Page 1
LEXSEE 2004 U.S. DIST. CT. PLEADINGS 3788
Go To U.S. District Court Opinion
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v. BARE FEET SHOES OF PA, INC., Defendant.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:04-cv-03788-MAM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
2004 U.S. Dist. Ct. Pleadings 3788; 2004 U.S. Dist. Ct. Pleadings LEXIS 6095
August 11, 2004
Complaint
COUNSEL: [**1] ERIC S. DREIBAND, General Counsel.
JAMES L. LEE, Deputy General Counsel.
GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS, Associate General Counsel.
JACQUELINE H. MCNAIR, Regional Attorney.
JUDITH A. O'BOYLE, Supervisory Trial Attorney.
DAWN M. EDGE (DME 3496), Trial Attorney, EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Philadelphia District Office, 21 South 5<th> Street, Suite 400, Philadelphia, PA 19106, (215) 440-2687, (215) 440-2848 (FAX).
TITLE: COMPLAINT
TEXT: JURY TRIAL DEMAND 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 to provide appropriate relief to LaTanya Garner and Gail Watson who were adversely affected by such practices. As articulated with greater particularity in Paragraph 7 below, the Commission alleges that during Ms. Garner's employment she was sexually harassed on a daily basis by Defendant's Manager Yehouda Udi Sharabi when he subjected her to unwelcome inappropriate sexual comments and sexual gestures which created a sexually hostile work environment. The Commission alleges that although [**2] Ms. Garner complained to the Store Manager, Mr. Sharabi, that his sexually offensive comments and sexually derogatory behavior were unwelcome, and insisted that he stop the offensive conduct, Mr. Sharabi continued to sexually harass her.
The Commission also alleges that Ms. Watson was similarly subjected to a sexually hostile work environment by Defendant's Managers Yehouda Udi Sharabi and Mamoun Kabbadj when Mr. [*2] Kabbadj repeatedly stared at her breasts and watched her undress; and, when Mr. Sharabi regularly stared at her breasts and followed her closely around

2004 U.S. Dist. Ct. Pleadings 3788, *2; 2004 U.S. Dist. Ct. Pleadings LEXIS 6095, **2

Page 2

the store. The Commission further alleges that Ms. Watson was constructively discharged because she could no longer withstand Defendant's sexual harassment. As a result of the sexual harassment against both Ms. Garner and Ms. Watson, they suffered damages, including emotional distress damages. In addition, Ms. Watson suffered lost wages.
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, [**3] 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f) 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 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. § 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3).
4. At all relevant times, Defendant, Bare Feet Shoes of PA, Inc. ("Bare Feet") (the "Employer"), has continuously been doing business in the State of Pennsylvania, and the City of Wyncote, and has continuously had at least 15 employees.
5. At all relevant times, Defendant Employer has continuously been an employer [*3] 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 [**4] (h).
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS
6. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, LaTanya Garner filed a charge 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 December 2002, Defendant Employer has engaged in unlawful employment practices at its Wyncote, Pennsylvania, by unlawfully subjecting LaTanya Garner to a hostile work environment based on her sex, female, in violation of Section 703(a)(1) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). These unlawful practices include, but are not limited to, the following:
(a) On or about December 10, 2002, Ms. Garner began her employment with Defendant as an Sales Associate, and remained in this position until on or about January 17, 2003.
(b) Throughout Ms. Garner's employment, she was regularly subjected to unwelcome sexually offensive comments and sexually charged remarks about her body by Defendant's male Store Manager, and her direct supervisor, Yehouda Udi Sharabi.
(c) Mr. Sharabi created a sexually hostile work environment by frequently making indecent comments about [**5] Ms. Garner's breasts. On at least five occasions, Mr. Sharabi commented on Ms. Garner's breasts, and asked "Are your nipples hard . . . are you happy to see me?" Ms. Garner found these comments highly inappropriate and sexually offensive.
(d) Mr. Sharabi also made regular comments about Ms. Garner's lips, and frequently asked her, "Are you wearing that for me (referring to her lipstick)?" and, "I like the way that looks on your lips."

2004 U.S. Dist. Ct. Pleadings 3788, *3; 2004 U.S. Dist. Ct. Pleadings LEXIS 6095, **5

Page 3

[*4] (e) Ms. Garner unequivocally and repeatedly informed Mr. Sharabi that his comments were offensive and unwelcome, but he persisted with this inappropriate and harassing conduct.
(f) Despite Ms. Garner's complaints to Mr. Sharabi about his harassing behavior, on several occasions, Mr. Sharabi followed Ms. Garner to the restroom and asked if he could accompany her. Ms. Garner feared Mr. Sharabi's behavior because she believed that he would try to assault her.
(g) Mr. Sharabi also made sexually offensive comments to Ms. Garner alluding to derogatory sexual acts. On several occasions when Ms. Garner was bending down, retrieving hangers or anti-shoplifting sensors, Mr. Sharabi made sexually suggestive comments such as, "Are you down there for [**6] me?", and "Is that why you're bending down for me?"
(h) Ms. Garner continued to inform Mr. Sharabi that his comments were offensive, but he continued to subject her to a sexually hostile work environment. On one occasion when Ms. Garner told Mr. Sharabi that his comments made her very uncomfortable and insisted that he stop, Mr. Sharabi asked Ms. Garner why she wanted him to stop and whether she had a boyfriend.
(i) When Ms. Garner realized that Mr. Sharabi would not cease harassing her, she asked Mr. Sharabi to change her work schedule so they would no longer work the same shift. However, her request was denied.
(j) Although Ms. Garner wanted desperately to report Mr. Sharabi's harassing behavior to Defendant's officials, she did not know to whom to file a complaint. At the onset of her employment, Ms. Garner acknowledged receipt of the employee handbook, but was not allowed to [*5] retain a copy of the handbook and was directed to return the handbook to Defendant.
(k) On January 17, 2003, Ms. Garner resigned from her employment with Defendant.
8. Since at least April 2003, Defendant Employer has engaged in unlawful employment practices at its Wyncote, Pennsylvania, by unlawfully [**7] subjecting Gail Watson to a hostile work environment based on her sex, female, in violation of Section 703(a)(1) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). These unlawful practices include, but are not limited to, the following:
(a) In or about August 2002, Ms. Watson began her employment with Defendant as a Sales Associate.
(b) In or about April 2003, Ms. Watson resigned from her employment with Defendant as a result of being subjected to a sexually hostile work environment by Defendant's Store Manager, Mamoun Kabbadj. Before Ms. Watson's resignation, Mr. Kabbadj, her direct supervisor, regularly and repeatedly stared at her breasts, constantly inquired about her personal life, and entered the dressing room to watch her change her clothes. As a result of this offensive behavior, Ms. Watson felt compelled to resign.
(c) In or about November 2003, Defendant's Store Manager, Yehouda Udi Sharabi called Ms. Watson and persuaded her to return to work. Ms. Watson returned to work, in hopes that Mr. Kabbadj might have changed his behavior.
(d) Unfortunately, after returning to work for Defendant in or about November 2003, Ms. Sharabi began to sexually harass Ms. [**8] Watson.
(e) Mr. Sharabi regularly stared at Ms. Watson's breasts and followed her around the store.
(f) On several occasions while working late with Mr. Sharabi, he informed Ms. Watson that he prepared a bed for them in the store and asked her to spend the night with him.
(g) Ms. Watson found Mr. Sharabi's behavior sexually offensive and could no longer withstand working in that

2004 U.S. Dist. Ct. Pleadings 3788, *5; 2004 U.S. Dist. Ct. Pleadings LEXIS 6095, **8

Page 4

environment. As a result of the sexually harassing work environment, Ms. Watson was constructively discharged.
9. The effect of the practices complained of in paragraphs 7(a)-(k) and 8 (a)-(g) above have been to deprive LaTanya Garner and Gail Watson of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees, because of their sex, female.
10. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs 7(a)-(k) and 8 (a)-(g) above were intentional.
11. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 7(a)-(k) and 8 (a)-(g) above were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of LaTanya Garner and Gail Watson, as females.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court:
A. [**9] Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant Employer, its officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in harassment based upon sex and any other employment practice which discriminates on the basis of sex.
B. Order Defendant Employer to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for females under Title VII, and which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices.
C. Order Defendant Employer to make whole LaTanya Garner and Gail Watson by providing appropriate back pay with prejudgment interest, in amounts to be determined at trial, and [*7] other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices.
D. Order Defendant Employer to make whole LaTanya Garner and Gail Watson by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described in paragraph 7(a)-(k) and 8(a)-(g) above, in amounts to be determined at trial.
E. Order Defendant Employer to make whole LaTanya Garner and Gail Watson by providing compensation for past and future [**10] nonpecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices complained of in paragraph 7(a)-(k) and 8(a)-(g) above, including emotional pain, suffering, depression, anxiety, loss of enjoyment of life and humiliation, embarrassment and loss of life's pleasures, in amounts to be determined at trial.
F. Order Defendant Employer to pay LaTanya Garner and Gail Warner punitive damages for its malicious and reckless conduct described in paragraph 7(a)-(k) and 8(a)-(g) 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.
[*8] 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

2004 U.S. Dist. Ct. Pleadings 3788, *8; 2004 U.S. Dist. Ct. Pleadings LEXIS 6095, **10

Page 5

Deputy General Counsel GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel /S/ JACQUELINE H. MCNAIR Regional Attorney /S/ JUDITH A. O'BOYLE Supervisory Trial Attorney /S/ DAWN M. EDGE (DME 3496) Trial Attorney EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Philadelphia District Office 21 South 5 [**11] <th> Street, Suite 400 Philadelphia, PA 19106 (215) 440-2687 (215) 440-2848 (FAX)

 
 E.E.O.C. v. Bare Feet Shoes of PA, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2006)

2006 WL 328355 United States District Court,
E.D. Pennsylvania.
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION v.
BARE FEET SHOES OF PA, INC.
No. Civ.A. 04-3788. | Feb. 10, 2006.
Attorneys and Law Firms
Dawn M. Edge, Jacqueline H. McNair, Judith A. O’Boyle, Iris Santiago-Flores, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Philadelphia, PA, for Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Alan L. Frank, Samantha A. Millrood, Frank, Rosen, Snyder & Moss LLP., Elkins Park, PA, for Bare Feet Shoes of PA, Inc.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
MCLAUGHLIN, J.
*1 The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed suit on behalf of Gail Watson, alleging that Ms. Watson was subjected to a sexually hostile work environment while employed at one of the defendant’s stores. The defendant has moved for summary judgment on the grounds that Ms. Watson did not exhaust administrative remedies and that the EEOC cannot make a prima facie case of sexually hostile work environment. The Court concludes that the EEOC has authority to sue on behalf of Ms. Watson even though she did not file a charge of discrimination with the EEOC, and that the EEOC has raised genuine issues of material fact as to the existence of, and the defendant’s liability for, a sexually hostile work environment.
I. Facts and Procedural History Gail Watson began her first term of employment in the defendant’s Wyncote, Pennsylvania store in August 2002. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the EEOC, the following occurred during Ms. Watson’s first term of employment.1 One of Ms. Watson’s supervisors, David (whose last name is unknown), stared at Ms. Watson’s breasts constantly, licked his lips while standing

close behind her, touched and commented on her jewelry, and talked about how her clothes fit her body. Once, he suggested to Ms. Watson that they make a bed in the store and sleep together. Another time, he grabbed her around the waist. On several occasions, when Ms. Watson objected to his conduct, he told her that she could clock out and leave work early if she did not like it. Ms. Watson also complained about David’s behavior to another of her supervisors, Mamoun Kabbadj, but Mr. Kabbadj told her that she had to listen to David because he was her supervisor. Pl’s Ex. 3 (Watson Dep.) 15:8-17:11, 21:13-16, 22:20-26:9, 65:9-68:9, 81:6-85:3.

1

On a motion for summary judgment, a court must view

the evidence and draw reasonable inferences therefrom

in the light most favorable to the party opposing

summary judgment. See, e.g., Anderson v. Liberty

Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91

L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). Summary judgment is proper if the

pleadings and other evidence on the record “show that

there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that

the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of

law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c).

Mr. Kabbadj also constantly stared at Ms. Watson’s breasts, licked his lips and winked his eyes at her, and repeatedly asked if she had a boyfriend. On one occasion, he asked her about the size of her breasts. On another occasion, he grabbed and pulled down her shirt after staring at her breasts. In addition, once when Ms. Watson was in the store shopping (not during work hours), Mr. Kabbadj peered over Ms. Watson’s dressing room stall as she was changing. Ms. Watson resigned in May 2003. Id. at 26:24-28:14, 37:5-40:5, Pl’s Ex. 6 (Departure Form).
Ms. Watson returned to work at the defendant’s store in November 2003. Ms. Watson returned because she believed that David and Mr. Kabbadj no longer worked there. During her second term of employment, Ms. Watson worked with a different supervisor, Yehouda “Udi” Sharabi. Mr. Sharabi looked at Ms. Watson’s breasts on a daily basis, told her that she would look good in low-cut shirts, and stood behind her in a close and inappropriate manner. He repeatedly told Ms. Watson that he wanted to marry her. Once, he intentionally walked in on Ms. Watson when she was using the restroom. When Ms. Watson told Mr. Sharabi that she would report his behavior, he attempted to intimidate her by telling her that he used to be a police officer and she could not do anything about it. Ms. Watson learned from a co-worker that when another female employee had complained to the defendant’s owner that Mr. Sharabi had made an offensive comment about “sucking D” to her, the owner did not take any action, and the employee quit. Ms. Watson’s second term of employment with the defendant ended in December 2003. Pl’s Ex. 3 (Watson Dep.)
1

E.E.O.C. v. Bare Feet Shoes of PA, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2006)

30:22-31:21, 48:16-50:5, 54:23-59:8, 60:21-61:16, 72:12-19, 85:5-20.
*2 Meanwhile, LaTanya Garner worked at the defendant’s Wyncote, Pennsylvania store from December 10, 2002 to January 17, 2003. On January 21, 2003, Ms. Garner filed a charge of sex discrimination against the defendant with the EEOC and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission (PHRC). In the charge, Ms. Garner alleged that she was subjected to numerous unwelcome sexual advances by her manager, “Udi.” Pl’s Ex. 9 (EEOC Charge); Pl’s Ex. 10 (PHRC Charge).
Ms. Watson never filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC. The EEOC uncovered her experiences at the defendant’s store during its investigation into Ms. Garner’s charge. Pl’s Ex. 12 (EEOC Determination). The EEOC filed suit on behalf of Ms. Watson and Ms. Garner in August 2004, alleging that the defendant had subjected both women to a sexually hostile work environment and constructively discharged Ms. Watson. The EEOC voluntarily dismissed its claims on behalf of Ms. Garner in September 2005. Ms. Garner remained in the case as an intervener plaintiff until October 2005, when she voluntarily dismissed her claims against the defendant. The only claims remaining in the case are the EEOC’s claims on behalf of Ms. Watson.

reasonable investigation into a valid charge. EEOC v. General Electric Co., 532 F.2d 359, 366 (4th Cir.1976) (“So long as the new discrimination arises out of the reasonable investigation of the charge filed, it can be the subject of a ‘reasonable cause’ determination, to be followed by an offer by the Commission of conciliation, and if conciliation fails, by a civil suit, without the filing of a new charge on such claim of discrimination.”) (emphasis in original); EEOC v. Huttig-Sash & Door Co., 511 F.2d 453, 455 (5th Cir.1975) (EEOC may take appropriate action on other discriminatory practices it discovers upon investigating a particular charge); EEOC v. UPS, 94 F.3d 314, 318 (7th Cir.1996) (same); EEOC v. Occidental Life Ins. Co. of Am., 535 F.2d 533, 541-542 (9th Cir.1976) (same).2

2

At least two district courts, including one in this

district, have also upheld the EEOC’s authority to

litigate on behalf of noncharging individuals in

circumstances similar to the one in this case. See EEOC

v. Equicredit Corp. of America, Civ. Act. No. 02-844,

2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19985, at *16-17 (E.D.Pa. Oct.

10, 2002) (EEOC may bring suit on behalf of a

non-charging individual that it identifies, but does not

name, in its letter of determination); EEOC v. Air Line

Pilots Ass’n, 885 F.Supp. 289, 292-293 (D.D.C.1995)

(EEOC may bring suit on behalf of a non-charging

individual even though it decides to not bring suit on

behalf of the individual who made the charge).

II. Analysis The defendant has moved for summary judgment on two grounds. First, the defendant argues that the EEOC cannot bring suit on behalf of Ms. Watson because she never filed a charge of discrimination with the agency. Second, the defendant challenges the EEOC’s ability to establish a prima facie case of sexually hostile work environment.
A. EEOC’s Authority to Litigate on Behalf of an Individual Who Did Not Exhaust Administrative Remedies Section 706 of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 authorizes the EEOC, upon the filing of a charge of discrimination, to notify the employer, investigate the charge, attempt to conciliate, and if conciliation fails, to bring a civil action against the employer. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5 (b), (f). The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has not considered whether the EEOC may bring suit on behalf of an individual who did not file a charge with the EEOC, but the Courts of Appeals for the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits have held that the EEOC may do so.
Most of these circuit courts have held that the EEOC may bring suit for any other violations of the employment discrimination laws that it discovers in the course of a

*3 The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit only permits the EEOC to bring claims that are “reasonably expected to grow out of the initial charge of discrimination.” EEOC v. Keco Industries, 748 F.2d 1097, 1101 (6th Cir.1984) (emphasis in original). In that case, the charging party alleged that the employer had discriminated against her because of her sex. The EEOC found that the employer had discriminated against females generally, and brought suit on behalf of all female employees. The court held that the class-based claim could have reasonably been expected to grow out of the individual charge, because the only difference was the number of persons victimized by the defendant’s discriminatory practices. Id.
The Courts of Appeals for the Fifth and Sixth Circuits have explicitly held that the EEOC may pursue claims on behalf of non-charging parties even after the charging party has settled its claims with the employer. Huttig-Sash & Door, 511 F.2d at 455; EEOC v. McLean Trucking Co., 525 F.2d 1007, 1010 (6th Cir.1975).
The Supreme Court cited this line of circuit court cases with approval in General Telephone Co. of the Northwest, Inc. v. EEOC, 446 U.S. 318, 331, 100 S.Ct. 1698, 64 L.Ed.2d 319 (1980). In that case, the Court held that the EEOC does not have to comply with the requirements of
2

E.E.O.C. v. Bare Feet Shoes of PA, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2006)

Fed.R.Civ.P. 23 when it brings suit on behalf of groups of similarly situated employees. Id. at 323.
The Supreme Court and circuit courts have recognized that the EEOC has independent authority to bring claims because it acts in the public interest. See id. at 326; General Electric Co., 532 F.2d at 373; McLean Trucking Co., 525 F.2d at 1010. The EEOC has this authority whether it is suing to obtain class-wide relief, or victim-specific relief for just one individual. See EEOC v. Waffle House, 534 U.S. 279, 291-292, 122 S.Ct. 754, 151 L.Ed.2d 755 (2002) (EEOC has authority to seek relief in court on behalf of an employee who signed a binding arbitration agreement because “it is the public agency’s province-not that of the court-to determine whether public resources should be committed to the recovery of victim-specific relief.”)
The Court is persuaded by these decisions that the EEOC may bring claims on behalf of individuals who have not filed a charge of discrimination with the agency.3 Whether the Court applies the “discovered in the course of a reasonable investigation” standard established by the United States Courts of Appeals for the Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits, or the higher “reasonably expected to grow out of the initial charge” standard used by the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, the Court finds that, in this case, the EEOC had authority to bring claims on behalf of Ms. Watson.

3

EEOC v. Northwestern Human Services, 04-CV-4531,

2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23768 (E.D.Pa. Oct. 14, 2005),

cited by the defendant at oral argument, is not on point.

In that case, the court held that non-charging

individuals may intervene in an action brought by the

EEOC where their claims are nearly identical to the

claims raised by the charging individuals. Id. at *8-9.

The court did not address the EEOC’s authority to

bring claims on behalf of non-charging individuals.

The defendant’s arguments that the “single filing rule”

does not apply to the present case because neither Ms.

Garner nor the EEOC has alleged class based

discrimination are similarly inapposite. The EEOC’s

authority to pursue claims on behalf of Ms. Watson in

this case is not based on the single filing rule.

perpetrators in overlapping terms of employment. See Pl’s Ex. 12 (EEOC Determination); Oral Arg. Tr. at 10:2-8.4

4

The Courts of Appeals have not expressly placed time

limits on the EEOC’s authority to bring claims on

behalf of non-charging individuals. In this case, the

EEOC’s claims are timely even by the standards

imposed upon private plaintiffs. In Pennsylvania,

individuals must file a charge with the EEOC or the

PHRC within 300 days of the discriminatory act; claims

are timely if they arise within the 300 days before the

charge is filed. Watson v. Eastman Kodak Co., 235 F.3d

851, 854 (3d Cir.2000). The EEOC’s earliest claim on

behalf of Ms. Garner arose approximately 175 days

before Ms. Garner filed her charge. See Compl. ¶ 8(a)

(Ms. Watson’s first term of employment began in

August 2002); Pl’s Ex. 9 (Ms. Garner filed the EEOC

charge on January 21, 2003).

B. Prima Facie Case of Sexually Hostile Work Environment *4 The EEOC has raised a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the defendant subjected Ms. Watson to a hostile work environment. Sexual harassment is actionable under Title VII when it is “so severe or pervasive as to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment and create an abusive working environment.” See, e.g., Clark County School Dist. v. Breeden, 532 U.S. 268, 270, 121 S.Ct. 1508, 149 L.Ed.2d 509 (2001) (internal quotations omitted). A hostile work environment claimant must show that:
(1) the employee[ ] suffered intentional discrimination because of [her] sex; (2) the discrimination was pervasive and regular; (3) the discrimination detrimentally affected the plaintiff; (4) the discrimination would detrimentally affect a reasonable person of the same sex in that position; and (5) the existence of respondeat superior liability.

The EEOC discovered that Ms. Watson had been sexually harassed during both of her terms of employment in the course of its investigation into Ms. Garner’s charge, and so notified the defendant in its letter of determination. The defendant then had an opportunity for conciliation. There is no evidence that the defendant ever objected to the scope of the EEOC’s investigation. The sexual harassment claim on behalf of Ms. Watson could reasonably be expected to grow out of the investigation into Ms. Garner’s charge of sexual harassment, where the women worked with some of the same alleged

Kunin v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 175 F.3d 289, 293 (3d Cir.1999) (quoting Andrews v. City of Philadelphia, 895 F.2d 1469, 1482 (3d Cir.1990)).
The defendant has challenged the EEOC’s ability to satisfy the “pervasive and regular” and respondeat superior elements of the claim.
i. Pervasive and Regular In Andrews, the United States Court of Appeals for the
3

E.E.O.C. v. Bare Feet Shoes of PA, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2006)

Third Circuit held that “pervasive and regular” sexual harassment could give rise to a hostile work environment claim even if individual incidents were not sufficiently severe to detrimentally affect a female employee. 895 F.2d at 1485. In Spain v. Gallegos, 26 F.3d 439, 449 (3d Cir.1994), the court held that the plaintiff presented a fact question for trial on the “pervasive and regular” element, when she alleged that her supervisor’s conduct in meeting with her privately (to pressure her to loan him money) caused rumors to develop, over a period of several years, that she was having an affair with him. See also Smith v. Pathmark Stores, Civ. Act. No. 97-1561, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8631 at *12-13 (E.D. Pa. June 11, 1998) (plaintiff who alleged that her supervisor said “let’s get naked” while placing his arm around her shoulder, told her “you need a man,” asked whether she lived alone, and touched her buttocks once in a two-month period established a genuine issue of material fact as to whether her supervisor created a hostile work environment).
The EEOC has alleged sufficient facts for a reasonable fact-finder to find that Ms. Watson experienced harassment that was pervasive and regular in both her first and second terms of employment. During her first term, Ms. Watson’s supervisors stared at her breasts constantly, made repeated sexually-charged comments about her physical appearance, asked unwelcome questions about her personal life, and touched her inappropriately on at least two occasions. During her second term, Ms. Watson’s supervisor also regularly stared at her breasts and made sexually-charged comments. On one occasion, he walked in on her in the restroom.
ii. Employer Liability *5 An employer may be held vicariously liable for a hostile work environment created by a supervisor who has authority over the victim employee. Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742, 765, 118 S.Ct. 2257, 141 L.Ed.2d 633 (1998); Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 807, 118 S.Ct. 2275, 141 L.Ed.2d 662 (1998). An employer will be held strictly liable if “the supervisor’s harassment culminates in a tangible employment action, such as discharge, demotion, or undesirable reassignment.” Burlington Industries, 524 U.S. at 765; Faragher, 524 U.S. at 808. Otherwise, the employer may raise an affirmative defense that “(a) the employer exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct any sexually harassing behavior, and (b) that the plaintiff employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventative or corrective opportunities provided by the employer or to avoid harm otherwise.” Burlington Industries, 524 U.S. at 765; Faragher, 524 U.S. at 807.

A constructive discharge may or may not involve “official action” equivalent to a tangible employment action. Pennsylvania State Police v. Suders, 542 U.S. 129, 148, 124 S.Ct. 2342, 159 L.Ed.2d 204 (2004). If the constructive discharge does not involve an official act, such as a demotion or a deduction in compensation reflected in company records, then the employer is entitled to present the two-pronged affirmative defense outlined in Burlington Industries and Faragher. Id.
Here, the parties agree that David, Mr. Kabbadj, and Mr. Sharabi were Ms. Watson’s supervisors. Def’s MSJ Mem. at 21. The parties disagree as to whether the defendant took a tangible employment action against and/or constructively discharged Ms. Watson and, assuming that the defendant is entitled to present an affirmative defense, whether the defendant has met its burden of proof on the affirmative defense. Because Ms. Watson’s alleged harassers were her supervisors, the EEOC has raised a question of material fact as to the defendant’s liability, regardless of whether that liability is strict or rebuttable. Thus, the Court will deny the defendant’s motion for summary judgment without prejudice to the defendant making an argument at a later time that it is entitled to present an affirmative defense under Burlington Industries and Faragher.
An appropriate Order follows.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 10th day of February, 2006, upon consideration of the defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 20), the plaintiff’s opposition thereto, and after oral argument on January 13, 2006, for the reasons stated in a memorandum of today’s date, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a telephone conference is scheduled for February 21, 2006 at 4:30 p.m. Plaintiff’s counsel shall initiate the call. Judge McLaughlin’s chambers telephone number is 267-299-7600.
Parallel Citations
97 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 884, 87 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 42,251
	  

4

 
 United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket Report

Page 1 of 8

CLOSED, STANDARD
United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:04-cv-03788-MAM

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Date Filed: 08/11/2004

v. BARE FEET SHOES OF PA, INC.

Date Terminated: 06/15/2006

Assigned to: HONORABLE MARY A. MCLAUGHLIN Jury Demand: Plaintiff

Cause: 42:2000 Job Discrimination (Sexual Harassment) Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs

Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Plaintiff
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

represented by DAWN M. EDGE EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 21 S. 5TH ST STE 400 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19106 215-440-2687 Email: dawn.edge@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

IRIS SANTIAGO-FLORES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COM PHILA DISTRICT OFFICE

https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?638790115212545-L_353_0-1

5/21/2007

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket Report

Page 2 of 8

Intervenor Plaintiff LATANYA GARNER TERMINATED: 09/23/2005
V. Defendant BARE FEET SHOES OF PA, INC.

21 S. 5TH ST., STE 400 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19106 215-440-2684 Email: iris.santiago-flores@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by LATANYA GARNER PRO SE
LANCE DAVID LEWIS OFFICE OF LANCE DAVID LEWIS, ESQUIRE 101 N. EASTON ROAD SUITE 202 GLENSIDE, PA 19038 215-572-1981 Fax: 215-572-1201 Email: llewis@lancedlewis.com TERMINATED: 10/12/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by ALAN L. FRANK ALAN L. FRANK LAW ASSOCIATES PC 8380 OLD YORK ROAD SUITE 410 ELKINS PARK, PA 19027 215-935-1000 Fax: 215-935-1110 Email: afrank@frankandrosenlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
LISA G. FADEN ALAN L. FRANK LAW ASSOCIATES, P.C. 8380 OLD YORK ROAD SUITE 410 ELKINS PARK, PA 19027 215-935-1000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
SAMANTHA A. MILLROOD FRANK ROSEN SNYDER & MOSS LLP

https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?638790115212545-L_353_0-1

5/21/2007

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket Report

Page 3 of 8

Date Filed 08/11/2004 08/11/2004 08/11/2004 09/03/2004
09/09/2004 09/15/2004
09/20/2004
10/13/2004 11/01/2004

8380 OLD YORK ROAD SUITE 410 ELKINS PARK, PA 19027 215-935-1000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT against BARE FEET SHOES OF PA, INC. , filed by EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION.(ss, ) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/29/2004 (mac, ). (Entered: 08/12/2004)

Summons Issued, One original mailed as to BARE FEET SHOES OF PA, INC.. Forwarded To: Counsel on 8/12/04 (ss, ) (Entered: 08/12/2004)

DEMAND for Trial by Jury by EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION. (ss, ) (Entered: 08/12/2004)

2 SUMMONS Returned Executed by EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION re: T. FREDERICKS served Summons and Complaint upon E. SALACCHETTI on behalf of BARE FEET SHOES OF PA, INC. by Personal Service. BARE FEET SHOES OF PA, INC. served on 8/31/2004, answer due 9/20/2004. (stb, ) (Entered: 09/03/2004)

3 ANSWER and Affirmative Defenses to Complaint by deft BARE FEET SHOES OF PA, INC., Certificate of Service.(gn, ) (Entered: 09/10/2004)

4 NOTICE of Hearing: TELEPHONE RULE 16 CONFERENCE SET FOR TUESDAY, 10/26/2004 04:30 PM IN JUDGE'S CHAMBERS BEFORE THE HONORABLE MARY A. MCLAUGHLIN. PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL SHALL INITIATE THE CALL. JUDGE'S CHAMBERS TELEPHONE NUMBER IS 267-299-7600.(ck, ) (Entered: 09/15/2004)

5 NOTICE of Hearing: TELEPHONE STATUS CONFERENCE SET FOR OCTOBER 26, 2004 IS RESCHEDULED FOR MONDAY, 11/1/2004 04:30 PM IN JUDGE'S CHAMBERS BEFORE THE HONORABLE MARY A. MCLAUGHLIN. PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL SHALL INITIATE THE CALL. JUDGE McLAUGHLIN'S CHAMBERS TELEPHONE NUMBER IS 267-299-7600. (ck, ) (Entered: 09/20/2004)

6 MOTION TO INTERVENE AS PARTY PLFF, FILED BY LATANYA GARNER, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.(gn, ) (Entered: 10/13/2004)

7 Corporate Disclosure Statement filed by deft BARE FEET SHOES OF PA, INC., Certificate of Service.(gn, ) (Entered: 11/01/2004)

https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?638790115212545-L_353_0-1

5/21/2007

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket Report

Page 4 of 8

11/02/2004 11/04/2004 11/04/2004 11/05/2004 11/05/2004 12/03/2004
12/06/2004 12/09/2004 05/02/2005

8 NOTICE of Hearing: TELEPHONE RULE 16 CONFERENCE SET FOR WEDNESDAY, 11/3/2004 04:30 PM IN JUDGE'S CHAMBERS BEFORE THE HONORABLE MARY A. MCLAUGHLIN. PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL SHALL INITIATE THE CALL. JUDGE McLAUGHLIN'S CHAMBERS TELEPHONE NUMBER IS 267-2997600.(ck, ) (Entered: 11/02/2004)
9 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge MARY A. MCLAUGHLIN : Pretrial Conference held on 11/3/04 (gn, ) (Entered: 11/04/2004)
10 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO INTERVENE AS UNCONTESTED. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE MARY A. MCLAUGHLIN ON 11/3/04.) 11/4/04 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND EMAILED. (gn, ) (Entered: 11/04/2004)
11 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge MARY A. MCLAUGHLIN : Interim Pretrial Conference held on 11/3/04. (wgc, ) (Entered: 11/05/2004)
12 NOTICE of Hearing: RULE 16 TELEPHONE CONFERENCE SET FOR FRIDAY, 12/3/2004 09:00 AM IN JUDGE'S CHAMBERS BEFORE THE HONORABLE MARY A. MCLAUGHLIN. PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL SHALL INITIATE THE CALL. JUDGE McLAUGHLIN'S CHAMBERS TELEPHONE NUMBER IS 267-2997600.(cps, ) (Entered: 11/05/2004)
13 SCHEDULING ORDER THAT ALL DISCOVERY SHALL BE COMPLETED BY 8/1/05; ANY DAUBERT MOTION, SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION, OR OTHER DISPOSITIVE MOTION SHALL BE FILED ON OR BEFORE 10/17/05; THE CASE IS REFERRED TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE LINDA K. CARACAPPA FOR A SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE TO BE HELD AFTER AUGUST, 2005, AND THE COURT WILL HOLD A TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH COUNSEL ON 10/27/05 AT 4:30 P.M., TO DISCUSS SCHEDULING THE REMAINDER OF THE CASE, ETC.SIGNED BY JUDGE MARY A. MCLAUGHLIN ON 12/3/04. 12/3/04 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND E-MAILED.(cdd, ) (Entered: 12/03/2004)
14 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge MARY A. MCLAUGHLIN : Pretrial Conference held on 12/3/04 (gn, ) (Entered: 12/06/2004)
15 ORDER THAT A SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE IS SET FOR 9/6/2005 10:00 AM BEFORE MAGISTRATE LINDA K. CARACAPPA. SIGNED BY JUDGE LINDA K. CARACAPPA ON 12/9/05. 12/10/05 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(stb, ) (Entered: 12/10/2004)
16 ORDER THAT THE CASE IS TRANSFERRED FROM MAGISTRATE JUDGE LINDA K. CARACAPPA TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE DAVID R. STRAWBRIDGE FOR A SETTLEMENT

https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?638790115212545-L_353_0-1

5/21/2007

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket Report

Page 5 of 8

05/04/2005 05/17/2005 07/18/2005
07/18/2005 09/01/2005 09/07/2005 09/12/2005
09/14/2005

CONFERENCE. UNLESS OTHERWISE DIRECTED BY JUDE STRAWBRIDGE, THE SETTLMENT CONFERENCE SHALL REMAIN SCHEDULED FOR 9/6/05, IN CHAMBERS OF JUDGE STRAWBRIDGE, ROOM 4006. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE MARY A. MCLAUGHLIN ON 5/2/05. ) 5/3/05 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND E-MAILED.(gn, ) (Entered: 05/03/2005)
17 ORDER THAT A SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE WILL BE HELD ON 9/6/2005 AT 10:00 AM BEFORE MAGISTRATE JUDGE DAVID STRAWBRIDGE IN ROOM 4006. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE DAVID STRAWBRIDGE ON 5/4/05. ) 5/5/05 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND E-MAILED.(gn, ) (Entered: 05/05/2005)
18 AMENDED ORDER THAT A SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE WILL BE HELD ON 9/14/2005 AT 10:00 AM BEFORE MAGISTRATE JUDGE DAVID STRAWBRIDGE. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE DAVID STRAWBRIDGE )5/17/05 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND EMAILED.(gn, ) (Entered: 05/17/2005)
19 AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER: ALL DISCOVERY DUE BY 10/3/2005. ANY DAUBERT MOTION, SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION OR OTHER DISPOSITIVE MOTION DUE BY 12/19/2005. THE COURT WILL HOLD A TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH COUNSEL ON 1/9/06 AT 4:30PM TO DISCUSS SCHEDULING THE REMAINDER OF THE CASE. THE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE CURRENTLY SCHEDULED BEFORE MAGISTRATE JUDGE DAVID R. STRAWBRIDGE FOR 9/14/05 SHALL GO FORWARD AS SCHEDULED. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE MARY A. MCLAUGHLIN ON 7/18/05. ) 7/18/05 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND EMAILED.(gn, ) (Entered: 07/18/2005)
TELEPHONE CONFERENCE SET FOR 1/9/2006 04:30 PM BEFORE HONORABLE MARY A. MCLAUGHLIN. (gn, ) (Entered: 07/18/2005)
20 MOTION for Summary Judgment Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment filed by BARE FEET SHOES OF PA, INC..Memorandum, Certificate of Service. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Law In Support of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment# 2 Certificate of Service)(FRANK, ALAN) (Entered: 09/01/2005)
21 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge DAVID STRAWBRIDGE : Telephone Conference held on 9/7/05 (gn, ) (Entered: 09/07/2005)
22 STIPULATION AND ORDER THAT PLFF EEO IS GRANTED A (14) DAY EXTENSION TO RESPOND TO DEFT BARE FEET SHOES OF PA. INC.'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. PLFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS DUE 9/29/05. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE MARY A. MCLAUGHLIN ON 9/9/05. ) 9/12/05 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (gn, ) (Entered: 09/12/2005)
23 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge DAVID

https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?638790115212545-L_353_0-1

5/21/2007

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket Report

Page 6 of 8

09/15/2005 09/19/2005 09/19/2005 09/23/2005
09/29/2005
10/04/2005 10/07/2005 10/12/2005

STRAWBRIDGE : Settlement Conference held on 9/14/05. (gn, ) (Entered: 09/15/2005)
24 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 20 MOTION for Summary Judgment Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment filed by LATANYA GARNER.Memorandum.(LEWIS, LANCE) (Entered: 09/15/2005)
25 EXHIBITS A through I by deft BARE FEET SHOES OF PA, INC. ti be attached to the motion for summary judgment filed on 9/1/05. (gn, ) (Entered: 09/20/2005)
26 ORDER THAT PLFF'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO DEFT'S SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS GRANTED. PLFF SHALL HAVE UP TO AND INCLUDING 10/4/05 TO RESPOND TO DEFT'S SUMMARY JUDGMENT. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE MARY A. MCLAUGHLIN ON 9/16/05.)9/20/05 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND E-MAILED. (gn, ) (Entered: 09/20/2005)
27 STIPULATION AND ORDER THAT PLFF AND DEFT BARE FEE SHOES OF PA., INC. HEREBY VOLUNTARILY DISMISS THE EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION'S ACTION BROUGHT ON BEHALF OF PLFF INTERVENOR LATANYA GARNER IN THE MATTER, WITHOUT PREJUDICE. EACH PARTY WILL BEAR ITS OWN ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS AS TO THE DISMISSAL OF THE CLAIMS ON BEHALF OF LATANYA GAARNER. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE MARY A. MCLAUGHLIN ON 9/22/05. ) 9/26/05 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (gn, ) Modified on 9/26/2005 (gn, ). (Entered: 09/26/2005)
28 Memorandum of Law in Support of its Opposition re 20 MOTION for Summary Judgment Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment filed by EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Certificate of Service. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Order and Cover Sheet to EEOC Response in Opposition to Defendant's SJ Motion# 2 Table of Citations to EEOC's Response in Opposition to Def's SJ Motion) (EDGE, DAWN) Modified on 9/30/2005 (np). (Entered: 09/29/2005)
29 EXHIBITS (1-14) by plff EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION'S opposition to defts motion for summary judgment. (gn, ) (Entered: 10/04/2005)
30 STIPULATION of Dismissal by LATANYA GARNER. (LEWIS, LANCE) (Entered: 10/07/2005)
31 STIPULATION AND ORDER THAT PLFF/INTERVENOR LATANYA GARNER AND DEFT BARE FEET SHOES OF PA., INC. VOLUNTARILY DISMISS PLFF/INTERENOR'S ACTION BROUGHT IN THE ABOVE-CAPTIONED MATTER, WITH PREJUDICE. EACH PARTY WILL BEAR ITS OWN ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE MARY A. MCLAUGHLIN ON 10/11/05. ) 10/13/05 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED.(gn, ) Modified on 10/14/2005 (gn, ). (Entered: 10/13/2005)

https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?638790115212545-L_353_0-1

5/21/2007

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket Report

Page 7 of 8

12/14/2005 12/19/2005
01/17/2006 01/23/2006 02/10/2006
02/10/2006 02/22/2006 02/22/2006
02/23/2006
05/09/2006

32 NOTICE of Appearance by IRIS SANTIAGO-FLORES on behalf of EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION (SANTIAGO-FLORES, IRIS) (Entered: 12/14/2005)
33 ORDER THAT AN ORAL ARGUMENT ON THE DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS SCHEDULED FOR 1/13/06 AT 1:00 PM. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE TELEPHONE CONFERENCE SCHEDULED FOR 1/9/06 IS CANCELLED. SIGNED BY JUDGE MARY A. MCLAUGHLIN ON 12/16/05. 12/19/05 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED, E-MAILED. (fdc) (Entered: 12/19/2005)
34 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge MARY A. MCLAUGHLIN : Oral Argument on deft's motion for summary judgment held on 1/13/06. ESR Reporter: Ray Wolf. (gn, ) (Entered: 01/17/2006)
35 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 1/13/06 before Judge McLaughlin. Court Reporter: Raymond Wolf. (gs) (Entered: 01/24/2006)
36 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER THAT DEFT'S MTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT A TELEPHONE CONFERENCE IS SCHEDULED FOR 2/21/06 AT 4:30PM. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE MARY A. MCLAUGHLIN ON 2/10/06. ) 2/10/06 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND EMAILED.(gn, ) (Entered: 02/10/2006)
TELEPHONE CONFERENCE SET FOR 2/21/2006 04:30 PM BEFORE HONORABLE MARY A. MCLAUGHLIN. (gn, ) (Entered: 02/10/2006)
37 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge MARY A. MCLAUGHLIN : Telephone Conference held on 2/21/06 (gn, ) (Entered: 02/22/2006)
38 SECOND AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER: A FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE SET FOR 5/24/2006 AT 04:00 PM BEFORE HONORABLE MARY A. MCLAUGHLIN. PRETRIAL MOTIONS DUE BY 5/15/2006. TRIAL DATE SET FOR 5/30/2006 09:30 AM IN COURTROOM 13-A. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE MARY A. MCLAUGHLIN ON 2/21/06. ) 2/22/06 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND E-MAILED.(gn, ) Modified on 2/22/2006 (gn, ). (Entered: 02/22/2006)
39 ORDER THAT THE ACTION WHICH WAS REFERRED BY THIS COURT TO THE CALENDAR OF THE HONORABLE DAVID R. STRAWBRIDGE, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE, FOR THE PURPOSES OF SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE, IS NO LONGER SO REFERRED TO THE CALENDAR OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE STRAWBRIDGE. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE MARY A. MCLAUGHLIN ON 2/23/06. ) 2/23/06 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED.(gn, ) (Entered: 02/23/2006)
40 PRETRIAL MEMORANDUM by EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?638790115212545-L_353_0-1

5/21/2007

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Docket Report

Page 8 of 8

05/18/2006 05/22/2006 05/24/2006
05/25/2006 05/26/2006 06/15/2006

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Certificate of Service. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A- EEOC Back Pay of Gail Watson# 2 Exhibit B-Proposed Stipulation to Defendant)(EDGE, DAWN) (Entered: 05/09/2006)
41 PRETRIAL MEMORANDUM by BARE FEET SHOES OF PA, INC. Certificate of Service. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(FRANK, ALAN) (Entered: 05/18/2006)
42 NOTICE of Appearance by LISA G. FADEN on behalf of BARE FEET SHOES OF PA, INC. (gn, ) Modified on 5/26/2006 (gn, ). (Entered: 05/26/2006)
43 NOTICE of Hearing:RULE 16 TELEPHONE STATUS CONFERENCE SET FOR 7/14/2006 04:30 PM IN JUDGE'S CHAMBERS BEFORE THE HONORABLE MARY A. MCLAUGHLIN. PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL SHALL INITIATE THE CALL. JUDGE MCLAUGHLIN'S CHAMBERS TELEPHONE NUMBER IS 267-299-7600.(cps, ) Modified on 5/24/2006 (mc, ).(Docketed in error see 06-2148). (Entered: 05/24/2006)
44 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge MARY A. MCLAUGHLIN : Settlement Conference held on 5/24/06. (gn, ) (Entered: 05/26/2006)
45 NOTICE of Appearance by LISA G. FADEN as co-counsel on behalf of BARE FEET SHOES OF PA, INC. (gn, ) (Entered: 05/26/2006)
46 CONSENT DECREE WITH COURT APPROVAL. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE MARY A. MCLAUGHLIN ON 6/15/06. ) 6/15/06 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED.(gn, ) (Entered: 06/15/2006)

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt

05/21/2007 17:12:55

PACER Login:

hs0328

Client Code:

Description:

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

Billable Pages: 4

Cost:

eeoc
2:04-cv-03788MAM 0.32

https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?638790115212545-L_353_0-1

5/21/2007