IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

(1) EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )

COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

(2) MARISSA SOCKWELL,

)

)

Plaintiff Intervenor,

)

)

v.

)

)

(1) GREAT PLAINS COCA-COLA

)

BOTTLING CO., INC.,

)

)

Defendant.

)

Case No. CIV-03-1347-F
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
F1Lt:L)
OCT 2 1 2003

l. This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, and Oklahoma law, to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of sex, retaliation, and to remedy intentional tortious conduct and negligent conduct, and to provide appropriate relief to Marissa Sockwell.
PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE 2. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 451, 1331, 1337 and 1343, and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Section 706 of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5, and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.c. § 1981A. 3. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful, as well as the alleged acts of tortious and negligent conduct, were and are now being committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma.

4. Plaintiff, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "Commission"), filed a complaint against Defendant in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma on September 24,2003.
5. Plaintiff Intervenor, Marissa Sockwell, as the person on whose behalf the Commission filed suit against Defendant, has an unconditional right to intervene in the case filed by the Commission pursuant to Section 706(f) of Title VIT, 42 U.S.c. § 2000e-5(f).
6. At all relevant times, Defendant has continuously been and is now doing business in the State of Oklahoma and city of Oklahoma City, and has had at least fifteen employees.
7. At all relevant times, Defendant has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 701 (b), (g) and (h) of Title VIT, 42 U.S.c. § 2000e(b), (g) and (h).
8. All conditions precedent to the institution of this action have been met. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
SEXUALLY HOSTILE WORKING ENVIRONMENT 9. Since at least December 1, 1998, Defendant has engaged in unlawful employment practices in violation of Title VIT by creating, permitting and condoning a sexually hostile work environment. 10. Defendant failed to remedy the hostile environment despite notice of the hostile environment. 11. As a result Marissa Sockwell is entitled to relief as set forth below in her prayer for relief.
2

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF RETALIATION
12. Defendant retaliated against Marissa Sockwell for engaging in protected activity by harassing her in violation of Title VII.
13. As a result, Marissa Sockwell is entitled to the relief set forth below in her prayer for relief.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATION OF OKLAHOMA LAW 14. By subjecting Marissa Sockwell to a sexually hostile working environment, Defendant violated Oklahoma law and public policy. 15. As a result, Marissa Sockwell is entitled to the relief set forth below in her prayer for relief.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATION OF OKLAHOMA LAW 16. By subjecting Marissa Sockwell to retaliation based upon her engaging in protected conduct, the Defendant violated Oklahoma law and public policy. 17. As a result, Marissa Sockwell is entitled to the relief set forth below in her prayer for relief.
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS AND OUTRAGEOUS
CONDUCT 18. By subjecting, Marissa Sockwell to retaliation and sexual harassment, Defendant engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct and intentionally inflicted emotional distress upon Marissa Sockwell.
3

19. As a result, Marissa Sockwell is entitled to the relief set forth below in her prayer for relief.
SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION 20. Defendant was negligent in its supervision of Marissa Sockwell's supervisors and coworkers. 21. As a result, Marissa Sockwell is entitled to the relief set forth below in her prayer for relief. SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
NEGLIGENCE 22. Defendant was negligent in its retention of Marissa Sockwell's supervisors and coworkers. 23. As a result, Marissa Sockwell is entitled to the relief set forth below in her prayer for relief.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Marissa Sockwell respectfully requests the following relief: A. back pay; B. interest; C. pecuniary compensatory damages; D. non-pecuniary compensatory damages, including but not limited to damages for pain
and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life and humiliation, post traumatic stress disorder, and anxiety; E. punitive damages;
4

F. reinstatement, or in the alternative, front pay in lieu of reinstatement; G. costs; H. reasonable attorneys fees: I. such other legal or equitable relief as the Court deems appropriate.
Respectfully Submitted,

ATTORNEY LEIN CLAIMED

ssell L. Mulinix, A #6494 MULINIX OGDEN HALL ANDREWS & LUDLAM, P.L.L.C. 3030 Oklahoma Tower 210 Park Avenue Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 (405) 232-3800 - Telephone (405) 232-8999 - Facsimile rusty@lawokc.com
ATTORNEYFORPLAJNT~
INTERVENOR, MARISSA SOCKWELL

5

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

(1) EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )

COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

(2) BRIDGETT GREENE,

)

)

Plaintiff Intervenor,

)

)

v.

)

)

(1) GREAT PLAINS COCA-COLA

)

BOTTLING CO., INC.,

)

)

Defendant.

)

Case No. CIV-03-l374-F JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

PLAINTIFF INTERVENOR COMPLAINT 1. This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, Title I
of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, and Oklahoma law, to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of sex, religion, retaliation, and to remedy intentional tortious conduct and negligent conduct, and to provide appropriate relief to Bridgett Greene.
PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE
2. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.c. Section 451, l331, l337 and l343, and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Section 706 of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5, and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.c. § 1981A.
3. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful, as well as the alleged acts of tortious and negligent conduct, were and are now being committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma.

4. Plaintiff, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "Commission"), filed a

wmplaint against Defendant in the United States District Court for the Western District of

Oklahoma on September 24, 2003.

5. As Plaintiff Intervenor, Bridgett Greene, falls within the category of "other similarly

stated individuals" as alleged in the Original Complaint filed by the Equal Opportunity Employment

Commission. Bridgett Greene has an unconditional right to intervene in the case filed by the

Commission pursuant to Section 706(f) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f).

6

In the event that the Court finds Bridgett Greene does not have right of intervention

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b), Bridget Greene's Intervenor Complaint and the Complaint filed in

the above-styled litigation have questions of law and fact in common. Therefore, pursuant to Fed. R.

Civ. P. 24(b) intervention is permissive under the circumstances.

7. At all relevant times, Defendant has continuously been and is now doing business in

the State of Oklahoma and city of Oklahoma City, and has had at least fifteen employees.

8. At all relevant times, Defendant has continuously been an employer engaged in an

industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 701 (b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42

U.S.C. § 2000e(b), (g) and (h).

9. All conditions precedent to the institution of this action have been met in that Bridgett

Greene falls within the class of persons defined as "other similarly situated individuals" as alleged in

the Original Complaint filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission herein.

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

SEXUALLY HOSTILE WORKING ENVIRONMENT

10. Since at least December 1, 1998, Defendant has engaged in unlawful employment

practices in violation of Title VII by creating, permitting and condoning a sexually hostile work

2

environment. 11. Defendant failed to remedy the hostile environment despite notice of the hostile
environment. 12. As a result Bridgett Greene is entitled to relief as set forth below in her prayer for
relief. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF RETALIATION
13. Defendant retaliated against Bridgett Greene for engaging in protected activity by harassing her and constructively terminating in violation of Title VII.
14. As a result, Bridgett Greene is entitled to the relief set forth below in her prayer for relief.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATION OF OKLAHOMA LAW 15. By subjecting Bridgett Greene to a sexually hostile working environment, Defendant violated Oklahoma law and public policy. 16. As a result, Bridgett Greene is entitled to the relief set forth below in her prayer for relief.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATION OF OKLAHOMA LAW 17. By subjecting Bridgett Greene to retaliation her based upon her engaging in protected conduct, the Defendant violated Oklahoma law and public policy. 18. As a result, Bridgett Greene is entitled to the relief set forth below in her prayer for relief.
3

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL
DISTRESS AND OUTRAGEOUS CONDUCT 19. By subjecting, Bridgett Greene to retaliation and sexual harassment, Defendant engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct and intentionally inflicted emotional distress upon Bridgett Greene. 20. As a result, Bridgett Greene is entitled to the relief set forth below in her prayer for relief.
SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION 21. Defendant was negligent in its supervision of Bridgett Greene's supervisors and coworkers. 22. As a result, Bridgett Greene is entitled to the relief set forth below in her prayer for relief. SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
NEGLIGENCE 23. Defendant was negligent in its retention of Bridgett Greene's supervisors and coworkers. 24. As a result, Bridgett Greene is entitled to the relief set forth below in her prayer for relief.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Bridgett Greene respectfully requests the following relief: A. back pay;
4

B. interest; C. pecuniary compensatory damages; D. non-pecuniary compensatory damages, including but not limited to damages for pain
and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life and humiliation, stress, and anxiety; E. punitive damages; F. reinstatement, or in the alternative, front pay in lieu of reinstatement; G. costs; H. reasonable attorneys fees: 1. such other legal or equitable relief as the Court deems appropriate.
Respectfully submitted.

ATTORNEY LIEN CLAIMED

ssell L. Mulinix, 0 MUUNIX OGDEN HALL ANDREWS & LUDLAM, P.L.L.c. 3030 Oklahoma Tower 210 Park Avenue Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 (405) 232-3800 - Telephone (405) 232-8999 - Facsimile rusty@lawokc.com
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF INTERVENOR, BRIDGETT GREENE

5

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

(1) EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )

COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

(2) ROBYN GILLILAND,

)

)

Plaintiff Intervenor,

)

)

v.

)

)

(1) GREAT PLAINS COCA-COLA

)

BOTTLING CO., INC.,

)

)

Defendant.

)

Case No. CIV-03-1347-F JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
FILEr)
OCT 21 2003

PLAINTIFF INTERVENOR COMPLAINT 1. This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, and Oklahoma law, to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of sex, retaliation, and to remedy intentional tortious conduct and negligent conduct, and to provide appropriate relief to Robyn Gilliland.
PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE 2. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 451, 1331, 1337 and 1343, and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Section 706 of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5, and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991,42 U.S.C. § 1981A. 3. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful, as well as the alleged acts of tortious and negligent conduct, were and are now being committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma.

4. Plaintiff, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "Commission"), filed a complaint against Defendant in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma on September 24, 2003.
5. Plaintiff Intervenor, Robyn Gilliland, as the person on whose behalfthe Commission filed suit against Defendant, has an unconditional right to intervene in the case filed by the Commission pursuant to Section 706(f) of Title VII, 42 U.S.c. § 2000e-5(f).
6. At all relevant times, Defendant has continuously been and is now doing business in the State of Oklahoma and city of Oklahoma City, and has had at least fifteen employees.
7. At all relevant times, Defendant has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 701 (b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.c. § 2000e(b), (g) and (h).
8. All conditions precedent to the institution of this action have been met. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
SEXUALLY HOSTILE WORKING ENVIRONMENT 9. Since at least December 1, 1998, Defendant has engaged in unlawful employment practices in violation of Title VII by creating, permitting and condoning a sexually hostile work environment. 10. Defendant failed to remedy the hostile environment despite notice of the hostile environment. 11. As a result Robyn Gilliland is entitled to relief as set forth below in her prayer for relief.
2

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF RETALIATION
12. Defendant retaliated against Robyn Gilliland for engaging in protected activity by harassing her and constructively terminating in violation of Title VII.
13. As a result, Robyn Gilliland is entitled to the relief set forth below in her prayer for relief.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLA TION OF OKLAHOMA LAW 14. By subjecting Robyn Gilliland to a sexually hostile working environment, Defendant violated Oklahoma law and public policy. 15. As a result, Robyn Gilliland is entitled to the relief set forth below in her prayer for relief.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLA TION OF OKLAHOMA LAW 16. By subjecting Robyn Gilliland to retaliation and constructively terminating her based upon her engaging in protected conduct, the Defendant violated Oklahoma law and public policy. 17. As a result, Robyn Gilliland is entitled to the relief set forth below in her prayer for relief.
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS AND OUTRAGEOUS
CONDUCT 18. By subjecting, Robyn Gilliland to retaliation, sexual harassment, and constructively terminating her, Defendant engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct and intentionally inflicted emotional distress upon Robyn Gilliland.
3

19. As a result, Robyn Gilliland is entitled to the relief set forth below in her prayer for

SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION

20. Defendant was negligent in its supervision of Robyn Gilliland's supervisors and

coworkers. 21. As a result, Robyn Gilliland is entitled to the relief set forth below in her prayer for

relief.

SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

NEGLIGENCE

22. Defendant was negligent in its retention of Robyn Gilliland's supervisors and

coworkers.

23. As a result, Robyn Gilliland is entitled to the relief set forth below in her prayer for

relief.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Robyn Gilliland respectfully requests the following relief:

A. back pay;

B. interest;

C. pecuniary compensatory damages;

D. non-pecuniary compensatory damages, including but not limited to damages for pain

and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life and humiliation, post traumatic stress

disorder, and anxiety;

4

E. punitive damages;

F. reinstatement, or in the alternative, front pay in lieu of reinstatement;

G. costs;

H. reasonable attorneys fees:

1.

such other legal or equitable relief as the Court deems appropriate.

Respectfully Submitted,

ATTORNEY LIEN CLAIMED

ssell L. Mulinix, OBA #6494 MULINIX OGDEN HALL ANDREWS & LUDLAM, P.L.L.C. 3030 Oklahoma Tower 210 Park Avenue Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 (405) 232-3800 - Telephone (405) 232-8999 - Facsimile rusty@lawokc.com
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF INTERVENOR, ROBYN GILLIAND

5

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

(1) EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )

COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

(2) LORI CRAWFORD,

)

)

Plaintiff Intervenor,

)

)

v.

)

)

(1) GREAT PLAINS COCA-COLA

)

BOTTLING CO., INC.,

)

)

Defendant.

)

Case No. CIV-03-1347-F JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
IJ.(l r""',~"""l'
~\ -~~

PLAINTIFF INTERVENOR COMPLAINT 1. This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, and Oklahoma law, to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of sex, retaliation, and to remedy intentional tortious conduct and negligent conduct, and to provide appropriate relief to Lori Crawford.
PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE 2. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 451, l331, l337 and 1343, and l345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Section 706 of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5, and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981A. 3. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful, as well as the alleged acts of tortious and negligent conduct, were and are now being committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma. 4. Plaintiff, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "Commission"), filed a

co~plaint against Defendant in the United States District Court for the Western District of . Oklahoma on September 24, 2003.
5. Plaintiff Intervenor, Lori Crawford, as the person on whose behalf the Commission filed suit against Defendant, has an unconditional right to intervene in the case filed by the Commission pursuant to Section 706(t) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(t).
6. At all relevant times, Defendant has continuously been and is now doing business in the State of Oklahoma and city of Oklahoma City, and has had at least fifteen employees.
7. At all relevant times, Defendant has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 701 (b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.c. § 2000e(b), (g) and (h).
8. All conditions precedent to the institution of this action have been met. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
SEXUALLY HOSTILE WORKING ENVIRONMENT 9. Since at least December 1, 1998, Defendant has engaged in unlawful employment practices in violation of Title VII by creating, permitting and condoning a sexually hostile work environment. 10. Defendant failed to remedy the hostile environment despite notice of the hostile environment. 11. As a result Lori Crawford is entitled to relief as set forth below in her prayer for relief.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF RETALIATION
12. Defendant retaliated against Lori Crawford for engaging in protected activity by harassing her in violation of Title VII.
2

13. As a result, Lori Crawford is entitled to the relief set forth below in her prayer for , relief.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATION OF OKLAHOMA LAW 14. By subjecting Lori Crawford to a sexually hostile working environment, Defendant violated Oklahoma law and public policy. 15. As a result, Lori Crawford is entitled to the relief set forth below in her prayer for relief.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLA TION OF OKLAHOMA LAW 16. By subjecting Lori Crawford to retaliation based upon her engaging in protected conduct, the Defendant violated Oklahoma law and public policy. 17. As a result, Lori Crawford is entitled to the relief set forth below in her prayer for relief.
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS AND OUTRAGEOUS
CONDUCT 18. By subjecting, Lori Crawford to retaliation and sexual harassment, Defendant engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct and intentionally inflicted emotional distress upon Lori Crawford. 19. As a result, Lori Crawford is entitled to the relief set forth below in her prayer for relief.
3

SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION 20. Defendant was negligent in its supervision of Lori Crawford's supervisors and coworkers. 21. As a result, Lori Crawford is entitled to the relief set forth below in her prayer for relief. SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
NEGLIGENCE 22. Defendant was negligent in its retention of Lori Crawford's supervisors and coworkers. 23. As a result, Lori Crawford is entitled to the relief set forth below in her prayer for relief.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Lori Crawford respectfully requests the following relief: A. back pay; B. interest; C. pecuniary compensatory damages; D. non-pecuniary compensatory damages, including but not limited to damages for pain
and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life and humiliation, post traumatic stress disorder, and anxiety; E. punitive damages; F. reinstatement, or in the alternative, front pay in lieu of reinstatement; G. costs;
4

H. reasonable attorneys fees: I. such other legal or equitable relief as the Court deems appropriate.
Respectfully Submitted,

ATTORNEY LIEN CLAIMED

sell L. Mulinix, OBA 6494 MULINIX OGDEN HALL ANDREWS & LUDLAM, P.L.L.C. 3030 Oklahoma Tower 210 Park Avenue Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 (405) 232-3800 - Telephone (405) 232-8999 - Facsimile rusty@lawokc.com
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF INTERVENOR, LORI CRAWFORD

5

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

FILED

(1) EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )

COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

(2) KENDRA WHITNEY,

)

)

Plaintiff Intervenor,

)

)

v.

)

)

(1) GREAT PLAINS COCA-COLA

)

BOTTLING CO., INC.,

)

)

Defendant.

)

Case No. CIV-03-1347-F JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

PLAINTIFF INTERVENOR COMPLAINT 1. This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, and Oklahoma law, to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of sex, religion, retaliation, and to remedy intentional tortious conduct and negligent conduct, and to provide appropriate relief to Kendra Whitney.
PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE 2. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 451, 1331, 1337 and 1343, and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Section 706 of Title VII of the CiviI Rights Act of 1964, as amended ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.c. § 2000e-5, and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991,42 U.S.C. § 1981A. 3. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful, as well as the alleged acts of tortious and negligent conduct, were and are now being committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma.

4. Plaintiff, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "Commission"), filed a complaint against Defendant in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma on September 24,2003.
5. As the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission named Plaintiff Intervenor, Kendra Whitney as an aggrieved party, Kendra Whitney, has an unconditional right to intervene in the case filed by the Commission pursuant to Section 706(f) of Title VII, 42 U.S.c. § 2000e-5(f).
6. In the event that the Court finds Kendra Whitney does not have right of intervention pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b), Kendra Whitney's Intervenor Complaint and the Complaint filed in the above-styled litigation have questions of law and fact in common. Therefore, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b) intervention is permissive under the circumstances.
7. At all relevant times, Defendant has continuously been and is now doing business in the State of Oklahoma and city of Oklahoma City, and has had at least fifteen employees.
8. At all relevant times, Defendant has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 701 (b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.c. § 2000e(b), (g) and (h).
9. All conditions precedent to the institution of this action have been met in that Kendra Whitney is designated as an aggrieved party in the Original Complaint file by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission herein
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF SEXUALLY HOSTILE WORKING ENVIRONMENT 10. Since at least December 1, 1998, Defendant has engaged in unlawful employment practices in violation of Title VII by creating, permitting and condoning a sexually hostile work environment.
2

11. Defendant failed to remedy the hostile environment despite notice of the hostile

environment.

12. As a result Kendra Whitney is entitled to relief as set forth below in her prayer for

relief.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

RETALIATION 13. Defendant retaliated against Kendra Whitney for engaging in protected activity by

harassing her and constructively terminating in violation of Title VII.

14. As a result, Kendra Whitney is entitled to the relief set forth below in her prayer for

relief.

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

VIOLATION OF OKLAHOMA LAW

15. By subjecting Kendra Whitney to a sexually hostile working environment, Defendant

violated Oklahoma law and public policy.

16. As a result, Kendra Whitney is entitled to the relief set forth below in her prayer for

relief.

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

VIOLATION OF OKLAHOMA LAW

17. By subjecting Kendra Whitney to retaliation and constructively terminating her based

upon her engaging in protected conduct, the Defendant violated Oklahoma law and public policy.

18. As a result, Kendra Whitney is entitled to the relief set forth below in her prayer for

relief.

3

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS AND OUTRAGEOUS
CONDUCT 19. By subjecting, Kendra Whitney to retaliation, sexual harassment, and constructively terminating her, Defendant engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct and intentionally inflicted emotional distress upon Kendra Whitney. 20. As a result, Kendra Whitney is entitled to the relief set forth below in her prayer for relief.
SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION 21. Defendant was negligent in its supervision of Kendra Whitney's supervisors and coworkers. 22. As a result, Kendra Whitney is entitled to the relief set forth below in her prayer for relief. SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
NEGLIGENCE 23. Defendant was negligent in its retention of Kendra Whitney's supervisors and coworkers. 24. As a result, Kendra Whitney is entitled to the relief set forth below in her prayer for relief.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Kendra Whitney respectfully requests the following relief: A. back pay; B. interest;
4

C. pecuniary compensatory damages; D. non-pecuniary compensatory damages, including but not limited to damages for pain
and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life and humiliation, stress, and anxiety; E. punitive damages; F. reinstatement, or in the alternative, front pay in lieu of reinstatement; G. costs; H. reasonable attorneys fees: I. such other legal or equitable relief as the Court deems appropriate.
Respectfully Submitted,

ATTORNEY LIEN CLAIMED

ANDREWS & LUDLAM, P.L.L.C. 3030 Oklahoma Tower 210 Park Avenue Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 (405) 232-3800 - Telephone (405) 232-8999 - Facsimile rusty@lawokc.com
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF INTERVENOR, KENDRA WHITNEY

5

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

(1) EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )

COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

(2) MARIA SCOTZIN,

)

)

Plaintiff Intervenor,

)

)

v.

)

)

(1) GREAT PLAINS COCA-COLA

)

BOTTLING CO., INC.,

)

)

Defendant.

)

Case No. CIV-03-1347-F JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
OCT 21 2003
- \,I'lJ fll ll\' ........~-

PLAINTIFF INTERVENOR COMPLAINT 1. This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, and Oklahoma law, to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of sex, retaliation, and to remedy intentional tortious conduct and negligent conduct, and to provide appropriate relief to Maria Scotzin.
PARTIES, ,JURISDICTION AND VENUE 2. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 451, 1331, 1337 and 1343, and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Section 706 of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended (''Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5, and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981A. 3. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful, as well as the alleged acts of tortious and negligent conduct, were and are now being committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma.

4. Plaintiff, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "Commission"), filed a wmplaint against Defendant in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma on September 24,2003.
5. Plaintiff Intervenor, Maria Scotzin, as the person on whose behalf the Commission filed suit against Defendant, has an unconditional right to intervene in the case filed by the Commission pursuant to Section 706(f) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-S(f).
6. At all relevant times, Defendant has continuously been and is now doing business in the State of Oklahoma and city of Oklahoma City, and has had at least fifteen employees.
7. At all relevant times, Defendant has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 701 (b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b), (g) and (h).
8. All conditions precedent to the institution of this action have been met. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
SEXUALLY HOSTILE WORKING ENVIRONMENT 9. Since at least December 1, 1998, Defendant has engaged in unlawful employment practices in violation of Title VII by creating, permitting and condoning a sexually hostile work environment. 10. Defendant failed to remedy the hostile environment despite notice of the hostile environment. 11. As a result Maria Scotzin is entitled to relief as set forth below in her prayer for relief.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF RET ALIA TION
12. Defendant retaliated against Maria Scotzin for engaging in protected activity by
2

harassing her and demoting her in violation of Title VII. l3. As a result, Maria Scotzin is entitled to the relief set forth below in her prayer for
relief. THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
VIOLATION OF OKLAHOMA LAW 14. By subjecting Maria Scotzin to a sexually hostile working environment, Defendant violated Oklahoma law and public policy. 15. As a result, Maria Scotzin is entitled to the relief set forth below in her prayer for relief.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATION OF OKLAHOMA LAW 16. By subjecting Maria Scotzin to retaliation, demoting and eventually constructively terminating her based upon her engaging in protected conduct, the Defendant violated Oklahoma law and public policy. 17. As a result, Maria Scotzin is entitled to the relief set forth below in her prayer for relief.
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS AND OUTRAGEOUS
CONDUCT 18. By subjecting, Maria Scotzin to retaliation, sexual harassment, demoting her and constructively terminating her, Defendant engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct and intentionally inflicted emotional distress upon Maria Scotzin. 19. As a result, Maria Scotzin is entitled to the relief set forth below in her prayer for relief.
3

SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION 20. Defendant was negligent in its supervision of Maria Scotzin's supervisors and coworkers. 21. As a result, Maria Scotzin is entitled to the relief set forth below in her prayer for relief. SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
NEGLIGENCE 22. Defendant was negligent in its retention of Maria Scotzin's supervisors and coworkers. 23. As a result, Maria Scotzin is entitled to the relief set forth below in her prayer for relief.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Maria Scotzin respectfully requests the foIl owing relief: A. back pay; B. interest; C. pecuniary compensatory damages; D. non-pecuniary compensatory damages, including but not limited to damages for pain
and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life and humiliation, post traumatic stress disorder, and anxiety; E. punitive damages; F. reinstatement, or in the alternative, front pay in lieu of reinstatement;
4

----~--~------------------------------
G. costs; H. reasonable attorneys fees: I. such other legal or equitable relief as the Court deems appropriate.
Respectfully Submitted,

ATTORNEY LIEN CLAIMED

R ssell L. Mulinix, OBA #6494 MULINIX OGDEN HALL ANDREWS & LUDLAM, P.L.L.C. 3030 Oklahoma Tower 210 Park Avenue Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 (405) 232-3800 - Telephone (405) 232-8999 - Facsimile rusty@lawokc.com
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF INTERVENOR, MARIA SCOTZIN

5

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

)

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

MARISSA SOCKWELL, ROBYN

)

GILLILAND, LORI CRAWFORD,

)

MARIA SCOTZIN, KENDRA

)

WHITNEY AND BRIDGET GREENE, )

)

Intervenor Plaintiffs,

)

)

-vs-

)

)

GREAT PLAINS COCA-COLA

)

BOTTLING CO., INC.,

)

)

Defendant.

)

Case No. CIV-03-1347-F

O R D E R

At issue before the court is Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order, filed December 23, 2003 (docket entry no. 73). The intervenor plaintiffs and the plaintiff responded to the motion by responses filed on January 12, 2004.
The court agrees with the reasoning set forth in the motion and, in particular, with Judge David L. Russell’s reasoning in his order in Rodgers v. Seagate Technology, Inc., CIV-97-1300 (U.S. D.C. W.D. Okla. 1997). The intervenors’ contentions about whether the e-mails constitute work product miss the point. The point is that the court has the authority to regulate discovery for the reasons set forth in defendant’s motion and in Judge Russell’s order. Plaintiff argues that the defendant should not be permitted to take advantage of the delays that have occurred in the

earlier stages of the EEOC’s handling of this matter. The gist of plaintiff’s argument is that, due to the passage of time, the intervenors are at a disadvantage in recalling events that occurred several years ago. This argument is not without force. However, protective measures are available, both before and during trial, to prevent or minimize the impact of any potentially unfair impeaching or other use of the e-mails in question.
Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED. Defendant is authorized to defer production of electronic mail messages sent by the intervenor plaintiffs until after the intervenor plaintiffs have been deposed.
DATED January 13, 2004.
03-1347p005.wpd
2

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

(1) EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

)

COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

(2) MARISSA SOCKWELL, ROBYN GILLILAND, )

LORI CRAWFORD, MARIA SCOTZIN, KENDRA )

WHITNEY and BRIDGETT GREENE,

)

)

Intervenor Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

(1) GREAT PLAINS COCA-COLA

)

BOTTLING, INC.,

)

)

Defendant.

)

)

CASE NO. CIV-03-1347-F

CONSENT DECREE

THIS CONSENT DECREE is made and entered into by and between the Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) and Great Plains Coca-Cola Bottling Inc. (“Great Plains”) in

the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, with regard to the EEOC’s

Complaint filed on September 24, 2003 (Complaint), in Civil Action No. CIV-03-1347-F. The

Complaint is based upon Charges of Discrimination filed by Maria Scotzin, Robyn Gilliland, Lori

Crawford and Marissa Sockwell and on behalf of other aggrieved parties, against the Defendant

employer.

The above-referenced Complaint alleges that the Defendant Great Plains violated Title VII

of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, by subjecting the

Charging Parties to sexual harassment. The Defendant employer denies all of the allegations made

in the Complaint filed by EEOC and all the allegations contained in the complaints filed by Plaintiff

Intervenors. The Charging Parties intervened in this action, as permitted by law.

The EEOC, Plaintiff Intervenors and Defendant Great Plains agree to compromise and settle

the differences embodied in the Complaint and intend that the terms and conditions of the

compromise and settlement be set forth in this Consent Decree ("Consent Decree").

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and agreements set forth

herein, the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows, the Court

finds appropriate and therefore, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that:

1. This Consent Decree resolves all issues raised in EEOC Charge Nos. 311A00901,

311A00912, 311A00958 and 311A00932. This Decree further resolves all issues raised in the

Complaint filed by the EEOC in this civil action and the Complaints filed by the Charging Parties

and Aggrieved Parties. The EEOC, Charging Parties and Aggrieved Parties waive further claims

and/or litigation on all issues raised in the above-referenced Charge and Complaint. The EEOC does

not waive processing or litigating charges other than the above-referenced Charge.

2. The parties agree that this Consent Decree does not constitute an admission by Great

Plains of any violation of Title VII or any state law claims alleged by Plaintiff Intervenors. This

Consent Decree does not constitute an adjudication and/or finding on the merits of the case, and

shall not be used as evidence of liability, res judicata, parent liability or collateral estoppel in any

other legal proceeding against Defendant or any of its parent companies, subsidiaries and/or

affiliates. The Defendant expressly denies any violation of local, state or federal law, common or

statutory, including but not limited to, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, or Title

I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991.

3. Defendant agrees that it shall conduct all employment practices in a manner which

does not subject any employee to discrimination as prohibited by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act

of 1964. Defendant further agrees that there shall be no retaliation against any employee because

that person has opposed any practice made unlawful under Title VII, or has filed a charge of

CONSENT DECREE

2

discrimination, or has given testimony, assistance, or has participated in any manner in any investigation, proceeding or hearing under Title VII.
4. Defendant agrees to post the Notice appended hereto as Attachment "A" on the employee bulletin board at all of Defendant’s work sites within ten (l0) days after the entry of the Consent Decree. Defendant will report to the EEOC that it has complied with this requirement within 14 days after posting the notice. The notice shall remain posted during the term of the Consent Decree.
5. The Defendant agrees to immediately implement and/or review and revise its policies regarding retaliation as prohibited by Title VII including, if not now existing, the implementation and notice of a complaint procedure for employees to notify Defendant of any alleged complaints of discrimination.
6. For each year that the Consent Decree is in effect, Defendant agrees to conduct training for all employees, including management employees, advising them of the requirements and prohibitions of the federal anti-discrimination laws with a special emphasis on sexual harassment. The training will inform the employees of the complaint procedure for individuals who believe they have experienced discrimination. The training will also advise the employees of the consequences of violating the federal anti-discrimination laws. The training shall be at least two (2) hours in duration. No less than 10 days before the training is conducted, Defendant agrees to give written notice to the EEOC as to the date and location of the training, the name and qualifications of the person providing the training and the substance of the training. All materials used in conjunction with the training shall be forwarded to the EEOC. Within 20 days following the training, Defendant shall submit to the EEOC confirmation that the training was conducted, and a list of attendees, and a copy of all materials used in conjunction with the training.

CONSENT DECREE

3

7. No less than 30 days after the training is conducted, Defendant agrees to give written

notice to the EEOC as to the date and location of the training, the name of the person providing the

training and the substance of the training.

8. Defendant agrees to remove from all personnel files of the Charging Parties and

Aggrieved Parties all documents, entries and references relating to: the facts and circumstances

which led to the filing of the charges of discrimination; the charge itself; and the complaint filed by

the EEOC in federal court based upon the charges.

9. Defendant agrees to pay monetary relief to the Charging Parties and Aggrieved

Parties, for all claims, in the total sum of $535,000.00.

10. The payment referenced in paragraph 9, above, shall be made l0 days after the date

of entry of the Consent Decree, by cashier's check made payable to the Charging Parties and their

counsel. The check shall be sent by certified mail, return receipt requested or by hand delivery to

Charging Parties’ attorney.

11. Defendant agrees to report to the EEOC within l4 days of entry of this Consent

Decree regarding its compliance with the agreements set forth in paragraphs 2 through 10 above.

12. All reports to the EEOC required by the Consent Decree shall be sent to Michelle M.

Robertson, Sr. Trial Attorney, EEOC, 210 Park Avenue, Suite 1350, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

73102.

13. If Defendant, Great Plains, fails to tender payment or otherwise fails to timely

comply with the terms of paragraphs 9-10 above, Defendant Great Plains shall:

a. Pay interest at the rate calculated pursuant to 26 U.S.C. Section 6621(b) on

any untimely or unpaid amounts; and

b. Bear any additional costs incurred by the EEOC caused by the non-

compliance or delay of the Defendant.

CONSENT DECREE

4

14. Neither the EEOC, Charging Parties, Aggrieved Parties, nor Defendant Great Plains shall contest the validity of this Consent Decree or the jurisdiction of the federal district court to enforce this Consent Decree and its terms or the right of either party to the Consent Decree to bring an enforcement action upon breach of any term of this Consent Decree by either such party. Nothing in this Decree shall be construed to preclude the EEOC from enforcing this Decree in the event that Defendant Great Plains fails to perform the promises and representations contained herein. The EEOC shall be authorized to seek compliance with the Consent Decree through civil action in the United States District Court.
15. The parties to this Consent Decree agree to bear their own costs and attorney’s fees associated with the above-referenced Complaint.
16. The term of this Decree shall be for three (3) years from the effective date. The Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of this Decree until the expiration of the term of the Consent Decree.
SO ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED this 30th day of August, 2004.

CONSENT DECREE

5

U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE APPROVED FOR ENTRY:
FOR PLAINTIFF U.S. E.E.O.C.:
ROBERT CANINO Regional Attorney Oklahoma Bar No.
SUZANNE ANDERSON Supervisory Trial Attorney Texas Bar No. 14009470
s/Michelle M. Robertson MICHELLE M. ROBERTSON, OBA #14084 Sr. Trial Attorney EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Area Office for the State of Oklahoma 210 Park Avenue, Suite 1350 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 Tel No. 405-231-4363 Fax No. 405-231-4340
FOR PLAINTIFF INTERVENORS:
s/ Russell Mulinix* *I certify that I have the signed original of this document,
which is available for inspection at any time by the Court or a party to this action.
s/Michelle M. Robertson
Russell Mulinix James Shepherd Mulinix, Ogden, Hall, Andrews & Ludlam 3030 Oklahoma Tower 210 Park Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Tel. No. (405) 232-3800 Fax No. (405) 232-8999

CONSENT DECREE

6

FOR DEFENDANT Great Plains:
s/ Joseph Bocock* *I certify that I have the signed original of this document,
which is available for inspection at any time by the Court or a party to this action.
s/Michelle M. Robertson
Joseph Bocock, OBA #0906 Nathan Whatley, OBA #14601 MCAFEE & TAFT 10th Floor, Two Leadership Square 211 N. Robinson Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Tel. No. (405) 235-9621 Fax No. (405) 235-0439
03-1347p009.PO.wpd

CONSENT DECREE

7

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

https://ecf.okwd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?609754403483806-L_...

87BF, CLOSED, MEDIATION, _LH
U.S. District Court Western District of Oklahoma[LIVE] (Oklahoma City)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 5:03-cv-01347-F

EEOC v. Great Plains Coca Assigned to: Honorable Stephen P. Friot Referred to: Mediator (Settlement) Demand: $100,000 Cause: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

Date Filed: 09/24/2003 Date Terminated: 08/30/2004 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by Michelle M Robertson EEOC-OKC Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 215 Dean A McGee Suite 524 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 405-231-4363 Fax: 405-231-45816 Email: michelle.robertson@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff Maria Scotzin

represented by James W Shepherd Elliott Enabnit Newby Ezzell PLLC P O Box 5589 Enid, OK 73702 580-223-9390 Fax: 580-233-1441 Email: jshepherd@eenelaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Russell L Mulinix Mulinix Ogden Hall Andrews & Ludlam PLLC 210 W Park Ave Suite 3030 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 405-232-3800 Fax: 405-232-8999 Email: rusty@lawokc.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff

1 of 10

4/25/2007 12:35 PM

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:okwd - Docket Report
Kendra Whitney
Intervenor Plaintiff Lori Crawford
Intervenor Plaintiff Robyn Gilliland
Intervenor Plaintiff Marissa Sockwell
Intervenor Plaintiff Bridgett Greene
Intervenor Plaintiff Steva Bowers TERMINATED: 11/14/2003
2 of 10

https://ecf.okwd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?609754403483806-L_...
represented by James W Shepherd (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Russell L Mulinix (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by James W Shepherd (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Russell L Mulinix (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by James W Shepherd (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Russell L Mulinix (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by James W Shepherd (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Russell L Mulinix (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by James W Shepherd (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Russell L Mulinix (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by James W Shepherd (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/14/2003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
4/25/2007 12:35 PM

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

https://ecf.okwd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?609754403483806-L_...

V.
Defendant Great Plain Coca-Cola Bottling Company

Russell L Mulinix (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/14/2003 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Joseph H Bocock McAfee & Taft 211 N Robinson Ave 10th Fl Oklahoma City, OK 73102 405-235-9621 Fax: 405-235-0439 Email: joseph.bocock@mcafeetaft.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Natalie K Ramsey McAfee & Taft 211 N Robinson Ave 10th Fl Oklahoma City, OK 73102 405-552-2325 Fax: 405-228-7325 Email: natalie.ramsey@mcafeetaft.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nathan L Whatley McAfee & Taft 211 N Robinson Ave 10th Fl Oklahoma City, OK 73102 405-235-9621 Fax: 405-235-0439 Email: nathan.whatley@mcafeetaft.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed
09/24/2003 09/24/2003 09/24/2003

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT (nm) (Entered: 09/25/2003)
2 PRAECIPE for and issued 1 summons by plaintiff EEOC (nm) (Entered: 09/25/2003)
3 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for plaintiff EEOC by Michelle M Robertson (nm) (Entered: 09/25/2003)

3 of 10

4/25/2007 12:35 PM

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

https://ecf.okwd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?609754403483806-L_...

09/26/2003
09/26/2003 09/26/2003
09/26/2003 09/26/2003
09/26/2003 09/26/2003
09/26/2003 09/26/2003
09/26/2003 09/26/2003
09/26/2003 09/26/2003
09/26/2003 09/26/2003
09/26/2003 10/03/2003
10/14/2003
10/14/2003
10/14/2003
10/14/2003
10/16/2003

4 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE by Russell L Mulinix for plf intervenor Maria Scotzin (ap) (Entered: 09/29/2003)
5 MOTION to intervene by Maria Scotzin (ap) (Entered: 09/29/2003)
6 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE by Russell L Mulinix for plf intervenor Kendra Whitney (ap) (Entered: 09/29/2003)
7 MOTION to intervene by Kendra Whitney (ap) (Entered: 09/29/2003)
8 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE by Russell L Mulinix for plf intervenor Steva Bowers (ap) (Entered: 09/29/2003)
9 MOTION to intervene by Steva Bowers (ap) (Entered: 09/29/2003)
10 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE by Russell L Mulinix for plf intervenor Lori Crawford (ap) (Entered: 09/29/2003)
11 MOTION to intervene by Lori Crawford (ap) (Entered: 09/29/2003)
12 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE by Russell L Mulinix for plf intervenor Robyn Gilliland (ap) (Entered: 09/29/2003)
13 MOTION to intervene by Robyn Gilliland (ap) (Entered: 09/29/2003)
14 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE by Russell L Mulinix for plf intervenor Marissa Sockwell (ap) Modified on 09/29/2003 (Entered: 09/29/2003)
15 MOTION to intervene by Marissa Sockwell (ap) (Entered: 09/29/2003)
16 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE by Russell L Mulinix for plf intervenor Gabriela Chavez (ap) Modified on 09/29/2003 (Entered: 09/29/2003)
17 MOTION to intervene by Gabriela Chavez (ap) (Entered: 09/29/2003)
18 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE by Russell L Mulinix for plf intervenor Bridgett Greene (ap) Modified on 09/29/2003 (Entered: 09/29/2003)
19 MOTION to intervene by Bridgett Greene (ap) (Entered: 09/29/2003)
20 RETURN OF SERVICE executed upon defendant Great Plains Coca by serv Phyllis Cales on 9/26/03 by cert mail (20 days) (ap) (Entered: 10/03/2003)
21 OBJECTION by Defendant Great Plains to [17] Chavez's Motion to Intervene (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(lb) (Entered: 10/15/2003)
22 OBJECTION by Defendant Great Plains to [9] Bowers' Motion to Intervene (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A # 2 Exhibit B) (lb) (Entered: 10/15/2003)
23 ENTRY of Appearance by Nathan L Whatley on behalf of Great Plain Coca-Cola Bottling Company (lb) (Entered: 10/15/2003)
24 ANSWER to Complaint by Great Plain Coca-Cola Bottling Company.(lb) (Entered: 10/15/2003)
25 ORDER for Reply re 22 Response to Motion filed by Great Plain Coca-Cola Bottling Company and [9] Motion to Intervene filed by Steva Bowers. Reply due 10/27/03. Signed at the direction of Judge Stephen P. Friot on 10/16/03. (llg)

4 of 10

4/25/2007 12:35 PM

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

https://ecf.okwd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?609754403483806-L_...

10/16/2003 10/17/2003
10/17/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003 10/27/2003

(Entered: 10/16/2003)
26 ENTRY of Appearance by Joseph H Bocock on behalf of Def Great Plain Coca-Cola Bottling Company (lb) (Entered: 10/16/2003)
27 ORDER granting [5] Motion to Intervene by Maria Scotzin, granting [7] Motion to Intervene by Kendra Whitney, granting [11] Motion to Intervene by Lori Crawford, granting [13] Motion to Intervene by Robyn Gilliland, granting [15] Motion to Intervene by Marissa Sockwell, granting [19] Motion to Intervene by Bridgett Greene. Signed by Judge Stephen P. Friot on 10/17/03. These individuals are permitted to intervene in this action as party plaintiffs and shall file their intervenor complaints within 5 business days from the date of this order. (llg) (Entered: 10/17/2003)
28 ORDER denying [17] Motion to Intervene by Gabriela Chavez. Signed by Judge Stephen P. Friot on 10/17/03. (llg) (Entered: 10/17/2003)
29 INTERVENOR COMPLAINT , filed by Bridgett Greene.(fp, ) (Entered: 10/22/2003)
30 PRAECIPE for and issued 1 summons by Bridgett Greene. (fp, ) (Entered: 10/22/2003)
31 INTERVENOR COMPLAINT , filed by Marissa Sockwell.(fp, ) (Entered: 10/22/2003)
32 PRAECIPE for and issued 1 summons by Marissa Sockwell. (fp, ) (Entered: 10/22/2003)
33 INTERVENOR COMPLAINT , filed by Robyn Gilliland.(fp, ) (Entered: 10/22/2003)
34 PRAECIPE for and issued 1 summons by Great Plain Coca-Cola Bottling Company. (fp, ) (Entered: 10/22/2003)
35 INTERVENOR COMPLAINT , filed by Lori Crawford.(fp, ) (Entered: 10/22/2003)
36 PRAECIPE for and issued 1 summons by Lori Crawford. (fp, ) (Entered: 10/22/2003)
37 INTERVENOR COMPLAINT , filed by Kendra Whitney.(fp, ) (Entered: 10/22/2003)
38 PRAECIPE for and issued 1 summons by Kendra Whitney. (fp, ) (Entered: 10/22/2003)
39 INTERVENOR COMPLAINT , filed by Maria Scotzin.(fp, ) (Entered: 10/22/2003)
40 PRAECIPE for and issued 1 summons by Maria Scotzin. (fp, ) (Entered: 10/22/2003)
41 UNOPPOSED APPLICATION by Steva Bowers for Extension of Time to File Response to 22 Def Great Plains' Objection to Bowers' Motion to Intervene (lb) (Entered: 10/27/2003)

5 of 10

4/25/2007 12:35 PM

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

https://ecf.okwd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?609754403483806-L_...

10/27/2003
10/27/2003 10/27/2003 10/27/2003 10/27/2003 10/27/2003 10/28/2003 11/03/2003
11/04/2003 11/05/2003
11/05/2003 11/07/2003 11/07/2003 11/07/2003 11/07/2003 11/07/2003

42 ORDER granting 41 Steva Bowers' Unopposed Application for Extension of Time to File Response {Reply} re [9] Steva Bowers' Motion to Intervene. Reply due by 11/3/2003. Signed by Judge Stephen P. Friot on 10/27/03. (llg) (Entered: 10/27/2003)
43 PROOF OF SERVICE AFFIDAVIT for Summons/Complaint served on Great Plains Coca-Cola Bottling Co., Inc. on 10/22/03. (lb) (Entered: 10/28/2003)
44 PROOF OF SERVICE AFFIDAVIT for Summons/Complaint served on Great Plains Coca-Cola Bottling Co., Inc. on 10/22/03. (lb) (Entered: 10/28/2003)
45 PROOF OF SERVICE AFFIDAVIT for Summons/Complaint served on Great Plains Coca-Cola Bottling Co., Inc. on 10/22/03. (lb) (Entered: 10/28/2003)
46 PROOF OF SERVICE AFFIDAVIT for Summons/Complaint served on Great Plains Coca-Cola Bottling Co., Inc. on 10/22/03. (lb) (Entered: 10/28/2003)
48 PROOF OF SERVICE AFFIDAVIT for Summons/Complaint served on Great Plains Coca-Cola Bottling Co., Inc. on 10/22/03. (lb) (Entered: 10/28/2003)
47 PROOF OF SERVICE AFFIDAVIT for Summons/Complaint served on Great Plains Coca-Cola Bottling Co., Inc. on 10/22/03. (lb) (Entered: 10/28/2003)
49 RESPONSE by Steva Bowers to Def's Objection to Bowers' Motion re [9] Motion to Intervene. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit D# 5 Exhibit E# 6 Exhibit F# 7 Exhibit G# 8 Exhibit H# 9 Exhibit I# 10 Exhibit J# 11 Exhibit K# 12 Exhibit L)(lb) (Entered: 11/03/2003)
50 UNOPPOSED APPLICATION by Def Great Plain Coca-Cola Bottling Company for Leave to File Reply to Bowers' Response to Def's Objection to Bowers' Motion to Intervene. (lb) (Entered: 11/05/2003)
51 ORDER granting 50 Defendant's Unopposed Application for Leave to Reply to Steva Bowers' Response to Defendant's Objection to Bowers' Motion to Intervene. Defendant may reply by 11/10/03. Signed by Judge Stephen P. Friot on 11/5/03. (llg) (Entered: 11/05/2003)
Set/Reset Deadlines as to [9] Motion to Intervene. Reply due by 11/10/2003. (llg) (Entered: 11/05/2003)
52 DOCKET: Status/Scheduling Conference set for 12/4/2003 10:15 AM in Chambers before Honorable Stephen P. Friot. Status Report due by 12/1/2003. (llg) (Entered: 11/07/2003)
53 ENTRY of Appearance by James W Shepherd on behalf of Marissa Sockwell (lb, ) (Entered: 11/10/2003)
54 ENTRY of Appearance by James W Shepherd on behalf of Lori Crawford (lb) (Entered: 11/10/2003)
55 ENTRY of Appearance by James W Shepherd on behalf of Kendra Whitney (lb) (Entered: 11/10/2003)
56 ENTRY of Appearance by James W Shepherd on behalf of Bridgett Greene (lb) (Entered: 11/10/2003)

6 of 10

4/25/2007 12:35 PM

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

https://ecf.okwd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?609754403483806-L_...

11/07/2003 11/07/2003 11/07/2003 11/10/2003 11/12/2003 11/12/2003 11/12/2003 11/12/2003 11/12/2003 11/12/2003 11/14/2003 12/01/2003 12/04/2003
12/04/2003 12/11/2003 12/12/2003

57 ENTRY of Appearance by James W Shepherd on behalf of Robyn Gilliland (lb) (Entered: 11/10/2003)
58 ENTRY of Appearance by James W Shepherd on behalf of Steva Bowers (lb) (Entered: 11/10/2003)
59 ENTRY of Appearance by James W Shepherd on behalf of Maria Scotzin (lb) (Entered: 11/10/2003)
60 REPLY BRIEF by Defendant Great Plain Coca-Cola Bottling Company in Support of 22 Objection to Bowers' Motion to Intervene. (lb) (Entered: 11/12/2003)
61 ANSWER to Intervenor Complaint of Bridgett Greene by Great Plain Coca-Cola Bottling Company.(lb) (Entered: 11/13/2003)
62 ANSWER to Intervenor Complaint of Maria Scotzin by Great Plain Coca-Cola Bottling Company.(lb) (Entered: 11/13/2003)
63 ANSWER to Intervenor Complaint of Kendra Whitney by Great Plain Coca-Cola Bottling Company.(lb) (Entered: 11/13/2003)
64 ANSWER to Intervenor Complaint of Robyn Gilliland by Great Plain Coca-Cola Bottling Company.(lb) (Entered: 11/13/2003)
65 ANSWER to Intervenor Complaint of Lori Crawford by Great Plain Coca-Cola Bottling Company.(lb) (Entered: 11/13/2003)
66 ANSWER to Intervenor Complaint of Marissa Sockwell by Great Plain Coca-Cola Bottling Company.(lb) (Entered: 11/13/2003)
67 ORDER denying [9] Steva Bowers' Motion to Intervene. Signed by Judge Stephen P. Friot on 11/14/03. (llg) (Entered: 11/14/2003)
68 JOINT STATUS REPORT. (lb) (Entered: 12/01/2003)
69 SCHEDULING ORDER: Pla expert witness list and expert reports due 5/1/04; Dft expert witness list and expert reports due 20 days t/a; Pla witness list due 6/1/04; Pla exhibit list due 6/1/04; Dft witness list due 10 days t/a; Dft exhibit list due 10 days t/a; Motions in limine due 7/29/04; Designations of depo testimony due 7/29/04; Jury instructions due 7/29/04; Voir dire requests due 7/29/04; Trial briefs due 7/29/04; Selection and Order Form due 4/1/04; ADR Session Held by Date 5/1/04; Discovery due by 7/15/2004. Jury Trial set for 8/9/2004 09:30 AM in Courtroom #305 before Honorable Stephen P. Friot. Dispositive and Daubert Motions due by 6/1/2004. Pretrial Report due by 7/29/2004. Entered at the direction of Judge Stephen P. Friot on 12/4/03. (llg) (Entered: 12/04/2003)
REFERRAL TO ADR. Case referred to Mediator. ADR Session held by 5/1/2004 before Mediator. Selection and Order Form due 4/1/04.(llg) (Entered: 12/04/2003)
70 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 67 Order on Motion to Intervene by Steva Bowers. (Mulinix, Russell) Modified on 12/12/2003 (lb). (Entered: 12/11/2003)
71 USCA Appeal Fee received in the amount of $ 255.00, receipt number 101703, re 70 Notice of Appeal filed by Steva Bowers (dl, ) (Entered: 12/16/2003)

7 of 10

4/25/2007 12:35 PM

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

https://ecf.okwd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?609754403483806-L_...

12/22/2003 12/23/2003 12/31/2003 01/09/2004 01/12/2004
01/12/2004 01/13/2004
02/02/2004 02/04/2004 03/31/2004 03/31/2004
04/26/2004 04/30/2004
04/30/2004

72 TRANSCRIPT ORDER FORM by Steva Bowers re 67 Order on Motion to Intervene, 70 Notice of Appeal (Mulinix, Russell) Modified on 12/23/2003 (llg). (Entered: 12/22/2003)
73 MOTION for Protective Order with Brief in Support by Great Plain Coca-Cola Bottling Company. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1 - Order from CIV-97-1300-R)(Whatley, Nathan) (Entered: 12/23/2003)
74 Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals re 70 Notice of Appeal (dl, ) (Entered: 12/31/2003)
75 USCA Case Number 04-6001 for 70 Notice of Appeal filed by Steva Bowers. (dl, ) (Entered: 01/09/2004)
76 RESPONSE to Motion re 73 MOTION for Protective Order with Brief in Support filed by Steva Bowers, Lori Crawford, Robyn Gilliland, Bridgett Greene, Maria Scotzin, Marissa Sockwell, Kendra Whitney. (Mulinix, Russell) (Entered: 01/12/2004)
77 RESPONSE by Plf EEOC to Def's Motion re 73 MOTION for Protective Order with Brief in Support. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - 7/31/01 Order)(lb) (Entered: 01/13/2004)
78 ORDER granting 73 Defendant's Motion for Protective Order. Defendant is authorized to defer production of electronic mail messages sent by the intervenor plaintiffs until after the intervenor plaintiffs have been deposed. Signed by Judge Stephen P. Friot on 1/13/04. (llg) (Entered: 01/13/2004)
79 ENTRY OF APPEARANCE by Natalie K Ramsey on behalf of Defendant Great Plain Coca-Cola Bottling Company (lb) (Entered: 02/03/2004)
80 TRANSCRIPT LETTER advising that transcripts are not necessary re 70 Notice of Appeal filed by Steva Bowers. The record is ready for appeal purposes. (dl, ) (Entered: 02/04/2004)
81 JOINT MOTION to Continue Mediation Deadline by Great Plain Coca-Cola Bottling Company. (Whatley, Nathan) (Entered: 03/31/2004)
82 ORDER granting 81 Joint Motion to Continue Mediation. The parties' deadline for completing mediation is extended to 5/31/04, and the parties' deadline for filing their mediator selection form is extended to 4/30/04. Signed by Judge Stephen P. Friot on 3/31/04. (llg) (Entered: 03/31/2004)
83 GENERAL ORDER 04-02 (April 15, 2004) Mandatory Electronic Case Filing. Signed by all district judges on 4/15/04. (llg) (Entered: 04/26/2004)
84 JOINT MOTION for Extension of Time of PTO Scheduling Deadlines by Lori Crawford, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Robyn Gilliland, Great Plain Coca-Cola Bottling Company, Bridgett Greene, Maria Scotzin, Marissa Sockwell, Kendra Whitney. (Attachments: # 1)(Robertson, Michelle) (Entered: 04/30/2004)
85 ORDER granting 84 Joint Motion for Extension of PTO Scheduling Deadlines. The 10-depo limit is waived. Plaintiff and the intervenors shall be entitled to take a total of 20 depos, and defendant shall be entitled to take 20 depos. If more

8 of 10

4/25/2007 12:35 PM

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

https://ecf.okwd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?609754403483806-L_...

07/01/2004 07/01/2004 08/16/2004 08/17/2004
08/27/2004 08/27/2004 08/30/2004 04/27/2005

depos are needed, the party desiring to take more depos shall seek leave of court unless the taking of the additional depos is agreed to. The court does not anticipate setting this case for a judicial settlement conference. Deadlines are extended as follows: Pla expert witness list and expert reports due 8/1/04; Dft expert witness list and expert reports due 20 days t/a; Pla witness list due 9/1/04; Pla exhibit list due 9/1/04; Dft witness list due 10 days t/a; Dft exhibit list due 10 days t/a; Motions in limine due 10/28/04; Jury instructions due 10/28/04; Voir dire requests due 10/28/04; Depo designations due 10/28/04; Objections and counter-designations due 5 days t/a; Trial briefs due 10/28/04; Selection of Mediator Form due 7/1/04; ADR Completion Date due by 8/31/2004. Discovery due by 10/15/2004. Jury Trial set for 11/8/2004 09:30 AM in Courtroom #305 before Honorable Stephen P. Friot. Dispositive and Daubert Motions due by 9/1/2004. Pretrial Report due by 10/28/2004. Signed by Judge Stephen P. Friot on 4/30/04. (llg) (Entered: 04/30/2004)
86 ADR SELECTIONS / ARRANGEMENTS - MEDIATOR / EVALUATOR (Robertson, Michelle) (Entered: 07/01/2004)
87 ORDER APPOINTING MEDIATOR - Steven Barghols. Signed by Judge Stephen P. Friot on 7/1/04. (llg) (Entered: 07/01/2004)
88 UNOPPOSED MOTION for Extension of Time to Submit Expert Report and File Daubert Motions by Great Plain Coca-Cola Bottling Company. (Whatley, Nathan) (Entered: 08/16/2004)
89 ORDER granting 88 defendant's Unopposed Application for Extension of Expert Witness Submissions and Daubert Motions Deadline. Defendant's expert witness submissions deadline is extended to 8/30/04, and plaintiffs' deadline for submitting any Daubert motions is extended to 9/8/04. Signed by Judge Stephen P. Friot on 8/17/04. (llg) (Entered: 08/17/2004)
90 ADR REPORT BY MEDIATOR / EVALUATOR (Barghols, Steven) (Entered: 08/27/2004)
91 MOTION to Approve Consent Judgment by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Robertson, Michelle) (Entered: 08/27/2004)
92 CONSENT DECREE. Signed by Judge Stephen P. Friot on 8/30/04. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A - Notice to All Employees)(llg) (Entered: 08/30/2004)
93 MANDATE From USCA - The District Courts judgment is AFFIRMED for substantially the same reasons stated by the district court in its Order filed November 14, 2003 70 Notice of Appeal filed by Steva Bowers, (dl, ) (Entered: 04/27/2005)

9 of 10

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt
04/25/2007 12:38:12

4/25/2007 12:35 PM

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

https://ecf.okwd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?609754403483806-L_...

PACER Login:

hs0328

Description:

Docket Report

Billable Pages:

6

Client Code:
Search Criteria:
Cost:

nniles
5:03-cv-01347-F Start date: 1/1/1970 End date: 4/25/2007
0.48

10 of 10

4/25/2007 12:35 PM