Case 8:04-cv-02155-SCB-TBM Document 1 Filed 09/28/2004 Page 1 of 6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION

UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT )

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

)

)

CIVIL ACTION NO.

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

COMPLAINT

ROOMS TO GO, INC.,

)

)

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Defendant.

)

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF SOUGHT

)

NATURE OF THE ACTION

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

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

provide appropriate relief to Tammy Shelton-Leigh (“Ms. Shelton”), Tanya Young-Morrison (“Ms.

Young”) and any other similarly situated individuals who were adversely affected by such practices.

As stated with greater particularity in paragraph seven (7) below, the Commission alleges that

management and non-management officials of the Defendant subjected Ms. Shelton, Ms. Young,

and any other similarly situated individuals, to harassment based on sex (Female) and/or race (Black)

which was sufficiently severe and pervasive to constitute a hostile, intimidating work environment.

Defendant knew or should of known of the unlawful harassment, but failed to take prompt corrective

action.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

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

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

1

Case 8:04-cv-02155-SCB-TBM Document 1 Filed 09/28/2004 Page 2 of 6
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3) ("Title VII"), and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981A.
2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division.
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "Commission"), is the agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title VII, and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Section 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3). 4. At all relevant times, Defendant, Rooms to Go Inc. (the “Employer”)has continuously been a Florida corporation doing business in the State of Florida and the City of Seffner, and has continuously had at least 15 employees. 5. At all relevant times, Defendant Employer has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701(b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§2000e(b), (g) and (h).
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 6. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Ms. Shelton and Ms. Young filed charges with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by the Defendant Employer. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled. 7. Since at least July of 1995, Defendant Employer has engaged in unlawful employment practices at its Seffner, Florida location in violation of Section 703(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-2(a).
2

Case 8:04-cv-02155-SCB-TBM Document 1 Filed 09/28/2004 Page 3 of 6
a. Tanya Young-Morrisson was subjected to sexual harassment by a management official of the Defendant Employer in the form of unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature which was sufficiently severe and pervasive to constitute a hostile, intimidating work environment. The harassment included, but was not limited to, suggestions that she perform sexual acts on him or reveal parts of her body to him, touching her breasts and buttocks, making comments regarding her breasts, referring to her by derogatory sexual names and making vulgar sexual comments in her presence regarding female customers.
b. Tammy Shelton-Leigh was subjected to sexual and racial harassment by management officials and coworkers of the Defendant Employer in the form of unwelcome conduct of a sexual and racial nature which was sufficiently severe and pervasive to constitute a hostile, intimidating work environment. The harassment included, but was not limited to, a management official suggesting that she perform sexual acts on him, making comments about her breasts, referring to her and female customers by derogatory sexual names, recounting sexual encounters with a Black female, referring to her as “Black Bitch,” and making racially offensive remarks to her regarding Black individuals and the fact that she was married to a White male. The harassment also included management and coworkers making racially offensive comments and using racial epithets such as “nigger” to refer to minority customers in her presence.
3

Case 8:04-cv-02155-SCB-TBM Document 1 Filed 09/28/2004 Page 4 of 6
c. Other similarly situated individuals were subjected to sexual and/or racial harassment by the Defendant.
d. Ms. Young and Ms. Shelton complained of the unlawful harassment to which they were being subjected, but Defendant failed to take prompt, corrective action.
8. The effect of the conduct complained of in paragraph seven (7) above has been to deprive Ms. Shelton, Ms. Young and other similarly situated individuals of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees because of their sex and/or race.
9. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph seven (7) above were intentional.
10. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph seven (7) above were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Ms. Shelton, Ms. Young and any other similarly situated individuals.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant Employer, its officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with Defendant, from engaging in sexual and/or racial harassment and any other employment practice which discriminates on the basis of sex and/or race. B. Order Defendant Employer, to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for employees regardless of sex or race and which
4

Case 8:04-cv-02155-SCB-TBM Document 1 Filed 09/28/2004 Page 5 of 6
eradicate the effects of its past unlawful employment practices. C. Order Defendant Employer to make whole Ms. Shelton, Ms. Young and any other
similarly situated individuals by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described in paragraph seven (7) above, including out of pocket losses in amounts to be determined at trial.
D. Order Defendant Employer to make whole Ms. Shelton, Ms. Young and any other similarly situated individuals by providing compensation for past and future nonpecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices complained of in paragraph seven (7) above, including emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, humiliation, and loss of enjoyment of life, in amounts to be determined at trial.
E. Order Defendant Employer to pay Ms. Shelton, Ms. Young and any other similarly situated individuals punitive damages for its malicious and reckless conduct described in paragraph seven (7) above, in amounts to be determined at trial.
F. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public interest.
G. Award the Commission its costs in this action. JURY TRIAL DEMAND
The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its complaint. Respectfully Submitted, ERIC S. DREIBAND General Counsel JAMES L. LEE Deputy General Counsel
5

Case 8:04-cv-02155-SCB-TBM Document 1 Filed 09/28/2004 Page 6 of 6
GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel DELNER FRANKLIN-THOMAS Regional Attorney MICHAEL J. FARRELL Supervisory Trial Attorney
s/ Carla J. Von Greiff CARLA J. VON GREIFF Senior Trial Attorney Florida Bar. No. 0110566 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION TAMPA AREA OFFICE 501 East Polk Street Suite 1000 Tampa, Florida 33602 Phone: (813) 228-2020 Fax: (813) 228-2045 Carla.vongreiff@eeoc.gov
6

 
 Case 8:04-cv-02155-SCB-TBM Document 12 Filed 12/20/2004 Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION

UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT )

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

ROOMS TO GO, INC.

)

)

Defendant.

)

__________________________________________)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 8:04-cv-2155-T-24-TBM

COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiffs, Tammy Leigh (“Ms. Leigh”) and Tanya Morrison (“Ms. Morrison”)

(collectively “Intervenors”), by and through undersigned counsel, sue Defendant,

ROOMS TO GO, INC. (“Employer”), alleging unlawful employment practices and

demand a trial by jury on all issues so triable. In support of their claims for relief,

Intervenors allege as follows:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

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

1337, 1343(a)(4), and 1367. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Section

706(f) and (3) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §

2000e-5(f)(1) and (3) (“Title VII”), Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42

U.S.C. §1981A, and the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992.

Case 8:04-cv-02155-SCB-TBM Document 12 Filed 12/20/2004 Page 2 of 5
2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division.
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the “EEOC”), is the agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title VII. 4. At all relevant times, Defendant Employer has continuously been a Florida corporation doing business in the State of Florida and the City of Seffner, and has continuously had at least 15 employees. 5. At all relevant times, Defendant Employer has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701(b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§2000e(b), (g) and (h). 6. At all relevant times, both Ms. Leigh and Ms. Morrison have been citizens of the State of Florida, and residents of Hillsborough County. They are both former employees of Defendant Employer and are “employees” as defined by Title VII and the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992.
COUNT I: TITLE VII CLAIMS 7. Intervenors incorporate by reference the allegations stated at ¶¶ 6-10 of the Complaint filed by the United States Equal Employment Commission.

Case 8:04-cv-02155-SCB-TBM Document 12 Filed 12/20/2004 Page 3 of 5
8. As a result of Defendant Employer’s unlawful conduct, Intervenors have experienced humiliation, suffering, mental anguish, pain, anxiety, embarrassment, inconvenience, and loss of income.
9. Intervenors have complied with all conditions precedent to bringing suit. 10. Intervenors have retained the undersigned attorney and agreed to pay her a fee. WHEREFORE, Ms. Leigh and Ms. Morrison pray for the following relief: (a) a jury trial on all issues; (b) judgment against Defendant Employer and for Intervenors awarding compensatory damages and punitive damages against Defendant Employer for its violations of law enumerated herein; (c) judgment against Defendant Employer and for Intervenors permanently enjoining Defendant Employer from future violations of law enumerated herein and remedying all lost income, raises, promotions, and other benefits of which Plaintiffs were unlawfully deprived; (d) reinstatement of Intervenors to positions comparable to positions they should have held at Defendant Employer absent the unlawful discrimination enumerated herein or, in the alternative, front pay; (e) prejudgment interest on all monetary recovery obtained; (f) judgment against Defendant Employer and for Intervenors awarding their attorneys’ fees and costs; and (g) such further relief as is equitable and just.

Case 8:04-cv-02155-SCB-TBM Document 12 Filed 12/20/2004 Page 4 of 5
COUNT II: FLORIDA CIVIL RIGHTS ACT CLAIMS 11. Intervenors incorporate by reference the allegations stated at ¶¶ 6-10 of the Complaint filed by the United States Equal Employment Commission. 12. The practices complained of at ¶¶ 7-10 constitute unlawful sex discrimination in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992. 13. As a result of the Defendant Employer’s unlawful conduct, Intervenors have experienced humiliation, suffering, mental anguish, pain, anxiety, embarrassment, inconvenience, and loss of income. 14. Intervenors have complied with all conditions precedent to bringing suit. 15. Intervenors have retained the undersigned attorney and agreed to pay her a fee. WHEREFORE, Intervenors pray for the following relief: (a) a jury trial on all issues; (b) judgment against Defendant Employer and for Intervenors awarding compensatory damages and punitive damages against Defendant Employer for its violations of law enumerated herein; (c) judgment against Defendant Employer and for Intervenors permanently enjoining Defendant Employer from future violations of law enumerated herein and remedying all lost income, raises, promotions, and other benefits of which Intervenors were unlawfully deprived;

Case 8:04-cv-02155-SCB-TBM Document 12 Filed 12/20/2004 Page 5 of 5
(d) reinstatement of Intervenors to positions comparable to positions they
should have held at Defendant Employer absent the unlawful discrimination enumerated
herein or, in the alternative, front pay;
(e) prejudgment interest on all monetary recovery obtained;
(f) judgment against Defendant Employer and for Intervenors awarding their
attorneys’ fees and costs; and
(g) such further relief as is equitable and just.
Respectfully submitted,
s/ Cally E. Catania Cally E. Catania Florida Bar Number: 773506 Cally E. Catania, P.A. 13336 N. Central Avenue Tampa, FL 33612 Telephone: (813) 964-8878 Facsimile: (813) 964-8879 Callycat@tampabay.rr.com Attorney for Ms. Leigh & Ms. Morrison
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on December 20, 2004 I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court by using the CM/ECF system which will send a notice of electronic filing to the following: Cheryl A. Cooper, Esquire, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Miami District Office, One Biscayne Tower, Suite 2700, Two Biscayne Boulevard, Miami, Florida 33131; Richard C. McCrea, Jr., Esq., and Nancy A. Chad, Esq., Zinober & McCrea, P.A., 201 E. Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 800, Tampa, FL 33602.
s/ Cally E. Catania Cally E. Catania Attorney for Ms. Leigh & Ms. Morrison

 
 Case 8:04-cv-02155-SCB-TBM Document 26 Filed 08/24/2005 Page 1 of 7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION

UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

Plaintiff, And

CIVIL ACTION NO. 8:04-CV-2155-T24-TBM

TAMMY LEIGH AND TANYA MORRISON,

AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Intervenors, v.

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED INJUNCTIVE RELIEF SOUGHT

ROOMS TO GO, INC. and R.T.G. FURNITURE CORP.,

Defendants. ________________________________________/

NATURE OF THE ACTION

Plaintiff, United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, files this Amended

Complaint pursuant to the Court’s order dated August 19, 2005. This is an action under Title VII

of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to correct unlawful

employment practices on the basis of sex and race and to provide appropriate relief to Tammy

Shelton-Leigh (“Ms. Shelton”), Tanya Young-Morrison (“Ms. Young”) and any other similarly

situated individuals who were adversely affected by such practices. As stated with greater

particularity in paragraph nine (9) below, the Commission alleges that management and non-

management officials of the Defendants subjected Ms. Shelton, Ms. Young, and any other

similarly situated individuals, to harassment based on sex (Female) and/or race (Black) which

was sufficiently severe and pervasive to constitute a hostile, intimidating work environment.

1

Case 8:04-cv-02155-SCB-TBM Document 26 Filed 08/24/2005 Page 2 of 7
Defendants knew or should have known of the unlawful harassment, but failed to take prompt corrective action.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 451, 1331, 1337, 1343 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Section 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3) (“Title VII”), and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981A. 2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division.
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the “Commission”), is the agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title VII, and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Section 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3). 4. At all relevant times, Defendant, Rooms to Go Inc., has continuously been a Florida corporation doing business in the State of Florida and the City of.Seffner, and has continuously had at least 15 employees. 5. At all relevant times, Defendant, R.T.G. Furniture Corp., has continuously been a Florida corporation doing business in the State of Florida and the City of Seffner, and has continuously had at least 15 employees. Rooms to Go, Inc. and R.T.G. Furniture Corp. are referred to herein as “Employers.”
2

Case 8:04-cv-02155-SCB-TBM Document 26 Filed 08/24/2005 Page 3 of 7
6. At all relevant times, Defendant Rooms to Go, Inc. has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701(b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§2000e(b), (g) and (h).
7. At all relevant times, Defendant R.T.G. Furniture Corp. has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701(b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§2000e(b), (g) and (h).
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 8. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Ms. Shelton and Ms. Young filed charges with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by the Defendant Employers. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled. 9. Since at least July of 1995, Defendant Employers have engaged in unlawful employment practices at its Seffner, Florida, location in violation of Section 703(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-2(a).
a. Tanya Young-Morrison was subjected to sexual harassment by a management official of the Defendant Employers in the form of unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature which was sufficiently severe and pervasive to constitute a hostile, intimidating work environment. The harassment included, but was not limited to, suggestions that she perform sexual acts on him or reveal parts of her body to him, touching her breasts and buttocks, making comments regarding her breasts, referring to her by derogatory sexual names and making vulgar sexual comments in her presence regarding female customers.
3

Case 8:04-cv-02155-SCB-TBM Document 26 Filed 08/24/2005 Page 4 of 7
b. Tammy Shelton-Leigh was subjected to sexual and racial harassment by management officials and coworkers of the Defendant Employers in the form of unwelcome conduct of a sexual and racial nature which was sufficiently severe and pervasive to constitute a hostile, intimidating work environment. The harassment included, but was not limited to, a management official suggesting that she perform sexual acts on him, making comments about her breasts, referring to her and female customers by derogatory sexual names, recounting sexual encounters with a Black female, referring to her as “Black Bitch,” and making racially offensive remarks to her regarding Black individuals and the fact that she was married to a White male. The harassment also included management and coworkers making racially offensive comments and using racial epithets such as “nigger” to refer to minority customers in her presence.
c. Other similarly situated individuals were subjected to sexual and/or racial harassment by the Defendants.
d. Ms. Young and Ms. Shelton complained of the unlawful harassment to which they were being subjected, but Defendants failed to take prompt, corrective action.
10. The effect of the conduct complained of in paragraph nine (9) above has been to deprive Ms. Shelton, Ms. Young and other similarly situated individuals of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees because of their sex and/or race.
4

Case 8:04-cv-02155-SCB-TBM Document 26 Filed 08/24/2005 Page 5 of 7
11. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph nine (9) above were intentional.
12. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph nine (9) above were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Ms. Shelton, Ms. Young and any other similarly situated individuals.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant Employers, their officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with Defendants, from engaging in sexual and/or racial harassment and any other employment practice which discriminates on the basis of sex and/or race. B. Order Defendant Employers, to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for employees regardless of sex or race and which eradicate the effects of its past unlawful employment practices. C. Order Defendant Employers to make whole Ms. Shelton, Ms. Young and any other similarly situated individuals by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described in paragraph nine (9) above, including out of pocket losses in amounts to be determined at trial. D. Order Defendant Employers to make whole Ms. Shelton, Ms. Young and any other similarly situated individuals by providing compensation for past and future nonpecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices complained of in paragraph nine (9) above, including emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, humiliation, and loss of enjoyment of life, in amounts to be determined at trial.
5

Case 8:04-cv-02155-SCB-TBM Document 26 Filed 08/24/2005 Page 6 of 7
E. Order Defendant Employers to pay Ms. Shelton, Ms. Young and any other
similarly situated individuals punitive damages for their malicious and reckless conduct
described in paragraph nine (9) above, in amounts to be determined at trial.
F. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public
interest.
G. Award the Commission its costs in this action.
JURY TRIAL DEMAND
The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its complaint.
Dated: August 24, 2005.
Respectfully Submitted,
ERIC DRIEBAND General Counsel
JAMES LEE Deputy General Counsel
GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel
DELNER FRANKLIN THOMAS Regional Attorney
s/ Muslima Lewis______________ MUSLIMA LEWIS Trial Attorney Florida Bar No.0158305 UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower, Suite 2700 Two Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131 Tel. (305) 536-6001 Main Fax (305) 536-4494 E-mail: Muslima.Lewis@eeoc.gov
6

Case 8:04-cv-02155-SCB-TBM Document 26 Filed 08/24/2005 Page 7 of 7
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on August 24, 2005, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court by using the CM/ECF system which will send a notice of electronic filing to the following: Richard C. McCrea, Jr., Esq., Zinober & McCrea, P.A., 201 E. Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 800, Tampa, FL 33602; Cally E. Catania, Esq., Cally E. Catania, P.A., 13336 North Central Avenue, Tampa, FL 33612; Mark Rodriguez, Esq,. Mark Rodriguez, P.A., 501 E. Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1200, Tampa, FL 33602.
s/ Muslima Lewis_________________________ MUSLIMA LEWIS Trial Attorney
7

 
 Case 8:04-cv-02155-SCB-TBM Document 32 Filed 10/07/2005 Page 1 of 6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION

UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,

CIVIL ACTION NO. 8:04-cv-2155-T-24-TBM

and

TAMMY LEIGH and TANYA MORRISON,

Plaintiff-Intervenors,

v.

ROOMS TO GO, INC. and R.T.G. FURNITURE CORP.,

Defendants. __________________________________________

PLAINTIFF-INTERVENORS’ AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff-Intervenors, Tammy Leigh (“Ms. Leigh”) and Tanya Morrison (“Ms.

Morrison”) (collectively “Intervenors”), by and through undersigned counsel, sue

Defendants, ROOMS TO GO, INC. and R.T.G. FURNITIRE CORP. (collectively

“Employers”), alleging unlawful employment practices and demand a trial by jury on all

issues so triable. In support of their claims for relief, Intervenors allege as follows:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

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

1337, 1343(a)(4), and 1367. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Section

706(f) and (3) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §

Case 8:04-cv-02155-SCB-TBM Document 32 Filed 10/07/2005 Page 2 of 6
2000e-5(f)(1) and (3) (“Title VII”), Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. §1981A, and the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992.
2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division.
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the “EEOC”), is the agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title VII, and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Section 706 (f) (1) and (3) of Title VII, 42. U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f). 4. At all relevant times, Defendant, Rooms to Go, Inc., has continuously been a Florida corporation doing business in the State of Florida and the City of Seffner, and has continuously had at least 15 employees. 5. At all relevant times, Defendant, R.T.G. Furniture Corp., has continuously been a Florida corporation doing business in the State of Florida and the City of Seffner, and has continuously had at least 15 employees. 6. At all relevant times, Defendant, Rooms to Go, Inc., has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701(b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§2000e(b), (g) and (h). 7. At all relevant times, Defendant, R.T.G. Furniture Corp., has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701(b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§2000e(b), (g) and (h).

Case 8:04-cv-02155-SCB-TBM Document 32 Filed 10/07/2005 Page 3 of 6
8. At all relevant times, Ms. Leigh and Ms. Morrison have been citizens of the State of Florida, and residents of Hillsborough County. They are both former employees of Defendant Employers and are “employees” as defined by Title VII and the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992.
COUNT I: TITLE VII CLAIMS 9. Intervenors incorporate by reference the allegations stated in ¶¶ 8-12 of the Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff, EEOC. 10. As a result of Defendant Employers unlawful conduct, Intervenors have experienced humiliation, suffering, mental anguish, pain, anxiety, embarrassment, inconvenience, and loss of income. 11. Intervenors have complied with all conditions precedent to bringing suit. 12. Intervenors have retained the undersigned attorneys and have agreed to pay them a reasonable fee. WHEREFORE, Ms. Leigh and Ms. Morrison pray for the following relief: (a) a jury trial on all issues; (b) judgment against Defendant Employers and for Intervenors awarding compensatory damages and punitive damages against Defendant Employers for their violations of law enumerated herein; (c) judgment against Defendant Employers and for Intervenors permanently enjoining Defendant Employers from future violations of law enumerated herein and remedying all lost income, raises, promotions, and other benefits of which Intervenors were unlawfully deprived;

Case 8:04-cv-02155-SCB-TBM Document 32 Filed 10/07/2005 Page 4 of 6
(d) reinstatement of Intervenors to positions comparable to positions they should have held with Defendant Employers absent the unlawful discrimination enumerated herein or, in the alternative, front pay;
(e) prejudgment interest on all monetary recovery obtained; (f) judgment against Defendant Employers and for Intervenors awarding their attorneys’ fees and costs; and (g) such further relief as is equitable and just.
COUNT II: FLORIDA CIVIL RIGHTS ACT CLAIMS 13. Intervenors incorporate by reference the allegations stated in ¶¶ 8-12 of the Complaint filed by Plaintiff, EEOC. 14. The practices complained of in ¶¶ 9-12 of the Complaint filed by Plaintiff, EEOC constitute unlawful sex discrimination in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992. 15. As a result of the Defendant Employers’ unlawful conduct, Intervenors have experienced humiliation, suffering, mental anguish, pain, anxiety, embarrassment, inconvenience, and loss of income. 16. Intervenors have complied with all conditions precedent to bringing suit. 17. Intervenors have retained the undersigned attorneys and have agreed to pay them a fee. WHEREFORE, Intervenors pray for the following relief: (a) a jury trial on all issues;

Case 8:04-cv-02155-SCB-TBM Document 32 Filed 10/07/2005 Page 5 of 6

(b) judgment against Defendant Employers and for Intervenors awarding

compensatory damages and punitive damages against Defendant Employers for their

violations of law enumerated herein;

(c) judgment against Defendant Employers and for Intervenors permanently

enjoining Defendant Employers from future violations of law enumerated herein and

remedying all lost income, raises, promotions, and other benefits of which Intervenors

were unlawfully deprived;

(d) reinstatement of Intervenors to positions comparable to positions they

should have held with Defendant Employers absent the unlawful discrimination

enumerated herein or, in the alternative, front pay;

(e) prejudgment interest on all monetary recovery obtained;

(f) judgment against Defendant Employers and for Intervenors awarding their

attorneys’ fees and costs; and

(g) such further relief as is equitable and just.

Dated: October 7, 2005

Respectfully Submitted,

s/Cally Catania__________ CALLY CATANIA Florida Bar Number: 773506 Cally E. Catania, P.A. 13336 N. Central Avenue Tampa, FL 33612 Telephone: (813) 964-8878 Callycat@tampabay.rr.com Co-Counsel for Plaintiff-Intervenors

Case 8:04-cv-02155-SCB-TBM Document 32 Filed 10/07/2005 Page 6 of 6
s/Mark G. Rodriguez_______ MARK G. RODRIGUEZ Florida Bar Number: 769060 Mark G. Rodriguez, P.A. 501 E. Kennedy Blvd., Ste. 1200 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 227-9642 mgrlaw@tampabay.rr.com Co-Counsel for Plaintiff Intervenors
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on October 7, 2005, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court by using the CM/ECF system which will send a notice of electronic filing to the following: Richard C. McCrea, Jr., Esq., and Nancy A. Chad, Esq., Zinober & McCrea, P.A., P.O. Box 1378, Tampa, FL 33601-1378 and Muslima Lewis, Esquire, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Miami District Office, One Biscayne Tower, Suite 2700, Two Biscayne Boulevard, Miami, Florida 33131 .
s/Cally Catania___________ Cally Catania, Esq.

 
 Case 8:04-cv-02155-SCB-TBM Document 114 Filed 05/16/2006 Page 1 of 14 C a s e 8:04-cv-O2155-SCB-TBM Document 112-2 Filed 0511612006 Page 1 of 14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

Plaintiff, And

CIVIL ACTION NO. 8:04-CV-2 155-T24-TBM

TAMMY SHELTON-LEIGH And TANYA YOUNG-MORRISON,

Plaintiff Intervenors,

v.

R.T.G. FURNITURE CORP..

Defendant. 1

CONSENT DECREE

1. This Consent Decree is entered into by and between Plaintiff, the United States Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission (hereinafter referred to as the commission^' or

"EEOC"), Tammy Shelton-Leigh and Tanya Young-Morrison (hereinafter referred to as

"Plaintiff-Intervenors" or "Ms. Leigh and Ms. Morrison"), and R.T.G. Furniture Corp.

(hereinafter referred to as "Defendant"). The Commission, Plaintiff-Intervenors, and

Defendant are collectively referred to as the "Parties."

2. The Commission filed this action on September 29, 2004, under Title VII of the Civil

Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII") and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991. The EEOC

Complaint alleged that Plaintiff-Intervenors were subjected to unlawful sexual and racial

Case 8:04-cv-02155-SCB-TBM Document 114 Filed 05/16/2006 Page 2 of 14 Case 8:04-cv-O2155-SCB-TBM Document 112-2 Filed 0511612006 Page 2 of 14
harassment and that the harassment was sufficiently severe and pervasive to constitute a hostile, intimidating work environment. 3. The Court granted Plaintiff-Intervenors' Motion to Intervene in this action. Like the EEOC, the Plaintiff-Intervenors alleged that Defendant violated Title VII and Title I. Plaintiff-Intervenors' Complaint also alleged that Defendant violated the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, Fla. Stat. @760.01, et seq. ("FCRA"). Defendant filed Answers denying the claims made by the EEOC and Intervenor Plainitiffs. 4. Execution of this Decree does not constitute an admission by the Defendant that it has violated any law, statute, rule, regulation or ordinance of the United States, the State of Florida, or any county or municipality. or that it has breached any of its policies or practices. 5. In the interest of resolving this matter, to avoid the costs of litigation. and as a result of having engaged in comprehensive settlement negotiations, the Parties have agreed that this action should be finally resolved by the entry of this Decree. This Decree is final and binding upon the Parties. their successors and assigns. 6. The Parties agree that this Decree resolves all the claims against Defendant alleged in EEOC Charge Numbers 151 2002 01406, 151 2002 01407, and 151 2003 01532 and Civil Action number 8:04-CV-2 155-T24-TBM. The Parties further agree that this Decree does not resolve any Charges of Discrimination that may be pending with the EEOC other than the charges referred to in this paragraph.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Court having carefully examined the terms and provisions of

Case 8:04-cv-02155-SCB-TBM Document 114 Filed 05/16/2006 Page 3 of 14 Case 8:04-cv-OZI55-SCB-TBM Document 112-2 Filed O5/l6/2OO6 Page 3 of 14
this Consent Decree, and based on the pleadings filed by the parties, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED THAT:
I. JURISDICTlON OVER DECREE This Court has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this action and over the Parties for the purposes of entering and enforcing this Decree. No party shall contest the jurisdiction of this Federal Court to enforce this Decree and its terms or the right of the EEOC to bring an enforcement suit upon alleged breach of any terms of this Decree.
11. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Paragraphs 10 through 22, below. shall apply to Defendant's Clearance Centers in the State of Florida (referred to as "Defendant's facilities"). The Defendant and its successors and assigns are enjoined from engaging in any conduct which violates Title VII by adversely affecting the terms and conditions of any individual's employment in Defendant's facilities by creating a hostile work environment based on sex and/or race. The Defendant and its successors and assigns are enjoined from engaging in any conduct which violates Title VII by adversely affecting the terms and conditions of any individual's employment in Defendant's facilities because such individual has (i) opposed a hostile work environment based on sex or race which the individual reasonably believed, in good faith, was unlawful under Title VII, (ii) filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC alleging a hostile work environment based on sex or race, (iii) cooperated with the EEOC in the investigation and/or prosecution of any charge of

Case 8:04-cv-02155-SCB-TBM Document 114 Filed 05/16/2006 Page 4 of 14 Case 8:04-cv-O2155-SCB-TBM Document 112-2 Filed 05/16/2006 Page 4 of 14
discrimination alleging a hostile work environment based on sex and/or race under Title VII, or (iv) has offered testimony or information in the above-styled litigation which resulted in this Consent Decree. 12. Prior to instituting any action against Defendant for an alleged breach of paragraphs 10 and/or 11, the EEOC shall provide written notice to Defendant of its belief that a breach has occurred and give Defendant 45 days to cure the alleged breach. Such written notice shall be provided, via certified mail or overnight delivery, to J. Michael Kettle, General Counsel, at 400 Perimeter Center Terrace, Suite 800, Atlanta, Ga. 30346.
111. DEVELOPMENT OF POLICES AND TRAINING 13. Defendant has revised its written anti-harassment policy. Defendant agrees to provide
EEOC with a copy of that policy within 14 days of the execution of this Decree and to distribute the Anti-Harassment Policy to all its current employees in Defendant's facilities within thirty (30) days of the entry of this Decree. Defendant further agrees that during the term of this Decree, all new employees in Defendant's facilities will be provided a copy of the Anti-Harassment Policy within one (1) week of employment. 14. In order to further ensure the effective implementation of Defendant's anti-discrimination policies, Defendant will conduct an annual four (4) hour training session throughout the duration of this Decree for all managers and supervisory personnel in Defendant's facilities. The training sessions will be conducted by Zinober & McCrea and will focus on the prevention of sex and race discrimination in the workplace, with specific emphasis on recognizing sex and/or race harassment, and the proper procedure to be followed if

Case 8:04-cv-02155-SCB-TBM Document 114 Filed 05/16/2006 Page 5 of 14 Case 8:04-cv-O2155-SCB-TBM Document 112-2 Filed O5/l 612006 Page 5 of 14
management personnel become aware of sex and/or race discrimination in the workplace and/or if they receive a complaint of such discrimination for complaining about sex and/or race harassment. 15. Defendant agrees to provide the EEOC with at least two (2) weeks notice before it conducts its training session(s), the date(s) and location(s) of the training, the identification of the training materials to be used at the training session, and the name and job title of the employees who will be in attendance at the training. The Monitor, described in paragraph 20, below, may, at his or her discretion and with advance notice to Zinober & McCrea, be in attendance at the training. 16. Defendant agrees that the training described in paragraph 14 shall be conducted by September 30, 2006, and, should thereafter take place by September 3othannually for the duration of this Decree. Defendant further agrees that all new managers and supervisors, who did not attend the annual training, will be instructed as to the Defendant's policies and procedures within 30 days of hire or placement in the supervisory or management position and will sign an acknowledgment of such instruction. The acknowledgment of instruction will be provided to the EEOC within 30 days of completion of instruction. 17. Defendant agrees that the Store and Regional Managers who supervised PlaintiffIntervenors at the Seffner Clearance Center will be given a copy of Defendant's AntiHarassment Policy within 30 days of the execution of this Decree. Defendant shall require these managers to sign a document acknowledging that they have received the policy, been reminded of their obligation to follow the policy and agree to abide by same. The document shall also indicate each manager's understanding that any violation of the

Case 8:04-cv-02155-SCB-TBM Document 114 Filed 05/16/2006 Page 6 of 14 Case 8:04-cv-O2155-SCB-TBM Document 112-2 Filed 05/16/2006 Page 6 of 14
policy could result in discipline up to and including termination and the document shall be placed in each manager's respective personnel file. Defendant shall provide EEOC a copy of the acknowledgment.
IV. POSTING 18. The Defendant will post within seven (7) days from the Court's execution of this Decree,
a laminated 1I " x 14" sized copy of the Notice attached hereto as Exhibit A. Said notice shall be posted at each of Defendant's facilities and shall remain posted for the duration of this Decree in conspicuous locations accessible to all employees (i.e. employee bulletin board or lunch room).
V. REPORTING AND MONITORING 19. Within ten (10) days after the completion of each training session described in paragraph
14 above, the Defendant will provide the EEOC with a letter (the "Training Report") confirming that the training took place as agreed in this Decree. 20. Defendant shall retain Robert McKee (hereinafter "Monitor") to monitor complaints of sexual or racial harassment at Defendant's facilities. Defendant will incur all reasonable costs associated with the Monitor. 21. Throughout the duration of this Decree, the Monitor will be apprised of each complaint of racial and/or sexual harassment at Defendant's facilities, the identity of the individual making the complaint, and the actions taken by Defendant in response to the complaint. The Monitor will provide the EEOC every six (6) months with the facts and

Case 8:04-cv-02155-SCB-TBM Document 114 Filed 05/16/2006 Page 7 of 14 C a s e 8:04-cv-O2155-SCB-TBM Document 112-2 Filed 0511612006 Page 7 of 1 4
circumstances relating to any employee's complaint received by a ManagerISupervisor, Human Resources Department, or any other company official that he or she has been subjected to sexual or racial harassment while working at any of Defendant's facilities during the preceding six (6) months. Monitor will also state the actions taken by Defendant in response to each such allegation. The first report shall be submitted no later than November 1, 2006, and thereafter every six (6) months throughout the duration of this Decree. The Defendant will provide upon request by the Monitor any and all documentation associated with each such complaint. 22. Defendant will certify to the EEOC every six (6) months throughout the duration of this Decree that it is in compliance with all aspects of this Decree. The first such certification will be due no later than November 1, 2006. and thereafter every six (6) months throughout the duration of this Decree. Unless indicated otherwise hereinafter, all reports and documents required to be delivered by the Defendant to the EEOC pursuant to this Consent Decree shall be mailed or sent by overnight courier to: United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Attention: Office of the Regional Attorney, One Biscayne Tower, 2 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 2700, Miami, Florida 33 131.
VI. MONETARY RELIEF 23. Defendant agrees to pay a total amount of $275,000.00 (two hundred seventy-five
thousand dollars) to resolve this litigation. The monies referenced herein shall issue within ten calendar days from the court's execution of this Decree. The monies shall be

Case 8:04-cv-02155-SCB-TBM Document 114 Filed 05/16/2006 Page 8 of 14 C a s e 8:04-cv-O2155-SCB-TBM Document 112-2 Filed 0511612006 Page 8 of 1 4
distributed as set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto. 24. If Defendant fails to tender the above-mentioned payments as set forth in paragraph 23
and attached Exhibit B, then Defendant shall pay interest on the defaulted payment at the rate calculated pursuant to 26 U.S.C. Section 6621(b) until the same is paid, and bear any additional costs incurred by the EEOC caused by Defendant's non-compliance.
VIII. ENFORCEMENT 25. The Commission shall have independent authority to seek judicial enforcement of each
aspect, term, provision and attachment of this Decree.
IX. COSTS 26. Except to the extent agreed otherwise, each Party shall bear her or its own costs and
attorneys' fees associated with this litigation.
X. DURATION OF CONSENT DECREE; CASE CLOSURE 27. The duration of this Decree shall be three (3) years from the date of entry of the Decree
and will expire on that date without further action of the Court or parties.

Case 8:04-cv-02155-SCB-TBM Document 114 Filed 05/16/2006 Page 9 of 14 Case 8:04-cv-O2155-SCB-TBM Document 112-2 Filed 0511612006 Page 9 of 14
8- SO ORDERED ADJUDGED AND DECREED, this L d a y of May 2006
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 8:04-cv-02155-SCB-TBM Document 114 Filed 05/16/2006 Page 10 of 14 C a s e ~ : O ~ - C V - O ~ I ~ ~ - S C B - TDBocMument 112-2 Filed 0511612006 P a g e 1 0 of 1 4

AGREED TO: FOR THE PLAINTIFF, UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

by: Is/ Delner Franklin-Thomas

Date: May 15,2006

Delner Franklin-Thomas, Esquire

Regional Attorney

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Miami District Office

One Biscayne Tower. Suite 2700

2 South Biscayne Boulevard

Miami. Florida 3313 1

AGREED TO: FOR THE PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR TAMMY SHELTON-LEIGH

by: Is/ Mark Rodriguez Mark Rodriguez, Esq. Mark Rodriguez, P.A. 501 E. Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1200 Tampa, FL 33602
and
by: Is/ Cally Catania Cally Catania, Esq. Cally Catania, P.A. 13336 North Central Avenue Tampa, FL 33612

Date: May 15,2006

AGREED TO: FOR THE PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR TANYA YOUNG-MORRISON

by: Is/ Mark Rodriguez Mark Rodriguez, Esq.

Date: May 15, 2006

Case 8:04-cv-02155-SCB-TBM Document 114 Filed 05/16/2006 Page 11 of 14 Case 8:04-cv-O2155-SCB-TBM Document 112-2 Filed O5/l6/2OO6 Page 11 of 14

Mark Rodriguez, P.A. 501 E. Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1200 Tampa, FL 33602
and
by: /s/ Cally Catania Cally Catania, Esq. Cally Catania, P.A. 13336 North Central Avenue Tampa, FL 33612
AGREED TO: FOR THE DEFENDANT RTG FURNITURE CORP.
by: 1st Richard C. McCrea. Jr. Richard C. McCrea, Jr., Esq., Zinober & McCrea, P.A., 201 E. Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 800 Tampa, FL 33602

Date: May 15, 2006

Case 8:04-cv-02155-SCB-TBM Document 114 Filed 05/16/2006 Page 12 of 14 Case 8:04-cv-O2155-SCB-TBM Document 112-2 Filed 05/16/2006 Page 1 2 of 1 4
EXHIBIT A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES POSTED PURSUANT TO A CONSENT DECREE BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
AND R.T.G. FURNITURE CORP.
This notice is being posted pursuant to a Consent Decree entered by the Court in EEOC et al. vs. R.T.G. Furniture Corp.. Civil Action No. 8:04-cv-2155-T24-TBM. R.T.G. Furniture Corp., has a policy that prohibits discrimination against employees based on sex and race in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"). Title VII protects individuals from employment discrimination because of their race, religion, color, national origin, or sex. Title VII also protects individuals from retaliation for having complained of an unlawful employment practice. R.T.G. Furniture Corp.. will not condone employment discrimination of any kind as set forth in federal anti-discrimination laws, including, but not limited to, sex and race discrimination.
R.T.G. Furniture Corp. assures its employees that it is committed to abiding by Title VII and will not take any action against an individual because helshe has exercised hislher rights under the law to oppose discriminatory acts or to file charges with the EEOC. Appropriate corrective action, up to and including termination, based upon the circumstances involved, shall be taken against any employee (including management personnel) found to have violated R.T.G. Furniture Corp.'s policy prohibiting discrimination.

Case 8:04-cv-02155-SCB-TBM Document 114 Filed 05/16/2006 Page 13 of 14 C a s e 8:04-cv-O2I 55-SCB-TBM Document 112-2 Filed O W 6/2OO6 Page 1 3 of 1 4
This notice shall remain posted for three (3) years from the date the Decree is entered. Employees or applicants for employment who have questions about their rights under Title VII or any other federal anti-discrimination law may telephone J. Michael Kettle, General Counsel, at (678) 475-0499 or the Miami District Office of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission at (800) 669-4000.

Signed this -day of

,2006.

J. MICHAEL KETTLE, GENERAL COUNSEL on behalf of R.T.G. Furniture Corp.,

DO NOT REMOVE BEFORE

,2009

Case 8:04-cv-02155-SCB-TBM Document 114 Filed 05/16/2006 Page 14 of 14 Case 8:04-cv-O2155-SCB-TBM Document 112-2 Filed 0511612006 Page 1 4 of 14
EXHIBIT B
Defendant shall pay the total sum of $275,000.00 to resolve Civil Action No. 8:04-CV-2155T24-TBM. The monies shall be distributed as follows:
(A) Defendant will pay Tammy Leigh $1 10,000.00 which shall be representative of compensatory damages. The check shall be made payable to: Tammy Leigh and Cally E. Catania. P.A. Trust Acct. and forwarded to Cally Catania at 13336 North Central Avenue. Tampa, Florida 33612. Defendant will issue a form 1099 to Ms. Leigh substantiating the amount of the check.
(B) Defendant shall pay Tanya Morrison $1 10.000.00 which shall be representative of compensatory damages. The check shall be made payable to: Tanya Morrison and Cally E. Catania, P.A. Trust Acct. and forwarded to Cally Catania at 13336 North Central Avenue, Tampa, Florida 33612. Defendant will issue a form 1099 to Ms. Morrison substantiating the amount of the check.
(C) Defendant shall pay $27,500 to Cally Catania, P.A. and $27,500 to Mark Rodriguez, P.A. in attorneys' fees. Defendant will issue a form 1099 to each substantiating the amount of the check.
The payments referenced herein shall issue within ten (10) calendar days from the Court's execution of this Decree. Copies of the payment shall be forwarded to the attention of Michael Wells, Trial Attorney, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 501 Polk Street, Suite 1000, Tampa, FL 33602.

 
 Case 8:04-cv-02155-SCB-TBM Document 43 Filed 12/02/2005 Page 1 of 7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
TAMMY SHELTON-LEIGH and TANYA YOUNG-MORRISON
Plaintiff Intervenors,
v.
ROOMS TO GO, INC., and R.T.G. FURNITURE CORP.,1
Defendants. /

Case No. 8:04-cv-2155-T-24TBM

O R D E R THIS MATTER is before the court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Complete Discovery Responses or, in the Alternative, to Strike Defendants’ Sixth Affirmative Defense (Doc. 35). By its motion, the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission seeks an Order, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37, compelling Defendants to provide complete responses to its First Request for Production of Documents and First Set of Interrogatories as each relate to Defendants’ financial condition and internal investigation of

1On August 24, 2005, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint adding R.T.G. Furniture Corp. as a defendant in this action after being informed by opposing counsel that the Plaintiff Intervenors had been employed by R.T.G. Furniture Corp., not Rooms to Go, Inc.

Case 8:04-cv-02155-SCB-TBM Document 43 Filed 12/02/2005 Page 2 of 7
the Plaintiff Intervenors’ internal complaints of discrimination.2 Defendant Rooms to Go, Inc., filed a response in opposition (Doc. 40).3
Here, the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (hereinafter “EEOC” or “Plaintiff”) brings this action alleging that management and non-management officials of the Defendants subjected the Plaintiff Intervenors and other similarly situated individuals to harassment based on sex and/or race, which was sufficiently severe and pervasive to constitute a hostile, intimidating work environment, pursuant to Section 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3), and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981A.4 Tammy Shelton-Leigh and Tanya Young-Morrison filed an Amended Complaint in Intervention alleging identical claims, as well as claims under the Florida Civil Rights Act. (Doc. 32).
By its instant motion, Plaintiff seeks to compel information and documents pertaining to Defendants’ finances and investigation of the Plaintiff Intervenors’ internal complaints and
2According to Plaintiff, these discovery requests were propounded on March 8, 2005, and Defendants responded to the interrogatories on April 27, 2005, and to the document request in May, June and July 2005. (Doc. 35 at 3). Plaintiff does not explain why it waited some five months to file its instant motion to compel. Of note, the discovery cut-off in this cause was November 18, 2005. See (Doc. 16).
3Because the discovery requests at issue were directed toward Rooms to Go, Inc., it is the Defendants’ position that Plaintiff’s instant motion seeks to compel discovery from a company that never employed the Plaintiff Intervenors and therefore the requests at issue are not relevant. At present, both Rooms to Go, Inc., and R.T.G. Furniture Corp. are Defendants and the court addresses the motion as to both. Given the court’s ruling on this motion, it is unnecessary to determine which is the appropriate Defendant or whether both are.
4The allegations with respect to Ms. Morrison allege only sexual harassment. Am. Compl. (Doc. 26, ¶ 9(a)).
2

Case 8:04-cv-02155-SCB-TBM Document 43 Filed 12/02/2005 Page 3 of 7
charges. Specifically, Plaintiff seeks information and documents in response to the following
requests to which the Defendants previously objected:
Document Request 1-10. Please provide copies of Defendants’ audited (or unaudited if audited are unavailable) financial statements, balance sheets, and any documents showing the reserves, assets and net worth of Defendant for each fiscal or calendar year from January 1, 2000, through the present.
*** Interrogatory 1-9. Please list Defendants’ gross annual sales, gross annual revenue, net income, and net annual profit for each fiscal year since January 1, 2000, including the fiscal year which contains the date January 1, 2000, and identify the dates that comprise Defendants’ fiscal year.
*** Interrogatory No. 1-5. Please identify any and all documents and recorded materials (including, but not limited to, transcripts, tapes, videos, personnel records and files, notes, memoranda, letters to or from supervisors, supervisors’ notes, documents regarding separation and/or termination from employment, disciplinary files and/or any other employment information contained in a file of any type, etc.) pertaining or relating in any way to any interviews and/or investigations into any sexual and/or racial harassment allegations by Tanya Young Morrison, Tammy Shelton Leigh and any other individuals employed at Defendants’ Seffner, Florida, location during the period January 1, 1995, to present.
*** Document Request 1-5. Please provide any and all documents referring to, recording, evidencing, or reflecting interviews, statements, or transcripts of statements of all persons interviewed in connection with this action.
As to the financial discovery sought, Plaintiff argues that Defendants’ financial condition is
directly related to its claim for punitive damages and is therefore relevant and subject to
disclosure during discovery. Regarding the information sought relating to Defendants’
investigations of the Plaintiff Intervenors’ charges of discrimination, Plaintiff argues that
information is relevant to whether Defendants can prove their Sixth Affirmative Defense,
3

Case 8:04-cv-02155-SCB-TBM Document 43 Filed 12/02/2005 Page 4 of 7
which requires, among other things, that Defendants promptly and effectively investigated the
complaints of harassment.5 Plaintiff argues that, contrary to Defendants’ assertion, this
discovery is not protected from disclosure by the work product privilege, and even assuming
that it is, Defendants waived the privilege by asserting their Sixth Affirmative Defense.
Relying primarily on Walker v. County of Contra Costa, 227 F.R.D. 529 (N.D. Cal. 2005) and
EEOC v. Kronberg Bagel Co. d/b/a Bakin’ Bagels, Case No. 2:00-cv-409-FtM-29DNF (M.D.
Fla. Oct. 31, 2001), Plaintiff argues that the Defendants should be required to disclose all
documents or information relating to their investigation, both before and after the charges
were filed, with the exception of information and documents reflecting legal analysis or
opinions.6 Plaintiff argues further that it has a substantial need for this information since it
cannot meaningfully address Defendants’ Sixth Affirmative Defense without it, it has no
other means to obtain this information, and it would be prejudiced if Defendants used this
information at trial never having produced it to Plaintiff.
5By their Sixth Affirmative Defense, Defendants allege they are “not liable for any conduct alleged in the Amended Complaint to the extent that [they] exercised reasonable care to prevent and/or correct promptly any harassing behavior, and the individuals on whose behalf the Amended Complaint is brought unreasonably failed to avoid harm and failed to avail themselves of [their] procedures and policies for reporting and investigating such conduct, which procedures provided an opportunity for prompt and effective remedial action to be taken by [them].” (Doc. 27 at 4).
6In light of the ruling in Bakin’ Bagels, Plaintiff has agreed to limit these requests as follows: (a) with respect to any investigation of a complaint of racial or sexual harassment that was made before [defendants] received notice that a charge of discrimination had been filed with an administrative agency, please provide all requested documents and information. Since these investigations clearly could not have been conducted in anticipation of litigation, no portion of the responsive information or documents is protected by the work product privilege; and (b) with respect to internal investigations conducted by [defendants] in response to the filing of an administrative charge of discrimination, produce all requested information and portions of documents redacted to exclude the investigator’s conclusions. (Doc. 35 at 13).
4

Case 8:04-cv-02155-SCB-TBM Document 43 Filed 12/02/2005 Page 5 of 7
Defendants urge the court to deny the motion in its entirety, arguing that Plaintiff does not need their financial information in order to submit a punitive damages request to a jury, punitive damages are capped at $300,000, and they already have disclosed to Plaintiff their insurance coverage which indemnifies them against punitive damages awards and verifies adequate coverage to cover any judgment entered in this case. Defendants also argue that the requested financial information is confidential and proprietary, and they submit the affidavit of their general counsel in support thereof.7 Defendants argue further that this information should not be ordered disclosed because Plaintiff’s request for punitive damages is factually unfounded. As for their investigative reports, Defendants argue that they do not rely on the investigative file as the basis for their Sixth Affirmative Defense. As such, they argue that the work product privilege protects these reports from disclosure, they have not waived that privilege, and Plaintiff cannot defeat the privilege because the materials were prepared in anticipation of litigation as evidenced by the fact that the investigation was initiated upon the direction of their attorney after the EEOC charges were filed. Defendants argue further that the investigation reports contain and reflect conclusions and opinions and are thus immune from discovery, and to the extent the reports constitute fact work product, Plaintiff has not shown that it has been unable to obtain the equivalent information elsewhere.
Upon consideration, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Complete Discovery Responses or, in the Alternative, to Strike Defendants’ Sixth Affirmative Defense (Doc. 35) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Initially, the court finds that discovery requests
7To the extent that Plaintiff’s concern relates to Defendants’ ability to pay a judgment, Defendants are willing to secure a bond or letter of credit for that purpose in lieu of disclosing their financial information. Aff. of J. Michael Kettle (Doc. 40, Ex. 1 at ¶ 9).
5

Case 8:04-cv-02155-SCB-TBM Document 43 Filed 12/02/2005 Page 6 of 7
pertaining to Defendants’ finances (Request No. 1-10 and Interrogatory No. 1-9) are overly broad. In addition, while financial information such as a simple balance sheet is relevant to a claim of punitive damages in a Title VII case, see E.E.O.C. v. Klockner H & K Machines, Inc., 168 F.R.D. 233, 235-36 (E.D. Wis. 1996), the court finds that disclosure of such at present is premature, see Bakin’ Bagels, Case No. 2:00-cv-409-Ft-M -29DNF. However, should the issue of punitive damages survive summary judgment, Plaintiff shall be entitled to a verified disclosure of Defendants’ current net worth, subject to a protective order limiting such disclosure to use in these proceedings only.8 In regard to the investigative discovery requests, accepting defense counsels’ representations as true and accurate, the court finds that Defendants have not waived their right to the work product privilege because their Sixth Affirmative Defense does not rely on the investigation performed by Janet Gerow, their manager of Human Resources. Ms. Gerow’s investigation appears to have been conducted at the direction of Defendants’ general counsel and in anticipation of litigation. To the extent that the request seeks opinion work product, Plaintiff concedes it is not entitled to it. To the extent that Plaintiff seeks only fact work product, the court is not convinced by its pleadings that it has not obtained the equivalent of such information as may be within the investigative file through other investigative and discovery sources.9 In accordance with the provisions of
8It appears that the Plaintiff Intervenors were employed by R.T.G. Furniture Corp., and that any such disclosure would be due only for this corporation. However, should it develop that Rooms To Go, Inc., may also have liability in this suit as an employer, then it too should make such disclosure.
9This ruling assumes that the only internal investigation conducted by Defendants and in dispute here is that performed by Ms. Gerow. This is not entirely clear as the privilege log appended to Defendants’ response does identify “Investigation[s] of [Defendants’] Internal Complaint[s],” in addition to Ms. Gerow’s notes. As the parties recognize, an investigation conducted by Defendants on the Intervenors’ complaints prior to the initiation of the EEOC
6

Case 8:04-cv-02155-SCB-TBM Document 43 Filed 12/02/2005 Page 7 of 7
Rule 26 (b)(3), to the extent that Defendants have records documenting any complaints (oral or otherwise) of sexual and/or racial harassment made by the Plaintiff Intervenors, they shall disclose the same and produce a copy thereof or otherwise make it available for copying within fifteen (15) days of the date of this Order. In all other aspects, the motion is DENIED.10 Obviously, given the Defendants’ position on this motion, neither Defendant may assert at trial any part of Ms. Gerow’s investigation in support of their Sixth Affirmative Defense (or any other affirmative defense) unless such matters have been duly disclosed.
Done and Ordered in Tampa, Florida, this 2nd day of December 2005.
Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record
process or this suit would likely be discoverable regardless of the work product doctrine and the court assumes that discovery has occurred in relation to any other such investigations.
10Interrogatory 1-5 seeks the identity of documents pertaining to interviews and investigations into the complaints of the Intervenors “and any other individuals employed at Defendants’ Seffner, Florida, location during the period January 1, 1995, to present.” However, no complaint is made by the Plaintiff on this motion as to this part of the interrogatory and the court does not address it .
7

 
 U.S. E.E.O.C. v. Rooms to Go, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2006)
2006 WL 580990 United States District Court,
M.D. Florida. UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES COMMISSION, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. ROOMS TO GO, INC., et al., Defendants. No. 8:04CV2155T24TBM. | March 8, 2006.
Attorneys and Law Firms
Muslima Lewis, US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Miami, FL, Mark G. Rodriguez, Law Offices of Mark G. Rodriguez, P.A., Tampa, FL, Cally E. Catania, Tampa, FL, for Plaintiffs.
Nancy A. Chad, Richard C. McCrea, Jr., Zinober & McCrea, P.A., Tampa, FL, for Defendants.
Opinion
ORDER
BUCKLEW, J.
*1 This cause comes before the Court on Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. No. 45). Plaintiffs oppose the motion. (Doc. No. 72).
I. Standard of Review Summary judgment is appropriate “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). The moving party bears the initial burden of showing the Court, by reference to materials on file, that there are no genuine issues of material fact that should be decided at trial. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). A moving party discharges its burden on a motion for summary judgment by “showing” or “pointing out” to the Court that there is an absence of evidence to support the non-moving party’s case. Id. at 325.
When a moving party has discharged its burden, the non-moving party must then “go beyond the pleadings,” and by its own affidavits, or by “depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file,” designate specific facts showing there is a genuine issue for trial. Id. at 324. In determining whether the moving party has met its burden of establishing that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, the Court must draw inferences from the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-movant and resolve all reasonable doubts in that party’s favor. See Samples on behalf of Samples v. City of Atlanta, 846 F.2d 1328, 1330 (11th Cir.1988).
II. Background Plaintiffs (the EEOC, Tammy Leigh, and Tanya Morrison) filed suit against Defendants (Rooms to Go, Inc. and R.T.G. Furniture Corp.) for creating a sexually and racially hostile work environment. Morrison worked for R.T.G. Furniture Corp. (“RTG”) as a sales associate at the Seffner Clearance Center from July of 1995 through August of 2002.1 Leigh, an African-American woman, worked for RTG as a sales associate at the Seffner Clearance Center from May of 1998 through January of 2004. Throughout the time period relevant to this action, Morrison and Leigh reported directly to Thomas Smaldone, the Seffner Clearance Center Manager.
1

U.S. E.E.O.C. v. Rooms to Go, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2006)
Leigh contends that she was subjected to racial harassment at the Seffner Clearance Center by Smaldone, Regional Manager Ed Biard, and co-worker Phil Rogers. Specifically, Leigh contends that Smaldone referred to African-American customers as “your people,” “your kind,” and “your boys.” (Leigh depo, p. 86). Additionally, Smaldone would say that African-Americans “couldn’t have any money unless they were drug dealers or doing something illegal.” (Leigh depo, p. 86, 102). Smaldone told Leigh that Biard had commented on Leigh’s trip to Jamaica by saying that she went there to “do drugs, run around naked and F everybody.” (Leigh depo, p. 107).
Smaldone referred to African-American male employees as “Kunta Kinte” and “Sambo.” (Leigh depo, p. 107, 254, 309-10). Smaldone would refer to Leigh as a “black bitch” and “his token black.” (Leigh depo, p. 110, 117, 283). Leigh was told by a co-worker that Smaldone referred to her as “his little nigger girl” when he was at a manager’s meeting in Miami. (Leigh depo, p. 258-60). Leigh heard Smaldone refer to a broken table as “nig-rigged,” cutting himself off before saying the entire word, “nigger.” (Leigh depo, p. 254, 269).
*2 Smaldone hated interracial couples and referred to them as Oreos, Milanos, and zebras.2 (Leigh depo, p. 102, 117). However, Smaldone repeatedly told Leigh about his sexual experience with an African-American woman. (Leigh depo, p. 105-06).
Leigh contends that her co-worker, Rogers, did not like African-American people, and he had an intense hatred for her because she is African-American. (Leigh depo, p. 70-71, 115). Leigh contends that Rogers made racially offensive comments, but she did not hear all of the comments first-hand. (Leigh depo, p. 69). Rogers used the word “nigger” multiple times at the Seffner Clearance Center during the course of his employment. (Rogers depo, p. 74-75). Specifically, three or four times a year, someone would bring in jokes that would contain the word “nigger,” and Rogers and a majority of the salespeople would pass around the written jokes and recite the jokes verbally. (Rogers depo, p. 75-76). With equal frequency, Rogers and a majority of the salespeople would pass around and recite jokes of a sexual nature. (Rogers depo, p. 81).
Morrison also contends that Rogers made sexually offensive and racially offensive comments. (Morrison depo, p. 31, 59). Likewise, Morrison contends that Smaldone made sexually offensive and racially offensive comments on a continuous, almost daily basis and that Smaldone encouraged Rogers’ behavior by acting the same way. (Morrison depo, p. 31, 60, 66, 136, 155). Additionally, Morrison contends that Smaldone made references to her breasts, asked to see her breasts or asked for a blow job when she asked for price approval, and touched her breasts and buttocks on several occasions. (Morrison depo, p. 49, 60, 119, 136). Smaldone also referred to Morrison as a hooker, prostitute, sales whore, and bitch. (Morrison depo, p. 135).
There was an anti-harassment policy in place during Morrison and Leigh’s employment, and the 1996 version of the policy stated that complaints of harassment should be reported to the Human Resources department and that such complaints would only be accepted in writing. (Gerow affidavit, ¶ 12 & Ex. 1). The 1996 version of the anti-harassment policy remained in place until it was revised in 2002. (Gerow affidavit, ¶ 12). The 2002 version of the anti-harassment policy provides that any person experiencing or witnessing harassment “is urged to submit an internal complaint in writing pursuant to the Internal Complaint Procedure” to the Human Resources department. (Gerow affidavit, ¶ 12 & Ex. 2).
In January of 2001, Leigh and Morrison went together to see Linda Garcia, the Director of Human Resources. (Leigh depo, p. 65; Morrison depo, p. 59; Garcia depo, p. 18, 20). During this meeting, Morrison told Garcia that Rogers was racially offensive, that he used the word “nigger,” that he referred to African-Americans as “those people,” and that he was offensive and vulgar towards women. (Morrison depo, p. 59; Garcia depo, p. 49, 50). Morrison told Garcia that Smaldone encouraged Rogers’ behavior, because Smaldone was racially and sexually offensive on a daily basis. (Morrison depo, p. 60). Morrison also reported that Smaldone made references to her breasts, asked to see her breasts or asked for a blow job when she asked for price approval, and touched her breasts and buttocks on several occasions. (Morrison depo, p. 60).
*3 Leigh told Garcia that Smaldone exhibited sexually and racially offensive behavior towards her and that Smaldone referred to them as black bitch and white bitch. (Morrison depo, p. 66). Leigh told Garcia that Rogers did not like African-American people, and as a result, he had an intense hatred towards her. (Leigh depo, p. 70-71). Leigh also told Garcia that she did not hear first-hand all of the racially offensive comments that were made by Rogers. (Leigh depo, p. 69). Leigh told Garcia that Smaldone allowed the offensive racial comments and that he participated in making the comments. (Leigh depo, p. 71). Leigh told Garcia that Smaldone referred to women as hookers, whores, and prostitutes. (Leigh depo, p. 71).
Garcia told Leigh and Morrison that their complaints would be taken care of. (Leigh depo, p. 124). Garcia gave Morrison and Leigh an Internal Complaint Form to fill out. (Leigh depo, p. 74; Morrison depo, p. 68). However, neither Leigh nor
2

U.S. E.E.O.C. v. Rooms to Go, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2006)
Morrison filled out and submitted the form. (Leigh depo, p. 76; Morrison depo, p. 76). Garcia never told them that it was mandatory that they fill out the form regarding the alleged harassment. (Morrison depo, p. 74; Garcia depo, p. 66). Garcia gave Morrison the impression that Morrison and Leigh’s verbal complaints of harassment were sufficient to warrant an investigation into the allegations. (Morrison depo, p. 76). Garcia told Leigh that completing the written complaint form was optional and that she would look into their allegations and would handle it. (Leigh depo, p. 75, 81; Garcia depo, p. 67). However, Garcia did not interview Rogers or Smaldone regarding Leigh and Morrison’s complaints. (Garcia depo, p. 62-63).
In November of 2001, Morrison verbally reported Smaldone’s sexual harassment to Janet Gerow, the Human Resources Manager whose primary responsibilities included administering the anti-harassment policy for the Seffner Clearance Center. (Morrison depo, p. 98-100; Gerow depo, p. 18, 96). Specifically, Morrison told Gerow that Smaldone had been harassing her for a long time by doing such things as asking for blow jobs and asking to see her breasts. (Morrison depo, p. 99-100). Gerow did not investigate Morrison’s complaints. (Gerow depo, p. 46).
In early 2002, Leigh verbally reported Smaldone’s sexual and racial harassment to Gerow. (Leigh depo, p. 102-03). Specifically, Leigh told Gerow that Smaldone would ask for a blow job and to see her breasts when responding to a request for price approval. (Leigh depo, p. 102). Leigh also told Gerow that Smaldone would say that African-American people couldn’t have any money unless they were drug dealers or doing something illegal. (Leigh depo, p. 102). Additionally, Leigh told Gerow that Smaldone hated interracial couples and would refer to them as Oreos, Milanos, and zebras. (Leigh depo, p. 102). Gerow responded that she was going to handle the problem. Leigh depo, p. 102). However, Gerow did not investigate Leigh’s complaints. (Gerow depo, p. 46).
*4 Leigh made a second verbal report of sexual and racial harassment to Garcia at least six months before filing a charge of discrimination with the EEOC in June of 2002. (Leigh depo, p. 103-05). During this meeting with Garcia, Leigh told her that the harassment was still present. (Leigh depo, p. 105). Leigh also told Garcia that Smaldone continued to call her a bitch, hooker, and prostitute and that he always referred to her color. (Leigh depo, p. 105). Leigh also told Garcia that Smaldone would ask for a blow job or to see her breasts when she would ask for price approval. (Leigh depo, p. 106). Leigh also told Garcia that Smaldone was always making racial statements, such as calling a male employee Kunta Kinte. (Leigh depo, p. 107). Additionally, Leigh told Garcia that Smaldone referred to Leigh as “his token black.” (Leigh depo, p. 110). Leigh also told Garcia that Smaldone told Leigh that Biard had commented on Leigh’s trip to Jamaica by saying that she went there to “do drugs, run around naked and F everybody.” (Leigh depo, p. 107).
Leigh and Morrison’s complaints of sexual and racial harassment were not investigated until after Leigh and Morrison filed charges with the EEOC in June of 2002. (Gerow depo, p. 45-46). The only action taken prior to Leigh and Morrison filing charges with the EEOC was Biard addressing the sales force sometime in 20023 on the policies on proper behavior among the sales force, such as no bickering, no fighting over customers, no using nicknames, no using profanity, no making racial, sexual, or ethnic comments, no name calling, and that they were to conduct themselves in a professional manner at all times. (Biard depo, p. 78, 87; Leigh depo, p. 82-83). Biard stated that anyone who violated these behavior rules would be subject to disciplinary action. (Leigh depo, p. 83). Garcia asked Biard to conduct this meeting with the sales force, but Biard did not know that complaints of sexual and racial harassment had been made when he addressed the sales force, and he did not know what prompted Garcia to ask him to address the sales force on proper behavior. (Biard depo, p. 78, 122-23).
On September 28, 2004, Plaintiffs filed suit against Defendants. The EEOC asserts a claim against Defendants under Title VII for the creation of a racially and sexually hostile work environment. Leigh alleges a racially hostile work environment in violation of Title VII, and Leigh and Morrison allege a sexually hostile work environment in violation of Title VII and the Florida Civil Rights Act (“FCRA”).
III. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment Defendants move for summary judgment, arguing: (1) the alleged racial comments were not sufficiently severe or pervasive to support a racially hostile work environment claim; (2) RTG has established an affirmative defense to the claims; (3) Rooms to Go, Inc. is not an employer, and as such, cannot be held liable; and (4) the claims made on behalf of similarly situated individuals should be dismissed. Accordingly, the Court will address each argument.
A. Severe or Pervasive *5 Defendants move for summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ hostile work environment claim based on race. In order to establish
3

U.S. E.E.O.C. v. Rooms to Go, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2006)
a prima facie case of a racially hostile work environment, Plaintiffs must show that (1) Leigh belongs to a protected group; (2) she has been subjected to unwelcome harassment; (3) the harassment was based on the protected characteristic, her race; (4) the harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the terms and conditions of employment and thus create a discriminatorily abusive work environment; and (5) the employer is responsible for that environment under a theory of either direct or vicarious liability. Laosebikan v. Coca-Cola Co., 2006 WL 224167, at *5 (11th Cir. Jan 31, 2006) (citation omitted). Defendants argue that Plaintiffs cannot show that the fourth element is met-that the harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive.
The “severe or pervasive” element has both a subjective and objective component: “[t]he employee must ‘subjectively perceive’ the harassment as sufficiently severe and pervasive to alter the terms or conditions of employment, and this subjective perception must be objectively reasonable.” Mendoza v. Borden, Inc., 195 F.3d 1238, 1246 (11th Cir.1999) (citation omitted). While in the instant case, Leigh subjectively perceived the alleged racial harassment to be sufficiently severe and pervasive, the Court must determine whether her perception was objectively reasonable.
With regards to the objective component, courts consider four factors: “(1) the frequency of the conduct; (2) the severity of the conduct; (3) whether the conduct is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and (4) whether the conduct unreasonably interferes with the employee’s job performance.” Id. (citations omitted). “[C]ourts should examine the conduct in context, not as isolated acts, and determine under the totality of the circumstances whether the harassing conduct is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the terms or conditions of the plaintiff’s employment and create a hostile or abusive working environment.” Id. (citations omitted).
“Generally speaking, ‘isolated incidents (unless extremely serious) will not amount to discriminatory changes in the terms and conditions of employment.” ’ Walton v. Johnson & Johnson Svcs., Inc., 347 F.3d 1272, 1285 n. 12 (11th Cir.2003)(quoting Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 788, 118 S.Ct. 2275, 141 L.Ed.2d 662 (1998)). Furthermore, Title VII is not a “ ‘general civility code.” ’ Gupta v. Florida Board of Regents, 212 F.3d 571, 583 (11th Cir.2000)(quoting Faragher, 524 U.S. at 788). However, the Court notes that there is no magic number of racially offensive comments that must be made in order for the harassment to create a hostile work environment. See Miller v. Kenworth of Dothan, Inc., 277 F.3d 1269, 1276 (11th Cir.2002) (citation omitted).
Construing the facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs and given that Plaintiffs contend that the offensive racial comments were made on a daily basis, the Court finds that a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether the harassment was severe or pervasive. The Court rejects Defendants’ arguments to the contrary.
*6 For instance, Defendants argue that Leigh cannot show that the alleged harassment was severe or pervasive because she produced a calendar covering the months of May, June, and July of 2002 that only contained one4 notation concerning racial harassment.5 The Court rejects this argument, given that Leigh filed a charge of discrimination in June of 2002, so the lack of incidents of racial harassment after the filing of the charge of discrimination does not establish that such incidents did not occur prior to the filing of the charge. Furthermore, when asked during her deposition whether there were any other notations indicating racial harassment, Leigh responded that while there was nothing else listed on the calendar for those three months, she was not saying that no other harassment occurred during that time. (Leigh depo, p. 241). She also stated that she did not keep a record of all of the harassment that occurred on the calendar. (Leigh depo, p. 240).
Defendants also argue that Leigh cannot show that the alleged harassment was severe or pervasive because the harassment did not impair Leigh’s job performance. Specifically, Defendants point out that Leigh concedes that her sales performance was “excellent” for most of her employment and that in late February 2002, she was recognized for being the most successful salesperson in four out of five sales categories. (Leigh depo, p. 46, 47). The Court rejects this argument. While the effect of the harassment on the employee’s job performance is a factor to be considered, a “plaintiff need not show that the harassment was so extreme that it produced tangible effects on [her] job performance in order to be actionable.” Mosley v. Meristar Mgmt. Co., LLC, 137 Fed. Appx. 248, 252 (11th Cir.2005)(citing Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 22, 114 S.Ct. 367, 126 L.Ed.2d 295 (1993)); Miller, 277 F.3d at 1277 (citation omitted). The Supreme Court has stated that discriminatory conduct that is so severe or pervasive that it creates a work environment that is abusive to an employee because of her race, but which does not result in tangible effects on the employee’s job performance, violates Title VII. See Harris, 510 U.S. at 22.
Defendants also argue that the alleged harassment was not severe or pervasive, since Leigh was not even present when some of the alleged racial comments were made. The Court rejects this argument. As explained by one court:
The pervasiveness of conduct constituting [racial] harassment outside [the plaintiff’s] presence works to
4

U.S. E.E.O.C. v. Rooms to Go, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2006)
rebut the assertion that the conduct of which [the plaintiff] complains is isolated or rare. Second, the issue in [a hostile work environment] case is the nature of the work environment. This environment is shaped by more than the face-to-face encounters between [the plaintiff] and ... coworkers and supervisors. The perception that the work environment is hostile can be influenced by the treatment of other persons of a plaintiff’s protected class, even if that treatment is learned second-hand.
*7 Robinson v. Jacksonville Shipyards, Inc., 760 F.Supp. 1486, 1499 (M.D.Fla.1991); see also Edwards v. Wallace Community College, 49 F.3d 1517, 1522 (11th Cir.1995) (citation omitted); Busby v. City of Orlando, 931 F.2d 764, 785 (11th Cir.1991)(citing Walker v. Ford Motor Co., 684 F.2d 1355, 1359 n. 2 (11th Cir.1982)).
Defendants also argue that the following conduct undermines Leigh’s allegation of racial harassment: (1) she asked that Smaldone be present when she worked with Rogers; (2) she declined a transfer away from the Seffner Clearance Center; (3) in March of 2002, she had a housewarming party and invited Smaldone, and (4) Leigh’s husband met Smaldone at least fifteen times, and he did not address the alleged harassment with Smaldone. The Court rejects these arguments.
With respect to Defendants’ contention that Leigh asked that Smaldone be present when she worked with Rogers, Leigh stated in her deposition that she asked that Smaldone or some member of management be present when she worked with Rogers. (Leigh depo, p. 66). With respect to Defendants’ contention that Leigh declined a transfer away from the Seffner Clearance Center, the offers to transfer came in 2004 and Leigh ended her employment shortly thereafter. (Leigh depo, p. 39-44). Additionally, Leigh stated in her deposition that she had asked to be transferred from the Seffner Clearance Center, but she declined a transfer to the Clearwater store and to a position in telemarketing. (Leigh depo, p. 39-44).
With respect to Defendants’ contention that inviting Smaldone to a housewarming party in March of 2002 undermines her harassment claim, the Court rejects this argument as Leigh invited the entire staff of the Seffner Clearance Center to her party. (Leigh depo, p. 63-64). Additionally, the Court rejects Defendants’ argument that Leigh’s husband’s failure to confront Smaldone about the harassment undermines Leigh’s harassment claim.
Accordingly, the Court finds that a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether Leigh was subjected to a racially hostile work environment. As such, the Court denies summary judgment on this issue.
B. Affirmative Defense RTG argues that it is entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ hostile work environment claims based on race and sex that arise from Smaldone and Biard’s conduct, because it can establish the two-part affirmative defense.6 The affirmative “defense comprises two necessary elements: (a) that the employer exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any ... harassing behavior, and (b) that the plaintiff employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer or to avoid harm otherwise.” Faragher, 524 U.S. at 807. Accordingly, the Court will analyze each element.
1. Prevent and Promptly Correct Harassing Behavior The first element of the affirmative defense is that the employer exercised reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct the harassing behavior. RTG contends that it satisfies this element, because there was an adequate anti-harassment policy in place. While proof that an employer had promulgated an anti-harassment policy with a complaint procedure is relevant when analyzing this element, having such an anti-harassment policy is not sufficient in itself to satisfy this element in the instant case. See Frederick v. Sprint/United Management Co., 246 F.3d 1305, 1314 (11th Cir.2001). This is because RTG must also show that it acted in a reasonably prompt manner in responding to Morrison and Leigh’s complaints. See id.
*8 RTG argues that it acted promptly to correct the harassing behavior by having Biard address the sales force on proper behavior. The Court, however, finds that a genuine issue of material fact exists regarding whether this was sufficient given that: (1) Biard did not address the sales force until 2002,7 and (2) despite Leigh and Morrison’s four complaints of discrimination to the manager and director of Human Resources,8 RTG did not investigate Morrison and Leigh’s complaints until it received the charges of discrimination in June of 2002 from the EEOC.9 See Walton, 347 F.3d at 1288 (noting that the employer’s inadequate investigation into a complaint is relevant if the substantive measures taken by the employer are not sufficient to address the harassing behavior). Therefore, there is a genuine issue of material fact regarding the first element of
5

U.S. E.E.O.C. v. Rooms to Go, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2006)
the affirmative defense, which precludes summary judgment.
2. Employee’s Unreasonable Failure to Take Advantage of Corrective Opportunities The second element of the affirmative defense is that the employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer or to avoid harm otherwise. RTG contends that Leigh and Morrison unreasonably failed to take advantage of the complaint procedure set forth in the anti-harassment policy, since they failed to submit their harassment complaints in writing. The Court, however, finds that a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether Leigh and Morrison’s actions were reasonable given their contention that Garcia and Gerow led them to believe that their verbal complaints were sufficient. See Frederick, 246 F.3d at 1314 (stating that in some cases the evidence will show that an employee’s failure to follow the complaint procedures was reasonable under the circumstances). Furthermore, the cases cited by RTG in support of its contention that Leigh and Morrison unreasonably failed to take advantage of the complaint procedure set forth in the anti-harassment policy are distinguishable, because those cases focus on whether the appropriate person received the complaint of harassment, not whether the complaint of harassment was submitted to the appropriate person but in the wrong format (i.e., verbally as opposed to being in writing). See Frederick, 246 F.3d at 1316 (finding a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the plaintiff complained of harassment to the appropriate person under the employer’s anti-harassment policy); Madray v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 208 F.3d 1290, 1300 (11th Cir.2000)(stating that the employer did not have notice of the harassing behavior because the plaintiff’s complaint of harassment was not given to an individual designated by the employer to receive or process harassment complaints); Masson v. School Board of Dade County, Fla., 36 F.Supp.2d 1354, 1359 (S.D.Fla.1999)(noting that the plaintiff did not file a complaint with the appropriate person under the employer’s anti-harassment policy). Therefore, there is a genuine issue of material fact regarding the second element of the affirmative defense, which precludes summary judgment.
C. Employer Status *9 Rooms To Go, Inc. contends that it is not an employer with respect to Leigh and Morrison, and as such, it is entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ claims.10 While Leigh and Morrison were employed by R.T.G. Furniture Corp., Plaintiffs argue that Rooms To Go, Inc. was a joint employer under Title VII.
One court has described the joint employer theory as follows: The basis of the finding is simply that one employer while contracting in good faith with an otherwise independent company, has retained for itself sufficient control of the terms and conditions of employment of the employees who are employed by the other employer. Thus the joint employer concept recognizes that the business entities involved are in fact separate but that they share or co-determine those matters governing the essential terms and conditions of employment.
Virgo v. Riviera Beach Associates, Ltd., 30 F.3d 1350, 1360 (11th Cir.1994)(quoting NLRB v. Browning-Ferris Industries, 691 F.2d 1117, 1122 (3d Cir.1982)). The focus of the inquiry is “the degree of control an entity has over the adverse employment decision on which the Title VII suit is based.” Llampallas v. Mini-Circuits, Lab, Inc., 163 F.3d 1236, 1244-45 (11th Cir.1998); see also Lyes v. City of Riviera Beach, Florida, 166 F.3d 1332, 1345 (11th Cir.1999)(stating that the focus of the inquiry is “who (or which entity) is in control of the fundamental aspects of the employment relationship that gave rise to the claim”). Whether an entity has retained sufficient control to be deemed a joint employer is a question of fact. See id. (citations omitted).
Plaintiffs contend that Rooms To Go, Inc. is a joint employer because Gerow, the Manager of Human Resources whose responsibilities included administering the anti-harassment policy for the Seffner Clearance Center, was employed by Rooms To Go, Inc.11 (Gerow depo, p. 95-103; Gerow affidavit, ¶ 2). Additionally, the anti-harassment policies in place from 1996 through 2002, as well as the employee ethics hotline flyer distributed to R.T.G. Furniture Corp. employees refer to “Rooms To Go” or “RTG,” not R.T.G. Furniture Corp. (Gerow affidavit, Ex. 1, 2, 4).
Defendants, in moving for summary judgment, have not addressed the effect, if any, of Rooms To Go, Inc.’s alleged control over the administration of the anti-harassment policy for the Seffner Clearance Store on the joint employer analysis. Since Defendants have not addressed this issue,12 the Court denies summary judgment without deciding whether Rooms To Go, Inc.’s alleged involvement is sufficient to confer joint employer status.
6

U.S. E.E.O.C. v. Rooms to Go, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2006)

D. Similarly Situated Individuals The EEOC filed its complaint under Title VII to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of race and sex and to provide appropriate relief to Leigh, Morrison, and any other similarly situated individuals that were adversely affected by such practices. The EEOC states in its response to the motion for summary judgment that with respect to the other similarly situated individuals, it is only seeking injunctive relief in the form of enjoining Defendants from engaging in sexual and racial harassment and any other practices that discriminate on the basis of race or sex.
*10 Defendants move to dismiss the EEOC’s claims on behalf of similarly situated individuals, because the EEOC has failed to identify any similarly situated individuals despite being requested to do so in interrogatories. (Doc. No. 64, p. 12). Defendants, however, have failed to cite any case law to support their argument that dismissal of the EEOC’s claims on behalf of similarly situated individuals is warranted. As such, the Court denies Defendants’ motion on this issue.

IV. Conclusion Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 45) is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED.

Parallel Citations

97 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 1623

Footnotes

1

Due to her pregnancy, Morrison requested a transfer to the customer service department in RTG’s corporate office in August of

2002. (Morrison depo, p. 45-46). Morrison resigned from her employment with RTG in the Spring of 2003. (Morrison depo, p. 46).

2

Leigh is married to a white man. (Leigh depo, p. 294).

3

The Court presumes that the meeting occurred sometime in 2002 because Leigh states in her deposition that it occurred after she

spoke with Garcia, but it did not occur in 2001. (Leigh depo, p. 82).

4

There was a second notation concerning an incident when Rogers got in Leigh’s face and was screaming at her. (Leigh depo, p.

242). It is unclear whether this incident was based on Leigh’s race.

5

Leigh’s calendar contains a notation on May 10, 2002. (Doc. No. 54, Ex. 14 to Leigh’s deposition). Leigh stated that on that day,

Smaldone commented that an African-American man’s additional income on his credit application must have come from drugs.

(Leigh depo, p. 241-42).

6

“An employer is subject to vicarious liability to a victimized employee for an actionable hostile environment created by a

supervisor with immediate (or successively higher) authority over the employee.” Faragher, 524 U.S. at 807. However, “[w]hen

no tangible employment action is taken, a defending employer may raise an affirmative defense to liability or damages.” Id.

7

Additionally, since Defendants do not point to evidence indicating when in 2002 Biard addressed the sales force, the Court cannot

determine whether Biard’s actions ended the allegedly harassing behavior.

8

These complaints occurred: (1) in January of 2001; (2) November of 2001; (3) early 2002; and (4) at least six months before filing

charges of discrimination with the EEOC.

9

The Court notes that “the question of whether an employer timely acted to correct harassment turns on when it had proper notice of

an employee’s harassment complaint.” Frederick, 246 F.3d at 1315. RTG argues that proper notice was not given, since Leigh and

Morrison failed to submit their complaints in writing. However, as explained in section III-B-2, the Court finds that there is a

genuine issue of material fact regarding whether Leigh and Morrison gave Defendants proper notice of their harassment complaints

given Leigh and Morrison’s contention that Garcia and Gerow led Leigh and Morrison to believe that their verbal complaints were

sufficient.

7

U.S. E.E.O.C. v. Rooms to Go, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2006)

10

Rooms To Go, Inc. owns the trademark “Rooms To Go.” Rooms To Go, Inc. licenses the trademark to companies operating

Rooms To Go stores. (Gerow affidavit, ¶ 5).

11

It is unclear whether Gerow works for Rooms to Go, Inc. or R.T .G. Furniture Corp., since she states in her affidavit that she works

for “Rooms To Go,” yet she refers to Defendants in the affidavit as “Artemis Marketing Corp. f/k/a Rooms To Go, Inc.” and

“R.T.G. Furniture Corp.” As such, it is unclear which entity Gerow actually works for. However, since this is a motion for

summary judgment and the Court must construe the facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, the Court construes Gerow’s

statement as meaning that she works for Rooms To Go, Inc.

12

Defendants have alleged that Rooms To Go, Inc. does not participate in, oversee, or review any sexual or racial harassment

investigations, including the investigation of Leigh and Morrison’s claims. (Gerow affidavit, ¶ 11). However, there is a question of

fact as to whether this statement is accurate (given Gerow’s vague statement regarding which entity that she works for), and as

such, the Court must assume for the purposes of the motion that Rooms To Go, Inc. did participate in the investigation. Assuming

that Rooms To Go, Inc. did so participate, Defendants must address how such participation affects the joint employer analysis.

8

 
 Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida - Docket Report Page 1 of 13

U.S. District Court Middle District of Florida (Tampa) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 8:04-cv-02155-SCB-TBM

CLOSED

United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Rooms To Go, Inc. Assigned to: Judge Susan C Bucklew Referred to: Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun, III Cause: 42:2000 Job Discrimination (Sex)

Date Filed: 09/28/2004 Date Terminated: 05/16/2006 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff
United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by Carla Johanna Von Greiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Tampa Area Office 501 E. Polk St., Ste. 1000 Tampa, FL 33602 813/202-7903 Fax: 813/228-2045 Email: carla.vongreiff@eeoc.gov TERMINATED: 11/08/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael Wells U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 501 E. Polk St. Suite 1000 Tampa, FL 33602 813/202-7902 Fax: 813/228-2045 Email: michael.wells@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nora Ellen Curtin EEOC 2 South Biscayne Blvd. Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131 305/808-1789 Fax: 305/808-1835 Email: nora.curtin@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Muslima Lewis American Civil Liberties Union

https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?278073911521503-L_353_0-1

6/14/2007

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida - Docket Report Page 2 of 13

Intervenor Plaintiff Tanya Morrison
Intervenor Plaintiff Tammy Leigh

Foundation of Florida, Inc. Suite 340 4500 Biscayne Blvd Miami, FL 33137 786/363-2729 Fax: 786/363-1448 Email: mlewis@aclufl.org TERMINATED: 03/20/2006 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cheryl A. Cooper Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Suite 2700 2 S Biscayne Blvd Miami, FL 33131 305/808-1853 Fax: 305/808-1835 Email: cheryl.cooper@eeoc.gov TERMINATED: 02/01/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Mark G. Rodriguez Law Offices of Mark G. Rodriguez, PA Suite 201 701 S Howard Ave Tampa, FL 33606 813/227-9642 Fax: 813/354-4402 Email: attorney@markrodriguezlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cally E. Catania 13336 N Central Ave Tampa, FL 33612 813/964-8878 Fax: 813/964-8879 Email: callycat@tampabay.rr.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Mark G. Rodriguez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cally E. Catania (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?278073911521503-L_353_0-1

6/14/2007

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida - Docket Report Page 3 of 13

V. Defendant Rooms To Go, Inc. TERMINATED: 05/16/2006
Defendant R.T.G. Furniture Corp.
Mediator Cary R. Singletary TERMINATED: 12/22/2005

represented by Nancy A. Chad Zinober & McCrea, PA Suite 800 201 E Kennedy Blvd Tampa, FL 33602 813-637-9448 Email: nancy.chad@verizon.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard C. McCrea, Jr. Greenberg Traurig, P.A. Courthouse Plaza, Ste. 100 625 E Twiggs Street Tampa, FL 33602 813/318-5723 Fax: 813/318-5900 Email: mccrear@gtlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Nancy A. Chad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard C. McCrea, Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Cary R. Singletary 509 E. Jackson St. Tampa, FL 33602 813/301-9339 Email: carysingletary@aol.com PRO SE

Date Filed 09/28/2004

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT against Rooms To Go, Inc.; jury demand , filed by United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Filing Fee Waived. (RFM) (Entered: 09/29/2004)

https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?278073911521503-L_353_0-1

6/14/2007

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida - Docket Report Page 4 of 13

09/28/2004 11/01/2004 11/05/2004 11/08/2004
11/12/2004
11/18/2004 11/22/2004
11/22/2004 12/15/2004 12/16/2004
12/20/2004 12/22/2004 01/03/2005 01/03/2005 01/07/2005

2 Summons issued as to Rooms To Go, Inc. Consent issued. (RFM) (Entered: 09/29/2004)
3 NOTICE of Appearance by Richard C. McCrea Jr. on behalf of Rooms To Go, Inc. (McCrea, Richard) (Entered: 11/01/2004)
4 Consent MOTION to substitute attorney by United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Cooper, Cheryl) (Entered: 11/05/2004)
5 Endorsed ORDER granting 4 Motion to substitute attorney. The Clerk is directed to substitute attorney Cheryl A. Cooper in place of Carla Von Grieff for United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission . Signed by Judge Susan C Bucklew on 11/8/2004. (jd, ) (Entered: 11/08/2004)
6 RELATED CASE ORDER AND NOTICE of designation under Local Rule 3.05 - track 2with notice of expected deadlines and case management report. Signed by Judge Deputy Clerk on 11/12/2004. (ls ) (Entered: 11/12/2004)
7 ANSWER to complaint and Affirmative Defenses by Rooms To Go, Inc.. (McCrea, Richard) (Entered: 11/18/2004)
8 CERTIFICATE of interested persons and corporate disclosure statement pursuant to Rule 7.1(a) by Rooms To Go, Inc. (McCrea, Richard) Document filed in wrong case. Counsel refiled. Modified on 11/23/2004 (RFM). (Entered: 11/22/2004)
9 CERTIFICATE of interested persons and corporate disclosure statement pursuant to Rule 7.1(a) by Rooms To Go, Inc.. (McCrea, Richard) (Entered: 11/22/2004)
10 Unopposed MOTION to intervene by Tanya Morrison, Tammy Leigh. (Catania, Cally) (Entered: 12/15/2004)
11 ENDORSED ORDER granting 10 Motion to intervene and directing intervening plaintiffs to re-file their complaint in intervention by December 23, 2004. Signed by Judge Susan C Bucklew on 12/16/2004. (jd, ) (Entered: 12/16/2004)
12 INTERVENOR'S COMPLAINT And Demand For Jury Trial, filed by Tanya Morrison, Tammy Leigh.(Catania, Cally) (Entered: 12/20/2004)
13 CASE MANAGEMENT REPORT. (McCrea, Richard) (Entered: 12/22/2004)
14 NOTICE of Appearance by Mark G. Rodriguez on behalf of Tammy Leigh (Rodriguez, Mark) (Entered: 01/03/2005)
15 NOTICE of Appearance by Mark G. Rodriguez on behalf of Tanya Morrison (Rodriguez, Mark) (Entered: 01/03/2005)
16 CASE MANAGEMENT AND SCHEDULING ORDER: Discovery due by 11/18/2005. Conduct mediation hearing by 12/9/2005. Lead counsel

https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?278073911521503-L_353_0-1

6/14/2007

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida - Docket Report Page 5 of 13

01/10/2005 01/12/2005 01/31/2005 02/01/2005
03/09/2005 07/18/2005
08/04/2005 08/15/2005 08/19/2005 08/24/2005 08/29/2005

to coordinate dates. Dispositive motions due by 1/2/2006. Pretrial Conference set for 4/11/2006 at 08:30 AM in Courtroom 14 A before Judge Susan C Bucklew. This case is set for a jury trial on the Court's May, 2006 trial calendar. Signed by Judge Susan C Bucklew on 1/7/2005. (jd, ) (Entered: 01/07/2005)
17 ANSWER to intervenor complaint by Rooms To Go, Inc..(McCrea, Richard) (Entered: 01/10/2005)
18 NOTICE of pendency of other actions re order of compliance to Local Rule by United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Related case(s): yes (Cooper, Cheryl) (Entered: 01/12/2005)
19 Unopposed MOTION to substitute attorney Muslima Lewis by United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Lewis, Muslima) (Entered: 01/31/2005)
20 ENDORSED ORDER granting 19 Motion to substitute attorney. The Clerk is directed to terminate Cheryl A. Cooper from the docket sheet . Signed by Judge Susan C Bucklew on 2/1/2005. (jd, ) Modified on 5/16/2006 (CH). NOTE: DOCUMENT FILED IN WRONG CASE, ATTORNEY NOTIFIED (Entered: 02/01/2005)
21 NOTICE by United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 16 Case management and scheduling order, Stipulation Regarding Selection of Mediator (Lewis, Muslima) (Entered: 03/09/2005)
22 MOTION to quash Subpoenas Duces Tecum or to Modify by United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit Exhibit D# 5 Exhibit Exhibit E# 6 Exhibit Exhibit F# 7 Exhibit Exhibit G# 8 Exhibit Exhibit H)(Lewis, Muslima) (Entered: 07/18/2005)
23 RESPONSE to motion re 22 MOTION to quash Subpoenas Duces Tecum or to Modify filed by Rooms To Go, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit "A")(McCrea, Richard) (Entered: 08/04/2005)
24 Unopposed MOTION to amend/correct 1 Complaint by United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B)(Lewis, Muslima) (Entered: 08/15/2005)
25 ENDORSED ORDER granting 24 Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint. Plaintiff shall file an Amended Complaint by August 26, 2005. Signed by Judge Susan C Bucklew on 8/19/2005. (sas) (Entered: 08/19/2005)
26 AMENDED COMPLAINT against Rooms To Go, Inc., filed by United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Related document: 1 Complaint filed by United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,.(Lewis, Muslima) (Entered: 08/24/2005)
27 Answer and Affirmative Defenses ANSWER to amended complaint by Rooms To Go, Inc., R.T.G. Furniture Corp..(Chad, Nancy) (Entered: 08/29/2005)

https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?278073911521503-L_353_0-1

6/14/2007

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida - Docket Report Page 6 of 13

09/13/2005 10/05/2005 10/06/2005 10/07/2005
10/07/2005 10/10/2005 10/11/2005
10/21/2005
10/24/2005 10/26/2005 11/02/2005 11/03/2005

28 ORDER denying 22 Plaintiff EEOC's Motion to Quash or Modify Subpoenas Duces Tecum. See Order for further details. Signed by Judge Thomas B. McCoun III on 9/13/2005. (slb) (Entered: 09/13/2005)
29 Unopposed MOTION to amend/correct 12 Intervenor Complaint by Tanya Morrison, Tammy Leigh. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit B) (Catania, Cally) (Entered: 10/05/2005)
30 ENDORSED ORDER granting 29 motion to amend complaint. PlaintiffIntervenors are directed to file the amended complaint by October 11, 2005. Signed by Judge Susan C Bucklew on 10/6/2005. (jd, ) (Entered: 10/06/2005)
31 ENDORSED ORDER that the mediation deadline in this case is December 9, 2005. The parties have selected Cary Singletary to mediate this case. Plaintiffs are directed to file a notice by October 26, 2005 that informs the Court of the date of the parties' mediation.Signed by Judge Susan C Bucklew on 10/7/2005. (jd, ) (Entered: 10/07/2005)
32 AMENDED INTERVENORS COMPLAINT against all defendants, filed by Tanya Morrison, Tammy Leigh.(Catania, Cally) Modified on 10/11/2005 (CH, ). (Entered: 10/07/2005)
33 Unopposed MOTION to extend time to Hold the Mediation Conference by Rooms To Go, Inc., R.T.G. Furniture Corp.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - Notice of Mediation Conference)(McCrea, Richard) (Entered: 10/10/2005)
34 ENDORSED ORDER granting 33 Defendants' Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Hold the Mediation Conference. The parties shall have up to and including December 12, 2005 to hold the mediation conference. Signed by Judge Susan C. Bucklew on 10/11/2005. (ckr) (Entered: 10/11/2005)
35 MOTION to compel Complete Discovery Responses Or, In the Alternative, To Strike Defendant's Sixth Affirmative Defense by United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A-1# 2 Exhibit Exhibit A-2# 3 Exhibit Exhibit B-1# 4 Exhibit Exhibit B-2# 5 Exhibit Exhibit C# 6 Exhibit Exhibit D# 7 Exhibit Exhibit E# 8 Exhibit Exhibit F# 9 Exhibit Exhibit G# 10 Exhibit Exhibit H# 11 Exhibit Exhibit I# 12 Exhibit Exhibit J)(Cooper, Cheryl) (Entered: 10/21/2005)
36 ANSWER to amended complaint and Affirmative Defenses by Rooms To Go, Inc., R.T.G. Furniture Corp..(Chad, Nancy) (Entered: 10/24/2005)
37 NOTICE of unavailability of counsel byUnited States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Von Greiff, Carla) (Entered: 10/26/2005)
38 Unopposed MOTION to extend time to Respond to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Complete Discovery Responses by Rooms To Go, Inc., R.T.G. Furniture Corp.. (Chad, Nancy) (Entered: 11/02/2005)
39 ENDORSED ORDER granting 38 Defendants' unopposed motion for

https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?278073911521503-L_353_0-1

6/14/2007

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida - Docket Report Page 7 of 13

11/11/2005
12/01/2005 12/01/2005 12/02/2005 12/22/2005 01/03/2006 01/03/2006 01/03/2006 01/03/2006 01/03/2006 01/03/2006 01/03/2006

extension of time to respond to Plaintiff's motion to compel 35. Signed by Judge Thomas B. McCoun III on 11/3/2005. (slb) (Entered: 11/03/2005)
40 RESPONSE to motion re 35 MOTION to compel Complete Discovery Responses Or, In the Alternative, To Strike Defendant's Sixth Affirmative Defense filed by Rooms To Go, Inc., R.T.G. Furniture Corp.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit "1"# 2 Exhibit "2"# 3 Exhibit "3"# 4 Exhibit "4 - 6")(McCrea, Richard) (Entered: 11/11/2005)
41 Unopposed MOTION to extend time to Take 30(b)(6) Depositions on Issues not yet Decided by the Court by United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Lewis, Muslima) (Entered: 12/01/2005)
42 ENDORSED ORDER granting 41 Motion to extend time to take 30(b)(6) depositions on issues not yet decided by the Court. Signed by Judge Susan C Bucklew on 12/1/2005. (jd, ) (Entered: 12/01/2005)
43 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 35 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Complete Discovery Responses. Signed by Judge Thomas B. McCoun III on 12/2/2005. (slb) (Entered: 12/02/2005)
44 MEDIATION REPORT Hearing held on 12/12/2005 Hearing outcome: IMPASSE(Singletary, Cary) (Entered: 12/22/2005)
45 MOTION for summary judgment by Rooms To Go, Inc., R.T.G. Furniture Corp.. (Chad, Nancy) (Entered: 01/03/2006)
46 AFFIDAVIT of Janet Gerow re: 45 MOTION for summary judgment by Rooms To Go, Inc., R.T.G. Furniture Corp.. (Chad, Nancy) (Entered: 01/03/2006)
47 DEPOSITION of Tammy Shelton-Leigh taken on May 17, 2005 re: 45 MOTION for summary judgment by Rooms To Go, Inc., R.T.G. Furniture Corp..(Chad, Nancy) (Entered: 01/03/2006)
48 DEPOSITION (Part 2) of Tammy Shelton-Leigh taken on May 17, 2005 re: 45 MOTION for summary judgment by Rooms To Go, Inc., R.T.G. Furniture Corp. (Chad, Nancy) Modified text on 1/4/2006 (RFM). (Entered: 01/03/2006)
49 DEPOSITION (Part 3) of Tammy Shelton-Leigh taken on May 17, 2005 re: 45MOTION for summary judgment by Rooms To Go, Inc., R.T.G. Furniture Corp. (Chad, Nancy) Modified text on 1/4/2006 (RFM). (Entered: 01/03/2006)
50 DEPOSITION (Part 4) of Tammy Shelton-Leigh taken on May 17, 2005 re: 45 MOTION for summary judgment by Rooms To Go, Inc., R.T.G. Furniture Corp. (Chad, Nancy) Modified text on 1/4/2006 (RFM). (Entered: 01/03/2006)
51 DEPOSITION of Tammy Shelton-Leigh taken on May 31, 2005 re: 45 MOTION for summary judgment by Rooms To Go, Inc., R.T.G. Furniture Corp..(Chad, Nancy) (Entered: 01/03/2006)

https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?278073911521503-L_353_0-1

6/14/2007

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida - Docket Report Page 8 of 13

01/03/2006 01/03/2006 01/03/2006 01/03/2006 01/03/2006 01/03/2006 01/03/2006 01/03/2006 01/03/2006 01/03/2006 01/03/2006 01/03/2006

52 DEPOSITION (Part 2) of Tammy Shelton-Leigh taken on May 31, 2005 re: 45 MOTION for summary judgment by Rooms To Go, Inc., R.T.G. Furniture Corp. (Chad, Nancy) (Entered: 01/03/2006)
53 DEPOSITION (Part 3)of Tammy Shelton-Leigh taken on May 31, 2005 re: 45 MOTION for summary judgment by Rooms To Go, Inc., R.T.G. Furniture Corp. (Chad, Nancy) Modified text on 1/4/2006 (RFM). (Entered: 01/03/2006)
54 DEPOSITION (Part 4) of TammyShelton-Leigh taken on May 31, 2005 re: 45 MOTION for summary judgment by Rooms To Go, Inc., R.T.G. Furniture Corp. (Chad, Nancy) Modified text on 1/4/2006 (RFM). (Entered: 01/03/2006)
55 DEPOSITION (Part 5) of Tammy Shelton-Leigh taken on May 31, 2005 re: 45 MOTION for summary judgment by Rooms To Go, Inc., R.T.G. Furniture Corp. (Chad, Nancy) Modified text on 1/4/2006 (RFM). (Entered: 01/03/2006)
56 DEPOSITION of Tanya Young-Morrison taken on June 2, 2005 re: 45 MOTION for summary judgment by Rooms To Go, Inc., R.T.G. Furniture Corp..(Chad, Nancy) (Entered: 01/03/2006)
57 DEPOSITION (Part 2) of Tanya Young-Morrison taken on June 2, 2005 re: 45 MOTION for summary judgment by Rooms To Go, Inc., R.T.G. Furniture Corp. (Chad, Nancy) Modified text on 1/4/2006 (RFM). (Entered: 01/03/2006)
58 DEPOSITION (Part 3) of Tanya Young-Morrison taken on June 2, 2005 re: 45 MOTION for summary judgment by Rooms To Go, Inc., R.T.G. Furniture Corp. (Chad, Nancy) Modified text on 1/4/2006 (RFM). (Entered: 01/03/2006)
59 DEPOSITION (Part 4) of Tanya Young-Morrison taken on June 2, 2005 re: 45 MOTION for summary judgment by Rooms To Go, Inc., R.T.G. Furniture Corp. (Chad, Nancy) Modified text on 1/4/2006 (RFM). (Entered: 01/03/2006)
60 DEPOSITION (Part 5) of Tanya Young-Morrison taken on June 2, 2005 re: 45 MOTION for summary judgment by Rooms To Go, Inc., R.T.G. Furniture Corp. (Chad, Nancy) Modified text on 1/4/2006 (RFM). (Entered: 01/03/2006)
61 DEPOSITION of James Leigh taken on June 17, 2005 re: 45 MOTION for summary judgment by Rooms To Go, Inc., R.T.G. Furniture Corp.. (Chad, Nancy) (Entered: 01/03/2006)
62 DEPOSITION of Reinaldo Lugo taken on October 12, 2005 re: 45 MOTION for summary judgment by Rooms To Go, Inc., R.T.G. Furniture Corp..(Chad, Nancy) (Entered: 01/03/2006)
63 DEPOSITION (Part 2) of Reinaldo Lugo taken on October 12, 2005 re: 45 MOTION for summary judgment by Rooms To Go, Inc., R.T.G. Furniture Corp. (Chad, Nancy) Modified text on 1/4/2006 (RFM).

https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?278073911521503-L_353_0-1

6/14/2007

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida - Docket Report Page 9 of 13

01/04/2006 01/18/2006 01/19/2006
01/20/2006
01/20/2006
01/20/2006 02/06/2006 02/06/2006 02/06/2006 02/06/2006 02/06/2006

(Entered: 01/03/2006)
64 NOTICE of filing EEOC?s Responses to first set of interrogatories by Rooms To Go, Inc., R.T.G. Furniture Corp. in support of 45 MOTION for summary judgment (Chad, Nancy) Modified text on 1/5/2006 (RFM). (Entered: 01/04/2006)
65 MOTION to extend time to Respond to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Partially Unopposed) by United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Lewis, Muslima) (Entered: 01/18/2006)
66 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 65 Motion to extend the EEOC's deadline for responding to Defendant's motion for summary judgment: The motion is granted to the extent that the Court will extend the EEOC's deadline for responding to the motion for summary judgment to February 6, 2006. Signed by Judge Susan C Bucklew on 1/19/2006. (jd, ) (Entered: 01/19/2006)
67 Unopposed MOTION to extend time to file response to Defendant's motion for summary judgment by Tammy Leigh. (Rodriguez, Mark) Motion ruled on prior to being reviewed. Counsel called and notified of proper signatures on documents. Modified on 1/20/2006 (RFM). (Entered: 01/20/2006)
68 Unopposed MOTION to extend time to file response to Defendant's motion for summary judgment by Tanya Morrison. (Rodriguez, Mark) Motion ruled on prior to being reviewed. Counsel called and notified of proper signatures on documents. Modified on 1/20/2006 (RFM). (Entered: 01/20/2006)
69 ENDORSED ORDER granting 67, 68 Plaintiff-Intervenors' Motions to extend time to February 6, 2006 to respond to Defendant's motion for summary judgment. Signed by Judge Susan C Bucklew on 1/20/2006. (jd, ) (Entered: 01/20/2006)
70 Unopposed MOTION for leave to file excess pages in Joint Response to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment by all plaintiffs. (Lewis, Muslima) (Entered: 02/06/2006)
71 ENDORSED ORDER granting 70 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages . Signed by Judge Susan C Bucklew on 2/6/2006. (jd, ) (Entered: 02/06/2006)
72 RESPONSE in opposition re 45 MOTION for summary judgment filed by United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Tanya Morrison, Tammy Leigh. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Lewis, Muslima) (Entered: 02/06/2006)
73 NOTICE by United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Tanya Morrison, Tammy Leigh of Filing Deposition Transcripts (Garcia, Gerow, Biard and Rogers) (Lewis, Muslima) (Entered: 02/06/2006)
74 DEPOSITION of Linda Garcia taken on August 29, 2005 re: 73 Notice (Other) by United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,

https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?278073911521503-L_353_0-1

6/14/2007

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida - Docket Report Page 10 of 13

02/06/2006
02/06/2006
02/06/2006 02/06/2006
03/08/2006 03/20/2006 03/20/2006 03/20/2006
03/31/2006
03/31/2006 04/05/2006 04/06/2006

Tanya Morrison, Tammy Leigh. (Attachments: # 1 Part 2 - Linda Garcia Deposition)(Lewis, Muslima) (Entered: 02/06/2006)
75 DEPOSITION of Janet Gerow taken on August 31, 2005 re: 73 Notice (Other) by United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Tanya Morrison, Tammy Leigh. (Attachments: # 1 Part 2 - Janet Gerow Deposition)(Lewis, Muslima) (Entered: 02/06/2006)
76 DEPOSITION of Edward Biard taken on December 7, 2005 re: 73 Notice (Other) by United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Tanya Morrison, Tammy Leigh. (Attachments: # 1 Part 2 - Edward Biard Deposition)(Lewis, Muslima) (Entered: 02/06/2006)
77 DEPOSITION of Philip Rogers taken on December 7, 2005 re: 73 Notice (Other) by United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Tanya Morrison, Tammy Leigh.(Lewis, Muslima) (Entered: 02/06/2006)
78 NOTICE by United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Tanya Morrison, Tammy Leigh re 73 Notice (Other) Amended Notice of Filing Deposition Transcripts (Garcia, Gerow, Biard and Rogers) (Lewis, Muslima) (Entered: 02/06/2006)
79 ORDER denying 45 Motion for summary judgment . Signed by Judge Susan C Bucklew on 3/8/2006. (jd, ) (Entered: 03/08/2006)
80 MOTION to substitute attorney by United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Wells, Michael) (Entered: 03/20/2006)
81 NOTICE by United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Notice of Designation For Receipt of Service Via CM/ECF System (Wells, Michael) (Entered: 03/20/2006)
82 ENDORSED ORDER granting 80 Motion to substitute attorney. The Clerk is directed to terminate Muslima Lewis from the docket sheet and add Nora Curtin as counsel for the EEOC. Signed by Judge Susan C Bucklew on 3/20/2006. (jd, ) (Entered: 03/20/2006)
83 MOTION in limine by United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit Exhibit D# 5 Exhibit Exhibit E# 6 Exhibit Exhibit F# 7 Exhibit Exhibit G)(Curtin, Nora) (Entered: 03/31/2006)
84 ENDORSED ORDER terminating 83 Motion in limine. DOCUMENT FILED IN WRONG CASE . Signed by Judge Susan C Bucklew on 3/31/2006. (jd, ) (Entered: 03/31/2006)
85 Unopposed MOTION Protect Dates from trial by Tammy Leigh. (Rodriguez, Mark) (Entered: 04/05/2006)
86 PRETRIAL STATEMENT by Rooms To Go, Inc., R.T.G. Furniture Corp.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Plaintiffs' Exhibit List# 2 Exhibit B - Defendant's Exhibit List# 3 Exhibit C - Plaintiffs' Witness List# 4 Exhibit D - Defendant's Witness List)(Chad, Nancy) (Entered: 04/06/2006)

https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?278073911521503-L_353_0-1

6/14/2007

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida - Docket Report Page 11 of 13

04/10/2006 04/10/2006
04/11/2006 04/11/2006 04/11/2006 04/11/2006 04/12/2006 04/12/2006 04/17/2006 04/18/2006
04/18/2006 04/19/2006

87 EXHIBIT LIST Defendants' Objections to Plaintiffs' Exhibit List by Rooms To Go, Inc., R.T.G. Furniture Corp. (Chad, Nancy) Wrong event code used. Counsel called and instructed to refile. Modified on 4/11/2006 (RFM). (Entered: 04/10/2006)
88 EXHIBIT LIST Plaintiffs' Objections to Defendants' Exhibit List by United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.. (Wells, Michael) Wrong event code used. Counsel called and message left that document must be refiled. Modified on 4/11/2006 (RFM). (Entered: 04/10/2006)
89 OBJECTION re 86 Pretrial Statement, Defendants' Objections to Plaintiffs' Exhibit List by Rooms To Go, Inc., R.T.G. Furniture Corp.. (Chad, Nancy) (Entered: 04/11/2006)
90 MOTION to bifurcate Determination of Punitive Damages by Rooms To Go, Inc., R.T.G. Furniture Corp.. (McCrea, Richard) (Entered: 04/11/2006)
91 OBJECTION re 86 Pretrial Statement, Plaintiffs' Objections to Defendants' Exhibit List by United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Wells, Michael) (Entered: 04/11/2006)
92 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Susan C Bucklew : FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE held on 4/11/2006. Case is presently set for the May trial calendar. Court Reporter: Paul Spangler (ls ) (Entered: 04/11/2006)
93 PRETRIAL ORDER. Signed by Judge Susan C Bucklew on 4/12/2006. (jd, ) (Entered: 04/12/2006)
94 ORDER allowing counsel to bring cell phones and a laptop into the courthouse during trial. Signed by Judge Susan C Bucklew on 4/12/2006. (jd, ) (Entered: 04/12/2006)
95 ORDER Setting Procedures for Mediation before Magistrate Judge. See order for details. Signed by Judge Elizabeth A. Jenkins on 4/17/2006. (MLB) (Entered: 04/17/2006)
96 ORDER allowing plaintiffs' attorneys Michael Wells and Delner Franklin-Thomas to bring a cellular telephone into the courthouse on Friday, April 21, 2006 at 11:00 for mediation before Judge Elizabeth A. Jenkins. Signed by Judge Elizabeth A. Jenkins on 4/18/2006. (CM) (Entered: 04/18/2006)
97 ORDER allowing defense counsel Nancy Chad to bring a cellular telephone into the courthouse on Friday, April 21, 2006 at 11:00 am for mediation before Judge Elizabeth A. Jenkins. Signed by Judge Elizabeth A. Jenkins on 4/18/2006. (CM) (Entered: 04/18/2006)
98 TRIAL CALENDAR for trial term during the weeks of May 1, 8, 15, 22 & 30, 2006. Signed by Judge Susan C Bucklew on 4/19/2006. (ls ) (Entered: 04/19/2006)

https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?278073911521503-L_353_0-1

6/14/2007

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida - Docket Report Page 12 of 13

04/20/2006 04/20/2006 04/20/2006 04/20/2006 04/20/2006 04/20/2006 04/20/2006 04/20/2006
04/20/2006
04/20/2006 04/21/2006 04/25/2006 05/16/2006 05/16/2006

99 WITNESS LIST by Rooms To Go, Inc., R.T.G. Furniture Corp.. (Chad, Nancy) (Entered: 04/20/2006)
100 EXHIBIT LIST Defendants' Revised Exhibit List by Rooms To Go, Inc., R.T.G. Furniture Corp... (Chad, Nancy) (Entered: 04/20/2006)
101 NOTICE by Rooms To Go, Inc., R.T.G. Furniture Corp. Notice of Filing (Attachments: # 1 Defendants' Deposition Designations)(Chad, Nancy) (Entered: 04/20/2006)
102 Unopposed MOTION to extend time to produce net worth information by Rooms To Go, Inc., R.T.G. Furniture Corp.. (Chad, Nancy) (Entered: 04/20/2006)
103 MOTION in limine regarding alleged harassment of other employees by Rooms To Go, Inc., R.T.G. Furniture Corp.. (Chad, Nancy) (Entered: 04/20/2006)
104 MOTION in limine regarding to Exclude EEOC "Cause" Determinations by Rooms To Go, Inc., R.T.G. Furniture Corp.. (Chad, Nancy) (Entered: 04/20/2006)
105 MOTION in limine regarding to Preclude Evidence of Constructive Discharge by Rooms To Go, Inc., R.T.G. Furniture Corp.. (Chad, Nancy) (Entered: 04/20/2006)
106 ENDORSED ORDER granting 102 Defendants' Motion to extend time to produce net worth information. Defendants shall produce the net worth information on or before April 25, 2006. Signed by Judge Susan C Bucklew on 4/20/2006. (bs) (Entered: 04/20/2006)
107 MOTION in limine Plaintiff EEOC's Motion for Ruling on Good Faith Effort to Achieve Conciliation by United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 # 2 # 3 # 4 # 5 # 6 # 7 # 8 # 9 # 10 # 11 # 12 # 13 # 14 # 15 # 16 # 17)(Wells, Michael) (Entered: 04/20/2006)
108 MOTION in limine regarding Exclusion of Evidence of Past Arrests and Convictions by United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Wells, Michael) (Entered: 04/20/2006)
109 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Elizabeth A. Jenkins : Settlement Conference held on 4/21/2006. (digital) (CM) (Entered: 04/25/2006)
110 NOTICE of Settlement by United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Wells, Michael) (Entered: 04/25/2006)
111 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Gomez, Maritza) (Entered: 05/16/2006)
112 NOTICE by United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Notice of Filing Consent Decree (Attachments: # 1)(Gomez, Maritza) (Entered: 05/16/2006)

https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?278073911521503-L_353_0-1

6/14/2007

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida - Docket Report Page 13 of 13

05/16/2006 05/16/2006

113 ENDORSED ORDER re 111 Notice of Voluntary Dismissal: The claims against Rooms to Go, Inc. are dismissed. Signed by Judge Susan C Bucklew on 5/16/2006. (jd, ) (Entered: 05/16/2006)
114 CONSENT DECREE. The Clerk is directed to close the case and terminate all pending motions. Signed by Judge Susan C Bucklew on 5/16/2006. (jd, ) (Entered: 05/16/2006)

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt

06/14/2007 16:23:18

PACER Login:

hs0328

Client Code: eeoc

Description:

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

8:04-cv-02155-SCBTBM

Billable Pages: 7

Cost:

0.56

https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?278073911521503-L_353_0-1

6/14/2007

 
 New EEOC Publication Addresses Reasonable Accommodation for Attorneys With Disa... Page 1 of 2

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE June 1, 2006

CONTACT: Fede Dist

Deln EEOC (305 (305

TTY:

Nora Supe (305 (305

WAL-MART TO PAY $315,000 TO SETTLE TWO EEOC SUITS FOR SEXUAL
HARASSMENT AT STORE IN CENTRAL FLORIDA
Agency Also Announces $275,000 Settlement with R.T.G. Furniture for Sex and Race Bias
TAMPA – The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) today announced the settlements of separate employment discrimination lawsuits filed against Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and R.T.G. Furniture Corp. for a combined total of $590,000 on behalf of five individuals who were subjected to egregious sexual and racial harassment at stores in Central Florida. In addition to the monetary relief, both employers will take significant steps to prevent and address any future reports of discrimination.
The lawsuits against both companies were filed under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and resolved by consent decrees in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida in Tampa. Wal-Mart will pay $315,000 to settle the EEOC’s two suits (8:04-cv-01862 – SDM-MSS and 8:05-cv-313-JDW-MSS ) charging the Arkansas-based retail giant with subjecting three female employees to sexual harassment at the same Super Center store in Bradenton, Fla. The consent decree further requires that Wal-Mart comply with other non-monetary relief, such as posting its anti-discrimination policy; providing annual training for its managers regarding sexual harassment; and entering into a three-year monitoring period by the EEOC to ensure compliance with Title VII.
EEOC’s first lawsuit against Wal-Mart, filed on August 12, 2004, charged the company with allowing sexual harassment of two of its female associates by a male department manager to go unchecked, notwithstanding the employees’ complaints to management. The sexually hostile work environment at the store included the male manager exposing himself to the women; touching, grabbing and fondling the women; making sexually suggestive comments; requesting sex; and other lewd and unlawful conduct. Despite notice to Wal-Mart’s management, the harassment continued until one of the female employees was forced to quit her job in January of 2003. The manager who perpetrated the sexual harassment ultimately resigned his employment.

http://www.eeoc.gov/press/6-01-06.html

6/15/2007

New EEOC Publication Addresses Reasonable Accommodation for Attorneys With Disa... Page 2 of 2
The second suit against Wal-Mart, filed by the EEOC on February 17, 2005, charged the company with permitting another of its female associates to be sexually harassed by the store assistant manager at the same store location of the two women involved in the 2004 suit. In this case, the assistant manager who committed the harassment interviewed and hired the female associate in January of 2002. Shortly thereafter, he began sexually propositioning her, subjecting her to vulgar language and unwanted sexual comments, and touching private parts of her body. Despite notice received by the store manager regarding inappropriate sexual conduct, nothing was done to stop the illegal behavior until the assistant manager was transferred out of that store for unrelated reasons.
In addition to the Wal-Mart settlement, the EEOC’s Miami District Office announced that R.T.G. Furniture Corp. will pay $275,000 to settle a lawsuit charging the company with subjecting two employees to racial and sexual harassment at its Rooms To Go Seffner Clearance Center in the Tampa area. The suit (civil action number 8:04-cv-2155-T24-TBM) was filed by the EEOC on September 28, 2004, after the agency first attempted to reach a voluntary pre-litigation settlement.
In the R.T.G. case, Tammy Leigh and Tanya Shelton, who worked as sales associates, contended they were sexually harassed by their immediate supervisor. The harassment ranged from highly charged sexual comments to inappropriate touching. Leigh, who is African American, also testified during depositions that she was subjected to racial harassment, including racial slurs and persistent racially offensive references to African American customers
In addition to the monetary relief for the charging parties, the consent decree requires R.T.G. Furniture Corp. to enter into a three-year monitoring period by the EEOC to ensure compliance with Title VII; provide annual training for its mangers and supervisory personnel on the requirements of Title VII; and post an anti-discrimination notice affirming its commitment to comply with the law.
“Racial and sexual discrimination are intolerable in any workplace,” said EEOC’s Miami District Director Federico Costales. “The settlement of theses case advances the EEOC’s efforts to eradicate employment discrimination, and should remind Florida employers to heighten their awareness to job bias by taking proactive measures to prevent it.”
EEOC Miami Regional Attorney Delner Franklin-Thomas said, “These cases are similar in that they involve large employers who had in place written harassment policies. But policies alone are not always enough. The staff in charge of implementing the policies failed to take appropriate corrective action. Harassment policies work best when supervisors and managers are trained on what to do when they receive complaints. Employers should not just leave such policies on a shelf to gather dust.”
EEOC is the government agency responsible for enforcing the federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the Commission is available on the agency’s web site at www.eeoc.gov.
This page was last modified on June 02, 2006.
Return to Home Page

http://www.eeoc.gov/press/6-01-06.html

6/15/2007