5627 RBL) - 1

S:\6000 FILES\6218 Lorraine Moore v. Linden Groves Nursing

Home\Complaint -First amended.doc

The Law Offices of GRANT & ASSOCIATES The Law Dome
3002 So. 47th Street Tacoma, Washington 98409
Telephone (253) 472-6213

Case 3:04-cv-05627-RBL Document 12 Filed 11/09/2004 Page 2 of 34

1

COME NOW, Plaintiffs in Intervention, LORRAINE MOORE, CATHY WISE,

2 KESHA GANTT, SADARAH YARBROUGH, BARBARA BERSHELL, VERONICA 3
BRADY, and NORMA BALLARD by and through their attorneys of record, submit 4 5 their first amendment to their Complaint for Damages, which was initially filed on
6 October 18, 2004. Defendants have not yet been served.

7

I. NATURE OF THE CASE

8 1. This case involves race discrimination, racial harassment, and retaliation
9 by Defendants CENTRAL PARK LODGES LONG TERM CARE, INC., d/b/a LINDEN
10

11 GROVE HEALTH CARE CENTER and its agents. Plaintiffs in Intervention alleges

12 CENTRAL PARK LODGES LONG TERM CARE, INC., d/b/a LINDEN GROVE

13 HEALTH CARE CENTER; DONNA STROMSKI, individually and the marital
14 community thereof with JOHN DOE STROMSKI; MARIETTA ANDREASEN,
15
16 individually and the marital community thereof with JOHN DOE ANDREASEN

17 engaged in a pattern and practice of overt race discrimination and of ignoring and even

18 condoning the racial harassment.
19 2. Plaintiffs contend that they were subjected to racial harassment in that
20 21 employees and patients of Defendant LINDEN GROVE HEALTH CARE CENTER
22 referred to them as “niggers” and “colored.”

23

3. Plaintiffs assert claims under federal and state anti-discrimination and

24 civil rights laws. Plaintiffs seek legal redress for injuries inflicted upon them by
25 Defendants CENTRAL PARK LODGES LONG TERM CARE, INC., d/b/a LINDEN
26

27 GROVE HEALTH CARE CENTER; DONNA STROMSKI, individually and the marital

INTERVENORS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

28

FOR DAMAGES (C04-5627 RBL) - 2

S:\6000 FILES\6218 Lorraine Moore v. Linden Groves Nursing

Home\Complaint -First amended.doc

The Law Offices of GRANT & ASSOCIATES The Law Dome
3002 So. 47th Street Tacoma, Washington 98409
Telephone (253) 472-6213

Case 3:04-cv-05627-RBL Document 12 Filed 11/09/2004 Page 3 of 34

1 community thereof with JOHN DOE STROMSKI; MARIETTA ANDREASEN,

2 individually and the marital community thereof with JOHN DOE ANDREASEN, and

3 DOES 1-10.
4

5

4. Plaintiffs believe that as a result of the egregious and repetitive

6 discriminatory acts, a sizeable punitive damage award may be required to punish

7 Defendants for past discrimination and deter such behavior in the future.

8 II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
9

10

5. Jurisdiction is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 based upon a federal

11 question under the laws of the United States. Specifically, this Court has jurisdiction

12 over Plaintiffs’ claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended in

13 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.

14

15

6. Supplemental jurisdiction exists pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) for state

16 statutory claims under RCW § 49.60.010 et seq. and other torts.

17

7. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) and (2); and 42 U.S.C. §

18 2000e-5(f)(3).
19
20

III. STATUTORY PREREQUISITES

21

8. Plaintiffs in Intervention has an absolute right, under 42 USC §2000e-

22 5(f)(1), to intervene in this action brought by the Equal Employment Opportunity

23 Commission (hereinafter “EEOC”).

24

9.

In or about January 2004, Plaintiff MOORE filed an EEOC Charge based

25

26 on race discrimination against Defendant LINDEN GROVE, EEOC Charge No. 380-

27

INTERVENORS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

28

FOR DAMAGES (C04-5627 RBL) - 3

S:\6000 FILES\6218 Lorraine Moore v. Linden Groves Nursing

Home\Complaint -First amended.doc

The Law Offices of GRANT & ASSOCIATES The Law Dome
3002 So. 47th Street Tacoma, Washington 98409
Telephone (253) 472-6213

Case 3:04-cv-05627-RBL Document 12 Filed 11/09/2004 Page 4 of 34

1 2004-00919.

2

10. On May 24, 2004, the EEOC issued a reasonable cause determination to

3 Plaintiff MOORE. The EEOC found that Defendant LINDEN GROVE HEALTH CARE
4

5 CENTER violated Title VII by subjecting Plaintiff MOORE to discriminatory work

6 assignments due to her race, African American.

7

11. On January 26, 2004, Plaintiff WISE filed an EEOC Charge based on race

8 discrimination against Defendant LINDEN GROVE HEALTH CARE CENTER, EEOC
9

10 Charge No. 380-2004-01339.

11

12. On May 25, 2004, the EEOC issued a reasonable cause determination to

12 Plaintiff WISE. The EEOC found that Defendant LINDEN GROVE HEALTH CARE 13
CENTER violated Title VII by subjecting Plaintiff WISE to discriminatory work 14 15 assignments and terms and conditions of employment. Further, EEOC found
16 reasonable cause to believe Plaintiff WISE was denied promotional opportunities.

17

13. In or about January 2004, Plaintiff GANTT filed an EEOC Charge based on

18 race discrimination against Defendant LINDEN GROVE, EEOC Charge No. 380-2004-
19
20 01340.

21

14. On May 25, 2004, the EEOC issued a reasonable cause determination to

22 Plaintiff GANTT. The EEOC found Defendant LINDEN GROVE HEALTH CARE
23 CENTER violated Title VII by subjecting Plaintiff GANTT was subjected to
24 discriminatory work assignments and terms and conditions of employment, and that
25
26 she was subjected to harassment in violation of Title VII.

27

INTERVENORS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

28

FOR DAMAGES (C04-5627 RBL) - 4

S:\6000 FILES\6218 Lorraine Moore v. Linden Groves Nursing

Home\Complaint -First amended.doc

The Law Offices of GRANT & ASSOCIATES The Law Dome
3002 So. 47th Street Tacoma, Washington 98409
Telephone (253) 472-6213

Case 3:04-cv-05627-RBL Document 12 Filed 11/09/2004 Page 5 of 34

1

15. On May 17, 2004, Plaintiff YARBROUGH filed an EEOC Charge based on

2 race discrimination against Defendant LINDEN GROVE HEALTH CARE CENTER, 3
EEOC Charge No. 380-2004-02551. EEOC issued a Notice of Right to Sue on October 29, 4
5 2004.

6

16. On June 28, 2004, Plaintiff BARBARA BERSHELL filed an EEOC Charge

7 based on race discrimination against Defendant LINDEN GROVE HEALTH CARE

8 CENTER, EEOC Charge No. 380-2004-03043. EEOC issued a Notice of Right to Sue on
9
10 November 1, 2004.

11

17. On July 2, 2004, Plaintiff VERONICA BRADY filed an EEOC Charge based

12 on race discrimination against Defendant LINDEN GROVE HEALTH CARE CENTER,

13 EEOC Charge No. 380-2004-03124. EEOC issued a Notice of Right to Sue on October 29,

14 2004.
15

16

18. On September 24, 2004, Plaintiff NORMA BALLARD filed an EEOC

17 Charge based on race discrimination against Defendant LINDEN GROVE HEALTH

18 CARE CENTER, EEOC Charge No. 380-2004-04143. EEOC issued a Notice of Right to

19 Sue on November 1, 2004.
20
21

IV. PARTIES

22 A. Plaintiffs

23

19. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff MOORE has been a citizen of the

24 United States and a resident of the State of Washington and has been entitled to

25 protection under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended in 1991, 42 U.S.C.
26

27 § 2000e et seq., 42 U.S.C. § 13981, RCW 49.60, and the common law of the State of

INTERVENORS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

28

FOR DAMAGES (C04-5627 RBL) - 5

S:\6000 FILES\6218 Lorraine Moore v. Linden Groves Nursing

Home\Complaint -First amended.doc

The Law Offices of GRANT & ASSOCIATES The Law Dome
3002 So. 47th Street Tacoma, Washington 98409
Telephone (253) 472-6213

Case 3:04-cv-05627-RBL Document 12 Filed 11/09/2004 Page 6 of 34

1 Washington.

2

20. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff WISE has been a citizen of the

3 United States and a resident of the State of Washington and has been entitled to
4

5 protection under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended in 1991, 42 U.S.C.

6 § 2000e et seq., 42 U.S.C. § 13981, RCW 49.60, and the common law of the State of

7 Washington.
8 21. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff GANTT has been a citizen of the
9
10 United States and a resident of the State of Washington and has been entitled to

11 protection under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended in 1991, 42 U.S.C.

12 § 2000e et seq., 42 U.S.C. § 13981, RCW 49.60, and the common law of the State of

13 Washington.

14

15

22. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff YARBROUGH has been a citizen of

16 the United States and a resident of the State of Washington and has been entitled to

17 protection under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended in 1991, 42 U.S.C.

18 § 2000e et seq., 42 U.S.C. § 13981, RCW 49.60, and the common law of the State of
19 Washington.
20

21

23. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff BERSHELL has been a citizen of the

22 United States and a resident of the State of Washington and has been entitled to
23 protection under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended in 1991, 42 U.S.C. 24
§ 2000e et seq., 42 U.S.C. § 13981, RCW 49.60, and the common law of the State of 25 26 Washington.

27

INTERVENORS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

28

FOR DAMAGES (C04-5627 RBL) - 6

S:\6000 FILES\6218 Lorraine Moore v. Linden Groves Nursing

Home\Complaint -First amended.doc

The Law Offices of GRANT & ASSOCIATES The Law Dome
3002 So. 47th Street Tacoma, Washington 98409
Telephone (253) 472-6213

Case 3:04-cv-05627-RBL Document 12 Filed 11/09/2004 Page 7 of 34

1

24. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff BRADY has been a citizen of the

2 United States and a resident of the State of Washington and has been entitled to 3
protection under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended in 1991, 42 U.S.C. 4
5 § 2000e et seq., 42 U.S.C. § 13981, RCW 49.60, and the common law of the State of

6 Washington.

7

25. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff BALLARD has been a citizen of the

8 United States and a resident of the State of Washington and has been entitled to
9

10 protection under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended in 1991, 42 U.S.C.

11 § 2000e et seq., 42 U.S.C. § 13981, RCW 49.60, and the common law of the State of

12 Washington.

13 B.
14
15

Named Defendant Corporations 26. Defendants CENTRAL PARK LODGES LONG TERM CARE, INC.,

16 d/b/a LINDEN GROVE HEALTH CARE CENTER and DOES 1-5 have at all relevant

17 times been an employer as defined by 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b), in that they have employed

18 fifteen (15) or more persons in each of twenty (20) or more calendar weeks in the
19 current or preceding year.
20

21

27. Defendants CENTRAL PARK LODGES LONG TERM CARE, INC.,

22 d/b/a LINDEN GROVE HEALTH CARE CENTER and DOES 1-5 are employers

23 under R.C.W. 49.60.040, in that they employs eight (8) or more persons. 24
28. Defendant CENTRAL PARK LODGES LONG TERM CARE, INC., d/b/a 25
26 LINDEN GROVE HEALTH CARE CENTER conduct business in the State of

27

INTERVENORS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

28

FOR DAMAGES (C04-5627 RBL) - 7

S:\6000 FILES\6218 Lorraine Moore v. Linden Groves Nursing

Home\Complaint -First amended.doc

The Law Offices of GRANT & ASSOCIATES The Law Dome
3002 So. 47th Street Tacoma, Washington 98409
Telephone (253) 472-6213

Case 3:04-cv-05627-RBL Document 12 Filed 11/09/2004 Page 8 of 34

1 Washington.

2

3 C.
4
5

Named Individual Defendants 29. It is believed and is herein alleged that Defendant DONNA STROMSKI

6 is and has been a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Washington

7 at all times material hereto.
8 30. Defendant STROMSKI at all times material herein acted as an agent for
9 10 Defendant LINDEN GROVE HEALTH CARE CENTER in that she is the

11 Administrator of Defendant LINDEN GROVE HEALTH CARE CENTER. Defendant

12 STROMSKI was at all relevant times a managerial agent of Defendant LINDEN

13 GROVE HEALTH CARE CENTER.

14

15

31. On information and belief, Defendants STROMSKI and JOHN DOE

16 STROMSKI reside in the State of Washington, which is within this judicial district.

17

32. Defendant STROMSKI is married to JOHN DOE STROMSKI and all acts

18 done by her were done on behalf of or in furtherance of the interests of the marital
19 community.
20

21

33. It is believed and is herein alleged that Defendant MARIETTA

22 ANDREASEN is and has been a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State
23 of Washington at all times material hereto. 24

25

26

27

INTERVENORS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

28

FOR DAMAGES (C04-5627 RBL) - 8

S:\6000 FILES\6218 Lorraine Moore v. Linden Groves Nursing

Home\Complaint -First amended.doc

The Law Offices of GRANT & ASSOCIATES The Law Dome
3002 So. 47th Street Tacoma, Washington 98409
Telephone (253) 472-6213

Case 3:04-cv-05627-RBL Document 12 Filed 11/09/2004 Page 9 of 34

1

34. Defendant ANDREASEN at all times material herein acted as an agent

2 for Defendant LINDEN GROVE HEALTH CARE CENTER in that she was Director of
3 Nursing Services.
4

5

35. On information and belief, Defendants ANDREASEN and JOHN DOE

6 ADREASEN reside in the State of Washington, which is within this judicial district.

7 36. Defendant ANDREASEN is married to JOHN DOE ANDREASEN and
8 all acts done by him were done on behalf of or in furtherance of the interests of the
9
10 marital community.

11 D. Doe Defendants

12

37. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate,

13 governmental or otherwise, of Defendants sued herein as DOES 1-5, inclusive, are
14

15 currently unknown to Plaintiffs, who therefore sue said Defendants by such fictitious

16 names.

17

38. The true names and capacities of individual Defendants sued herein as

18 DOES 6-10, inclusive are currently unknown to Plaintiffs, who therefore sue said
19

20 Defendants by such fictitious names.

21

39. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that each of

22 the Defendants designated as a DOES 1-10 are legally responsible in some manner for
23 the events, incidents, and happenings described herein, and caused injuries and
24 25 damages to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs will seek leave of court to amend this Complaint to
26 substitute the true names and capacities for the Defendants designated herein as DOES

27

INTERVENORS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

28

FOR DAMAGES (C04-5627 RBL) - 9

S:\6000 FILES\6218 Lorraine Moore v. Linden Groves Nursing

Home\Complaint -First amended.doc

The Law Offices of GRANT & ASSOCIATES The Law Dome
3002 So. 47th Street Tacoma, Washington 98409
Telephone (253) 472-6213

Case 3:04-cv-05627-RBL Document 12 Filed 11/09/2004 Page 10 of 34

1 1-10 when the true names have been ascertained or in the alternative dismiss said

2 DOES 1-10 if their identities cannot be ascertained.
3 40. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon alleges, that at all
4
5 times mentioned herein, Defendants DOES 1-10 allowed, aided, encouraged and

6 incited others, including agents and employees of Defendant CENTRAL PARK

7 LODGES LONG TERM CARE, INC., d/b/a LINDEN GROVE HEALTH CARE
8 CENTER to engage in the acts of discrimination and retaliation alleged herein.
9

10

11

41. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon allege that at all

12 relevant times the individual DOE Defendants viz, Does 6-10, are and have been

13 residents of the United States and the State of Washington.

14

15

42. Defendants CENTRAL PARK LODGES LONG TERM CARE, INC., d/b/a

16 LINDEN GROVE HEALTH CARE CENTER; DONNA STROMSKI, individually and

17 the marital community thereof with JOHN DOE STROMSKI; MARIETTA
18 ANDREASEN, individually and the marital community thereof with JOHN DOE 19
ANDREASEN, and DOES 1-10 are hereinafter collectively referred to as 20
21 “DEFENDANTS.” Unless specified otherwise, whenever this Complaint refers to

22 “Defendant” or “Defendants,” such allegation shall be deemed to mean the acts of

23 Defendants acting individually, jointly and/or severally as so designated.
24 43. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon alleges, that at all
25
26 times mentioned herein, each of the Defendants were the agents, servants and

27

INTERVENORS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

28

FOR DAMAGES (C04-5627 RBL) - 10

S:\6000 FILES\6218 Lorraine Moore v. Linden Groves Nursing

Home\Complaint -First amended.doc

The Law Offices of GRANT & ASSOCIATES The Law Dome
3002 So. 47th Street Tacoma, Washington 98409
Telephone (253) 472-6213

Case 3:04-cv-05627-RBL Document 12 Filed 11/09/2004 Page 11 of 34

1 employees, co-venturers or co-conspirators of each of the remaining Defendants, and

2 were acting within the course, scope, and purpose of their employment, joint venture
3 or conspiracy, with the consent, knowledge, ratification and authorization of such
4 5 agency, employment, joint venture or conspiracy.

6

V. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

7 A. Plaintiff LORRAINE MOORE alleges the following:

8 44. Plaintiff MOORE was subjected to racial harassment, race discrimination;
9 retaliation in that she was constructively discharged. Plaintiff MOORE worked for
10
11 Defendant LINDEN GROVE HEALTH CARE CENTER as a part-time Licensed

12 Practical Nurse (LPN) from October 11, 2001 to March 12, 2002.

13

45. In December 2003, Plaintiff MOORE was assigned to care for the patients

14 on Hall 1 and Hall 2. Plaintiff MOORE was later assigned to work the North Wing
15

16 twice a week. On December 24, 2003, Plaintiff MOORE noticed the note posted at the

17 nurses’ station stating, “no caregivers of color at any time” to care for Patient 1. Two

18 days later, the note remained posted on the office work board. Plaintiff MOORE
19 believed the note was wholly offensive and inappropriate. She also discovered a
20 21 notation in the patient’s file, which stated that the resident prefers Caucasian
22 caregivers only. She submitted a written complaint to Defendant ANDREASEN,

23 stating that she was disappointed in the facility for posting a “racist note”. Defendant

24 ANDREASEN ignored Plaintiff MOORE’s complaints, as she never responded to

25 Plaintiff MOORE. After two full days, the note was taken down on December 26, 2003.
26

27 Plaintiffs allege Defendant ANDREASEN did not instruct anyone to remove the

INTERVENORS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

28

FOR DAMAGES (C04-5627 RBL) - 11

S:\6000 FILES\6218 Lorraine Moore v. Linden Groves Nursing

Home\Complaint -First amended.doc

The Law Offices of GRANT & ASSOCIATES The Law Dome
3002 So. 47th Street Tacoma, Washington 98409
Telephone (253) 472-6213

Case 3:04-cv-05627-RBL Document 12 Filed 11/09/2004 Page 12 of 34

1 posting. Instead, a Caucasian LPN took the note down as she believed that the note

2 was inappropriate and should not have ever been posted.
3 46. Since December 28, 2003, Plaintiff MOORE never worked on Hall 2,
4
5 where Patient 1 resided. Plaintiff MOORE was also forced to work the North Wing

6 twice each week. She was placed under closer scrutiny soon after complaining about

7 the racist note.
8 47. Plaintiff MOORE began receiving phone calls at home for insignificant
9
10 issues, for which a phone call was not warranted. At that point Plaintiff MOORE was

11 afraid of losing her license because of the possibility of Defendants lodging a bogus

12 complaint in retaliation for complaining about the discrimination. She witnessed other
13 African-American employees being falsely accused of patient abuse and subsequently
14 terminated.
15

16

48. Plaintiff MOORE could no longer work in an environment that condoned

17 discrimination and she could no longer afford to work only 32-hours each week.
18 Plaintiff MOORE alleges she was retaliated against for complaining about the racist 19
note and was eventually constructively discharged from her position at Defendant 20
21 LINDEN GROVE HEALTH CARE CENTER.

22

49. Additionally, Defendants denied Plaintiff MOORE’s requests to work the

23 day or evening shift. Plaintiff MOORE first worked at Defendant LINDEN GROVE 24
HEALTH CARE CENTER for five months on a part-time basis between October 2001 25
26 and March 2002. She returned to Defendant LINDEN GROVE HEALTH CARE

27

INTERVENORS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

28

FOR DAMAGES (C04-5627 RBL) - 12

S:\6000 FILES\6218 Lorraine Moore v. Linden Groves Nursing

Home\Complaint -First amended.doc

The Law Offices of GRANT & ASSOCIATES The Law Dome
3002 So. 47th Street Tacoma, Washington 98409
Telephone (253) 472-6213

Case 3:04-cv-05627-RBL Document 12 Filed 11/09/2004 Page 13 of 34

1 CENTER to work full-time in April 22, 2003. When she was first hired, she was

2 assigned the night shift, which only allowed her to work 32-hours-per-week. Plaintiff
3 MOORE requested the evening or day shift, which would provide her with 40 hours
4 5 each week.

6

50. Plaintiff MOORE was a single mother desperately needing to receive a

7 40-hour-per-week paycheck. Despite her repeated request for the evening or day shift,
8 Defendants hired other Caucasian LPNs for the evening or day shift.
9 10 B. Plaintiff CATHY WISE alleges the following:

11

51. Plaintiff WISE was subjected to racial harassment, race discrimination and

12 retaliation. Plaintiff WISE is a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) who has worked for

13 Defendants since June 22, 2000.

14

15

52. Plaintiff WISE alleges she was denied promotional opportunities because

16 of her race. She applied for a Staffing Coordinator position twice, in May 2002 and in

17 May 2003. Plaintiff WISE was denied the promotion both times.
18 53. In May 2002, Plaintiff WISE and another Caucasian employee, were the
19 top two candidates for the Staffing Coordinator position. While Sheila had no staffing
20
21 experience, Plaintiff WISE had two years of prior staffing experience. Defendants

22 promoted the Caucasian employee. When the Caucasian employee quit in May 2003, it

23 was well known amongst Defendant LINDEN GROVE HEALTH CARE CENTER
24 employees that Plaintiff WISE should finally be promoted to the Staffing Coordinator
25
26 position.

27

INTERVENORS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

28

FOR DAMAGES (C04-5627 RBL) - 13

S:\6000 FILES\6218 Lorraine Moore v. Linden Groves Nursing

Home\Complaint -First amended.doc

The Law Offices of GRANT & ASSOCIATES The Law Dome
3002 So. 47th Street Tacoma, Washington 98409
Telephone (253) 472-6213

Case 3:04-cv-05627-RBL Document 12 Filed 11/09/2004 Page 14 of 34

1

54. Instead, Defendants promoted another Caucasian employee, who did not

2 even apply for the position. The Caucasian employee had less seniority and less 3
experience than Plaintiff WISE. The EEOC has determined Defendant LINDEN 4
5 GROVE HEALTH CARE CENTER has denied Plaintiff WISE promotional opportunities

6 because of her race.

7

55. Plaintiff WISE was also subjected to a hostile work environment. From

8 1999 through 2002, Plaintiff WISE provided patient care to a Caucasian patient, Patient
9

10 2, who frequently referred to African-American employees as “niggers.” Plaintiff WISE

11 was offended by the comments.

12

56. Plaintiff Wise complained to her immediate supervisor, a Caucasian LPN.

13 Defendants took no remedial action. Similarly, Caucasian patient, Patient 3, often used
14

15 the term “Nigger,” he sometimes stated, “Fuckin’ nigger.” Despite Defendants’

16 knowledge of the racial epithets, Defendant LINDEN GROVE HEALTH CARE

17 CENTER managers ignored its patients’ inappropriate behavior, therefore condoning

18 racial harassment in the workplace.

19

20

57. Since filing her EEOC Charge in January 2004, Defendant LINDEN

21 GROVE HEALTH CARE CENTER managers have retaliated against Plaintiff WISE by

22 closely scrutinizing her. For instance, in April 2004, Defendant DONNA STROMSKI,
23 Administrator, and DEFENDANT MARIETTA ANDREASEN, Director of Nursing 24
Services, accused Plaintiff WISE of “bullying” a patient in giving her an Easter basket 25 26 filled with food. While it is not uncommon for caregivers to receive food from patients

27

INTERVENORS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

28

FOR DAMAGES (C04-5627 RBL) - 14

S:\6000 FILES\6218 Lorraine Moore v. Linden Groves Nursing

Home\Complaint -First amended.doc

The Law Offices of GRANT & ASSOCIATES The Law Dome
3002 So. 47th Street Tacoma, Washington 98409
Telephone (253) 472-6213

Case 3:04-cv-05627-RBL Document 12 Filed 11/09/2004 Page 15 of 34

1 and patients’ families at Defendant LINDEN GROVE HEALTH CARE CENTER,

2 Defendants made it an issue in Plaintiff WISE’s case. Plaintiff WISE insisted that the
3 Easter basket was a gift. The patient’s family subsequently confirmed that they bought
4 5 the basket as a token of their appreciation.

6

58. In June 2004, Defendant ANDREASEN summoned Plaintiff WISE and

7 another Caucasian LPN to her office to discuss a conflict that ensued between them.
8 The Caucasian LPN falsely accused Plaintiff WISE of not doing her job. Defendant
9 10 ANDREASEN told the women to try to work things out. She dismissed Plaintiff WISE
11 from her office and told her she still needed to talk to the Caucasian LPN.

12

59. Plaintiff WISE walked out of the office and closed the door behind her. As

13 Plaintiff WISE stood outside the office, she heard Defendant ANDREASEN say
14 something to the effect of, “Don’t worry, she won’t be here long.” Plaintiff WISE
15

16 believes she has been subjected to retaliation for complaining about the discrimination.

17 EEOC has also determined Defendant LINDEN GROVE HEALTH CARE CENTER has

18 subjected Plaintiff WISE to unlawful retaliation.

19 C.
20

Plaintiff KESHA GANTT alleges the following:

21

60. Plaintiff GANTT was subjected to pervasive racial harassment, race

22 discrimination, and retaliation in that she was constructively discharged. Plaintiff

23 GANTT worked as a Certified Nursing Assistant for Defendant LINDEN GROVE
24 HEALTH CARE CENTER from April 2003 through February 2004.
25

26

27

INTERVENORS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

28

FOR DAMAGES (C04-5627 RBL) - 15

S:\6000 FILES\6218 Lorraine Moore v. Linden Groves Nursing

Home\Complaint -First amended.doc

The Law Offices of GRANT & ASSOCIATES The Law Dome
3002 So. 47th Street Tacoma, Washington 98409
Telephone (253) 472-6213

Case 3:04-cv-05627-RBL Document 12 Filed 11/09/2004 Page 16 of 34

1

61. Plaintiff GANT alleges Caucasian employees frequently referred to

2 African-Americans as “colored.” The use of the term was not endearing. Plaintiff 3
GANTT was offended and objected to the term. Nevertheless, even Caucasian charge 4
5 nurses continued to use the term, “colored,” when referring to all African-Americans.

6 For instance, a Caucasian nurse would see an African-American entertainer on the

7 television, Plaintiff GANTT heard her refer to the entertainer as “colored”.
8 62. Other Caucasian employees made comments about the physical features
9
10 of African-Americans. For instance, in the summer 2003, Plaintiff GANTT appeared for

11 her shift with braids in her hair. Helen Shepard, Caucasian RN, comment to the effect

12 of, “I wish I could wear my hair like that but I can’t because those guys (referring to
13 African-Americans) don’t wash their hair everyday so they can do that. We (referring
14 to Caucasians) wash our hair everyday.” Helen Shepard’s comments initiated an
15
16 unsolicited “roundtable discussion” among several Caucasian employees about

17 African-Americans’ hair. Plaintiff GANTT was offended by the discussion.

18

63. Helen Shepard continued to make inappropriate race-based comments. In

19

or about September 2003, a Caucasian employee commented that Plaintiff GANTT 20

21 looked as if she was gaining weight. Helen Shepard stated to the effect of “All African-

22 American girls are built with booty.” Plaintiff GANTT was offended by her comments,

23 but felt that complaining was futile because race-based comments were common and
24 pervasive in the workplace.
25

26

27

INTERVENORS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

28

FOR DAMAGES (C04-5627 RBL) - 16

S:\6000 FILES\6218 Lorraine Moore v. Linden Groves Nursing

Home\Complaint -First amended.doc

The Law Offices of GRANT & ASSOCIATES The Law Dome
3002 So. 47th Street Tacoma, Washington 98409
Telephone (253) 472-6213

Case 3:04-cv-05627-RBL Document 12 Filed 11/09/2004 Page 17 of 34

1

64. Plaintiff GANTT eventually resigned her position at Defendant LINDEN

2 GROVE HEALTH CARE CENTER on February 2004. She found the working 3
environment was intolerable because in or about November 2003, a Caucasian patient 4
5 falsely accused Plaintiff GANTT of verbal abuse. Her immediate supervisor, Theresa

6 Duggins, Caucasian LPN, warned Plaintiff GANTT not to go into the patient’s room.

7 Plaintiff GANTT complied. However, the same allegations were made against her the
8 following day. Plaintiff GANTT complained to Defendant ANDREASEN, who
9 10 acknowledged that she was “aware of racial issues.” Defendant ANDREASEN told
11 Plaintiff GANTT not to worry about the allegations.

12

65. However, one month later, Plaintiff GANTT received a letter from the

13 State stating that it initiated an investigation, which subsequently found no misconduct
14 stemming from the verbal abuse allegations. She also saw other African-American
15

16 employees being terminated based on false allegations. Plaintiff GANTT observed how

17 the African-American employees were treated differently than the Caucasian

18 employees and eventually resigned from Defendant LINDEN GROVE HEALTH CARE

19 CENTER.
20

21

66. The EEOC investigated Plaintiff GANTT’s discrimination claims and

22 found reasonable cause to believe that Plaintiff GANTT was subjected to discriminatory

23 work assignments and terms and conditions of employment, and that she was subjected
24 to harassment in violation of Title VII.
25 26 \\

27

INTERVENORS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

28

FOR DAMAGES (C04-5627 RBL) - 17

S:\6000 FILES\6218 Lorraine Moore v. Linden Groves Nursing

Home\Complaint -First amended.doc

The Law Offices of GRANT & ASSOCIATES The Law Dome
3002 So. 47th Street Tacoma, Washington 98409
Telephone (253) 472-6213

Case 3:04-cv-05627-RBL Document 12 Filed 11/09/2004 Page 18 of 34

1 D. Plaintiff SADARAH YARDBROUGH alleges the following:

2

67. Plaintiff YARBROUGH was also subjected to repeated race-based

3 comments by Caucasian employees and Caucasian patients, race discrimination and
4

5 retaliation. Plaintiff YARBROUGH has been a Certified Nursing Assistant for

6 Defendant LINDEN GROVE HEALTH CARE CENTER since September 2003.

7

68. Defendants failed to take prompt corrective action and ignored the racial

8 comments that were common in the work place. Plaintiff YARBROUGH was present
9

10 when a Caucasian employee who worked on the North Wing made an inappropriate

11 comment regarding another African-American employee’s hair. She complained about

12 how the African-American employee’s hair was “too” kinky and that she should take a

13 comb and comb through her hair.

14

15

69. Plaintiff YARBROUGH heard Caucasian employees commonly use the

16 term “colored” in the workplace. For instance, in or about December 2003, a Caucasian

17 CNA told Plaintiff YARBROUGH that she could not go into Patient 1’s room because
18 she did not want any “colored people” to go in there. Plaintiff YARBROUGH was 19
offended by the use of the derogatory term, but like the other Plaintiffs, believed it was 20 21 futile to complain because “colored” was frequently used when referring to African-

22 American employees. Additionally, she saw the racist note posted at the nurses’ station

23 stating no “caregivers of color” allowed to provide care for Patient 1.
24 70. Plaintiff YARBROUGH also contends she was subjected to discriminatory
25 26 work assignments. Like the other Plaintiffs, she believed she was assigned to inferior

27

INTERVENORS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

28

FOR DAMAGES (C04-5627 RBL) - 18

S:\6000 FILES\6218 Lorraine Moore v. Linden Groves Nursing

Home\Complaint -First amended.doc

The Law Offices of GRANT & ASSOCIATES The Law Dome
3002 So. 47th Street Tacoma, Washington 98409
Telephone (253) 472-6213

Case 3:04-cv-05627-RBL Document 12 Filed 11/09/2004 Page 19 of 34

1 job tasks. For instance, Plaintiff YARBROUGH was assigned to the utility room, which

2 meant she was in charge of cleaning all the bedpans and urinals by the end of her shift.
3 She noted that the Caucasian CNAs were rarely assigned the utility room’s urinal
4 5 cleaning duties.

6

71. In January 2004, Plaintiff YARBROUGH transferred to the North Wing to

7 work as a shower aid. As a shower aid, her job was to shower the patients in North
8 Wing in addition to her duties as a CNA. More than six months later, in July 2004,
9 10 Plaintiff YARBROUGH learned she was entitled to a raise because of her additional
11 shower aid duties. Plaintiff YARBROUGH did not receive her retroactive pay until

12 seven months later.

13 E. 14
15

Plaintiff BARBARA BERSHELL alleges the following: 72. Plaintiff BERSHELL was subjected to racial harassment and race

16 discrimination. She worked for Defendant LINDEN GROVE HEALTH CARE CENTER

17 as a Certified Nursing Assistant from May 2003 through December 2003. A review of

18 her personnel file revealed she performed her duties satisfactory. In fact, she was often 19
called to work extra shifts when there was a shortage of staff. Nevertheless, Plaintiff 20 21 BERSHELL was terminated on December 24, 2003 based on false allegations of patient
22 abuse. Plaintiff alleges she was terminated because of her race.

23

73. On December 24, 2003, Plaintiff BERSHELL arrived for her shift and was

24 sitting at the nurses station when she saw the note restricting “caregivers of color” to
25 care for Patient 1. She was told to leave immediately because a patient had accused her
26

27 of patient abuse. A patient allegedly complained that Plaintiff BERSHELL bruised her

INTERVENORS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

28

FOR DAMAGES (C04-5627 RBL) - 19

S:\6000 FILES\6218 Lorraine Moore v. Linden Groves Nursing

Home\Complaint -First amended.doc

The Law Offices of GRANT & ASSOCIATES The Law Dome
3002 So. 47th Street Tacoma, Washington 98409
Telephone (253) 472-6213

Case 3:04-cv-05627-RBL Document 12 Filed 11/09/2004 Page 20 of 34

1 arm as Plaintiff BERSHELL was attempting to maneuver her.

2

74. A few days later, Plaintiff BERSHELL called to inquire about her

3 employment. She spoke to Defendant ANDREASEN’S assistant, who told Plaintiff
4

5 BERSHELL that the bruise was not caused by her, but from another caregiver blood that

6 was drawn several weeks prior. Nevertheless, Plaintiff BERSHELL was told she was

7 terminated because she could have injured the patient. Plaintiff BERSHELL alleges that

8 her termination was a pretext for discrimination.
9

10

75. While employed at Defendant LINDEN GROVE HEALTH CARE

11 CENTER, Plaintiff BERSHELL was also subjected to racial harassment. Like the other

12 Plaintiffs, she also heard Caucasian employees use the term “colored” or “coloreds”
13 when referring to African-Americans at least two to three each times a week. When
14 Plaintiff BERSHELL objected, a Caucasian LPN stated to the effect of, “I like colored
15
16 people. I have nothing against colored people.” Plaintiff BERSHELL believed

17 complaining would be an exercise in futility, as “colored” was a common term in the

18 workplace. 19
76. Plaintiff BERSHELL also requested to work the evening shift. When she 20
21 was first hired she requested the evening shift, because she was afraid to work late

22 nights and she would be guaranteed 40 hours each week on the evening shift as

23 opposed to 32 hours each week on the night shift. She was told she would work the
24 night shift until there was an opening on the evening shift. As in Plaintiff Moore’s case,
25 26 other Caucasian CNAs were subsequently hired to work the evening shifts, despite

27 Plaintiff BERSHELL’s repeated requests for the evening shift.

INTERVENORS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

28

FOR DAMAGES (C04-5627 RBL) - 20

S:\6000 FILES\6218 Lorraine Moore v. Linden Groves Nursing

Home\Complaint -First amended.doc

The Law Offices of GRANT & ASSOCIATES The Law Dome
3002 So. 47th Street Tacoma, Washington 98409
Telephone (253) 472-6213

Case 3:04-cv-05627-RBL Document 12 Filed 11/09/2004 Page 21 of 34

1 F. Plaintiff VERONICA BRADY alleges the following:

2

77. Plaintiff BRADY was subjected to racial harassment and race

3 discrimination. Plaintiff BRADY was a Certified Nursing Assistant for Defendant
4

5 LINDEN GROVE HEALTH CARE CENTER from September 2002 through December

6 2003.

7

78. Caucasian employees and Caucasian patients subjected Plaintiff BRADY

8 to derogatory comments. Plaintiff BRADY was terminated for allegedly “double
9

10 padding” patients, a process in which two pads are placed under a patient. Plaintiff

11 BRADY alleges she was terminated because of her race.

12

79. The State’s investigation did not find any violation. Nevertheless,

13 Defendants terminated Plaintiff BRADY on December 8, 2003. Defendants are now
14
15 stating that Plaintiff BRADY was terminated for falsifying her employment application

16 by omitting one of her previous employers. While Plaintiff BRADY did omit a previous

17 employer, she later informed Defendants of her previous employer in or about July
18 2003, and was not terminated until December 2003. 19
80. On or about July 7, 2003, Plaintiff BRADY hand delivered to Debbie 20
21 Lacefield a copy of the Stipulation to Informal Disposition. Evidence shows that

22 Plaintiff Brady brought the document to work as soon as she received it from the State.

23 The complaints from a previous employer originated after she started to work for
24 Defendants.
25

26

27

INTERVENORS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

28

FOR DAMAGES (C04-5627 RBL) - 21

S:\6000 FILES\6218 Lorraine Moore v. Linden Groves Nursing

Home\Complaint -First amended.doc

The Law Offices of GRANT & ASSOCIATES The Law Dome
3002 So. 47th Street Tacoma, Washington 98409
Telephone (253) 472-6213

Case 3:04-cv-05627-RBL Document 12 Filed 11/09/2004 Page 22 of 34

1

81. The Stipulation to Informal Disposition provided Plaintiff BRADY be

2 placed on two years probation and reimburse the Nursing Assistant Program $500.00.
3 She did not lose her license due to misconduct.
4

5

82. Additionally, the reasons for Plaintiff BRADY’s termination remain

6 unclear. The form from unemployment indicated that Plaintiff BRADY was not

7 terminated, but “suspended pending license review.” In contrast, Defendant
8 STROMKI’S letter dated July 14, 2004 indicated that Plaintiff BRADY was terminated on
9
10 December 8, 2003 for “falsification of her employment application and the outstanding

11 DSHS complaint.”

12

83. Plaintiff BRADY was never told she was suspended pending the license

13 review and she immediately informed Defendants as soon as she became aware of an
14

15 inquiry action regarding her license. Plaintiff BRADY alleges the reasons for her

16 termination were pretext for discrimination.

17

84. While Plaintiff BRADY was employed at Defendant LINDEN GROVE

18 HEALTH CARE CENTER, she has also been subjected to discriminatory actions. Like
19
20 Plaintiffs MOORE and BERSHELL, Plaintiff BRADY requested to work the day or

21 evening shift. She again requested to work the day or evening shift in the summer 2003,

22 however two Caucasian CNAs were subsequently hired in the fall 2003.
23 85. Plaintiff BRADY also heard Caucasian employees and Caucasian patients
24 make racist comments. “Colored” was frequently used among Caucasian CNAs and
25
26 Caucasian patients. Ellen Norris, a Caucasian CNA, always referred to Plaintiff BRADY

27

INTERVENORS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

28

FOR DAMAGES (C04-5627 RBL) - 22

S:\6000 FILES\6218 Lorraine Moore v. Linden Groves Nursing

Home\Complaint -First amended.doc

The Law Offices of GRANT & ASSOCIATES The Law Dome
3002 So. 47th Street Tacoma, Washington 98409
Telephone (253) 472-6213

Case 3:04-cv-05627-RBL Document 12 Filed 11/09/2004 Page 23 of 34

1 as “that colored girl” or “that black girl” when talking to the patients. Plaintiff BRADY

2 complained about Ellen Norris’ discriminatory behavior to her immediate supervisor,
3 Theresa Duggin, Caucasian LPN, and subsequently to Defendant ANDREASEN.
4 5 Despite Plaintiff BRADY’s complaints, no prompt action was taken.

6

86. Plaintiff BRADY was also assigned to provide care to a Caucasian Patient

7 who often referred to her as “Black Bitch.” Plaintiff BRADY was uncomfortable
8 working with this patient and complained to her immediate supervisor and Defendant
9 10 ANDREASEN. However, she was still forced to provide care to this patient, without
11 employer intervention and corrective remedial action.

12 G. Plaintiff NORMA BALLARD alleges the following:

13

87. Plaintiff BALLARD was subjected to discriminatory work assignments,

14

terms and conditions of employment and harassment due to her race, African-American 15

16 and Filipino. Plaintiff BALLARD further alleges she was terminated based on her race.

17

88. Plaintiff BALLARD was employed with Defendant LINDEN GROVE

18 HEALTH CARE CENTER as a Certified Nursing Assistant from December 14, 2002 to
19 December 24, 2003, when she was wrongfully terminated.
20

21

89. During her employment, Caucasian patients and employees would make

22 derogatory race-based comments to her. For instance, a Caucasian patient referred to

23 Plaintiff BALLARD as “nigger,” while a Caucasian employee referred to her as
24 “colored.”
25

26

27

INTERVENORS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

28

FOR DAMAGES (C04-5627 RBL) - 23

S:\6000 FILES\6218 Lorraine Moore v. Linden Groves Nursing

Home\Complaint -First amended.doc

The Law Offices of GRANT & ASSOCIATES The Law Dome
3002 So. 47th Street Tacoma, Washington 98409
Telephone (253) 472-6213

Case 3:04-cv-05627-RBL Document 12 Filed 11/09/2004 Page 24 of 34

1

90. Another Caucasian employee referred to Plaintiff BALLARD as a

2 “dorper”, which is an animal developed in South Africa in the 1930s by crossing 3
Horned Dorsets with Black Headed Persians. Plaintiff BALLARD was offended by the 4
5 derogatory name-calling as she was part African-American and part Filipino. The other

6 Caucasian employees laughed when Plaintiff BALLARD was referred to as a “dorper.”

7 Plaintiff BALLARD alleges Defendants should have known about the racial harassment,

8 but failed to take prompt corrective action.
9

10

91. Plaintiff BALLARD was assigned arduous job duties based on her race.

11 Defendant LINDEN GROVE’s nurse supervisors frequently assign Plaintiff BALLARD

12 inferior jobs. For instance, Plaintiff BALLARD was repeatedly assigned to clean the day
13 room. Even though Plaintiff BALLARD was not assigned to work the day room, she
14 was instructed to clean up for another Caucasian CNA.
15

16

92. Plaintiff BALLARD alleges it was a common practice for Caucasian nurses

17 to order her to take care of patients who were not initially assigned to her care.
18 Caucasian nurses would relieve the Caucasian CNAs from taking care of “hoyer” 19
patients, who were patients that needed an easy lift. Plaintiff BALLARD repeatedly 20
21 complained about being assigned inferior jobs, but no action was taken.

22

93. Plaintiff BALLARD alleges she worked in a hostile work environment

23 based on her race. She further alleges she was terminated based on her race. Defendant
24 LINDEN GROVE terminated Plaintiff BALLARD for violating its “no call no show”
25

26

27

INTERVENORS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

28

FOR DAMAGES (C04-5627 RBL) - 24

S:\6000 FILES\6218 Lorraine Moore v. Linden Groves Nursing

Home\Complaint -First amended.doc

The Law Offices of GRANT & ASSOCIATES The Law Dome
3002 So. 47th Street Tacoma, Washington 98409
Telephone (253) 472-6213

Case 3:04-cv-05627-RBL Document 12 Filed 11/09/2004 Page 25 of 34

1 policy. Plaintiff BALLARD contends its reasons are pretext for discrimination as

2 Caucasian employees were not terminated under similar circumstances.

3 VI. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

4

RACE DISCRIMINATION AND RACIAL HARASSMENT IN VIOLATION

5

OF TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.

6

(PLAINTIFFS AGAINST DEFENDANTS CENTRAL PARK LODGES LONG

TERM CARE, INC., d/b/a LINDEN GROVE HEALTH CARE CENTER

7

AND DOES 1-5)

8

Plaintiffs MOORE, WISE, GANTT, YARBROUGH, BERSHELL, BRADY, and

9 BALLARD reallege each and every allegation as set forth in the preceding paragraphs 1
10
11 thru 93 with the same force and effect as though fully set forth herein.

12

94. Plaintiffs MOORE, WISE, GANTT, YARBROUGH, BERSHELL, BRADY,

13 and BALLARD were subjected to severe and pervasive racial harassment, including but

14 not limited to racial comments and discriminatory work assignments.
15

16

95. Plaintiffs complained about the hostile work environment and

17 discriminatory conduct to Defendants. Despite Defendants’ knowledge of the hostile

18 work environment and the race discrimination, Defendants failed to take prompt

19 corrective action.

20

21

96. The racial harassment was so severe and pervasive, it adversely impacted

22 Plaintiffs’ abilities to perform their work.

23

97. As a direct and proximate result of the above mentioned harassment and

24 discriminatory acts and omissions by Defendants CENTRAL PARK LODGES LONG
25 TERM CARE, INC., d/b/a LINDEN GROVE HEALTH CARE CENTER and Does 1-5,
26

27 Plaintiffs’ emotional well-being have been substantially injured.

INTERVENORS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

28

FOR DAMAGES (C04-5627 RBL) - 25

S:\6000 FILES\6218 Lorraine Moore v. Linden Groves Nursing

Home\Complaint -First amended.doc

The Law Offices of GRANT & ASSOCIATES The Law Dome
3002 So. 47th Street Tacoma, Washington 98409
Telephone (253) 472-6213

Case 3:04-cv-05627-RBL Document 12 Filed 11/09/2004 Page 26 of 34

1

98. Plaintiffs have suffered, and will continue to suffer pain and suffering,

2 extreme mental anguish and emotional distress because of the above-described acts and 3
omissions of Defendants. Plaintiffs have also suffered, and will continue to suffer, loss of 4
5 earnings, nonpecuniary losses and job opportunities as a result of the actions and

6 omissions of Defendants.

7

VII. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

8

RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF TITLE VII OF THE

CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.

9

(Plaintiffs WISE, MOORE, and GANTT against Defendants CENTRAL PARK

LODGES LONG TERM CARE, INC., d/b/a LINDEN GROVE HEALTH CARE

10

CENTER and DOES 1-5)

11 Plaintiffs WISE, MOORE, and GANTT reallege the preceding paragraphs 1 thru
12 98 with the same force and effect, and incorporates the same as though fully set forth
13

14 herein.

15

99. Plaintiffs WISE, MOORE, and GANTT allege they engaged in protected

16 activity when they complained about racial harassment and race discrimination. 17
100. Plaintiffs MOORE, WISE, and GANTT further allege they engaged in 18
19 protected activity when they filed their Charges of Discrimination alleging racial

20 harassment and discrimination with the EEOC.

21

101. As a result of complaining about the racial harassment and race

22 discrimination, Plaintiffs experienced adverse employment actions.
23

24

102. Plaintiffs MOORE and GANTT allege they were constructively

25 discharged. Plaintiff MOORE could no longer work at Defendant LINDEN GROVE

26 HEALTH CARE CENTER because it continued to refuse her requests for a 40-hour

27

INTERVENORS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

28

FOR DAMAGES (C04-5627 RBL) - 26

S:\6000 FILES\6218 Lorraine Moore v. Linden Groves Nursing

Home\Complaint -First amended.doc

The Law Offices of GRANT & ASSOCIATES The Law Dome
3002 So. 47th Street Tacoma, Washington 98409
Telephone (253) 472-6213

Case 3:04-cv-05627-RBL Document 12 Filed 11/09/2004 Page 27 of 34

1 work week. Instead, Defendants hired Caucasian LPNs to work the 40-hour work

2 week.
3 103. Plaintiff GANTT observed how African-American employees were
4
5 treated differently than Caucasian employees in that the African-American employees

6 were constantly accused of patient abuse. Plaintiff GANTT was also falsely accused of

7 patient abuse in which the State’s investigation revealed the allegations were
8 unsupported. Plaintiff GANTT eventually resigned because of the continued hostile
9 10 work environment and for fear of losing her license.

11

104. Plaintiff MOORE alleges they were closely scrutinized soon after

12 complaining about the discrimination.
13 105. Plaintiffs MOORE, WISE, and GANTT allege that their opposition to the
14 discrimination and/or hostile work environment was a substantial factor in the adverse
15
16 employment actions.

17

106. As a direct and proximate result of the retaliation referred to above,

18 Plaintiffs have suffered and will continue to suffer damages including, but not limited
19 to, earnings and employment benefits, as well as physical, emotional, and mental
20
21 distress.

22

VIII. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

RACE DISCRIMINATION AND RACIAL HARASSMENT

23

IN VIOLATION OF RCW 49.60

24 (PLAINTIFFS AGAINST DEFENDANTS CENTRAL PARK LODGES LONG TERM CARE, INC., d/b/a LINDEN GROVE HEALTH CARE CENTER; DONNA

25

STROMSKI, individually and the marital community thereof with JOHN DOE

STROMSKI; MARIETTA ANDREASEN, individually and the marital community

26

thereof with JOHN DOE ANDREASEN and DOES 1-10)

27

INTERVENORS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

28

FOR DAMAGES (C04-5627 RBL) - 27

S:\6000 FILES\6218 Lorraine Moore v. Linden Groves Nursing

Home\Complaint -First amended.doc

The Law Offices of GRANT & ASSOCIATES The Law Dome
3002 So. 47th Street Tacoma, Washington 98409
Telephone (253) 472-6213

Case 3:04-cv-05627-RBL Document 12 Filed 11/09/2004 Page 28 of 34

1 Plaintiffs MOORE, WISE, GANTT, YARBROUGH, BERSHELL, BRADY, and
2
3 BALLARD reallege each and every allegation herein set forth above in the preceding

4 paragraphs 1 thru 106 with the same force and effect as though fully set forth herein.

5

107. Plaintiffs MOORE, WISE, GANTT, YARBROUGH, BERSHELL, BRADY,

6 and BALLARD allege that a substantial factor in the above-referenced hostile working
7
environment and discriminatory behavior was because of Plaintiffs’ race, African8

9 American.

10

108. The acts of Defendants as described herein violate RCW 49.60 et seq. as

11 they violate Plaintiffs’ right to be free from racial harassment and race discrimination in

12 employment.
13

14

109. The above-described hostile comments, and disparate treatment occurred

15 because of Plaintiffs’ race.

16

110. The above-described hostile comments, and disparate treatment were

17 unwelcome to Plaintiffs and were sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the terms and
18 conditions of Plaintiffs’ employment, creating a hostile working environment.
19

20

111. Defendants had actual, imputed, and/or constructive knowledge of the

21 unlawful actions of its managerial, supervisory, and other employees, but failed to take

22 prompt and effective remedial action.
23 \\
24
25 \\

26 \\

27

INTERVENORS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

28

FOR DAMAGES (C04-5627 RBL) - 28

S:\6000 FILES\6218 Lorraine Moore v. Linden Groves Nursing

Home\Complaint -First amended.doc

The Law Offices of GRANT & ASSOCIATES The Law Dome
3002 So. 47th Street Tacoma, Washington 98409
Telephone (253) 472-6213

Case 3:04-cv-05627-RBL Document 12 Filed 11/09/2004 Page 29 of 34

1

IX. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF RCW 49.60

2

(Plaintiffs MOORE, WISE, YARBROUGH, and GANTT against DEFENDANTS

3

CENTRAL PARK LODGES LONG TERM CARE, INC., d/b/a LINDEN GROVE

HEALTH CARE CENTER; DONNA STROMSKI, individually and the marital

4 community thereof with JOHN DOE STROMSKI; MARIETTA ANDREASEN and

DOES 1-10) 5

6

Plaintiffs MOORE, WISE, YARBROUGH and GANTT reallege the preceding

7 paragraphs 1 thru 111 with the same force and effect, and incorporates the same as

8 though fully set forth herein.
9 112. Because of the above-referenced opposition activity, Defendants and their
10
11 employees subjected Plaintiffs MOORE, WISE, YARBROUGH and GANTT to adverse

12 employment actions.

13

113. Plaintiffs MOORE and GANTT allege they were constructively

14 discharged. Plaintiff MOORE could no longer work at Defendant LINDEN GROVE
15
16 HEALTH CARE CENTER because it continued to refuse her requests for a 40-hour

17 work week. Instead, Defendants hired Caucasian LPNs to work the 40-hour work

18 week.
19 114. Plaintiff GANTT observed how African-American employees were
20 21 treated differently than Caucasian employees in that the African-American employees
22 were constantly accused of patient abuse. Plaintiff GANTT was also falsely accused of

23 patient abuse in which the State’s investigation revealed the allegations were

24 unsupported. Plaintiff GANTT eventually resigned because of the continued hostile
25 work environment and for fear of losing her license.
26

27

115. Plaintiff MOORE and YARBROUGH alleges they were closely

INTERVENORS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

28

FOR DAMAGES (C04-5627 RBL) - 29

S:\6000 FILES\6218 Lorraine Moore v. Linden Groves Nursing

Home\Complaint -First amended.doc

The Law Offices of GRANT & ASSOCIATES The Law Dome
3002 So. 47th Street Tacoma, Washington 98409
Telephone (253) 472-6213

Case 3:04-cv-05627-RBL Document 12 Filed 11/09/2004 Page 30 of 34

1 scrutinized soon after complaining about the discrimination.

2

116. Plaintiffs allege that in violation of RCW 49.60, their opposition activity

3 was a substantial factor in the above-referenced adverse employment action.
4

5

117. As a direct and proximate result of the retaliation referred to above,

6 Plaintiffs have suffered and will continue to suffer damages including, but not limited

7 to, earnings and employment benefits, as well as physical, emotional, and mental

8 distress.
9

10

X. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION and/or RETENTION

11 (PLAINTIFFS against Defendants CENTRAL PARK LODGES LONG TERM CARE, INC., d/b/a LINDEN GROVE HEALTH CARE CENTER, and DOES 1-5)

12

13

Plaintiffs MOORE, WISE, GANTT, YARBROUGH, BERSHELL, BRADY, and

14 BALLARD reallege the preceding paragraphs 1 thru 117 with the same force and effect,

15 and incorporate the same as though fully set forth herein.
16 118. As Plaintiffs’ employer, Defendants CENTRAL PARK LODGES LONG
17 18 TERM CARE, INC., d/b/a LINDEN GROVE HEALTH CARE CENTER and DOES 1-5
19 owed and breached duties to Plaintiffs including, but not limited to: 1) the duty not to

20 employ or retain employees whom it knows or should know to be unfit or dangerous,
21 2) the duty to exercise care appropriate to the circumstances in supervising and/or 22
retaining employees, 3) the duty to exercise due diligence to determine whether an 23 24 employee is or has become unfit or dangerous.

25

119. Defendants CENTRAL PARK LODGES LONG TERM CARE, INC.,

26 d/b/a LINDEN GROVE HEALTH CARE CENTER and DOES 1-5 failed to exercise care

27

INTERVENORS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

28

FOR DAMAGES (C04-5627 RBL) - 30

S:\6000 FILES\6218 Lorraine Moore v. Linden Groves Nursing

Home\Complaint -First amended.doc

The Law Offices of GRANT & ASSOCIATES The Law Dome
3002 So. 47th Street Tacoma, Washington 98409
Telephone (253) 472-6213

Case 3:04-cv-05627-RBL Document 12 Filed 11/09/2004 Page 31 of 34

1 appropriate to the circumstances in retaining its employees and patients who subjected

2 Plaintiffs to racial harassment.
3 120. Defendants CENTRAL PARK LODGES LONG TERM CARE, INC., d/b/a
4
5 LINDEN GROVE HEALTH CARE CENTER and DOES 1-5 had actual, constructive

6 and/or imputed notice and knowledge of the unfitness of employees and Defendants

7 DOES 6-10, who have subjected Plaintiffs to repeated racial harassment.
8 121. Such notice and knowledge made foreseeable the injuries these
9
10 employees and patients inflicted upon Plaintiffs.

11

122. Despite such notice and knowledge, Defendants CENTRAL PARK

12 LODGES LONG TERM CARE, INC., d/b/a LINDEN GROVE HEALTH CARE
13 CENTER and DOES 1-5 failed to exercise ordinary care to discipline its employees
14
15 and/or Defendants DOES 6-10.

16

123. At all times material herein, Defendants CENTRAL PARK LODGES

17 LONG TERM CARE, INC., d/b/a LINDEN GROVE HEALTH CARE CENTER and
18 DOES 1-5 had the power, ability, authority, and duty to so intervene, monitor, review,
19 20 evaluate, control, regulate, discipline, restrict, and/or penalize the conduct of
21 themselves, their agents, and employees.

22

124. Despite said knowledge, power, and duty, Defendants CENTRAL PARK

23 LODGES LONG TERM CARE, INC., d/b/a LINDEN GROVE HEALTH CARE
24 CENTER and DOES 1-5 negligently failed to act so as to prevent, supervise, monitor,
25

26 review, evaluate, control, regulate, discipline, and/or penalize such conduct, acts, and

27

INTERVENORS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

28

FOR DAMAGES (C04-5627 RBL) - 31

S:\6000 FILES\6218 Lorraine Moore v. Linden Groves Nursing

Home\Complaint -First amended.doc

The Law Offices of GRANT & ASSOCIATES The Law Dome
3002 So. 47th Street Tacoma, Washington 98409
Telephone (253) 472-6213

Case 3:04-cv-05627-RBL Document 12 Filed 11/09/2004 Page 32 of 34

1 failures to act or to otherwise protect Plaintiffs.

2

125. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon alleges, that each of

3 the Defendants CENTRAL PARK LODGES LONG TERM CARE, INC., d/b/a LINDEN
4

5 GROVE HEALTH CARE CENTER and DOES 1-5 designated as a DOE is legally

6 responsible in some manner for the events, incidents, and happenings described herein,

7 and caused injury and damage to Plaintiffs.
8 126. As a direct and proximate result of the failure of Defendants CENTRAL
9
10 PARK LODGES LONG TERM CARE, INC., d/b/a LINDEN GROVE HEALTH CARE

11 CENTER and DOES 1-5 to protect Plaintiffs and to adequately monitor, review,

12 evaluate, control, regulate, discipline, and/or otherwise penalize the conduct, acts, and
13 failures to act by Defendant themselves, their agents, and employees, as alleged herein,
14 said conduct, acts, and failures to act were perceived by said Defendants, its agents, and
15
16 employees as, and in fact had the effect of, ratifying, encouraging, condoning,

17 exacerbating, increasing, and/or worsening said conduct, acts, and failures to act,

18 thereby causing reasonably foreseeable injury. 19
127. Defendants CENTRAL PARK LODGES LONG TERM CARE, INC. d/b/a 20
21 LINDEN GROVE HEALTH CARE CENTER and DOES 1-5 are responsible for the acts

22 of their employees alleged herein.

23

128. Defendants CENTRAL PARK LODGES LONG TERM CARE, INC., d/b/a

24 LINDEN GROVE HEALTH CARE CENTER and DOES 1-5 failure to exercise ordinary
25

26 care breached the above-referenced duties of care, proximately causing the injury and

27

INTERVENORS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

28

FOR DAMAGES (C04-5627 RBL) - 32

S:\6000 FILES\6218 Lorraine Moore v. Linden Groves Nursing

Home\Complaint -First amended.doc

The Law Offices of GRANT & ASSOCIATES The Law Dome
3002 So. 47th Street Tacoma, Washington 98409
Telephone (253) 472-6213

Case 3:04-cv-05627-RBL Document 12 Filed 11/09/2004 Page 33 of 34

1 damages to Plaintiffs referenced herein.

2

129. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants CENTRAL PARK

3 LODGES LONG TERM CARE, INC., d/b/a LINDEN GROVE HEALTH CARE
4

5 CENTER and DOES 1-5 breach of the duties owed to Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs suffered

6 substantial emotional injuries in an amount to be proven at trial.

7

130. As a further direct and proximate result of Defendants CENTRAL PARK

8 LODGES LONG TERM CARE, INC. d/b/a LINDEN GROVE HEALTH CARE
9

10 CENTER and DOES 1-5 actions and omissions, Plaintiffs have suffered and will

11 continue to suffer mental anguish and severe emotional distress.

12

131. Therefore, Plaintiffs are entitled to general and compensatory damages for

13 their emotional injuries in an amount to be proven at trial.
14

15

XI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

16

17

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that judgment be entered in their favor and

18 against Defendants as specified in all causes of action as follows:

19

1. That all Defendants be ordered to pay Plaintiffs actual, compensatory,

20 general and punitive damages according to proof at trial and as allowable
21

22

by law;

23

2. That Plaintiffs be awarded their costs of suit including reasonable

24

attorneys’ fees;

25 3. That Plaintiffs be awarded prejudgment interest; and
26

27 \\

INTERVENORS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

28

FOR DAMAGES (C04-5627 RBL) - 33

S:\6000 FILES\6218 Lorraine Moore v. Linden Groves Nursing

Home\Complaint -First amended.doc

The Law Offices of GRANT & ASSOCIATES The Law Dome
3002 So. 47th Street Tacoma, Washington 98409
Telephone (253) 472-6213

Case 3:04-cv-05627-RBL Document 12 Filed 11/09/2004 Page 34 of 34

1

4. That this Court award such further relief as the Court deems just and

2

proper.

3 DATED this 10th day of November, 2004
4

Law Offices of GRANT & ASSOCIATES

5 ________________/s/________________

6

Artis C. Grant, Jr., WSBA No. 26204

Roxanne L. Rarangol, WSBA No. 30340

7

Attorneys for Lorraine Moore, Cathy

8

Wise, Kesha Gantt, Sadarah Yarbrough,

Barbara Bershell, Veronica Brady, and

9

Norma Ballard

10

3002 South 47th Street Tacoma, WA 98409

11

Telephone: (253) 472-6213

Facsimile: (253) 473-9695

12

E-mail: agrant@lawdome.com

13

E-mail: rrarangol@lawdome.com

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

INTERVENORS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

28

FOR DAMAGES (C04-5627 RBL) - 34

S:\6000 FILES\6218 Lorraine Moore v. Linden Groves Nursing

Home\Complaint -First amended.doc

The Law Offices of GRANT & ASSOCIATES The Law Dome
3002 So. 47th Street Tacoma, Washington 98409
Telephone (253) 472-6213

 
 Case 3:04-cv-05627-RBL Document 33 Filed 05/13/2005 Page 1 of 8

The Honorable Ronald Leighton

2

3

FltED

lG ClGED

- - - _ RECEIVED

4

MAY 1 3 2005

5

6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTO

~

WES1iRN

CUfII( U.~1lISTIliCf COUlT
DImDCT WAIItNCTOft AT

llt~

~

AT TACOMA

7

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )

8 COMMISSION,

)

) No. C04-5627 RBL

9

Plaintiffs,

)

) [ilR@D'iliilPJ FINAL ORDER

10

v.

) APPROVING CONSENT DECREE

)

11 CENTRAL PARK LODGES LONG TERM )

CARE, INC., d/b/a LINDEN GROVE HEALTH )

12 CARE CENTER,

)

)

13

Defendant.

)

)

14 LORRAINE MOORE, CATHY WISE, KESHA »

GANTT, SADARAH YARBROUGH,

15 BARBARA BERSHELL, VERONICA BRADY')

and NORMA BALLARD,

)

16

)

Plaintiffs in Intervention, )

17

v.

) )

18 CENTRAL PARK LODGES LONG TERM )

CARE, INC., d/b/a LINDEN GROVE HEALTH)

19 CARE CENTER; DONNA STROMSKI,

)

individually and the marital community thereof ) 20 with JOHN DOE STROMSKI; MARlETTA )

ANDREASEN, individually and the marital )

21 community thereof with JOHN DOE

) 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111

ANDREASEN, and DOES 1-10 inclusive,

)

22

) 11111111111111111111111111111111111

23

Defendants in Intervention. ) 04-< :V-US627-0RU

[PROPOSED] ORDER APPROVING CONSENT DECREE
(C04-5627)
SEA 1641643vl 65941·1

Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
lAW OFF!C5!1
2600 CI!IIHuf), 5ql.l.r~ . 1501 Fourth A".tll\J1:> SHIIIIII, W~I~I"'lon 9110).16U
(lO(i.) 622-]\SO • F.II: (206) &18.1699

Case 3:04-cv-05627-RBL Document 33 Filed 05/13/2005 Page 2 of 8

I. INTRODUCTION

2

This is an employment discrimination case brought by the EEOC and Lorraine

3 Moore, Cathy Wise, Kesha Gantt, Sadarah Yarbrough, Barbara Bershell, Veronica Brady,

4 and Norma Ballard (the "Class Representatives''), on behalf ofthemselves and other non-

5 white caregivers, against Central Park Lodges Long Term Care, Inc. d/b/a Linden Grove

6 Health Care Center ("Linden Grove") and Donna and John Doe Stromski and Marietta and

7 John Doe Andreason (the "Defendants In Intervention"). The parties have agreed to enter

8 into a consent decree (tbe "Consent Decree',) which would settle the case. For the

9 settlement to proceed, the Court must (l) eertify that the case meets the requirements for a

10 class action outlined in Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b), and (2) approve the terms of the

II settlement as fair and reasonable pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e).

12

II. FINDINGS OF FACT AND RULING

13

Having reviewed the parties' Joint Motion For Final Approval of Consent Decree,

14 the accompanying declarations of Holly M. Hearn, Kathryn Olson and Artis C. Grant, Jr.,

15 the previously filed Proposed Consent Decree and other pleadings filed in the above

16 referenced action, and having heard from the parties at the Fairness Hearing on May 13,

17 200S, the Court now finds and rules as follows:

18

1. Certification of the Class.

19

a. The Court finds that the first requirement of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a), that the

20 number of class members be so great that joining all of them would be impracticable, is

21 met. There is no dispute that for monetary purposes, the settlement class is comprised of

22 1SO current and former non-white employees who were employed as full-time or part-time

23 caregivers at Linden Grove's Puyallup facility between November 15, 2000 and November

[PROPOSED1 ORDER APPROVING CONSENT DECREE (C04-5627) - I
SEA 1641643vl 65941·1

Davis Wright Tn:maine LLP
L ....",O"PICEII
~d0t3(1 C<tfltLlI'}' SqUllTIil ' I~Oll'''Llrth Avenul 5~!ll~, Wlllhin.l!lIn ~Klol.l6n
(206) 6U-')I~O . FilII.: (~D6) 6l1-76gg

Case 3:04-cv-05627-RBL Document 33 Filed 05/13/2005 Page 3 of 8

15,2004, except those who have filed a timely request to opt out of the monetary

2 provisions of the Consent Decree. For purposes of the equitable and declaratory relief, the

3 Settlement Class consists of all non-white employees of Linden Grove who were employed

4 as a full time or part time caregiver at Linden Grove's Puyallup facility at ay time during

5 the period November 15,2000 through November 15,2004, or any non-white employee of

6 Linden Grove employed as a full time or part time caregiver at Linden Grove's Puyallup

7 facility at any time during the term of the Decree.

8

b. The Court fmds that there are questions oflaw and fact common to the class

9 as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2). The EEOC and Class Representatives allege that

10 the Class Representatives and other similarly situated individuals, i.e. the Settlement Class

11 members, were subjected to race discrimination in violation ofTitle VII of the Civil Rights

12 Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000 et seq., Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of

13 1866,42 U.S.C. § 1981, as amended, and the Washington Law Against Discrimination,

14 RCW 49.60 et. seq., on the basis ofa11egations of failure to promote, less desirable work

15 assignments and shifts based on race, racial harassment by co-workers and residents and

16 management honoring the racial preferences of some Linden Grove residents.

17

c. The Court finds there is typicality among the claims and defenses of the

18 parties as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3). The Class Representatives' claims are

19 reasonably co-extensive with those of absent Class members, who are also non-white

20 caregivers of Linden Grove residents. Linden Grove's defenses are typical of those that

21 would be raised if each Class member came forward separately, without significant factual

22 deviation.

23

[PROPOSED) ORDER APPROVING CONSENT DECREE (C04-5627) - 2
SEA 1641643vl 65941·1

Davis Wright Tremaine Ll,.)i
LAW OI'"l'"'C!!S
2600 C~rlhlr)' Sq\lArC . ISDI FOllrth AVCIl\l~ SlIalllv, W•• III1'I8I4n 98LOI-I~U
(lO6) ~22.:J ISO . hll: (~06) r>2i-7/i\l\l

Case 3:04-cv-05627-RBL Document 33 Filed 05/13/2005 Page 4 of 8

1

d. The Court fmds that the Class Representatives do not have any conflicts of

2 interest with absent Class members and that Class Counsel, Grant & Associates, are able to

3 provide adequate representation to protect the interest of absent class members as required

4 by Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4).

5

e. The Court finds that questions of law and fact common to the members of

6 the class predominate over any questions affecting only individual members and that a

7 class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of

8 this dispute, particularly given the substantial equitable relief provided for in the Consent

9 Decree. It is therefore appropriate to certify the class in this case pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.

10 P. 23(b)(3).

11

2. Fairness and Reasonableness of the Decree.

12

a. As a preliminary matter, the Court finds that that the notice procedure

13 employed by the parties - a first class mailing to all Settlement Class members that

14 included a notice previously approved by the Court, a claim form, and an opt out form -

IS was adequate.

16

b. The parties do not dispute and the Court finds that further litigation would

17 be complex, time consuming and expensive. Counsel for the parties have already spent

18 hundreds of hours investigating and defending EEOC charges filed by the Class

19 Representatives and conducting this litigation. Substantial formal discovery has yet to

20 occur, which would result in additional burden and expense. Trial would not occur until

21 2006 and then, plaintiffs may recover nothing or little on their claims. These factors

22 strongly favor adopting the Consent Decree.

23

[PROPOSED] ORDER APPROVING CONSENT DECREE (C04-5627) - 3
SEA 1641643vI65941·1

Davis Wright Tremaine: LLP
lOUO c."lur), SqtUU • I '0 I FCllIl1h .......nuf. S"'"I~. WIU"jllll"'D 91101-115U
(206) 622.3150 . Fax: (2[)j\) G211.1699

Case 3:04-cv-05627-RBL Document 33 Filed 05/13/2005 Page 5 of 8

c. The Court finds the total monetary relief provided for in the Consent Decree

2 to be fair and reasonable. The Consent Decree will award the Class Representatives

3 $270,000 to be distributed among them based on a negotiated schedule, and will award

4 Class members who establish claims ("Eligible Claimants") up to $100,000 to be

5 distributed among them based on an individualized assessment of their claims. Based on

6 the partics' evaluations of claim forms received as a result of the notice mailing, twenty-

7 one (21) Eligible Claimants will receive approximately $4,761.90 each if they return a 8 signed release form to Class Counsel. l

9

d. The Court finds that the claims determination process set forth in the

10 Consent Decree is fair and reasonable, and provides for an individualized assessment of a

II Class member's claim. Class Counsel made the initial determination of the value of the

12 claims submitted by Class members. Those determinations have not been disputed by

13 Counsel for Linden Grove and the Defendants in Intervention.

14

e. The Court finds that the Consent Decree provides significant and valuable

15 equitable and injunctive relief to the Settlement Class which is tailored to address concerns

16 raised by the EEOC and the Class Representatives. That relief includes training, records-

17 expungement, revised EEO responsibilities for managers and supervisors, staff and

18 resident diversity appreciation activities, new measures to increase awareness of

19 promotional opportunities among Linden Grove staff, and a notice posting affirming

20 Linden Grove's legal responsibility not to discriminate based on race, sex, color, religion,

21 national origin, age or disability and legal responsibility not to retaliate against any

22

23

I Pursuant to the Consent Decree, this anticipated payment amount may decrease ifthe Eligible Claimants

seek reimbursement for attorneys' fees incurred as "result ofhaving their release agreements reviewed.

[PROPOSED] ORDER APPROVING CONSENT DECREE (C04-S627) - 4
SEA 1641643\'t 65941-1

DBvi, Wright Tremaine LLP
LAW 0,,,,..
2l!iCO Cl!llItury Squlrl! . 1301 rourtli Avt!lnue SOllltlll, WuklqlOft 981C1l.lua
(206) 6ll-J I,0 ' f ...~; (lD6) ~~8·1Ij!l!l

Case 3:04-cv-05627-RBL Document 33 Filed 05/13/2005 Page 6 of 8

1 employee for exercising his or her rights under the law. To ensure compliance with these

2 equitable provisions, reporting requirements are also set forth in the Decree.

3

f. The Court fmds that the fees and expenses to be paid to Class Counsel were

4 negotiated at arm's length by the parties and, as set forth below, are fair and reasonable

5 given the experience of Class Counsel and the work performed in connection with the

6 litigation.

7

g. The Court finds that the parties have gathered sufficient information as a

8 result of investigating and defending Ms. Moore's, Ms. Wise's and Ms. Gantt's EEOC

9 charges and having engaged in two full days of mediation to make an informed settlement

10 decision. The lack of further formal discovery does not weigh against approving the

11 Consent Decree.

12

h. The Court finds that there is no dispute among the parties regarding the

13 reasonableness and fairness of the terms of the Decree. Furthermore, only two Class

14 members opted out of the settlement, there were no objectors to the Decree, and it was

15 negotiated by experienced counsel, at arm's length, with the help of an outside mediator.

16 The Court therefore fmds that on the whole, the Consent Decree is fair and reasonable.

17

3. The Attorneys' Fee Award.

18

Under the Decree, Linden Grove will pay Class Counsel Grant & Associates

19 $125,000 in fees and $5,000 in costs for its work through the approval of the Decree and

20 for supervising the implementation of the Decree and performing other post-approval

21 work. The Court finds this amount is reasonable and fair compensation to Class Counsel.

22 The amount is roughly one-third the amount of the Settlement Fund set aside by Linden

23 Grove; a percentage typical of that charged by plaintiff's counsel in contingent fee

[PROPOSED) ORDER APPROVING CONSENT DECREE (C04-5627) - 5
SEA 1641643vl 65941-1

Davis Wright Tremaine: L.LP
LAW OFFICEB
2600 Ccnellry SqllllrCl . 1':;01 rOl,lrt~ ,o\VenLlC S~"td~, WIl.jlh!n!}lQ!\ 9&IDHlilli
(:lQ6) U.l-J ISO' FI.1I.: {lOti} 6ZB.7699

Case 3:04-cv-05627-RBL Document 33 Filed 05/13/2005 Page 7 of 8

1 employment cases. The EEOC will not receive an award of fees or costs under the

2 Consent Decree.

3

III. CONCLUSION

4

The factors outlined above support the Court's approval of the Consent Decree.

5 The Decree as a whole provides a fair, adequate and reasonable resolution of the Class

6 Representatives and Class members' claims. The Court determines that the Settlement

7 Class shall be certified pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 (a) and (b) and approves the Consent

8 Decree pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 (e).

9

DONE IN OPEN COURT this l~ayofMaY2005.

10

e Honorable Ronald eighton

11

United States District Judge

12 Jointly presented by:
13

14 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Davis Wright Tremaine LLP Attorneys for CPL (Delaware) LLC, d/bla

15 Is! Kathrvn Olson

Linden Grove Health Care Center and Defendants in Intervention Donna Strornski rind

16 A. Luis Lucero Kathryn Olson

John Doe Stromski and Marietta Andreasen and John Doe Andreasen

17 Damien A. Lee

18 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission By lsi Holly Hearn

Seattle District Office

Michael Reiss, WSBA #10707

19 909 First Ave., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98104

Holly Hearn, WSBA #26795

20 Tel. (206) 220-6895 Fax (206) 220-6911

Davis Wright Tremaine LLP 1501 Fourth Ave., Ste. 2600

21 Email: kathryn.olson@eeoc.gov Email: damien.lee@eeoc.gov

Seattle, WA 98101 Tel. (206) 628-7675

22

Fax (206) 903-3775

Email: hollyhearn@dwt.com

23

Email: mikereiss@dwt.com

[PROPOSED) ORDER APPROVING CONSENT DECREE (C04-5627) - 6
SilA 1641643vI65941·1

Davis Wria:ht Tremaine LLP
LAW OPFICES-
21lOlI Ccnillry Sq.uare - UD! Fourth Allfiloue Sv..n1t, Wallt.l"8~1\ 1I!IOI_I'!~
(206) 622.) ISO' Fax: (206) 621.76\1\1

Case 3:04-cv-05627-RBL Document 33 Filed 05/13/2005 Page 8 of 8

1 Law Offices of GRANT & ASSOCIATES

2 Attorneys for Lorraine Moore, Cathy Wise, Kesha Gantt, Sadarah Yarbrough, Barbara
3 Bershell, Veronica Brady, Norma Ballard and Pamela Blakey
4

5 By Is/Artis C. Grant. Jr.

Artis C. Grant, Jr. WSBA #26204

6

Roxanne Rarangol, WSBA # 30304

7

Law Offices of GRANT &

ASSOCIATES

8

The Law Dome

3002 South 47th St.

9

Tacoma, WA 98409

Tel. (253) 472-6213

10

Fax (253) 473-9695

Email: agrant@lawdome.com

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

[PROPOSED] ORDER APPROVING CONSENT DECREE (C04-5627) - 7
SEA 1641643vI65941·1

Davis Wright Trc:maine LLP
t,.AW OFFICI!Ii
~I;II;I C.tllllf}' Sql.l,ro ' "(II fl;lurth Av~nu~ Stilllc, WUhinllOI'! 'U1(ll-U,U
(106) 621.31 SO . PIIK: (l06) 611-7699

 
 Case 3:04-cv-05627-RBL Document 34 Filed 05/18/2005 Page 1 of 21

1

HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

2

3

4

5

6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

7

AT TACOMA

8 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

9 COMMISSION,

Case No. C04-5627 RBL

10

Plaintiffs,

11

v.

CONSENT DECREE AND ORDER OF

12 CENTRAL PARK LODGES LONG TERM DISMISSAL

13

CARE, INC., d/b/a LINDEN GROVE HEALTH CARE CENTER,

14 Defendant.

15 LORRAINE MOORE, CATHY WISE,
16 KESHA GANTT, SADARAH YARBROUGH, BARBARA BERSHELL,
17 VERONICA BRADY, and NORMA BALLARD,

18 Plaintiffs in Intervention,

19 v.
20 CENTRAL PARK LODGES LONG TERM
21 CARE, INC., d/b/a LINDEN GROVE

22 HEALTH CARE CENTER; DONNA STROMSKI, individually and the marital

23 community thereof with JOHN DOE STROMSKI; MARIETTA ANDREASEN,
24 individually and the marital community thereof

25 with JOHN DOE ANDREASEN, and DOES 1-10 inclusive,

26 Defendants in Intervention.
27

28

CONSENT DECREE AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL Page - 1

Case 3:04-cv-05627-RBL Document 34 Filed 05/18/2005 Page 2 of 21

1

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

3 I. INTRODUCTION AND LITIGATION BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

4 II. 5

NON-ADMISSION OF LIABILITY AND NON-DETERMINATION BY THE COURT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

6 III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

7 IV.
8 V.
9 VI.
10 11 VII.

SETTLEMENT SCOPE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 DEFINITION OF TERMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 BINDING EFFECT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 RELEASE OF CLAIMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

12 VIII. OPT OUT PROCESS AND EFFECT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

13 IX.
14 X.
15 XI.
16
17 XII.

MONETARY RELIEF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 ATTORNEY’S FEES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 ADMINISTRATION OF CLASS SETTLEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 AFFIRMATIVE AND OTHER RELIEF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

18 XIII. ENFORCEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

19 XIV. RETENTION OF JURISDICTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

20 XV. EFFECTIVE DATE, DURATION AND TERMINATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
21 XVI. CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
22

23

EXHIBITS TO CONSENT DECREE (not attached to Consent Decree signed by Judge)

24 A B
25 C 26 D
E 27 F
G 28 H

Opt Out Form Class Representative Release Form Schedule of Payments to Class Representatives Claim Form Notice & Summary of Claims to Class Members List of Class Members Class Member Release Form EEOC Posting Notice for Linden Grove facility

CONSENT DECREE AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL Page - 2

Case 3:04-cv-05627-RBL Document 34 Filed 05/18/2005 Page 3 of 21

1 INTRODUCTION AND LITIGATION BACKGROUND
2 1. This civil action originated with discrimination charges filed with the U.S. Equal
3 Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) by Lorraine Moore, Cathy Wise, and Kesha Gantt,
4 alleging that Central Park Lodges, Inc., d/b/a Linden Grove Healthcare Center in Puyallup, WA (“Linden
5 Grove”) discriminated against them based on their race in violation of § 703 of Title VII, 42 U.S.C.
6 § 2000e-2 et seq.
7 2. The EEOC investigated Ms. Moore’s charge and sent Linden Grove a May 25, 2004 Letter
8 of Determination (“LOD”) finding reasonable cause that it had violated Title VII. Similarly, the EEOC
9 investigated Ms. Wise’s charge and sent Linden Grove a May 25, 2004 LOD finding reasonable cause that
10 it had violated Title VII regarding her non-promotion in May 2003, and regarding her work assignments in
11
December 2003 and January 2004. Lastly, the EEOC investigated Ms. Gantt’s charge and sent Linden 12
Grove a May 25, 2004 LOD finding reasonable cause that it had violated Title VII regarding her work 13
assignments in December 2003 and January 2004. 14
3. On September 28, 2004, the EEOC filed a lawsuit (the “Civil Action”) based on these 15
16 charges of discrimination, alleging that Linden Grove had discriminated against Ms. Moore, Ms. Wise and
17 Ms. Gantt and similarly situated individuals with regards to race-based work assignments. The EEOC also
18 alleged that Linden Grove had discriminated against Ms. Wise based on her race when she was not

19 promoted, and subjected Ms. Gantt to harassment based on her race.

20

4. On October 18, 2004, Ms. Moore, Ms. Wise and Ms. Gantt, along with Sadarah

21 Yarbrough, Barbara Bershell, Veronica Brady and Norma Ballard, joined in the Civil Action as Plaintiffs in

22 Intervention, naming Linden Grove, Donna Stromski and John Doe Stromski, Marietta Andreasen and

23 John Doe Andreasen, and Does 1-10 as Defendants in Intervention. On or about November 10, 2004,

24 Pamela Blakey, represented by the Law Offices of GRANT & ASSOCIATES, indicated her intention to

25 join the Civil Action as a Plaintiff in Intervention. Ms. Moore, Ms. Wise, Ms. Gantt, Ms. Yarbrough, Ms.

26 Bershell, Ms. Brady, Ms. Ballard, and Ms. Blakey are referred to hereafter as the “Class Representatives.”

27

5. On July 30, 2004, the EEOC, Linden Grove, Ms. Stromski, Ms. Andreasen and Ms. Moore,

28 Ms. Wise, Ms. Gantt, Ms. Yarbrough, Ms. Bershell and Ms. Brady participated in an arms-length

CONSENT DECREE AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL Page - 3

Case 3:04-cv-05627-RBL Document 34 Filed 05/18/2005 Page 4 of 21

1 mediation with mediator Teresa Wakeen. The parties mediated again with Ms. Wakeen on November 15,
2 2004, joined by Ms. Ballard and Ms. Blakey. In addition, counsel for Linden Grove, Defendants in
3 Intervention, the EEOC and the Class Representatives have conducted arms-length settlement negotiations
4 in and among themselves. The parties believe these discussions, the EEOC’s investigations in connection
5 with the charges of Ms. Gantt, Ms. Wise and Ms. Moore, and further inquiries by counsel to potential class
6 members prior to the July 30, 2004 and November 15, 2004 mediations, are sufficient to adequately assess
7 the relative strengths and weaknesses of the respective parties’ positions, and to compromise the issues
8 addressed by this Consent Decree on a fair and equitable basis. As a result of the mediation, the EEOC,
9
the Class Representatives, Linden Grove and the Defendants in Intervention have agreed to conclude all 10
claims without expending further resources in contested litigation by means of this [Proposed] Consent 11
Decree and Order of Dismissal (this “Consent Decree”). 12
6. With respect to the Civil Action that the EEOC and the Class Representatives have brought 13

against Linden Grove and the Defendants in Intervention, the parties have agreed as follows: 14

a. The Class Representatives and the EEOC will proceed to effect resolution of the 15

16 Civil Action consistent with the terms of this Consent Decree, and will pursue prosecution of that action

17 only in the event that this Consent Decree does not become effective under the terms and conditions set

18 forth below.

19

b. The Class Representatives and the EEOC will take all necessary and reasonable

20 steps to facilitate adoption of the Consent Decree by the District Court without the need for Linden Grove

21 or the Defendants in Intervention to answer the Class Representatives’ civil complaint or otherwise

22 participate in the litigation process (other than in support of the District Court’s adoption of the Consent

23 Decree).

24

c. It is the intention of the parties that this Consent Decree will serve as the final

25 judgment in the Civil Action.

26

27

28

CONSENT DECREE AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL Page - 4

Case 3:04-cv-05627-RBL Document 34 Filed 05/18/2005 Page 5 of 21

1

II. NON-ADMISSION OF LIABILITY AND

2

NON-DETERMINATION BY THE COURT

3

7. Linden Grove and the Defendants in Intervention expressly deny the validity of the Class

4 Representatives’ claims and the EEOC’s claims. This Consent Decree is not an adjudication or finding on

5 the merits of the Class Representatives’ claims and the EEOC’s claims or this case and shall not be

6 construed as an admission by Linden Grove or the Defendants in Intervention of a violation of Title VII.

7 This Consent Decree will not be used as evidence of liability or for purposes of res judicata or collateral

8 estoppel in any legal proceeding against Linden Grove or the Defendants in Intervention. Neither the

9 agreement to enter this Consent Decree, nor the Consent Decree itself, will be admissible in any proceeding

10 as an admission by Linden Grove or the Defendants in Intervention of any violation of, failure to comply

11 with, interference, retaliation or obstruction of compliance with Title VII or any other employment law or

12 order. Linden Grove and the Defendants in Intervention have voluntarily entered into this Consent Decree

13 in order to terminate any pending litigation and to focus on their continuing commitment to high quality

14 resident care and the fair and non-discriminatory treatment of Linden Grove’s employees.

15

III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

16

8. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 451, 1331, 1337, 1343 and 1345.

17 This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Sections 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII of the Civil 18 Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3) (“Title VII”), and Section 102 of the 19 Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful in the Civil 20 Action herein occurred within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Western District 21 of Washington at Tacoma. 22

23

24

25

26

27

28

CONSENT DECREE AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL Page - 5

Case 3:04-cv-05627-RBL Document 34 Filed 05/18/2005 Page 6 of 21

1 IV. SETTLEMENT SCOPE
2 9. This Consent Decree is the final and complete resolution of all claims of allegedly unlawful
3 discrimination on the basis of race in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42
4 U.S.C. § 2000 et seq. (“Title VII”) by the EEOC against Linden Grove and all complaints of allegedly
5 unlawful discrimination on the basis of race in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as
6 amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000 et seq. (“Title VII”), Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C.
7 § 1981, as amended (“Section 1981”), and the Washington Law Against Discrimination, RCW § 49.60 et
8 seq. (“the Washington Statute”) by the Class Representatives and Settlement Class members against
9
Linden Grove and the Defendants in Intervention, including all claims by the parties for attorney fees and 10
costs. The scope of this Consent Decree will be limited to Linden Grove’s Puyallup, WA facility. The 11
Consent Decree resolves all issues and claims arising out of this complaint and is binding and final as to all 12
such issues and claims except that, if any Class Member files a timely request to opt out of the monetary 13
relief provisions of the Consent Decree, it will not be binding as to that person individually. 14

15

V. DEFINITION OF TERMS

16

10. The following terms, when used in this Consent Decree, in addition to the terms defined

17 elsewhere in the Consent Decree, shall have the following meanings:

18

a. “Approval Date” means the date upon which the Court signs this Consent Decree,

19 after having determined that it is fair, adequate and reasonable to the Class as a whole, after: (i) notice to

20 the Class; (ii) an opportunity to opt out of the Settlement Class with respect to monetary relief; (iii) an

21 opportunity to submit timely objections to the Consent Decree; (iv) appropriate discovery of the specifics

22 of such timely objections; and (v) a hearing on the fairness of the Settlement.

23

b. “Class Representatives” means Lorraine Moore, Cathy Wise, Kesha Gantt, Sadarah

24 Yarbrough, Barbara Bershell, Veronica Brady, Norma Ballard, and Pamela Blakey, who are hereby

25 certified by this Court to represent the Settlement Class, for settlement purposes, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.

26 P. 23.

27

c. For purposes of the monetary relief provided in this Consent Decree, the

28 “Settlement Class” is certified pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) and consists of any non-White

CONSENT DECREE AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL Page - 6

Case 3:04-cv-05627-RBL Document 34 Filed 05/18/2005 Page 7 of 21

1 employee of Linden Grove who was employed as a full time or part time caregiver (registered nurse,
2 certified nursing assistant, licensed practical nurse, physical therapist or restorative aide), at Linden
3 Grove’s Puyallup facility, at any time during the period November 15, 2000 through November 15, 2004,
4 except those who have filed a timely request to opt out of the monetary relief provisions of this Consent
5 Decree.
6 d. “Eligible Claimant” shall include any Settlement Class member, other than a Class
7 Representative and those who file a timely request to opt out of the monetary relief provisions of this
8 Consent Decree, who establishes that he or she experienced discrimination based on his or her race during
9 the Liability Period (as defined below).
10
e. “Race Discrimination” or “Discrimination on the basis of Race” means unlawful 11
discrimination against employees on the basis of their race and/or color. Race Discrimination includes, but 12
is not limited to: (1) racial harassment; (2) adverse employment actions taken on account of a person’s 13
race; (3) retaliation for, in good faith, reporting, opposing, or participating in a complaint of Race 14
Discrimination, racial harassment, and/or retaliation. 15

16

f. “Liability Period” means November 15, 2000 through November 15, 2004.

17

g. Unless otherwise indicated, “days” means calendar days.

18

h. “Final Approval” means the signing of this Consent Decree on the Approval Date by

19 the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, and either (1) the expiration of the

20 time for filing of a direct appeal from the Court’s approval of the Decree without the filing of a notice of

21 appeal, or (2) if a timely direct appeal is filed, the final resolution of that appeal (including any requests for

22 rehearing and/or petitions for certiorari), resulting in final judicial approval of the Consent Decree.

23

i. “Final Approval Date” is the date upon which Final Approval of this Consent

24 Decree is obtained.

25

j. “Settlement Proceeds” means the monies to be paid by Linden Grove to Eligible

26 Claimants pursuant to this Consent Decree.

27

k. “Linden Grove” refers to the defendant Central Park Lodges Long Term Care, Inc.,

28 d/b/a Linden Grove Health Care Center, in Puyallup, Washington.

CONSENT DECREE AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL Page - 7

Case 3:04-cv-05627-RBL Document 34 Filed 05/18/2005 Page 8 of 21
1 l. “Class Counsel” shall mean the Law Offices of GRANT & ASSOCIATES.
2 m. “Court” means the United States District Court for the Western District of
3 Washington, Tacoma Division.
4 n. “Term of this Consent Decree” is the period from the Final Approval Date until the
5 expiration of the Consent Decree pursuant to Section XV of the Decree.
6 VI. BINDING EFFECT
7 11. This Consent Decree, when finally approved by the Court, will constitute the full and final
8 relief for any and all claims by the EEOC, the Class Representatives and the Settlement Class members for
9 alleged Race Discrimination, from the time period November 15, 2000 through November 15, 2004, that
10 were raised or could have been raised in this case, unless the Settlement Class member excludes him or
11 herself from the individual monetary portion of the Consent Decree pursuant to Paragraph 13.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CONSENT DECREE AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL Page - 8

Case 3:04-cv-05627-RBL Document 34 Filed 05/18/2005 Page 9 of 21

1 VII. RELEASE OF CLAIMS
2 12. Upon Final Approval of this Consent Decree, Linden Grove, its parent and affiliated
3 companies, and all of their respective past and present employees, directors, managers, agents, attorneys,
4 successors and assigns and their marital communities (if any), including Defendants In Intervention Donna
5 Stromski and John Doe Stromski, individually and their marital community, and Marietta Andreasen and
6 John Doe Andreasen, individually and their marital community, shall be fully released and forever
7 discharged from any and all individual and/or class-wide claims, demands, charges, complaints, rights and
8 causes of action of any kind, known or unknown, by the Class Representatives, the Settlement Class, and
9
by each member of the Settlement Class, whether seeking monetary and or affirmative or equitable relief of 10
any sort, which arise out of or are related to any conduct within the Liability Period allegedly constituting 11
Race Discrimination, whether under state or federal law prohibiting such alleged conduct, whether 12
statutory, pursuant to local ordinance or at common law.1 This release is final and shall survive the 13
expiration of the Consent Decree’s term. 14

15

VIII. OPT OUT PROCESS AND EFFECT

16

13. Pursuant to the Court’s approval of this Consent Decree, Settlement Class members shall be

17 provided an opportunity to opt out of the monetary relief provisions of this Consent Decree by submitting

18 to the Court within a specified period of time a “Request to Opt Out” in the form attached as Exhibit A.

19 Each Settlement Class member who properly submits a timely Request to Opt Out, or for any other reason

20 is permitted by the Court to opt out of monetary relief provisions of this Decree, shall be excluded from all

21 of the Consent Decree’s monetary provisions and from the Release of Claims in Paragraph 12. Those

22 individuals are hereafter referred to as “Timely Opt Outs.” Timely Opt Outs will not be eligible to receive

23 any Settlement Proceeds.

24

25

26

1 The jurisdiction of the EEOC in this case is limited to approving the release of claims under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. Section, 2000e-2 et seq. The EEOC does not oppose the release of other federal, state and common

27

law claims as negotiated by counsel for Linden Grove and Class Counsel in light of Paragraph 28, which directs that Eligible Claimants will be advised of their right to seek counsel with regards to the legal effect

28

of the release and their right to be reimbursed up to $200 if they choose to do so. The EEOC understands that the only mechanism for an individual to avoid releasing all claims is pursuant to the opt out provision of

Paragraph 13.

CONSENT DECREE AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL Page - 9

Case 3:04-cv-05627-RBL Document 34 Filed 05/18/2005 Page 10 of 21

1 14. In the event that more than three (3) Settlement Class members become Timely Opt Outs,
2 then Linden Grove and the Defendants in Intervention shall have the unilateral right to abrogate this
3 Consent Decree, and the settlement underlying it, by delivering notice of its abrogation to Class Counsel,
4 counsel for the EEOC and the Court within fifteen (15) days following the Court-established deadline for
5 Settlement Class members to submit a timely Request to Opt Out. The deadline for Linden Grove and the
6 Defendants in Intervention to abrogate the Consent Decree will be extended further to fifteen days
7 following the fairness hearing established by the Court if the Court permits any Settlement Class member to
8 be deemed a Timely Opt Out even though that Settlement Class member failed to submit a timely Request
9 to Opt Out.
10
15. In the event that Linden Grove and the Defendants in Intervention exercise their right to 11
abrogate this Consent Decree, then all aspects of this Consent Decree and the settlement underlying it, 12
including but not limited to the provisional certification of the Settlement Class for settlement purposes 13
only, shall be altogether null and void, and no aspect thereof shall serve either as any legal precedent or as 14
any basis for legal or factual argument, in this or any other case. 15

16

IX. MONETARY RELIEF

17

16. In settlement of the claims in this matter, and subject to the terms and conditions set forth

18 below, including their execution of a release in the form of Exhibit B as specified by Linden Grove, Linden

19 Grove agrees to pay the Class Representatives $270,000.00 in a lump sum settlement, to be divided among

20 the Class Representatives. Distribution of the monetary relief to the Class Representatives will occur

21 pursuant to the schedule in Exhibit C, and shall occur no later than five (5) days after the Final Approval

22 Date.

23

17. Linden Grove further agrees to set aside Settlement Proceeds of up to $100,000.00, to be

24 distributed after the Final Approval Date to all Eligible Claimants who present claims and are awarded a

25 settlement allocation pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in this Consent Decree, and who

26 execute a release in the form specified by Linden Grove and return it to Class Counsel postmarked no later

27 than the date set forth on the release form. As set forth previously, Eligible Claimants do not include the

28 Class Representatives and Timely Opt Outs.

CONSENT DECREE AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL Page - 10

Case 3:04-cv-05627-RBL Document 34 Filed 05/18/2005 Page 11 of 21

1 18. Each Eligible Claimant may be entitled to an individual share of the Settlement Proceeds of
2 either $5,000.00 or $4,000.00 (or a pro-rated amount), up to a total of $100,0000.00. Any Eligible
3 Claimant who establishes that he or she directly experienced any of the incidents or circumstances set forth
4 in questions 9(a), 10(a), 11(a), or 12(a) of the Claim Form attached as Exhibit D, or who establishes that
5 he or she was denied a promotion or pay raise based on his or her race, or experienced other adverse
6 action based on his or her race, in response to questions 14 or 15 of the Claim Form, will receive a share of
7 $5,000.00. Alternatively, any Eligible Claimant who establishes only that he or she was aware of and
8 impacted by any of the incidents or circumstances set forth in questions 9(b), 10(b), 11(b), or 12(b) of the
9 Claim Form, or who establishes that he or she was impacted by race discrimination in response to question
10
13(b) of the Claim Form, will receive a share of $4,000.00. If the total calculation of payments available to 11
Eligible Claimants exceeds $100,000.00, then the share of the Settlement Proceeds available to each 12
Eligible Claimant will decrease by a pro rata share based on the size of the actual class. Notwithstanding 13
the size of the final class of Eligible Claimants, the actual amount of an Eligible Claimant’s payment will be 14
based on an individualized assessment of the nature and value of their claims and shall not exceed 15

16 $5,000.00.

17

19. Regardless of the actual amount of Settlement Proceeds allocated to Eligible Claimants who

18 establish claims, Linden Grove agrees to pay no more than $100,000.00 but at least $60,000.00 in

19 Settlement Proceeds in settlement of this action. In the event that the final amount of Settlement Proceeds

20 and reimbursements for attorneys’ fees paid to Eligible Claimants is less than $60,000.00, Linden Grove

21 will make a payment from the pool of funds set aside for Settlement Proceeds equal to the difference

22 between $60,000.00 and the payments to Eligible Claimants, in equal shares to: (a) tuition reimbursement

23 for then-currently employed non-White employees who receive a passing grade in a course of study

24 towards attainment of a certificate or degree in an area that will benefit the employee and Linden Grove,

25 and (b) the Tacoma Urban League. Linden Grove will prominently post and disseminate information about

26 the opportunities for tuition reimbursement to currently employed non-White employees for at least one

27 year.

28

20. To file a timely claim, a Class Member must complete the Claim Form set forth as Exhibit D

CONSENT DECREE AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL Page - 11

Case 3:04-cv-05627-RBL Document 34 Filed 05/18/2005 Page 12 of 21

1 to this Consent Decree, sign the claim form under penalty of perjury, have the claim notarized, and return
2 the form to Class Counsel postmarked on or before the deadline stated in the claim form.
3 21. Each Eligible Claimant who signs a Claim Form and release will also be entitled to receive
4 reimbursement of up to $200.00 for his or her reasonable attorney’s fees if he or she consults an attorney,
5 other than Class Counsel, about the release before signing it. A copy of the attorney’s invoice must be
6 included with the release form in order for reimbursement to be made to the Eligible Claimant. All
7 attorney’s fees reimbursed pursuant to this section shall be paid from the Settlement Proceeds set aside by
8
Linden Grove. 9

10

X. ATTORNEY’S FEES

22. The parties have agreed that Class Counsel should receive $125,000.00 as an appropriate 11

amount of fees and $5,000.00 for expenses and costs for bringing this action, representing the Class 12

Representatives and Settlement Class and for administering the Settlement Fund process. This 13

recommended amount is subject to final approval by the Court. The parties agree that this amount, if 14

approved by the Court, satisfies any arguable obligation Linden Grove and the Defendants In Intervention 15

16 may have to pay attorneys’ fees, expenses, and/or costs to the Class Representatives, the Settlement Class

17 (except as set forth in Paragraph 21), or on their behalf to Class Counsel for the monitoring,

18 administration, implementation and defense of the Decree. Payment of these fees shall be made to Class

19 Counsel within five (5) days upon timely receipt of the last signed release from an Eligible Claimant by

20 Linden Grove from Class Counsel.

21

XI. ADMINISTRATION OF CLASS SETTLEMENT

22

23. Notice will be accomplished by means of mailing to all Class Members the form of notice

23 evidenced by Exhibit E to this Consent Decree, accompanied by a summary of this Consent Decree, a

24 Claim Form, a Request to Opt Out form and a pre-addressed and stamped envelope to return the Claim

25 Form or Request to Opt Out form. The Notice, which will provide a summary of the claims against Linden

26 Grove, shall be mailed within ten (10) days from the date of the Court’s preliminary approval of the

27 Decree.

28

CONSENT DECREE AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL Page - 12

Case 3:04-cv-05627-RBL Document 34 Filed 05/18/2005 Page 13 of 21

1 24. The Notice and all accompanying documents shall be mailed by certified mail, return receipt
2 requested, to the individuals identified on Exhibit F to this Consent Decree. Linden Grove will bear the
3 costs of and be responsible for mailing the Notice and accompanying documents. For the purposes of
4 receiving undeliverable Notices, the return address on this mailing shall be Class Counsel’s business
5 address. Class Counsel shall be provided a list of Class Members who were sent the Notice and
6 accompanying documents by Linden Grove, including their names, addresses, and phone number, along
7 with a certificate attesting to the mailing of Notices by Linden Grove.
8 25. Class Members will have thirty (30) days from the date Notice is mailed to respond by
9
returning the completed claim form to Class Counsel. If the original Notice is forwarded by the post 10
office, then the Class Member will be provided with an additional ten (10) days to respond. If the original 11
Notice is returned to Class Counsel by the post office as undeliverable, Class counsel will notify Linden 12

Grove of the undeliverable Notice within twenty-four (24) hours of receipt of the undeliverable Notice. 13

Linden Grove has five (5) days to provide Class Counsel with alternative address and phone number, if 14

ascertainable from Class Member’s emergency contact. Class counsel will re-send the Notice within five 15

16 (5) days with a twenty-one (21) day response time.

17

26. Upon receiving a timely claim, Class Counsel shall make a preliminary determination as to

18 whether the claim is established and the value of such claim. This determination shall be based upon the

19 claim form submitted, and other pertinent information presented by the Class Member. Within five (5)

20 days of receiving the last Class Member claim form, Class Counsel shall submit its preliminary

21 determinations of whether a claim is established and the value of such claim to counsel for Linden Grove,

22 along with copies of the claim form submitted and any other pertinent information submitted by the Class

23 Member. Within seven (7) days of receiving this information, counsel for Linden Grove may challenge

24 Class Counsel’s preliminary determination of whether a claim is established and the value of such claim. In

25 the event there is such a challenge, counsel for Linden Grove and Class Counsel agree to use their best

26 efforts to reach agreement as to whether the Class Member’s claim is established and whether the value of

27 the claim is $4,000.00 or $5,000.00. In the event that Class Counsel and counsel for Linden Grove are

28

CONSENT DECREE AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL Page - 13

Case 3:04-cv-05627-RBL Document 34 Filed 05/18/2005 Page 14 of 21

1 unable to reach agreement, Magistrate Judge Monica Benton shall determine whether the Class Member’s
2 claim is established and whether the value of the claim is $5,000.00 or $4,000.00.
3 27. Within five (5) days of Class Counsel and Counsel for Linden Grove reaching final
4 agreement on the value of each Eligible Claimants’ claim, Class Counsel will notify Eligible Claimants of
5 their ability to obtain Settlement Proceeds, the expected amount of the Eligible Claimant’s individual award
6 and approximate date of disbursement if there is no appeal of the Court’s Order giving final approval to the
7 Consent Decree. Eligible Claimants will also be advised to notify Class Counsel with any changes of
8 address.
9 28. Within five (5) days of the Final Approval Date, Eligible Claimants who may receive
10
Settlement Proceeds will be notified of the amount of the individual award, and will be provided with a 11
release in the form of Exhibit G, and a pre-addressed, stamped envelope in which to return the release to 12
Class Counsel. The Eligible Claimants will be advised of their right to seek counsel with regards to the 13
legal effect of the release and their right to receive reimbursement up to $200.00 if they choose to do so. 14
29. Eligible Claimants must return mail their signed releases to Class Counsel postmarked no 15

16 later than 30 days after the initial mailing of releases by Linden Grove as described in Paragraph 28.

17

30. Distributions of Settlement Proceeds to Eligible Claimants will occur in three (3) phases:

18

•

Phase I: The first payment shall occur twenty (20) days after the initial mailing of releases

19

to Eligible Claimants. Payment will be made to Eligible Claimants whose signed releases

20

were received by Linden Grove from Class Counsel five (5) days prior to the Phase I

21

distribution of Proceeds.

22

•

Phase II: The second payment shall occur thirty-five (35) days after the initial mailing of

23

releases to Eligible Claimants. Payments will be made to any Eligible Claimants whose

24

signed releases were received by Linden Grove from Class Counsel after the Phase I

25

distribution of Proceeds and five days prior to the Phase II distribution of Proceeds.

26

•

Phase III: A final payment of Proceeds will follow for all Eligible Claimants whose signed

27

releases are received later than thirty (30) days from the initial mailing of releases by Linden

28

Grove.

CONSENT DECREE AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL Page - 14

Case 3:04-cv-05627-RBL Document 34 Filed 05/18/2005 Page 15 of 21

1 31. Linden Grove is not required to honor the release of or distribute Settlement Proceeds to

2 any Eligible Claimant whose release is postmarked later than thirty (30) days after the initial mailing of

3 releases by Linden Grove. If signed releases are not received by Class Counsel within sixty (60) days from

4 the date the release is mailed by Linden Grove, the Eligible Claimants will have waived their rights to any
5 Settlement Proceeds, irrespective of the date of the postmark on the mail from the Eligible Claimant
6 containing the signed release. Any undistributed Settlement Proceeds allocated by the parties to an Eligible
7
Claimant shall be equally distributed to (a) tuition reimbursement and (b) Tacoma Urban League as 8
described in paragraph 19. 9

10

XII. AFFIRMATIVE AND OTHER RELIEF

32. Linden Grove, its officers, agents, and employees at its Puyallup, WA facility and all human 11

resource professionals who provide advice and assistance to the foregoing individuals will refrain from 12

engaging in practices which unlawfully discriminate against employees on the basis of race, and which 13

constitute retaliation for an individual engaging in protected EEO activity. In recognition of its obligations 14

under Title VII, Linden Grove will institute the policies and practices set forth below. 15

16

33. Linden Grove shall institute and carry out anti-discrimination policies, procedures and

17 training as set forth herein for employees, supervisors and management personnel, to the extent not already

18 established, and will provide equal employment opportunities for all employees. Linden Grove will

19 evaluate and, where appropriate, modify the practices of its managers and supervisors in order to prevent

20 discrimination in employment. Linden Grove will ensure that its managers and supervisors understand its

21 Equal Employment Opportunity (“EEO”) policies and how those policies define and identify what

22 constitutes employment discrimination, and will make managers and supervisors personally accountable by

23 linking their performance appraisals and compensation to the effective implementation of its EEO policies.

24

34. Within one-hundred-twenty (120) days of the Final Approval Date, Linden Grove will:

25 (a) review its EEO policy and the method and/or administrative process in which internal complaints are

26 investigated, and revise it as necessary, to ensure that it adequately prohibits discrimination, addresses

27 Linden Grove’s obligation to provide a harassment-free work environment for its employees, and reaffirms

28 its commitment not to retaliate against any employee for engaging in protected EEO activity, and

CONSENT DECREE AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL Page - 15

Case 3:04-cv-05627-RBL Document 34 Filed 05/18/2005 Page 16 of 21

1 (b) distribute its EEO policy to all present and future employees, both management and non-management.
2 Linden Grove will provide EEOC with a written copy of its EEO policy as part of its first semi-annual
3 report as provided in Paragraph 46 below.
4 Training
5 35. Within one-hundred-twenty (120) days of Final Approval Date, Linden Grove will develop
6 and present to all managers, supervisors and employees at its Puyallup, WA facility and all human resource
7 professionals who provide advice and assistance to the foregoing individuals no less than two (2) hours of
8 face-to-face training by a qualified trainer on employment discrimination, including discrimination, racial
9 harassment and retaliation for engaging in protected EEO activity. The EEOC will have an opportunity to
10
review the training materials prior to the training date. Annually thereafter for the duration of this Consent 11
Decree, Linden Grove will require all managers, supervisors and employees at its Puyallup, WA facility and 12
all human resource professionals who provide assistance to the foregoing individuals to complete two (2) 13
hours of face-to-face training by a qualified trainer on employment discrimination. 14
36. Linden Grove will notify the EEOC of the completion of the training set forth in Paragraph 15

16 35 and will specify the names and job titles of the employees who participated in and completed the

17 training as part of its semi-annual reporting to the EEOC.

18

Non-Retaliation and Expungement of Records

19

37. Linden Grove will not disclose any information or make reference to any charge of

20 discrimination or this lawsuit in responding to employment reference requests for information about any

21 Class Member or Class Representative.

22

38. Linden Grove will expunge from the personnel files of all Class Members and Class

23 Representatives, any reference to a charge of discrimination against Linden Grove and this lawsuit. If any

24 Class Member or Class Representative wishes to do so, Linden Grove will permit each to review his or her

25 personnel file within thirty (30) days after Final Approval Date to ensure that all such references have been

26 expunged. Linden Grove will not add any information or references to the personnel files of any Class

27 Member or Class Representative regarding their charge of discrimination and this lawsuit after such

28 references have been expunged.

CONSENT DECREE AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL Page - 16

Case 3:04-cv-05627-RBL Document 34 Filed 05/18/2005 Page 17 of 21

1 EEO Responsibilities of Supervisors and Management
2 39. Linden Grove will continue to advise all managers and supervisors of their duty to ensure
3 compliance with its EEO policies, and to report any incident or complaint of discrimination or retaliation,
4 of which they become aware. If a manager or supervisor violates Linden Grove’s EEO policies, he/she
5 may be subject to discipline up to and including termination, and his or her compensation may be affected.
6 Linden Grove will also remind all managers and supervisors that there will be no retaliation against any
7 employee for reporting or relaying any incident of discrimination or retaliation under Linden Grove’s EEO
8 policy, or for participating in or conducting an investigation of such an incident.
9 40. Linden Grove agrees that it shall include “commitment to equal employment opportunity”
10
as a criterion for qualification for supervisory and management positions. 11
Staff and Resident Diversity Appreciation 12
41. Linden Grove agrees to provide two (2) hours of diversity training by a qualified trainer at 13
its cost to its managers, supervisors and employees annually. Linden Grove also agrees to offer diversity 14
appreciation activities to residents and/or their relatives or persons who are legally responsible for their 15

16 care at least twice annually.

17

42. Linden Grove agrees to form an independent council to address issues of work assignments,

18 quality of resident care and other related issues, consisting of: (1) both managerial and non-managerial

19 staff; (2) residents, relatives of residents, and/or parties who are legally responsible for their care; and

20 (3) other knowledgeable individuals.

21

43. Linden Grove agrees to provide to residents and/or their family members and responsible

22 parties a statement which addresses Linden Grove’s obligation to provide a harassment-free work

23 environment for its employees, and reaffirms Linden Grove’s commitment to assign qualified, competent

24 caregivers without regard to an employee’s race, national origin, region or handicap.

25

Promotional Opportunities

26

44. Linden Grove agrees to: (1) post and/or disseminate information about job vacancies at a

27 designated employee area, e.g., lunch or break room, for a period of no less than seven (7) days prior to

28 making a selection for critical positions and fourteen (14) days prior to making a selection for non-critical

CONSENT DECREE AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL Page - 17

Case 3:04-cv-05627-RBL Document 34 Filed 05/18/2005 Page 18 of 21

1 positions; (2) provide information to employees on how to apply for such vacancies; and (3) provide
2 periodic individualized skill, knowledge and abilities assessments to any employee upon request in writing
3 by a qualified supervisor or manager, including but not limited to identifying additional training and job
4 experience necessary for the employee to qualify for a specific position(s), the means by which to obtain
5 such training and/or experience, and a reasonable time frame for the employee to acquire such necessary
6 training and/or experience. Linden Grove will also commit that this individualized assessment provided to
7 employees upon request will be used as a developmental tool, and not for disciplinary purposes. Linden
8 Grove also agrees that while this individual assessment may be provided at the end of an employee’s
9
performance evaluation, it is not to be used for the purpose of conducting a performance evaluation of any 10
employee in a current position. 11
Notice Posting 12

45. Linden Grove will post a Notice, attached as Exhibit H to this Consent Decree. The Notice 13

shall be posted on a centrally located bulletin board at Linden Grove’s Puyallup, WA facility for 60 days 14

after the Final Approval Date. 15

16

Reporting

17

46. Linden Grove shall report in writing and in affidavit form to the EEOC beginning six (6)

18 months from the Final Approval Date, and thereafter every six months for the Term of the Consent Decree

19 the following information:

20

a. Certification of the completion of training and list of attendees.

21

b. Certification that its EEO policy has been sent to all current and newly hired

22 employees as described above.

23

c. A list of any changes, modifications, revocations or revisions to its EEO policies and

24 procedures which concern or affect the subject of discrimination and retaliation.

25

d. A summary of discrimination complaints, if any, filed by employees working at

26 Linden Grove’s Puyallup, WA facility which are reported to management and the resolution of each

27 complaint; and

28

CONSENT DECREE AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL Page - 18

Case 3:04-cv-05627-RBL Document 34 Filed 05/18/2005 Page 19 of 21

1 e. A statement listing the other provisions of this Decree that Linden Grove is required
2 to perform and certifying that Linden Grove has complied with the terms of the Decree. If Linden Grove
3 has not complied with any term of the Consent Decree, the statement will specify the areas of
4 non-compliance, the reason for the noncompliance, and the steps taken to bring Linden Grove into
5 compliance.
6
XIII. ENFORCEMENT 7
47. If the EEOC and/or Class Counsel determines that Linden Grove has not complied with the 8
terms of this Consent Decree, the EEOC and/or Class Counsel will provide written notification of the 9
alleged breach to Linden Grove. The EEOC and/or Class Counsel will not petition the Court for 10
enforcement of the Consent Decree for at least sixty (60) days after providing written notification of the 11
alleged breach. The 30-day period following the written notice shall be used by the parties for good faith 12
efforts to resolve the dispute. 13
48. No later than one year from the date of Final Approval of the Decree, Linden Grove shall 14
file with the Court, and provide to the EEOC and Class Counsel, a final accounting of all payments made 15

16 by Linden Grove pursuant to this Decree.

17

XIV. RETENTION OF JURISDICTION

18

49. The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington shall retain

19 jurisdiction over this matter for the duration of the decree.

20

XV. EFFECTIVE DATE, DURATION AND TERMINATION

21

50. This Consent Decree shall be in effect upon the Final Approval Date, although Linden

22 Grove has expressed its intent to implement many of the forms of Affirmative and Other Relief described

23 herein as promptly as reasonably possible.

24

51. The provisions of this Consent Decree and the agreements herein shall remain in effect for

25 three (3) years following the Final Approval Date. If the Class Representatives, Class Members or EEOC

26 petitions the Court for breach of the Decree, and the Court finds Linden Grove to be in violation of the

27 terms of the Decree, the Court may extend the duration of the Decree.

28

52. Unless extended pursuant to Section XV(51) of this Decree, the Decree shall expire without

CONSENT DECREE AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL Page - 19

Case 3:04-cv-05627-RBL Document 34 Filed 05/18/2005 Page 20 of 21

1 further action by the parties at midnight on the third anniversary of the Final Approval Date.
2 53. Individual releases signed by the Class Representatives and Eligible Claimants are final and
3 shall survive the expiration of the Consent Decree’s term.
4
XVI. CONCLUSION 5
54. The parties are not bound by any provision of this decree until it is signed by authorized 6
representatives of each party and is entered by the Court. 7

8

DONE IN OPEN COURT this 17th day of May 2005.

9

10 11

A

12

RONALD B. LEIGHTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13

14

Dated this 28th day of January, 2005. 15

16

Stipulated, acknowledged and agreed to by:

17

Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission 18

19 /s/ Kathryn Olson

20

A. Luis Lucero

Kathryn Olson

21

Damien A. Lee

Davis Wright Tremaine LLP Attorneys for CPL (Delaware) LLC, d/b/a Linden Grove Health Care Center and Defendants in Intervention Donna Stromski and John Doe Stromski and Marietta Andreasen and John Doe Andreasen

22 Equal Employment Opportunity

23

Commission

Seattle District Office

24

909 First Ave., Ste. 400

25

Seattle, WA 98104

Tel. (206) 220-6883

26

Fax (206) 220-6911

Email: kathryn.olson@eeoc.gov

27

Email: damien.lee@eeoc.gov

28

By /s/ Holly Hearn Michael Reiss, WSBA #10707 Holly Hearn, WSBA #26795
Davis Wright Tremaine LLP 1501 Fourth Ave., Ste. 2600 Seattle, WA 98101 Tel. (206) 628-7675 Fax (206) 903-3775 Email: hollyhearn@dwt.com Email: mikereiss@dwt.com

CONSENT DECREE AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL Page - 20

Case 3:04-cv-05627-RBL Document 34 Filed 05/18/2005 Page 21 of 21

1

Law Offices of GRANT &

2

ASSOCIATES

3

Attorneys for Lorraine Moore, Cathy

Wise, Kesha Gantt, Sadarah Yarbrough,

4

Barbara Bershell, Veronica Brady, Norma

5

Ballard and Pamela Blakey

6

7

By /s/Artis C. Grant, Jr.

8

Artis C. Grant, Jr. WSBA #26204

9

Roxanne Rarangol, WSBA #

30304

10

Law Offices of GRANT &

11

ASSOCIATES

12

The Law Dome

3002 South 47th St.

13

Tacoma, WA 98409

Tel. (253) 472-2613

14

Fax (253) 473-9695

15

Email: agrant@lawdome.com

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

CONSENT DECREE AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL Page - 21

 
 WAWD CM/ECF Version 2.5 - Docket Report

Page 1 of 9

CLOSED, LAW_CLERK_C
U.S. District Court WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON (Tacoma)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:04-cv-05627-RBL

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Central Park Date Filed: 09/24/2004

Lodges Long Term Care Inc.

Jury Demand: Plaintiff

Assigned to: Hon. Ronald B. Leighton

Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs

Cause: 28:451 Employment Discrimination

Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by A Luis Lucero, Jr EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION SEATTLE DISTRICT OFFICE 909 FIRST AVE STE 400 SEATTLE, WA 98104-1061 206-220-6883 Email: LUIS.LUCERO@EEOC.GOV LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Damien Anthony Lee EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION SEATTLE DISTRICT OFFICE 909 FIRST AVE STE 400 SEATTLE, WA 98104-1061 206-220-6883 Fax: FAX 220-6911 Email: damien.lee@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Eric S. Dreiband Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Office of the General Counsel 1801 "L" Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20507 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gwendolyn Young Reams Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?808315030039166-L_923_0-1

7/4/2006

WAWD CM/ECF Version 2.5 - Docket Report

Page 2 of 9

V. Intervenor Plaintiff Norma Ballard
Intervenor Plaintiff

Office of the General Counsel 1801 "L" Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20507 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James L. Lee Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Office of the General Counsel 1801 "L" Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20507 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kathryn Blaire Olson EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION SEATTLE DISTRICT OFFICE 909 FIRST AVE STE 400 SEATTLE, WA 98104-1061 206-220-6883 Email: kathryn.olson@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Artis C Grant, Jr. GRANT & ASSOCIATES 3002 S 47TH ST TACOMA, WA 98409 253-472-6213 Fax: FAX 1-253-473-9695 Email: agrant@lawdome.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Roxanne L Rarangol GRANT & ASSOCIATES 3002 S 47TH ST TACOMA, WA 98409 253-472-6213 Fax: 253-472-6213 Email: rrarangol@lawdome.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?808315030039166-L_923_0-1

7/4/2006

WAWD CM/ECF Version 2.5 - Docket Report

Page 3 of 9

Veronica Brady
Intervenor Plaintiff Barbara Bershell
Intervenor Plaintiff Sadarah Yarbrough
Intervenor Plaintiff Kesha Gantt
Intervenor Plaintiff Cathy Wise
Intervenor Plaintiff

represented by Artis C Grant, Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Roxanne L Rarangol (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Artis C Grant, Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Roxanne L Rarangol (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Artis C Grant, Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Roxanne L Rarangol (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Artis C Grant, Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Roxanne L Rarangol (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Artis C Grant, Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Roxanne L Rarangol (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?808315030039166-L_923_0-1

7/4/2006

WAWD CM/ECF Version 2.5 - Docket Report

Page 4 of 9

Lorraine Moore
V. Defendant Central Park Lodges Long Term Care Inc. d/b/a LINDEN GROVE HEALTH CARE CENTER
Defendant John Doe Andreasen Defendant Marietta Andreasen

represented by Artis C Grant, Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Roxanne L Rarangol (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Kathryn S Loppnow DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 1501 4TH AVE STE 2600 SEATTLE, WA 98101-1688 206-622-3150 Fax: FAX 628-7699 Email: katieloppnow@dwt.com TERMINATED: 02/02/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY
Michael Reiss DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE (SEA) 1501 4TH AVE STE 2600 SEATTLE, WA 98101-1688 206-622-3150 Fax: FAX 628-7699 Email: mikereiss@dwt.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Holly M Hearn DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 1501 4TH AVE STE 2600 SEATTLE, WA 98101-1688 206-622-3150 Fax: FAX 628-7699 Email: hollyhearn@dwt.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?808315030039166-L_923_0-1

7/4/2006

WAWD CM/ECF Version 2.5 - Docket Report

Page 5 of 9

Defendant Donna Stromski
Defendant John Doe Stromski

Date Filed 09/24/2004 09/27/2004 09/27/2004
09/28/2004 09/28/2004
09/29/2004 10/04/2004 10/14/2004 10/15/2004 10/18/2004
10/18/2004

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT (Summons(es) issued) (Receipt # waived) (Attachments: # (1) Civil Cover Sheet, #(2) Info Sheet)(DN, ) (Entered: 09/27/2004)

2 MOTION to Intervene. Noting Date 10/15/2004. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service # 2 Proposed Order)(Rarangol, Roxanne) (Entered: 09/27/2004)

3 DECLARATION of Artis C. Grant, Jr. filed by Intervenor Plaintiffs Norma Ballard, Barbara Bershell, Veronica Brady, Kesha Gantt, Lorraine Moore, Cathy Wise, Sadarah Yarbrough re 2 MOTION to Intervene (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit # 2 Exhibit # 3 Exhibit # 4 Exhibit)(Rarangol, Roxanne) (Entered: 09/27/2004)

4 ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY AND DEPOSITIONS; signed by Debbie Nelson, as directed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton. (DN, ) (Entered: 09/28/2004)

5 ORDER REGARDING INITIAL DISCLOSURES, JOINT STATUS REPORT AND EARLY SETTLEMENT Joint Status Report due by 1/3/2005; signed by Debbie Nelson, as directed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton. (DN, ) (Entered: 09/28/2004)

6 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney Holly M Hearn on behalf of Defendant Central Park Lodges Long Term Care Inc. (Hearn, Holly) (Entered: 09/29/2004)

7 SERVICE OF SUMMONS and Complaint returned executed upon Holly Hearn Esq on 9/29/04 (CAR, ) (Entered: 10/07/2004)

8 ANSWER to Complaint by Central Park Lodges Long Term Care Inc.. (Hearn, Holly) (Entered: 10/14/2004)

9 ORDER granting 2 Motion to Intervene; signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton.(DN, ) (Entered: 10/15/2004)

10 Intervenor COMPLAINT, filed by Norma Ballard, Veronica Brady, Barbara Bershell, Sadarah Yarbrough, Kesha Gantt, Cathy Wise, Lorraine Moore; with JURY DEMAND.(Rarangol, Roxanne) Modified text on 10/19/2004 (AF, ). (Entered: 10/18/2004)

11 PRAECIPE TO ISSUE SUMMONS re 10 Intervenor Complaint by Intervenor Plaintiffs Norma Ballard, Veronica Brady, Barbara Bershell, Sadarah Yarbrough, Kesha Gantt, Cathy Wise, Lorraine Moore. (Attachments: # 1 Summons re Central Park# 2 Summons re Donna

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?808315030039166-L_923_0-1

7/4/2006

WAWD CM/ECF Version 2.5 - Docket Report

Page 6 of 9

10/19/2004 11/09/2004 12/20/2004 12/21/2004 01/28/2005
01/28/2005 01/28/2005 01/31/2005 02/01/2005

Stromski# 3 Summons re John Doe Stromski# 4 Summons re Marietta Andreasen# 5 Summons re John Doe Andreasen)(Rarangol, Roxanne) (Entered: 10/18/2004)
Summons Issued as to Intervenor Defendants John Doe Andreasen, Marietta Andreasen, Donna Stromski, John Doe Stromski, Central Park Lodges Long Term Care Inc.. (CAR, ) (Entered: 10/19/2004)
12 AMENDED COMPLAINT against defendant John Doe Andreasen, Marietta Andreasen, Donna Stromski, John Doe Stromski, Central Park Lodges Long Term Care Inc., filed by Norma Ballard, Veronica Brady, Barbara Bershell, Sadarah Yarbrough, Kesha Gantt, Cathy Wise, Lorraine Moore.(Rarangol, Roxanne) (Entered: 11/09/2004)
13 STIPULATION For Extension of Time to Hold FRCP 26(f) Conference, Exchange Initial Disclosures and File Combined Joint Status Report by parties. (Attachments: # 1proposed order)(Olson, Kathryn) Modified on 12/21/2004; text edited/attachment named (CAR, ). (Entered: 12/20/2004)
14 ORDER re 13 Stipulation for Extension of Time, FRCP 26f Conference Deadline is 1/20/2005, Initial Disclosure Deadline is 1/27/2005, Joint Status Report due by 2/3/2005; signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton. (DN, ) (Entered: 12/21/2004)
15 Stipulated MOTION Joint Motion Requesting Preliminary Approval of Proposed Consent Decree And Requesting Fairness Hearing by Defendant Central Park Lodges Long Term Care Inc.. Noting Date 1/28/2005. (Attachments: # 1 # 2 # 3 # 4 # 5)(Hearn, Holly) Modified on 1/28/2005, NAMED ATTACHMENTS; INCORRECT IMAGE ATTACHED RE: MOTION, COUNSEL TO REFILE, SEE DOCUMENT #16 (KN, ). (Entered: 01/28/2005)
16 AMENDED DOCUMENT by Defendant Central Park Lodges Long Term Care Inc.. Amendment to 15 Stipulated MOTION Joint Motion Requesting Preliminary Approval of Proposed Consent Decree And Requesting Fairness Hearing Attaching correct image. (Hearn, Holly) (Entered: 01/28/2005)
NOTICE of Docket Text Modification re 15 Stipulated MOTION Joint Motion Requesting Preliminary Approval of Proposed Consent Decree And Requesting Fairness Hearing: named attachments; incorrect image attached re:motion, counsel refiled, see document 16 (KN, ) (Entered: 01/28/2005)
17 PRAECIPE re 15 Stipulated MOTION Requesting Preliminary Approval of Proposed Consent Decree And Requesting Fairness Hearing, 16 Notice of Docket Text Modification re Praecipe to Consent Decree and [Proposed] Order of Dismissal by Defendant Central Park Lodges Long Term Care Inc. (Hearn, Holly) Modified on 2/1/2005:text edited (CAR, ). (Entered: 01/31/2005)
18 Second PRAECIPE to 17 Consent Decree and [Proposed] Order of

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?808315030039166-L_923_0-1

7/4/2006

WAWD CM/ECF Version 2.5 - Docket Report

Page 7 of 9

02/01/2005
02/02/2005 02/03/2005 02/08/2005 02/10/2005 02/15/2005 02/16/2005 04/06/2005 04/08/2005 05/03/2005
05/06/2005

Dismissal by Defendant Central Park Lodges Long Term Care Inc. (Hearn, Holly) Modified on 2/2/2005:text edited (CAR, ). (Entered: 02/01/2005)
19 PRAECIPE to replace by 11 of the 15 Joint Motion Requesting Preliminary Approval of Proposed Consent Decree And Requesting Fairness Hearing by Defendant Central Park Lodges Long Term Care Inc. (Hearn, Holly) Modified on 2/2/2005:text edited (CAR, ). (Entered: 02/01/2005)
20 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF COUNSEL: Attorney Kathryn S Loppnow for Defendant Central Park Lodges Long Term Care Inc.. (Hearn, Holly) (Entered: 02/02/2005)
21 ORDER PRELIMINARILY APPROVING PROPOSED CONSENT DECREE: Setting a Fairness Hearing for 5/27/2005 09:00 AM in B Courtroom before Hon. Ronald B. Leighton, Signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton. (JAB, ) (Entered: 02/08/2005)
22 NOTICE OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND CONSENT DECREE (JAB, ) (Entered: 02/08/2005)
23 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney Artis C Grant, Jr on behalf of Intervenor Plaintiffs Norma Ballard, Veronica Brady, Barbara Bershell, Sadarah Yarbrough, Kesha Gantt, Cathy Wise, Lorraine Moore (Grant, Artis) (Entered: 02/10/2005)
24 STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER RE: First Class Mailing of Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement and Consent Decree by parties. (Attachments: #(1)Exhibit A)(Hearn, Holly) Modified on 2/16/2005:text edited/attachment named (CAR, ). (Entered: 02/15/2005)
25 ORDER on STIPULATION 24 Re First Class Mailing of Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement and Consent Decree, signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton. (DN, ) (Entered: 02/16/2005)
26 STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER to Reschedule the Fairness Hearing to May 13, 2005, 1:30 p.m. by parties. (Rarangol, Roxanne) (Entered: 04/06/2005)
27 ORDER on STIPULATION re 26 Rescheduling Fairness Hearing to May 13, 2005 at 1:30 p.m.; signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton. (DN, ) (Entered: 04/08/2005)
28 MOTION to Approve Consent Judgment Joint Motion for Final Approval of Consent Decree by Defendant Central Park Lodges Long Term Care Inc.. Noting Date 5/13/2005.Oral Argument Requested. (Attachments: # 1Motion for Approval of Consent Decree # 2Proposed Consent Decree # 3Declaration of Holly Hern # 4Declaration of Kathryn Olson # 5)Declaration of Artis Grant -(Hearn, Holly)/ Modified on 5/4/2005 by clerk to add descriptions of attachments (PL ). Modified on 5/6/2005 to add descriptions in text(PL ). (Entered: 05/03/2005)
29 APPLICATION FOR ALLOWANCE OF REASONABLE ATTORNEY'S

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?808315030039166-L_923_0-1

7/4/2006

WAWD CM/ECF Version 2.5 - Docket Report

Page 8 of 9

05/06/2005
05/06/2005 05/06/2005 05/06/2005 05/09/2005 05/13/2005
05/13/2005 05/18/2005 06/06/2005 07/19/2005

FEES AND COSTS by Intervenor Plaintiffs Norma Ballard, Veronica Brady, Barbara Bershell, Sadarah Yarbrough, Kesha Gantt, Cathy Wise, Lorraine Moore, Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1Application for allowance of reasonable attorney's fees) (Grant, Artis) Modified on 5/9/2005:attachment named (CAR, ). Attachment is duplicate to main doc. See 31 for Proposed Order. Modified on 5/9/2005 (DM, ). (Entered: 05/06/2005)
30 DECLARATION of Artis C. Grant, Jr. filed by Intervenor Plaintiffs Norma Ballard, Veronica Brady, Barbara Bershell, Sadarah Yarbrough, Kesha Gantt, Cathy Wise, Lorraine Moore re 29 APPLICATION FOR ALLOWANCE OF REASONABLE ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2-3)(Grant, Artis) Modified to create link on 5/9/2005 (DM, ). (Entered: 05/06/2005)
31 PRAECIPE to attach document (Proposed Order) re 29 Application, by Intervenor Plaintiffs Norma Ballard, Veronica Brady, Barbara Bershell, Sadarah Yarbrough, Kesha Gantt, Cathy Wise, Lorraine Moore. (Grant, Artis) (Entered: 05/06/2005)
Motion for Reasonable Attorney Fees and Costs (filed as an 29 Application); Noted by Clerk for 5/27/2005. (CAR, ) (Entered: 05/09/2005)
NOTICE of Docket Text Modification re 29 Application: Attachment is duplicate to main doc. See 31 for Proposed Order. (DM, ) (Entered: 05/09/2005)
NOTICE of Docket Text Modification re 30 Declaration: At filer's requst, re-linked to Application 29 rather than Motion 28 (DM, ) (Entered: 05/09/2005)
32 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Ronald B. Leighton - Dep Clerk: Jean Boring; Pla Counsel: Art Grant/Roxanne Rarangol; Def Counsel: Kathryn Olson/Michael Reiss; CR: Julaine Ryen; In Court Hearing held on 5/13/2005. For the reasons stated orally by Counsel and the Court the Motion for Reasonable Attorney Fees and Costs 29and 28 MOTION to Approve Consent Judgment Joint Motion for Final Approval of Consent Decree ARE GRANTED. Final Consent Decree approved. (JAB, ) (Entered: 05/13/2005)
33 FINAL ORDER approving Consent Decree, by Judge Ronald B. Leighton. (CAR, ) (Entered: 05/16/2005)
34 CONSENT DECREE and Order of Dismissal, signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton. (DN, ) (Entered: 05/18/2005)
35 Mail Returned as Undeliverable re 34 Decree addressed to "unknown"unable to make out name (PL, ) (Entered: 06/08/2005)
36 REPORT re 34 Decree Defendants' Final Accounting of Payments Made Pursuant to Consent Decree by Defendant Central Park Lodges Long Term Care Inc.. (Hearn, Holly) (Entered: 07/19/2005)

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?808315030039166-L_923_0-1

7/4/2006

WAWD CM/ECF Version 2.5 - Docket Report

Page 9 of 9

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt

07/04/2006 18:44:51

PACER Login: hs0328

Client Code: peters

Description: Docket Report Search Criteria: 3:04-cv-05627-RBL

Billable Pages: 5

Cost:

0.40

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?808315030039166-L_923_0-1

7/4/2006