Case5:06-cv-04808-RMW Document1 Filed08/09/06 Page1 of 5

1 WILLIAM R. TAMAYO, #084965 (CA) JONATHAN T. PECK, #12303 (VA)
2 SANYA HILL MAXION- #18739(WA)
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 3 San Francisco District Office
350 The Embarcadero, Suite 500 4 San Francisco, California 94105
Telephone: (415) 625-5650 5 Facsimile: (4!5) 625-5657

6 Attorneys for Plaintiff

7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )

COMMISSION,

)

12

)

)

13

Plaintiff,

)

)

14 v.

)

)

15

)

ROBERT G. APTEKAR, M.D., INC.,

)

16 d/b/a ARTHRITIS AND ORTHOPEDIC )

MEDICAL CLINIC,

)

17

)

)
18 ____________De_fe_nd_a_nt_. _____))

lJi11'IL A)uftoP~m. ,.. 480p 1'
COMPLAINT Civil Rights - Employment Discrimination
JURY TRIAL DEMAND

19
NATURE OF THE ACTION 20
This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of the Civil 21
Rights Act of 1991 to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of race and retaliation
22
and to provide appropriate reliefto Charging Party Tomeika L. Broussard, who was adversely 23
affected by such practices. The Commission alleges that the defendant, Robert G. Aptekar,
24
M.D., Inc., d/b/a Arthritis & Orthopedic Medical Clinic ("AMOC" or "Defendant Employer") 25
discriminated against Ms. Broussard by subjecting her to a racially hostile work enviromnent 26
based on racially discriminatory practices unlawful by Title VII. In addition AMOC retaliated 27

28 COMPLAINT

I

Case5:06-cv-04808-RMW Document1 Filed08/09/06 Page2 of 5

1 against Ms. Broussard by ultimately discharging her from employment due to previous

2 harassment complaints.

3

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4

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

5 1343, and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Sections 706(f)(l) and (3) of

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

7 VII") and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991,42 U.S.C. 198a.

8

2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed in the City of

9 Los Gatos, County of Santa Clara, California, which is within the jurisdiction of the United

10 States District Court for the Northern District of California (San Jose division).

11

PARTIES

12

3. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (:EEOC"), is the

13 agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation, and

14 enforcement of Title VII and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Sections 706(f)(l) and 15 (3) ofTitle VII, 42 U.S.C. §§2000e-5 (1) and (3).

16

4. At all relevant times, Defendant Employer Clinic has

17 continuously been doing business in the State of California and in the City of Los Gatos, County 18 of Santa Clara, California, and has continuously employed at least fifteen employees.

19

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

20 engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 70l(b), (g), and (h) of

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

22

STATEMENT OF CLAIMS

23

6. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Tomeika L. Broussard

24 filed a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC alleging violations of Title VII by Defendant

25 Employer. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled.

26 /Ill

27

28 COMPLAINT

2

Case5:06-cv-04808-RMW Document1 Filed08/09/06 Page3 of 5

1

7. Since at least June 2003, Defendant Employer has engaged in unlawful

2 employment practices at its clinic located in Los Gatos, California, in violation of Section

3 703(a)(l) and Section 704(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§2000e-3(a) and 2000e3(a). These

4 practices include subjecting Ms. Broussard to racial harassment and to an offensive, abusive,

5 intimidating, and hostile work enviromnent. The practices also include retaliating against and

6 discharging Ms. Broussard for complaining about the harassment made unlawful by Title VII.

7

8. The effect of the practices complained of above has been to deprive Ms.

8 Broussard of equal employment opportunities and to otherwise adversely affect her employment

9 status as an employee because of her race.

10

9. The unlawful employment practices complained of above were intentional.

11

10. The unlawful employment practices complained of above were and are done with

12 malice and/or reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Ms. Broussard.

13

PRAYERFORRELIEF

14

WHEREFORE, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court:

15

A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant Employer, its officers,

16 successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in

17 racial discrimination and another other employment practices which discriminates on the basis of

18 race.

19

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

20 programs which provide equal employment opportunities for their black employees and which

21 eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices.

22

C. Order Defendant Employer to make whole Ms. Broussard by providing

23 appropriate compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful

24 employment practices described above, in amounts to be determined at trial, and other

25 affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices.

26

D. Order Defendant Employer to make whole Ms. Broussard by providing

27

28 COMPLAINT

3

Case5:06-cv-04808-RMW Document1 Filed08/09/06 Page4 of 5

1 compensation for past and future non-pecuniary losses cause by tbe above unlawful conduct

2 described above, including pain and suffering, emotional distress, indignity, loss of enjoyment of

3 life, loss of self-esteem, and humiliation, in amounts to be determined at trial.

4

E. Order Defendant Employer to pay Ms. Broussard punitive damages for its

5 malicious and reckless conduct described above, in amounts to be determined at trial.

6

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

7 interest,

8

G. Award tbe Commission its costs of this action.

9

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

10

The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of facts by its complaints.

11

Respectfully submitted,

12

JAMES L. LEE

Deputy General Counsel 13

GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS

14

Associate General Counsel

15

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNlTY

COMMISSION

16

1801 L Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20507 17

l 18
19 Dated: <t '8 )0,0

20

rsl I 21
22 Dated:

&' 0(o

23

24

25

26

27

28 COMPLAINT

4

Case5:06-cv-04808-RMW Document1 Filed08/09/06 Page5 of 5

1
ll- 2
Dated: £ , .· l/i0 #u:. } [(, 2ltJ(£;
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 COMPLAINT

EQUALEMPLOYMENTOPPOR~TY
COMMISSION San Francisco District Office 350 The Embarcadero, Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 625-5650
5

 
 1

2

FILED

3

MAR 06 2007

4

RICHARD W. WIEKING

CLERK U.S, DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GAUFORNIA

6

7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

Northern District of California

9 Equal Employment Opportunity

No . C 06-04808 RMW MED

10 1:: g.~ 11
ut)E~12 ~ ~ •- IV
13
0 .....
U).g 14
.s~
~ ~ 15
€ ~ 16
'2 0 :::> z 17
18
19
20

Commission, Plaintiff(s),
v .

Certification of ADR Session

Robert G. Aptekar, MD., Inc., Defendant s .

Instructions: The neutral shall submit this Certification to the ADR unit within 10 days after

r ~ completing an ADR Session. The ADR unit will file-stamp the Certification and place it in the court

file.
1. I hereby certify that the parties this matter held

~
Mediation or 0 ENE

:1[ OJ session on (date)

\'Lr

2. Did the case settle?

~UIlY

0 partially 0 no

21 3. If the case did not settle fully , is any follow-up contemplated?

22

0 another session scheduled for (date) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

23

0 phone discussions expected by (date) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

24 25 4.

~no IS THIS ADR PROCESS COMPLETED?

o NO

26 Dated: }
27

28

Certification of ADR Session 06-04808 RMW MED

 
 Case 5:06-cv-04808-RMW Document 20 Filed 08/20/2007 Page 1 of 9

WILLIAM R. TAMAYO - #084965 (CA) JONATHAN T. PECK - #I2303 (VA) SANYA P. HILL MAXION - #I8739 (WA)
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION San Francisco District Office 350 The Embarcadero, Suite 500 San Francisco, California 94105 Telephone: (415) 625-5650 Facsimile: (415) 625-5657

Attorneys for Plaintiff

STEVEN R. FELDSTEIN (CSB #59534) BRIAN K. NAGATANI (CSB #208632) BROOKE D. ANDFUCH (CSB #238826) HELLER EHRMAN LLP 275 Middlefield Road Menlo Park, CA 94025-3506
Telephone: (650) 324-7000 Facsimile: (650) 324-0638

*E-FILED - 8/20/07*

Attorneys for Defendant

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff v.
ROBERT G. APTEKAR, M.D., INC., d/b/a ARTHRITIS AND ORTHOPEDIC MEDICAL CLINIC,
Defendant.

) C~VILACTION NO. ) CIV. C-06-4808 RMW
) ) ) CONSENT DECREE
1
) ) )
1 1 1
) )

I. INTRODUCTION 1. Plaintiff, EEOC, filed this action alleging that defendant, Robert G. Aptekar, M.D., Inc.,
d/b/a/Arthritis and Orthopedic Medical Clinic ("Defendant" or "Medical Clinic'') subjected Tomeika Broussard to a racially hostile work environment based on her race, Afi-ican American. The lawsuit also alleged that Defendant discharged Ms. Broussard in retaliation
CONSENT DECREE

Case 5:06-cv-04808-RMW Document 20 Filed 08/20/2007 Page 2 of 9

for complaining about racial harassment. Defendant filed an Answer to the Complaint in

which it denied these allegations and further denied that it engaged in any wrongdoing

whatsoever.

2. The EEOC and Defendant want to conclude fully and finally all claims arising out of the

above action without the expenditure of further resources and expenses in contested

litigation. They enter into this Consent Decree to further the objectives of equal employment

opportunity as set forth in Title VII.

11. NON-ADMISSION OF LIABILITY

1. This Consent Decree is not an adjudication or finding on the merits of this case and shall not

be construed as an admission of a violation or any wrongdoing by Defendant.

111. PURPOSE OF THE DECREE

1. The parties have entered into this Consent Decree in order to achieve the following

purposes:

a. To avoid the time, expense and uncertainty of further litigation.

b. To implement policies and procedures which prohibit racial harassment or retaliation.

c. To provide for a payment to Ms. Broussard in order to resolve her alleged but

contested claims of discrimination by Defendant.

IV. GENERAL PROVISIONS

1. This Consent Decree is intended to and does effectuate the full, final, and complete

resolution of all allegations of unlawful employment practices and discrimination arising

fiom or relating to EEOC Charge Number 37A-2004-05139 and the Complaint filed in

EEOC v. Robert G. Aptekar, M.D., Inc., d/b/a Arthritis & Orthopedic Medical Clinic, Civil

Action N0.C-06-4808-RMW pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

2. This Consent Decree in no way affects EEOC's right to process, in accordance with standard

Commission procedures, charges filed by other individuals against Defendant alleging

violations of Federal employment discrimination statutes. Charges include any pending as of

the effective date of this Consent Decree and filed in the future. Processing includes the

administrative investigation and conciliation and commencement of civil actions on the basis

CONSENT DECREE

2.

Case 5:06-cv-04808-RMW Document 20 Filed 08/20/2007 Page 3 of 9
of such charges. 3. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties to this action. 4. This Consent Decree constitutes a full resolution of Plaintiffs Complaint and the underlying
charge of discrimination filed with the EEOC. 5. This Consent Decree shall become effective upon its entry by the Court. 6. Each party shall bear its own costs and attorney fees. 7. The Court has reviewed the terms of this Consent Decree in light of the pleadings, the record
herein, and the applicable law, and now approves the Consent Decree in its entirety. V. MONETARY RELIEF
1. In settlement of the EEOC's claims for employment discrimination alleged in the Complaint or related to this lawsuit, Defendant agrees to pay the gross sum of $44,000.00 (Forty-four thousand dollars) to Ms. Broussard.
2. Payment to Ms. Broussard shall be made no later than ten (10) days after the entry of this Consent Decree. This payment shall be issued in a check drafted in Ms. Broussard's name and delivered to Ms. Broussard by certified mail. Defendant shall make payment to Ms. Broussard in the form of a business check, cashier's check, or certified check. Defendant also will issue an IRS Form 1099 for the check issued pursuant to this paragraph. a. Defendant will mail a copy of the JRS Form 1099 to Sanya Hill Maxion, Senior Trial Attorney for the EEOC, at 350 The Embarcadero, San Francisco, CA 94105 simultaneously with the mailing of a copy of it to Ms. Broussard. VI. GENERAL INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1. Harassment: Defendant, its officers, agents, managers (including supervisory employees), successors and assigns, and all those in active concert or participation with them, is enjoined from discriminating on the basis of race or permitting the existence of a work environment that is hostile to employees based on their race and prohibited under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
// //
CONSENT DECREE

Case 5:06-cv-04808-RMW Document 20 Filed 08/20/2007 Page 4 of 9

2. Retaliation: Defendant, its officers, agents, managers (including supervisory employees), successors or assigns, and all those in active concert or participation with them, is enjoined from engaging in, implementing or permitting any action, policy or practice with the purpose of retaliating against any person who was identified as a possible claimant or witness in this action because they opposed any practice of harassment or other discriminatory acts on the basis of race made unlawful under Title VII; filed a Charge of Discrimination alleging any such practice; or testified or participated in any manner in any investigation (including, without limitation, any internal investigation undertaken by Defendant), proceeding or hearing in connection with this case. VII. SPECIFIC INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1. Defendant will incorporate the following "Statement of Zero-Tolerance Policy and

Equality Objectives'' in its EEO and Harassment Policy:

Defendant is firmly committed to maintaining a zero-tolerance policy concerning discriminatory harassment and retaliation against individuals who report harassment in the company's workplace; to swiftly and firmly responding to any acts of harassment and retaliation of which the company becomes aware; to implementing a disciplinary system that is designed to strongly deter future acts of harassment or retaliation; and to actively monitoring its workplace in order to ensure tolerance, respect and dignity for all people.
2. In order to accomplish the objectives embodied in the Statement of Zero-Tolerance Policy

and Equality Objectives and this Consent Decree, Defendant shall further develop and

implement the following policies, procedures and practices:

EEO and Harassment Policies

a. Defendant agrees that to the extent necessary it shall issue a separate policy or

modify its existing EEO & harassment policies, within forty-five (45) days of

signing the Consent Decree, such that the policies: (i) include definitions of

discriminatory harassment, with specific reference to harassment based on

race; (ii) include examples to supplement the definitions of harassment based

on race; (iii) provide for substantial discipline andlor corrective action for

incidents of discriminatory harassment; (iv) include strong non-retaliation

language with examples to supplement the definition of retaliation, (v)

CONSENT DECREE

4.

Case 5:06-cv-04808-RMW Document 20 Filed 08/20/2007 Page 5 of 9

provide for substantial discipline for incidents of retaliation; (vi) provide that

complaints of harassment and/or retaliation will be accepted irrespective of

whether they are made verbally or in writing; (vii) explain that Defendant will

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

received and, where appropriate, will take remedial action upon conclusion of

an investigation; and (viii) indicate that, promptly upon the conclusion of the

investigation of a complaint, Defendant will communicate to the complaining

party the results of the investigation and at least a general description of the

remedial actions taken or proposed, if any.

b. Defendant shall effectively disseminate its revised policies and procedures by:

1. Distributing copies to all current employees within 10 days of their

adoption;

. .
11.

Giving a copy of the policy to and reviewing the policy with all new

employees upon the employees' hire.

c. Defendant will submit a copy of the revised EEO and harassment policies to

EEOC at the same time it submits its report on the completion of training as

described below in Section IX.

Complaint Procedures:

d. Defendant shall develop or revise its complaint policies and procedure to the

extent necessary, such that they are designed to encourage employees to come

forward with complaints about violations of its harassment policy. As part of

the policy, Defendant shall provide its employees with convenient,

confidential and reliable mechanisms for reporting incidents of harassment

and retaliation. Defendant's complaint procedure and harassment policy shall

notify employees that they may lodge a complaint with their immediate

supervisor or the Office Manager, and shall provide the name and telephone

numbers for the Office Manager. Contact information for the Office Manager

also shall be continuously posted in a prominent place at Defendant's

CONSENT DECREE

5.

Case 5:06-cv-04808-RMW Document 20 Filed 08/20/2007 Page 6 of 9

business.

e. Defendant will submit a copy of the complaint procedures to the EEOC at the

same time it submits its certification of completion of training as required by

Section IX.

Supervisor Accountability.

f. Defendant agrees that it shall impose substantial discipline - up to and

including termination, suspension without pay or demotion - upon any

supervisor or manager whom Defendant determines has engaged in unlawful

harassment or has knowingly permitted any such conduct to occur in his or

her work area or among employees under his or her supervision, or who

Defendant determines has retaliated against any person who complains or

participates in any investigation or proceeding concerning any such

harassment.

g. Defendant shall communicate this policy to all current supervisors and managers when it disseminates its revised EEO and harassment policies or no

later than 45 days after entry of this Decree if the policy does not require

revision.

h. Defendant shall communicate this policy to all other supervisors and

managers at the time they are hired or promoted to supervisor/manager and

subsequently, on an annual basis.

1. Defendant agrees that it shall advise all managers and supervisors of their duty

to actively monitor their work areas to ensure employee compliance with the

harassment policy, and to report any incidents andlor complaints of

harassment andlor retaliation of which they become aware to the Office .

Manager.

Harassment Training

j- During the term of this Consent Decree, Defendant will present to its employees, including managers and supervisors, one two (2) hour mandatory

CONSENT DECREE

6.

Case 5:06-cv-04808-RMW Document 20 Filed 08/20/2007 Page 7 of 9

1

2

3

4

k.

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

1.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

m.

2 1

22

23

24

2 5

26

27

2 8
CONSENT' DECREE

anti-harassment training, supported and introduced by Dr. Robert G. Aptekar, covering prevention of harassment and the issues covered by the policy described in paragraph VII.2.a., above. The training shall be developed and presented by an outside professional, i.e. someone who is not employed by Defendant, who is knowledgeable about Title VII and harassment issues and who has the background, skill and ability to educate Defendant's employees about the issue of discriminatoryharassment in the workplace. The training will include examples of the types of remarks and behavior that will not be tolerated. The training will further inform each participant that he or she is responsible for knowing and complying with the contents of Defendant's EEO and harassment policies and procedures. Supervisors andlor managers who will assume responsibility for enforcing Defendant's EEO and harassment policies shall also receive training on appropriate techniques for documenting and investigating complaints of harassment. The training on investigative techniques can be included as a component of the mandatory discriminatory harassment training. The cost of the training described in paragraph j, above, shall be borne by Defendant. Following the training session, all participants shall be given a questionnaire through which they will be asked to critique the training and provide suggestions to improve future training. Defendant will retain records of the training programs, copies of any materials distributed during the training, the dates on which it held the training and records identifying the persons who attended and those who did not attend. Defendant will provide a copy of these records, the training materials and the completed post-training questionnaires to the Commission within thirty (30) days of completion of the trainings. .

Case 5:06-cv-04808-RMW Document 20 Filed 08/20/2007 Page 8 of 9

VIII. EMPLOYMENT REFERENCES A. Defendant shall not disclose any information or make references to any charge of
discrimination or this lawsuit in responding to employment reference requests for information about Tomeika Broussard, unless required to do so by subpoena or other legal process. Defendant will provide only neutral references in response to inquiries from prospective employers of Ms. Broussard. In response to a specific inquiry, Defendant may disclose Ms. Broussard's dates of employment, position held and rate of pay, as requested. However, in order for this provision to apply, Ms. Broussard must direct all persons seeking references to the Office Manager.
IX. REPORTING 1. Six months after entry of the decree and again every six months thereafter during the term of
the Consent Decree, Defendant will submit reports to the EEOC summarizing any complaints of racial harassment received by Defendant during the preceding six-month period. The reports will include the identities of the complainant(s), and a summary of action taken in response to the complaint and the resolution of any such complaint. 2. Within thirty (30) days after completion of the anti-harassment training described in Section VII.2.j., above, Defendant will send the EEOC appropriate verification of its completion of harassment training for its employees. 3. Defendant shall submit a final report to the EEOC thirty (30) days before the Consent Decree expires containing a statement verifying its compliance with the terms of the Consent Decree.

X. RETENTION OF JURISDICTION AND EXPIRATION OF CONSENT DECREE 1. This Consent Decree shall terminate eighteen (18) months from the date of entry by the
court, unless EEOC petitions this court for an extension of the Decree because of noncompliance by Defendant. If EEOC determines that Defendant has not complied with the Consent Decree, EEOC will provide written notification of the alleged breach to Defendant and will not petition the court for enforcement sooner than thirty (30) days after providing

CONSENT DECREE

8.

Case 5:06-cv-04808-RMW Document 20 Filed 08/20/2007 Page 9 of 9

written notification. The thirty-day period following written notice shall be used by the parties for good faith efforts to resolve the issue. If EEOC petitions the court and the court finds Defendant to be in substantial violation of the terms of the Decree, the court may extend this Consent Decree. 2. This Court shall retain jurisdiction over this action for the purposes of enforcing the provisions of this Consent Decree. This Consent Decree shall expire by its own terms at the end of eighteen (18) months without further action by the parties at which time this lawsuit shall be deemed dismissed with prejudice.

Respectfully submitted,
&, DATED: ~ u n e 2007
DATED: June &,2007
DATED: ~ u n e d 4 2, 007
K , DATED June 2007

WILLIAM T W O
\RUe. g.ioEnQalU~AtLt oErMnPeL~O.YMENT
OP ORTUNITY C ~ I S S I O N
shp$visory ~ r i a l ~ t t o m e ~ U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
SANYa HILL MAXION Senior Trial Attorney U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
HELLER EHRMAN LLP Attorneys for Defendant

APPROVED AND SO ORDERED:
Dated: 8/17/07

U.S. District Judge Ronald M. Whyte

CONSENT DECREE

 
 CAND-ECF

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?787474680780651-L_1...

ADRMOP, CLOSED, E-Filing, MEDTERM
U.S. District Court California Northern District (San Jose) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 5:06-cv-04808-RMW

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Robert G. Aptekar, MD., Inc. Assigned to: Hon. Ronald M. Whyte Referred to: Magistrate Judge Patricia V. Trumbull Cause: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination

Date Filed: 08/09/2006 Date Terminated: 08/20/2007 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by Sanya P. Hill Maxion U.S. EEOC 350 The Embarcadero Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94105-1260 (415) 625-5650 Fax: 415-625-5657 Email: sanya.hill@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jonathan T. Peck U.S. EEOC 350 Embarcadero Street Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94105-1687 415/625-5600 Fax: 415-625-5657 Email: Jonathan.Peck@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William Robert Tamayo U.S. EEOC 350 Embarcadero Street Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94105-1687 415-625-5645 Fax: 415-625-5657 Email: william.tamayo@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.

1 of 4

3/24/2008 5:37 PM

CAND-ECF

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?787474680780651-L_1...

Defendant
Robert G. Aptekar, MD., Inc. doing business as Arthritis and Orthopedic Medical Clinic

represented by Brooke Desiree Andrich Heller Ehrman LLP 333 Bush Street San Francisco, CA 94104 (415) 772-6336 Fax: (415) 772-6268 Email: brooke.andrich@hellerehrman.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brian Koji Nagatani Heller Ehrman LLP 275 Middlefield Road Menlo Park, CA 94025 (650) 324-7000 Fax: (650) 324-0638 Email: brian.nagatani@hellerehrman.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steven R. Feldstein Heller, Ehrman, White & McAuliffe LLP 275 Middlefield Road Menlo Park, CA 94025 (650) 324-7000 Fax: 650-324-0638 Email: sfeldstein@hewm.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 08/09/2006
08/09/2006
08/09/2006 08/09/2006 09/12/2006

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against Robert G. Aptekar, MD., Inc.. Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (bw, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/9/2006) Additional attachment(s) added on 8/11/2006 (bw, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/11/2006)
2 ADR SCHEDULING ORDER: Case Management Statement due by 11/7/2006. Case Management Conference set for 11/14/2006 02:00 PM. (Attachments: # 1 Standing Order)(bw, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/9/2006) Additional attachment(s) added on 8/16/2006 (bw, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/11/2006)
CASE DESIGNATED for Electronic Filing. (bw, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/9/2006) (Entered: 08/11/2006)
Summons Issued as to Robert G. Aptekar, MD., Inc.. (bw, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/9/2006) (Entered: 08/11/2006)
3 PROOF OF SERVICE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission of Complaint and other documents (Hill Maxion, Sanya) (Filed on 9/12/2006) Text modified on 9/14/2006 to conform to document post by counsel (bw, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/12/2006)

2 of 4

3/24/2008 5:37 PM

CAND-ECF
09/18/2006 09/18/2006 09/19/2006
09/19/2006
10/18/2006 11/08/2006
11/09/2006 11/09/2006 11/17/2006 11/22/2006 12/01/2006 12/07/2006 01/25/2007 01/25/2007

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?787474680780651-L_1...
4 ANSWER to Complaint byRobert G. Aptekar, MD., Inc.. (Andrich, Brooke) (Filed on 9/18/2006) (Entered: 09/18/2006)
5 Declination to Proceed Before a U.S. Magistrate Judge by Robert G. Aptekar, MD., Inc. and Request for Reassignment to a United States District Judge. (Andrich, Brooke) (Filed on 9/18/2006) (Entered: 09/18/2006)
6 CLERK'S NOTICE of impending reassignment Case Management Conference set for 11/17/2006 10:30 AM before Honorable Ronald M. Whyte. Case Management Statement due by 11/10/2006. (cm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/19/2006) (Entered: 09/19/2006)
7 ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to District Judge Ronald M. Whyte for all further proceedings and Judge Patricia V. Trumbull remains as the Referral Judge for this case. Signed by the Executive Committee on 9/19/06. (srm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/19/2006) (Entered: 09/19/2006)
8 STIPULATION Joint Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Continuing Case Management Conference by Robert G. Aptekar, MD., Inc.. (Andrich, Brooke) (Filed on 10/18/2006) (Entered: 10/18/2006)
9 STIPULATION AND ORDER Re: 8 Continuing Case Management Conference:Case Management Conference set for 12/1/2006 10:30 AM. Signed by Judge Ronald M. Whyte on 11/8/06. (jg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/8/2006) (Entered: 11/08/2006)
10 ADR Certification (ADR L.R. 3-5b) of discussion of ADR options (Hill Maxion, Sanya) (Filed on 11/9/2006) (Entered: 11/09/2006)
11 STIPULATION and Proposed Order selecting Mediation by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Hill Maxion, Sanya) (Filed on 11/9/2006) (Entered: 11/09/2006)
12 STIPULATION AND ORDER, Case referred to mediation..Signed by Judge Ronald M. Whyte on 11/17/06. (cm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/17/2006) (Entered: 11/17/2006)
13 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND PROPOSED ORDER filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Hill Maxion, Sanya) (Filed on 11/22/2006) (Entered: 11/22/2006)
14 Minute Entry: Initial Case Management Conference held on 12/1/2006 before Ronald M. Whyte (Date Filed: 12/1/2006). (Court Reporter Not Reported.) (jg, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 12/1/2006) (Entered: 12/05/2006)
15 ADR Clerk's Notice Appointing Jessica M. Notini as Mediator. (cmf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/7/2006) (Entered: 12/07/2006)
16 Proposed Order Re Scheduling by Robert G. Aptekar, MD., Inc.. (Nagatani, Brian) (Filed on 1/25/2007) (Entered: 01/25/2007)
Set/Reset Hearings: Mediation Hearing set for 2/12/2007 at 09:30 AM at Heller Ehrman LLP in Menlo Park. (cmf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/25/2007) (Entered: 01/25/2007)

3 of 4

3/24/2008 5:37 PM

CAND-ECF
02/02/2007
03/06/2007 07/16/2007 08/20/2007

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?787474680780651-L_1...
17 CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULING ORDER Re 16 : Discovery cutoff by 10/19/2007. Jury Trial set for 2/11/2008 01:30 PM in Courtroom 6, 4th Floor, San Jose. Motion Hearing set for 11/30/2007 09:00 AM in Courtroom 6, 4th Floor, San Jose. Pretrial Conference set for 1/24/2008 02:00 PM in Courtroom 6, 4th Floor, San Jose. Signed by Judge Ronald M. Whyte on 2/2/07. (jg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/2/2007) (Entered: 02/02/2007)
18 CERTIFICATION OF MEDIATION Session dated 2/27/2007 by Jessica Notini; Mediation session held 2/12/2007; CAse fully settled; Mediation process is complete. (cmf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/6/2007) (Entered: 03/06/2007)
19 Proposed Order of Consent Decree by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Hill Maxion, Sanya) (Filed on 7/16/2007) (Entered: 07/16/2007)
20 CONSENT DECREE 19 , ***Civil Case Terminated. Signed by Judge Ronald M. Whyte on 8/20/07. (jg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/20/2007) (Entered: 08/20/2007)

PACER Login:
Description:
Billable Pages:

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt
03/24/2008 15:37:04

wu0079 Client Code: eeoc

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

5:06-cv-04808-RMW

3

Cost:

0.24

4 of 4

3/24/2008 5:37 PM