IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )

COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

INTERSTATE BRANDS CORPORATION, )

)

)

Defendant.

)

)

CIVIL ACTION NO.
COMPLAINT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

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, female, and

to provide appropriate relief to Charging Parties Gabrielle R. Tartaglia and Christine Robbins,

and to a class of female employees who were adversely affected by such practices. The

Commission alleges that Charging Parties and a class of female employees of Defendant’s

bakery were subjected to a hostile work environment due to sexual harassment and different

terms and conditions of employment based on gender. The Commission further contends that

female employees were denied the same opportunities for assignment to higher-paying positions

in certain Bread Departments that were offered to males. As a result of the harassment and

differential treatment in the terms and conditions of her employment, Charging Party Robbins

was constructively discharged.

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 § 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 and are now being

committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of

Pennsylvania.

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. § 2000(e)-5(f) (1) and (3).

4. At all relevant times, Defendant, Interstate Brands Corporation (“Interstate”) has

continuously been and is now a Delaware Corporation doing business in the State of

Pennsylvania, and the City of Philadelphia, and has continuously had at least fifteen (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, Charging Parties Gabrielle R. Tartaglia and Christine Robbins filed charges of discrimination with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by Defendant Employer. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled. 7. Since at least 1993, Defendant Employer has engaged unlawful employment

Page -2-

practices at its Philadelphia, Pennsylvania facility in violation of Section 703(a) (1) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a) (1), by subjecting Charging Parties Gabrielle R. Tartaglia and Christine Robbins and a class of female employees to gender-based distinctions in the terms and conditions of their employment. The unlawful employment practices included but are not limited to the following:
(a) Female employees were told by male supervisors and co-workers that they were not wanted for the jobs in the higher-paying make-up area, and that there are no women in the makeup area; and they were discouraged and deterred from applying for assignment to the make-up area through bidding or vacation relief;
(b) Ms. Tartaglia was frequently told that she could not be assigned to certain make-up jobs as a vacation relief employee, because she did not have training in those areas;
(c) Although many male employees were routinely trained in the make-up area without the need for specific requests on their part, other male employees were automatically placed in the higher-paying make-up jobs if they were unable or unwilling to do the wrap or packing jobs, whether or not they had received training;
(d) Despite requesting training from April, 1999 until at least December, 2001, Ms. Tartaglia did not receive the training she was told she needed to be assigned to the make-up area or the higher-paying jobs;
(e) Male jobbers or floaters with less seniority than Ms. Tartaglia, Ms. Robbins, and other female employees, were routinely selected to fill vacation relief positions on the higherpaying jobs in the make-up department;
(f) Ms. Robbins, who was hired on May 23, 1997, repeatedly requested training in the higher-paying jobs in the make-up area but did not receive any training of that type for years;
Page -3-

(g) From April, 2001 until June 19, 2002, Ms. Robbins did not receive vacation relief assignments for the higher-paying jobs in the make-up area despite her numerous requests;
(h) Despite complaints about differential treatment in the terms and conditions of employment for females, Defendant failed to correct the inequality.
8. Since at least 1992, Defendant Employer has engaged unlawful employment practices at its Philadelphia, Pennsylvania facility in violation of Section 703(a) (1) (1) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a) (1), by subjecting Charging Parties Gabrielle R. Tartaglia and Christine Robbins and a class of female employees to a sexually hostile work environment. The unlawful employment practices included but are not limited to the following:
(a) On or about June 20, 2002, Supervisor Louis McFarlin called to Gabrielle Tartaglia, saying “ come here, bimbo” and when Ms. Tartaglia asked him if he just called her a bimbo, he replied “yes I did.”
(b) On or about June 23, 2002, Supervisor Matt Szakil approached Ms. Tartaglia while she was on the roll line and asked: “is this where the blow jobs are?”
(c) On or about June 17, 2002, a co-worker referred to Ms. Robbins as a “Kensington bitch” in the presence of a supervisor who did nothing to reprimand the employee. When Ms. Robbins complained to another supervisor, he responded that the co-worker was “stressed out” and did not take remedial action;
(d) Throughout her employment from 1997 until approximately June, 2002, Supervisor Matt Szakil consistently engaged in the following unwelcome behaviors toward Ms. Robbins: yelling across the production floor that he loved her “hooters”; telling male co-workers that he loved her “hooters”; grabbing her by the hips and banging his body against hers while she was working on the packing line; attempting to kiss her with his mouth and tongue. Robbins
Page -4-

complained to Assistant Superintendent Al King who condoned the behavior, stating “that’s Marty.”
(e) Supervisor Szakil would regularly walk around the production floor and openly wrap his arms around the bodies of female employees while they were working at their stations and he would also kiss or attempt to kiss them openly;
(f) Other female employees and class members were propositioned regularly by Supervisor Szakil, who asked for sex on numerous occasions, and made sexual gestures and remarks.
9. Due to the intolerable working conditions at Defendant’s facility, including but not limited to the unlawful employment practices described, Ms. Robbins was constructively discharged on or about June 9, 2002.
10. The effect of the practices complained of in paragraphs 7through 9, above, has been to deprive Gabrielle R. Tartaglia, Christine Robbins, and a class of females employed at Defendant Employer’s Philadelphia facility of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees because of their sex.
11. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs 7 through 9, above, were intentional.
12. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs 7 through 9, above, were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Gabrielle R. Tartaglia, Christine Robbins and a class of females employed at Defendant Employer’s Philadelphia, Pennsylvania facility.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court:
Page -5-

A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant Employer, its officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in sex discrimination, sexual harassment, and any other employment practice which discriminates on the basis of sex.
B. Order Defendant Employer to institute and carry out policies and practices, which effectively prohibit sexual harassment in the work place, and which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices.
C. Order Defendant Employer to make whole Ms. Tartaglia, Ms. Robbins, and other member of the class by providing appropriate backpay with prejudgment interest, where applicable, in amounts to be determined at trial, and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices, including but not limited to rightfulplace reinstatement.
D. Order Defendant Employer to make whole Ms. Tartaglia, Ms.Robbins, and other female class members by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described in paragraphs 7 through 9, above, including but not limited to out-of-pocket losses in amounts to be determined at trial.
E. Order Defendant Employer to make whole Ms.Tartaglia, Ms.Robbins and other female class members by providing compensation for past and future nonpecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices complained of in paragraphs 7 through 9, above, including but not limited to pain and suffering, humiliation, loss of life's pleasures, depression, anxiety, stress, panic, and other physical and psychological symptoms and conditions, in amounts to be determined at trial.
F. Order Defendant Employer to pay Ms.Tartaglia, Ms.Robbins and other female
Page -6-

class members punitive damages for its malicious and reckless conduct described in paragraphs 7through 9, above, in amounts to be determined at trial.
G. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public interest.
H. Award the Commission its costs of this action.
JURY TRIAL DEMAND
The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its complaint.
Gwendolyn Young Reams Associate General Counsel EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20507
JACQUELINE H. McNAIR Regional Attorney
JUDITH A. O’BOYLE Supervisory Trial Attorney
______________________ CYNTHIA A. LOCKE Trial Attorney EEOC 21 S. 5th Street, Suite 400 Philadelphia, PA 19106 (215) 440-2683 PA ID No. 376
Page -7-

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff AND
GABRIELLE TARTAGLIA, Plaintiff-Intervenor
AND
CHRISTINE ROBBINS, Plaintiff-Intervenor
v.
INTERSTATE BRANDS CORPORATION,
Defendant.

:

:

:

:

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 03-4416

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

:

COMPLAINT OF INTERVENORS GABRIELLE TARTAGLIA AND CHRISTINE ROBBINS

I. JURISDICTION

1. This action was brought by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission (“EEOC”) pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended,

42 U.S.C. §2000e et seq. and the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. §1981A; the claims

contained in the initial Complaint are incorporated herein by reference. This Complaint

of Intervenors Gabrielle Tartaglia (“Tartaglia”) and Christine Robbins (“Robbins”), is

brought pursuant to the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (“PHRA”), 43 P.S. §951 et

seq., as well as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Jurisdiction is premised upon

28 U.S.C. §1331 and 28 U.S.C. §1367.

-1-

2. Plaintiff-Intervenors Tartaglia and Robbins have exhausted both State and Federal administrative remedies regarding their claims of hostile work environment, sexual harassment, gender discrimination, and retaliation, having filed EEOC claims at Charge Numbers: 170A201602, 170A300315, and 170A201776, and PHRA Charge Numbers: 200204899, 200207185, and 200205111.
3. Plaintiff-Intervenors Tartaglia and Robbins seek Intervention as of Right in this action pursuant to F.R.C.P. §24(a) and have filed an appropriate Motion with this Complaint, as this action was initiated by the EEOC and Tartaglia and Robbins wish to participate as Parties in this action to protect their individual rights under both federal and state law.
4. On April 30, 2003, the EEOC issued two separate Letters of Determination in favor of Plaintiff-Intervenors Tartaglia and Robbins, finding cause for hostile work environment, sexual harassment, and gender discrimination. On July 30, 2003, the EEOC filed this action following failure of conciliation. II. PARTIES
5. Plaintiff-Intervenor, Gabrielle Tartaglia is an individual and citizen of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and resides therein at 546 Gilham Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19111.
6. Plaintiff-Intervenor Christine Robbins is an individual and citizen of the State of New Jersey and resides therein at 50 N. Lippincott Avenue, Maple Shade, New
-2-

Jersey 08052. 7. Plaintiff in this action is the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission, a federal agency charged with the administration, interpretation, and enforcement of Title VII.
8. Defendant, Interstate Brands Corporation, is and was a Delaware corporation doing business in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania at 9801 Blue Grass Road, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19115. IV. STATEMENT OF CLAIMS:
11. Tartaglia has been employed by Defendant Corporation from on or about February 19, 1999 until the present.
12. Robbins was employed by Defendant Corporation from in or about 1997 until June 19, 2002, the date of her constructive termination.
13. Defendant Corporation has engaged in unlawful employment practices at its Philadelphia, Pennsylvania facility in violation of Title VII and the PHRA, by subjecting Tartaglia and Robbins to gender-based discrimination in the terms and conditions of their employment.
14. By way of example, Tartaglia and Robbins were told by male supervisors and coworkers that they were not wanted for the jobs in the higher paying make-up area, and that there are to be no women in the make-up area. Tartaglia and Robbins were discouraged and deterred from applying for assignment to the make-up area through
-3-

bidding or vacation relief. 15. Tartaglia was frequently told that she would not be assigned to certain
make-up jobs as a vacation relief employee because she did not have training in those areas. Defendant Corporation refused to train Tartaglia in said areas but did in fact train similarly situated male employees.
16. Furthermore, Defendant Corporation placed similarly situated male employees into the higher paying make-up jobs even if they had not received proper training.
17. Despite requesting training from April of 1999 through at least December of 2001, Tartaglia did not receive the training she was told she needed to be assigned to the make-up area or other higher paying jobs.
18. Male jobbers or floaters with less seniority than Tartaglia and Robbins were routinely selected to fill vacation relief positions on the higher paying jobs in the make-up department.
19. Furthermore, Robbins repeatedly requested training in the higher paying jobs in the make-up area, but did not receive any training of that type for many years.
20. From in or about April of 2001 until on or about June 19, 2002, Robbins was repeatedly denied vacation relief assignments for the higher paying jobs in the makeup area despite her frequent requests.
21. Despite Tartaglia and Robbins’ frequent complaints regarding Defendant
-4-

Corporation’s discriminatory practices in assigning jobs, Defendant Corporation refused to take any remedial action.
22. Additionally, Defendant Corporation subjected Tartaglia and Robbins to a hostile work environment through countless instances of sexual harassment.
23. By way of example, Matt Szakil (“Szakil”), Supervisor, referred to Robbins as “Girl”and “Kensington Bitch,” stated to Robbins, “I love your hooters,” told Robbins’ coworkers that he loved Robbins’ “hooters,” repeatedly attempted to hug and kiss Robbins, and even pressed his genitals against Robbins’ backside.
24. Furthermore, in Robbins’ presence, Robert Romando, Supervisor, placed a roll in front of his pants simulating a penis.
25. By way of further example, Szakil, Tartaglia’s Supervisor, referred to her as “Bimbo,” asked if she was the person to come to for a “blow job,” and attempted to kiss Tartaglia on numerous occasions.
26. At all times relevant hereto, Robbins and Tartaglia complained to Defendant Corporation’s management regarding the aforesaid sexual harassment and gender discrimination, however no remedial action was taken. In fact, Al King, Assistant Superintendent, condoned Szakil’s behavior and stated, “that’s Marty.”
27. After registering complaints of discrimination and harassment, Defendant Corporation subjected Tartaglia to retaliation.
28. By way of example, in retaliation for opposing unlawful discrimination
-5-

and harassment in the workplace, various supervisors of Defendant Corporation, including Supervisors Hagen and Rebholtz threatened Tartaglia’s job security.
29. Due to the intolerable working conditions at Defendant Corporation’s facility, Robbins was constructively discharged on or about June 9, 2002. Furthermore, on or about September 23, 2002, as a result of the aforesaid sexual harassment and Defendant Corporation’s failure to take corrective action, Tartaglia was forced to take a medical leave of absence.
COUNT I (TITLE VII - Gender Discrimination, Sexual Harassment,
Hostile Work Environment and Retaliation) Tartaglia and Robbins v. Defendant Corporation 30. Tartaglia and Robbins incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 29 of theirComplaint as though fully set forth at length herein. 31. Based on the foregoing, Defendant Corporation has engaged in unlawful practices in violation of Title VII. The said unlawful practices for which Defendant Corporation is liable to Tartaglia and Robbins include, but are not limited to, fostering and perpetuating a hostile and offensive work environment, subjecting Tartaglia and Robbins to unlawful sexual harassment and gender discrimination, subjecting Tartaglia to retaliation after she complained about said harassment, forcing Tartaglia to take a medical leave of absence, and constructively terminating Robbins. 32. As a direct result of the aforesaid unlawful discriminatory employment practices engaged in by Defendant Corporation, as aforesaid, in violation of Title VII,
-6-

Tartaglia and Robbins have suffered severe emotional and psychological distress and loss of self-esteem, loss of wages, benefits and other economic damages.
COUNT II (PHRA - Gender Discrimination, Sexual Harassment,
Hostile Work Environment and Retaliation) Tartaglia and Robbins v. Defendant Corporation 33. Tartaglia and Robbins incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 32 of their Complaint as though fully set forth at length herein. 34. Based on the foregoing, Defendant Corporation has engaged in unlawful practices in violation of the PHRA. The said unlawful practices for which Defendant Corporation is liable to Tartaglia and Robbins include, but are not limited to, fostering and perpetuating a hostile and offensive work environment, subjecting Tartaglia and Robbins to unlawful sexual harassment and gender discrimination, subjecting Tartaglia to retaliation after she complained about said harassment, forcing Tartaglia to take a medical leave of absence, and constructively terminating the Robbins in retaliation for opposing unlawful discrimination. 35. As a direct result of the aforesaid unlawful discriminatory employment practices engaged in by Defendant Corporation, as aforesaid, in violation of the PHRA, Tartaglia and Robbins have suffered severe emotional and psychological distress and loss of self-esteem, loss of wages, benefits and other economic damages.
-7-

COUNT III (Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress) Tartaglia and Robbins v. Defendant Corporation

36. Tartaglia and Robbins incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 35 of

their Complaint as though fully set forth at length herein.

37. In committing the acts as aforesaid, Defendant Corporation knowingly,

willfully, intentionally, and recklessly engaged in extreme, outrageous and intentional

conduct for the purpose of causing severe emotional distress to the Plaintiffs.

38. As a result of the acts of the Defendant Corporation as aforesaid, the

Plaintiffs have suffered from anxiety and extreme and severe emotional distress,

humiliation and embarrassment.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

39. Tartaglia and Robbins incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 38 of

their Complaint as though fully set forth at length herein.

a. Defendant Corporation compensate Tartaglia and Robbins with a rate of

pay and other benefits and emoluments of employment, to which they would have been

entitled, had they not been subjected to unlawful discrimination and retaliation;

b.

Defendant Corporation compensate Tartaglia and Robbins with an award

of front pay, if appropriate;

c.

Defendant Corporation compensate Tartaglia and Robbins for the wages

and other benefits and emoluments of employment lost, because of its unlawful conduct;

-8-

d. Defendant Corporation pay to Tartaglia and Robbins compensatory damages for future pecuniary losses, pain and suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life and other nonpecuniary losses as allowable;
e. Defendant Corporation pay to Tartaglia and Robbins punitive damages, (under Title VII) pre and post judgment interest, costs of suit and attorney and expert witness fees as allowed by law;
f. the Court award such other relief as is deemed just and proper. JURY DEMAND
Tartaglia and Robbins demand trial by jury.
SIDNEY L. GOLD & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
BY:_________________________________ SIDNEY L. GOLD, ESQUIRE I.D. NO.: 21374 Eleven Penn Center - Suite 515 1835 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 569-1999 Attorney for Plaintiff-Intervenors
-9-

-10-

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYL VANIA

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

)

and

)

) GABRIELLE TARTAGLIA and CHRISTINE )

ROBBINS,

)

)

Plaintiff-Intervenors,

)

)
v.

) INTERSTATE BRANDS CORPORATION,

)

Defendant.

)

Civil Action No. 03-4416 Honorable Jan E. DuBois

STIPUATION OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE
It IS hereby stipulated by and between the undersigned counsel for
Plaintiff/Intervenors Gabrielle Tartaglia and Christine Robbins and Defendant Interstate
BrandsCorporation,pursuantto Rule 41(a)(1)of the FederalRules of Civil Procedure,
thatthe claimsassertedby Plaintifffintervenorsareherebydismissedwith prejudice,and
withoutcostsor feesto eitherparty.
A...e.,~
SidneyL. Gold,Esq. SIDNEY L. GOLD & ASSOCI~TES,P.C. 1835MarketStreet,Suite515 Philadelphia,PA 19103 215/569-1999 215/569-3870(Fax)
COUNSELFORPLAINTIFF/INTERVENORS GABRIELLE TARTAGLIA AND CHRISTINE ROBBINS

1588710.1

Karen~R....LG-l'i\ckes.t8n~, ~~Esq.

I

SHUGHART THOMSON KILROY, P.C. 120 W. 12tl1Street, Suite 1700 Kansas City, MO 64105 816/421-3355 816/374-0509 (Fax)

COUNSELFOR INTERSTATE BRANDS CORPORATION

1588710.1

2

 
 United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?100372275131443-L_3...
CLOSED, STANDARD
United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:03-cv-04416-JD

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION v. INTERSTATE BRANDS CORPORATION Assigned to: HONORABLE JAN E. DUBOIS Cause: 28:451 Employment Discrimination

Date Filed: 07/30/2003 Date Terminated: 05/25/2004 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

represented by CYNTHIA A. LOCKE EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 21 S. 5TH ST STE 400 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19106 215-440-2683 Email: cynthia.locke@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JACQUELINE H. MCNAIR EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 21 S. 5TH ST STE 400 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19106 215-440-2687 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JUDITH A. O'BOYLE EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 21 S. 5TH ST STE 400 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19106 215-440-2687 Email: judith.oboyle@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff CHRISTINE ROBBINS

represented by SIDNEY L. GOLD SIDNEY L. GOLD & ASSOCIATES, PC

1 of 6

6/13/2007 9:55 AM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?100372275131443-L_3...

Intervenor Plaintiff GABRIELLE TARTAGLIA
V. Defendant INTERSTATE BRANDS CORPORATION

ELEVEN PENN CTR 1835 MARKET ST STE 515 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 215-569-1999 Fax: 215-569-3870 Email: sgold@discrimlaw.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by SIDNEY L. GOLD (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by BARBARA A. O'CONNELL SWEENEY & SHEEHAN 1515 MARKET ST 19TH FL PHILADELPHIA, PA 19102-1983 215-563-9811 Fax: 215-557-0999 Email: barbara.oconnell@sweeneyfirm.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JENNIFER GILLE BACON SHUGHART THOMSON & KILROY P.C. 120 W. 12TH ST. SUITE 1700 KANSAS CITY, MO 64105 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JULIE A. ELSTON SHUGHART THOMSON & KILROY P.C. 120 W. 12TH STREET SUITE 1800 KANSAS CITY, MO 64105 816-421-3355 Email: jelston@stklaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY

2 of 6

6/13/2007 9:55 AM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?100372275131443-L_3...

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
KAREN R. GLICKSTEIN SHUGHART THOMSON & KILROY P.C. 120 W. 12TH ST. SUITE 1700 KANSAS CITY, MO 64105 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 07/30/2003 07/30/2003 07/30/2003 08/08/2003
08/25/2003
09/05/2003 09/05/2003 09/05/2003
09/05/2003 09/08/2003

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT against INTERSTATE BRANDS CORPORATION , filed by EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION.(cw, ) Additional attachment(s) added on 11/25/2003 (mbh, ). (Entered: 07/30/2003)
Summons Issued as to INTERSTATE BRANDS CORPORATION.One Given To: Counsel on 07/30/03 (cw, ) (Entered: 07/30/2003)
DEMAND for Trial by Jury by EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION. (cw, ) (Entered: 07/30/2003)
2 Summons Returned Executed re: James Levi Chancelor served Summons and Complaint upon DEFENDANT INTERSTATE BRANDS CORPORATION by Personal Service on 8/1/2003, answer due 8/21/2003. (mbh, ) (Entered: 08/08/2003)
3 ORDER THAT THE DATE FOR DEFENDANT INTERSTATE BRANDS CORPORATION TO FILE ITS RESPONSIVE PLEADING SHALL BE EXTENDED FROM 8/21/2003, FOR 15 DAYS, UNTIL 9/5/2003. SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ON 8/25/2003. 8/26/2003 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED.(mbh, ) (Entered: 08/26/2003)
4 Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint filed by DEFENDANT INTERSTATE BRANDS CORPORATION with Affirmative Defenses, Certificate of Service.(mbh, ) (Entered: 09/05/2003)
Issue Joined (mbh, ) (Entered: 09/05/2003)
5 MOTION FOR ADMISSION OF JENNIFER GILLE BACON, ESQ., KAREN R. GLICKSTEIN, ESQ. AND JULIE A. ELSTON, ESQ. PRO HAC VICE FILED BY DEFENDANT INTERSTATE BRANDS CORPORATION, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavits)(mbh, ) (Entered: 09/05/2003)
6 Corporate Disclosure Statement filed by DEFENDANT INTERSTATE BRANDS CORPORATION, Certificate of Service.(mbh, ) (Entered: 09/05/2003)
7 ORDER THAT THE MOTION FOR ADMISSION OF JENNIFER GILLE BACON, ESQ., KAREN R. GLICKSTEIN, ESQUIRE AND JULIE A. ELSTON, ESQUIRE PRO HAC VICE IS GRANTED AND THAT JENNIFER

3 of 6

6/13/2007 9:55 AM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?100372275131443-L_3...

09/23/2003 10/10/2003 10/20/2003 10/23/2003
10/23/2003
10/23/2003

GILLE BACON, ESQUIRE, KAREN R. GLICKSTEIN, ESQUIRE AND JULIE A. ELSTON, ESQUIRE ARE HEREBY ADMITTED TO THE BAR OF THE USDC FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA PRO HAC VICE. SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ON 9/8/2003. 9/9/2003 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (mbh, ) (Entered: 09/09/2003)
8 NOTICE of Hearing: PRELIMINARY PRETRIAL CONFERENCE SET FOR 10/21/2003 04:45 PM BEFORE HONORABLE JAN E. DUBOIS. (mlc, ) (Entered: 09/23/2003)
9 MOTION TO INTERVENE AS PARTY PLAINTIFFS FILED BY PLAINTIFF-INTERVENORS CHRISTINE ROBBINS AND GABRIELLE TARTAGLIA, MEMORANDUM, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (Attachments: # 1 Memo of Law# 2 Proposed Order# 3 Certificate of Service# 4 Exhibits)(mbh, ) (Entered: 10/14/2003)
10 Initial Disclosures Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 26(a)(1) filed by DEFENDANT INTERSTATE BRANDS CORPORATION.(mbh, ) (Entered: 10/20/2003)
11 ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF-INTERVENORS' MOTION TO INTERVENE AS PARTY PLAINTIFFS IS GRANTED AND THE CLERK OF COURT IS DIRECTED TO FILE THE COMPLAINT OF INTERVENORS, GABRIELLE TARTAGLIA AND CHRISTINE ROBBINS. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT DEFENDNAT SHALL FILE ANS SERVE ITS ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF-INTERVENORS WITHIN 20 DAYS. THE CAPTION SHALL BE AMENDED AS FOLLOWS: EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION v. GABRIELLE TARTAGLIA AND CHRISTINE ROBBINS v. INTERSTATE BRANDS CORPORATION. THE CLERK SHALL SERVE COPIES OF THIS ORDER ON COUNSEL OF RECORD AND COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF-INTERVENORS. SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ON 10/21/2003. 10/23/2003 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED BY CHAMBERS. (mbh, ) (Entered: 10/23/2003)
12 ORDER THAT THE PARTIES, THROUGH COUNSEL, SHALL JOINTLY REPORT TO THE COURT IN WRITING ON OR BEFORE 12/22/2003 WITH RESPECT TO WHETHER THE CASE IS SETTLED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT DEFENDANT SHALL FILE AND SERVE ITS ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT OF INTERVENORS, GABRIELLE TARTAGLIA AND CHRISTINE ROBBINS WITHIN 20 DAYS. ALL DISCOVERY SHALL BE COMPLETED BY 4/30/2004. ANY MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR DAUBERT MOTIONS SHALL BE FILED ON OR BEFORE 5/28/2004. PLAINTIFF AND PLAINTIFF-INTERVENORS SHALL FILE PRETRIAL MEMORANDUM ON OR BEFORE 8/6/2004. DEFENDANT SHALL FILE PRETRIAL MEMORANDUM ON OR BEFORE 8/16/2004. A FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE IS SCHEDULED FOR 9/10/2004 AT 2:00 PM. THE CASE WILL BE PLACED ON THE COURT'S TRIAL LIST ON 9/20/2004. SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ON 10/21/2003. 10/23/2003 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED BY CHAMBERS.(mbh, ) (Entered: 10/23/2003)
13 Complaint filed by INTERVENORS CHRISTINE ROBBINS, GABRIELLE TARTAGLIA.(mbh, ) (Entered: 10/23/2003)

4 of 6

6/13/2007 9:55 AM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?100372275131443-L_3...

11/07/2003 11/07/2003 01/20/2004
02/26/2004
03/29/2004
05/25/2004 07/22/2004

14 Answer to Complaint of Intervenors Gabrielle Tartaglia and Christine Robbins filed by DEFENDANT INTERSTATE BRANDS CORPORATION with Affirmative Defenses, Certificate of Service.(mbh, ) (Entered: 11/07/2003)
Issue Joined (mbh, ) (Entered: 11/07/2003)
15 AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER: ALL DISCOVERY SHALL BE COMPLETED BY 5/31/2004; ANY MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR DAUBERT MOTIONS SHALL BE FILED ON OR BEFORE 6/28/2004; PLAINTIFFS/PLAINTIFF INTERVENORS SHALL FILE THEIR PRETRIAL MEMORANDUM ON OR BEFORE 9/6/2004; DEFENDANTS SHALL FILE THEIR PRETRIAL MEMORANDUM ON OR BEFORE 9/15/2004; A FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE IS SCHEDULED FOR 10/15/2004 AT 2:00 PM; THE CASE WILL BE PLACED ON THE COURT'S TRIAL LIST ON 10/20/2004. SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ON 1/16/2004. 1/20/2004 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED BY CHAMBERS.(mbh, ) (Entered: 01/20/2004)
16 ORDER THAT THE PARTIES, THROUGH COUNSEL, SHALL JOINTLY REPORT TO THE COURT IN WRITING ON OR BEFORE 3/26/2004 WITH RESPECT TO THE EXECUTION OF ALL OF THE SETTLEMENT-RELATED DOCUMENTS AND SUBMISSION OF THE PROPOSED CONSENT DECREE TO THE COURT. SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ON 2/24/2004. 2/26/2004 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED.(mbh, ) (Entered: 02/26/2004)
17 ORDER THAT THE PARTIES, THROUGH COUNSEL, SHALL JOINTLY REPORT TO THE COURT IN WRITING ON OR BEFORE 4/26/04, WITH RESPECT TO (A) EXECUTION OF ALL OF THE SETTLEMENT-RELATED DOCUMENTS AND (B) SUBMISSION OF THE PROPOSED CONSENT DECREE TO THE COURT. SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ON 3/26/04. 3/29/04 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED BY CHAMBERS.(mar, ) (Entered: 03/29/2004)
18 CONSENT DECREE. SIGNED BY JUDGE JAN E. DUBOIS ON 5/25/2004. 5/25/2004 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED.(mbh, ) (Entered: 05/25/2004)
19 STIPULATION of Dismissal With Prejudice by EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, INTERSTATE BRANDS CORPORATION, CHRISTINE ROBBINS, GABRIELLE TARTAGLIA. (GOLD, SIDNEY) (Entered: 07/22/2004)

5 of 6

PACER Login:
Description:

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt
06/13/2007 10:54:06

hs0328

Client Code: eeoc

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

2:03-cv-04416-JD

6/13/2007 9:55 AM

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket R... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?100372275131443-L_3...

Billable Pages: 3

Cost:

0.24

6 of 6

6/13/2007 9:55 AM

 
 EEOC LITIGATION SETTLEMENT REPORT - May 2004

http://www.eeoc.gov/litigation/settlements/settlement05-04.html

EEOC v. Interstate Brands Corp. No. 03-4416 (E.D. Pa. May 25, 2004)
The Philadelphia District Office brought this Title VII sex discrimination suit against a Philadelphia subsidiary of the country's largest baker, the maker of Wonder Bread and Dolly Madison cupcakes. Specifically, the complaint stated that defendant denied two female charging parties and other female bakery workers access to training opportunities and assignments to higher-paying jobs in the Make-Up area of the Bread Department, where the dough is prepared and baked. The suit also alleged that male supervisors and coworkers called the two charging parties and other female employees "bimbo," constantly used profanity in their presence, made requests for blow jobs, and attempted to kiss them. Despite numerous complaints, defendant did nothing to address the hostile work environment. Pursuant to a consent decree, defendant agrees to pay a total of $222,000 to five women and to provide training opportunities and make job assignments for positions in the Make-Up area of the Bread Department without regard to gender. Defendant will disseminate to all employees its current EEO policy that details the complaint procedures for discrimination and harassment. Defendant also will conduct an investigation of any complaint reported and report to EEOC every six months on complaints, investigative efforts, and results.

1 of 1

6/13/2007 10:28 AM