1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

11

Equal Employment Opportunity

)

12 Commission,

)

)

13

Plaintiff,

)

)

14

V.

)

)

15 HealthHelp, Inc.,

)

)

16

Defendant, )

)

17 Janis Hagy, Carolyn Johnson, and )

Arlene Warren,

)

18

)

Intervenor Plaintiffs. )

19 ______________________________ )

20 Janis Hagy, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

) ) )

21

)

V.

)

22

)

HealthHelp, Inc.,

)

23

)

Defendant. )

24

)

CIV 03-1204 PHX RGS CIV 03-1216 PHX RGS CONSENT DECREE

25

The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the

26 “Commission” or “EEOC”) filed this action against HealthHelp, Inc. (“HealthHelp”

27 or “Defendant”) to enforce Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Civil Rights

28 Act of 1991. In the Complaint, the Commission alleged that Arlene Warren,

1 Carolyn Johnson and Janis Hagy were retaliated against when they opposed

2 discriminatory actions on the part of HealthHelp, Inc. and were terminated.

3 HealthHelp answered, alleging there was nothing discriminatory about its conduct

4 and the three former employees were terminated due to sound business reasons.

5

In the interest of resolving this matter, and as a result of having engaged in

6 comprehensive settlement negotiations, the Parties have agreed that this action

7 should be finally resolved by entry of this Decree.

8

The Parties do not object to the jurisdiction of the Court over this action and

9 waive their rights to a hearing and the entry of findings of fact and conclusions of

10 law.

11

It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED:

12 1. This Decree resolves all claims of the Commission against Defendant,

13 including back pay, compensatory and punitive damages, interest, injunctive

14 relief, attorney's fees, and costs arising out of the issues in this lawsuit.

15

INJUNCTION

16 2. Defendant and its officers, agents, employees, successors, assigns, and all

17 persons in active concert or participation with it, both at the time that this Decree

18 becomes effective and for the duration of this Decree, are permanently enjoined

19 for the duration of the Decree from retaliating against any employee because he

20 or she: (i) opposes or opposed discriminatory practices made unlawful by Title

21 VII; (ii) files or filed a charge of discrimination or assists, assisted, participates, or

22 participated in the filing of a charge of discrimination; or (iii) assists, assisted,

23 participates or participated in an investigation or proceeding brought under the

24 Federal or State laws prohibiting discrimination or retaliation. .

25

MONETARY RELIEF

26 3. Defendant shall pay a settlement in the amount of $450,000.00, to be

27 divided and distributed as set forth in Exhibit A. The payments will be made by

28 check no later than ten days from the Court’s entry of the Consent Decree. The

- 2 -

1 checks shall be mailed to the addresses provided by the Commission. Within

2 three business days of the issuance of the checks, Defendant shall submit a copy

3 of the checks and all related correspondence to Mary Jo O’Neill, Regional

4 Attorney, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 3300 North Central

5 Avenue, Suite 690, Phoenix, Arizona 85012.

6 4. These payments represent settlement of compensatory damages and

7 attorney fees in the amounts set forth in Exhibit A. Defendant will issue United

8 States Internal Revenue Service Forms 1099 for the compensatory damages

9 and attorney fees for the tax year during which payment is made.

10 5. Defendant will not condition the receipt of individual relief on Ms.

11 Warren’s, Ms. Hagy’s or Ms. Johnson’s agreement to (a) waive their statutory

12 right to file a charge with any federal or state anti-discrimination agency for

13 actions not arising out of the same facts, or (b) waive their right to apply for a

14 position with the Defendant.

15

OTHER RELIEF

16 6. Defendant shall expunge from the personnel files of Ms. Warren, Ms. Hagy

17 and Ms. Johnson: (a) all references to the EEOC charges filed against

18 Defendant that formed the basis of this action; (b) all references to Ms. Warren’s,

19 Ms. Hagy’s and Ms. Johnson’s participation in this action; (c) any derogatory

20 document which relates to complaints or investigation of complaints of retaliation

21 or discrimination; and (d) any other documents, except for routine business

22 records, relating to the termination of Ms. Warren, Ms. Hagy and Ms. Johnson.

23 7. Defendant shall institute and carry out policies and practices that help

24 assure a work environment free from retaliation. To assist Defendant in its efforts

25 to assure such a work environment, Defendant shall take the actions provided in

26 paragraphs 8 through 14 of this Decree.

27

28

- 3 -

1

NOTICE

2 8. Defendant shall post for the duration of this Decree, in a prominent place

3 frequented by its employees at its facilities, the Notice attached as Exhibit B. The

4 Notice shall be posted in English and Spanish. The Notice shall be the same

5 type, style and size as set forth in Exhibit B.

6

TRAINING

7 9. Defendant shall provide training on unlawful discrimination and retaliation,

8 according to the following terms:

9

A. Defendant shall retain and pay a consultant/lecturer who shall

10 provide training to its supervisory employees for a period of two years from the

11 date of this Decree, on the issues of discrimination and retaliation. During each

12 of the two years, the consultant/lecturer shall conduct one live seminar training

13 session.

14

B. Defendant shall obtain the EEOC's approval of the

15 consultant/lecturer selected by Defendant to provide the training described

16 above. At least sixty (60) days prior to the proposed training session, Defendant

17 shall submit the name(s), address(es), telephone number(s) and resume(s) of the

18 proposed consultant/lecturer(s), together with the dates of the proposed training

19 session and an outline of the contents of the training, to the Regional Attorney of

20 the Phoenix District Office of the EEOC, at the address provided above. The

21 Commission shall have thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of the information

22 described above to accept or reject the proposed consultant/lecturer and/or the

23 contents of the seminar. In the event the Commission does not approve the

24 designated consultant/lecturer and/or the contents of the training, the

25 Commission shall designate the consultant/lecturer at a cost not to exceed

26 $2,500 per seminar session, which shall be paid by Defendant.

27

C. During the first year, the seminar training session shall be

28 conducted within six months of the entry of this Decree. During the second year,

- 4 -

1 the seminar-training session shall be conducted between eleven (11) and thirteen

2 (13) months after the completion of the preceding session.

3

D. The seminar training sessions shall be no less than two hours,

4 plus fifteen to thirty minutes of questions and answers. All of Defendant’s

5 supervisory employees shall register when they attend a seminar-training

6 session. The registry of attendance shall be retained by Defendant for the

7 duration of this Decree.

8

E. The seminars shall include: (1) the subject of what constitutes

9 discrimination and retaliation; (2) that Title VII is violated by retaliation for

10 opposing activities reasonably believed to be a violation of Title VII; and (3)

11 unlawful termination based on retaliation. The session shall also review and

12 explain Defendant’s policies set out in this Decree.

13

F. During the live training sessions, Defendant’s President shall

14 speak to the employees about the legal consequences faced by companies that

15 tolerate discrimination and retaliation; the importance of maintaining an

16 environment free of discrimination and retaliation, and Defendant’s policies in

17 regard to discrimination and unlawful termination based on retaliation, referred to

18 in paragraph 11 of this Decree. The President shall explain that managers and

19 supervisors will be evaluated, in part, on their enforcement of policies prohibiting

20 discrimination and retaliation, and their response to complaints made under

21 those policies.

22 10. The Commission, with reasonable notice, may designate Commission

23 representatives to attend and participate in the seminar-training sessions, and the

24 representatives shall have the right to attend and fully participate in the sessions.

25

POLICIES AND PROCEDURES

26 11. Within sixty (60) days of the entry of this Decree, Defendant shall develop

27 written policies concerning discrimination and retaliation, to conform with the law,

28 and submit the policy for review to the Regional Attorney of the Phoenix District

- 5 -

1 Office of the EEOC. These written policies must include at a minimum:

2

A. A strong and clear commitment to a workplace free of

3 retaliation;

4

B. A clear and complete definition of retaliation;

5

C. A statement that retaliation is prohibited and will not be

6 tolerated;

7

D. A clear and strong encouragement of persons who believe

8 they have been subjected to retaliation to come forward;

9

E. The identification of specific individuals, with their telephone

10 numbers, to whom employees, who believe they have been subjected to

11 discrimination or retaliation, can report the unlawful conduct, including a written

12 statement that employees may report the unlawful conduct to designated persons

13 outside of their chain of management.

14

F. An assurance that Defendant will investigate allegations of

15 retaliation promptly, fairly, reasonably and effectively, using appropriate

16 investigators, and that appropriate corrective action will be taken by Defendant to

17 make victims whole and to eradicate the unlawful conduct.

18

G. A description of the consequences, up to and including

19 termination, that will be imposed upon violators of the policy;

20

H. A promise of maximum feasible confidentiality for persons who

21 believe that they have been subjected to discrimination or retaliation.

22

These policies shall be distributed to each of Defendant’s current

23 employees within ninety (90) days of the entry of this Decree. These policies

24 shall be distributed to all new employees of Defendant when hired. These

25 policies also shall be posted in a prominent place frequented by the employees

26 at Defendant ’s workplace.

27

REPORTING BY DEFENDANT AND ACCESS BY EEOC

28 12. Defendant shall report in writing and in affidavit form to the Regional

- 6 -

1 Attorney of the Commission's Phoenix District Office, beginning six months from

2 the date of the entry of this Decree, and thereafter every year for the duration of

3 the Decree, the following information:

4

A. A copy of the revised policies required in paragraph 11 of this

5 Decree.

6

B. Any changes, modifications, revocations, or revisions to its

7 policies and procedures which concern or affect the subjects of discrimination

8 and retaliation.

9

C. The name, address, position, social security number, and

10 telephone number of any individual who has brought allegations, whether formal

11 or informal, of wage discrimination and/or unlawful termination based on sex,

12 against Defendant’s personnel including, but not limited to, management officials

13 and/or non-management employees, during the first six months, and thereafter

14 every year, preceding the report to the EEOC. The nature of the complaint,

15 investigatory efforts made by Defendant, and corrective action taken, if any, also

16 shall be specified.

17

D. The registry of persons attending the seminars required in

18 paragraph 8 of this Decree and a list of current supervisory and managerial

19 personnel employed by Defendant on the days of the seminar training sessions.

20

E. Confirmation that (1) the Notice required in paragraph 8 of this

21 Decree was posted in all required languages, and the locations where it was

22 posted; (2) the policies required in paragraph 11 were distributed to each current

23 and new employee of Defendant; (3) the expungement from the personnel files of

24 Ms. Warren, Ms. Hagy and Ms. Johnson required in paragraph 6 of this Decree

25 took place, the date of the expungement, and the specific documents expunged.

26 13. The Commission, upon reasonable notice and agreement, shall have the

27 right to enter and inspect Defendant’s premises and work sites to ensure

28 compliance with this Decree and the prohibitions against retaliation contained in

- 7 -

1 Title VII.

2

COSTS AND DURATION

3 14. Each Party shall bear its costs and attorney's fees incurred as a result of

4 this action through the filing of this Decree.

5 15. The duration of this Decree shall be twenty-four (24) months from its entry.

6 This Court shall retain jurisdiction over this action for the duration of the Decree,

7 during which the Commission may petition this Court for compliance with this

8 Decree. Should the Court determine that Defendant has not complied with this

9 Decree, the Court may order appropriate relief, including extension of this Decree

10 for such period as may be necessary to remedy its non-compliance, an award of

11 attorney’s fees and costs, and fines for contempt of court.

12 16. In the event the Court concludes, upon petition of the Commission,

13 following notice to Defendant, that Defendant has violated the terms of this

14 Decree, Defendant shall pay all attorney’s fees and costs incurred by the

15 Commission to enforce the Decree.

16 17. Absent extension, this Decree shall expire by its own terms at the end of

17 twenty-four (24) months from the date of entry without further action by the

18 Parties.

19 18. The Parties agree to entry of this Decree and judgment subject to final

20 approval by the Court.

21

DATED this 7th day of April, 2006.

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 8 -

1 2 APPROVED AND CONSENTED TO: 3 4 5 s/E. R. Mashek
Edward Mashek 6 For HealthHelp, Inc. 7 8 s/James L. Blair
James Blair 9 Charles S. Hover, III
Attorney for Defendant 10 HealthHelp, Inc. 11 RENAUD COOK DRURY MESAROS
PA 12 Phelps Dodge Tower, Suite 900
One N. Central Ave. 13 Phoenix, AZ 85004 14 15 s/ M. E. Rake for
David J. Catanese 16 Attorney for Plaintiff-Intervenors 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

s/ Mary Jo O’Neill Mary Jo O’Neill Regional Attorney s/Sally Shanley Sally C. Shanley Acting Supervisory Trial Attorney
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 3300 North Central Ave., Suite 690 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 Attorneys for Plaintiff

- 9 -

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
- 10 -

Carolyn Johnson
Janis Hagy Arlene Warren Rake & Catanese

Exhibit A
$210,000.00, with $40,000.00 to be paid upon entry of the decree and $170,000.00 to be paid in four equal yearly payments commencing on March 10, 2007. $105,000.00 $ 25,000.00 $110,000.00

Exhibit B
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF HEALTH HELP, INC.
This Notice is posted pursuant to a Consent Decree entered into between Health Help, Inc. and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
It is unlawful under federal law, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and state law to discriminate against an employee on the basis of race, in the recruitment, hiring, firing, compensation, assignment, or other terms, and conditions or privileges of employment. It is also unlawful to retaliate against any person because the person protested discriminatory practices or contacted the EEOC.
Health Help, Inc. shall not discriminate against any employee on the basis of race and shall not retaliate against any employee.
You have the right to file a charge with the EEOC if you believe you are being discriminated against.
No Retaliation Clause. No action may be taken against you by any supervisory or management official of Health Help, Inc. for (1) opposing discriminatory practices made unlawful by federal or state law; (2) filing a charge or assisting or participating in the filing of a charge of discrimination; or (3) assisting or participating in an investigation or proceeding brought under Title VII.
Contact the EEOC at the addresses or telephone numbers listed below:
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Mickey Leland Federal Building 1919 Smith Street Suites 600 & 700 Houston, Texas 77002-8049 Phone: 713-209-3320, 713-209-3377, or 1-800-669-4000

 
 1 MAIW Jo O'NEILL #005924

C. EMANUEL SMITH
2 SALLYC, SHANLEY #012251

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

3

COMMISSION

Phoenix District Office
4 3300 North Central, Suite 690

Phoenix. Arizona 85012
5 (602) 640-5032

Attmneys for Plaintiff
6

7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9

10 Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission,

11

Plaintiff,

12

vs.

COMPLAINT AND JURY TRIAL
DEMAND

13 HealthHelp, Inc., a foreign
14 corporation

15

Defendant.

16 NATURE OF THE ACTION
17
This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of
18
the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis 19
of retaliation and to provide appropriate relief to Arlene Warren, Carolyn Johnson 20
and Janice Hagy. Ms. Warren, Ms. Johnson and Ms. Hagy were retaliated 21
against-when they opposed discriminatory actions on the part of HealthHelp, Inc.
22
("HealthHelp") and were terminated. 23
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 24
1. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§451, 25
13~~ 1, 1337, 1343 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to
26
sections 706(f)(1) and (3) and 707 of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as 27

28

1

- - -- - -- -- -

~~--

-

-

- - -~

----~

- - - - - - - - - _ . _ - - - - - - - - " - - - _-.. -------~----_

-

1 amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) ("Title VII") and Section 102 of the Civil

2 Rights Act of 1991,42 U.S.C. §1981a.

3

2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed

4 within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona.

5

PARTIES

6

3. Plaintiff, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the

7 uCommissionll), is the agency of the United States of America charged with the

8 administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title VII and is expressly

9 authorized to bring this action by Sections 706(f)(1) and (3) and 707 of Title VII,

10 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5(f)(1) and (3).

11

4. At all relevant times, defendant HealthHelp , Inc. has continuously

12 b€!en a foreign corporation doing business in the State of Arizona and the City of

13 Phoenix, and has continuously had at least fifteen employees.

14

5. At all relevant times, HealthHelp, Inc. has continuously been an

'15 employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of

16 Section 701 (b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§2000e(b}, (g) and (h).

17

STATEMENT OF CLAIMS

18

6. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Arlene

19 Warren, Carolyn Johnson and Janice Hagy filed charges with the Commission

20 alleging violations of Title VII by Defendant. All conditions precedent to the

21 institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled.

22

7. Since at least May 2001, Defendant has engaged in unlawful

23 retaliatory practices in violation of Section 704(a) of Title VlI l 42 U.S.C. § 2000e24 3(a) by terminating the employment of Ms. Warren l Ms. Johnson and Ms. Hagy 25 because they opposed discriminatory practices. These practices included:

26

a. In May 2001, Ms. Hagy and Ms. Warren were told by the Executive

27

28

2

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- ---~-~ -

----- -------------- ---~

-

1

Director of Corporate Development for HealthHelp, not to hire

2

"Blacks or Jews" for a client in Oregon.

3

b. When they informed Ms. Johnson, their supervisor, of the directive,

4

she advised the Human Resources Director and Vice President of

5

Human Resources, that neither she nor her staff would participate in

6

a discriminatory practice that violates federal law.

7

c. Health Help terminated al/ three employees, Arlene Warren,

8

Carolyn Johnson and Janice Hagy, in June, 2001.

9

8. The effect of the practices complained of in paragraph 7 has been to

10 deprive Ms. Warren, Ms. Johnson and Ms. Hagy of equal employment

11 opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees in

12 retaliation for opposing practices made unlawful by Title VII.

13

9. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 7

14 were intentional.

15

10. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 7

16 were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected

17 rights of Ms. Warren, Ms. Johnson and Ms. Hagy.

18

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

19

WHEREFORE, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court:

20

A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining HealthHelp and its officers,

21 successors, assigns and all persons in active concert or participation with

22 DElfendant from engaging in any employment practice which discriminates on the

23 basis of race, religion or retaliati6-h.

24

B. Order HealthHelp to institute and carry out policies, practices and

25 programs which provide equal employment opportunities for African Americans

26 and Jews and those who oppose unlawful employment discrimination, and which

27

28

3

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

2

C. Order HealthHelp to make whole Ms. Warren, Ms. Johnson and Ms.

3 Hagy by providing appropriate backpay with prejudgment interest, in amounts to

4 be proved at trial, and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of

5 Defendant's unlawful employment practices including, but not limited ta, their

6 rightful place reinstatement.

7

D. Order HealthHelp to make'whole Ms. Warren, Ms. Johnson and Ms.

8 Hagy by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting

9 from the unlawful employment practices described above, including but not

10 limited to costs incurred for obtaining medical treatment and subsequent

11 employment, in amounts to be determined at trial.

12

E. Order HealthHelp to make whole Ms. Warren, Ms. Johnson and Ms.

13 Hagy by providing compensation for past and future non-pecuniary losses

14 resulting from the unlawful practices complained of above, including emotional

15 pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, and

16 humiliation in amounts to be determined at trial.

17

F. Order HealthHelp to pay Ms. Warren, Ms. Johnson and Ms. Hagy

18 punitive damages for its malicious and/or reckless conduct, in amounts to be

19 determined at trial.

20

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

21 the public interest.

22

H. Award the Commission its costs of this action.

23

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

24

The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its

25 complaint.

26

27

28

4

1

DATED this i(Lj/f day of June,

2003.

2

3

GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS

Associate General Counsel

4

5

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

6

1801 L Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20507

7

8

9

10

11 12

C.lM~m~

SupeNisory Trial Attorney

13

14
15

~. . "?'<S,....H,..:;ATNTT"L.....:E~Y~-/
Trial Attar ey

16

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

17

Phoenix District Office

3300 N. Central Ave., Suite 690

18

Phoenix, Arizona 85012

(602) 640-5032

19

20

Attorneys for Plaintiff

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

 
 1 RAKE & CATANESE

2

A F'ROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS

3246 NORTH SIXTEENTH STREET

3

PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85016-7104

Telephone (602) 264-9081

4

Facsimile (602) 265-2628

5 David J. Catanese, #012083

6 Attorneys for Intervenors

7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

10 OPPORTUNlTY COMMISSION,

11

Plaintiffs,

12

Vs.

13

HEALTHHELP, INC., a foreign corporation

14

Defendant.

15

JANIS HAGY, CAROLYN JOHNSON

16

and ARLENE WARREN,

17

Intervenors

Case No.: CIV 031204 PHXRGS
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

18

19
Intervenors for their Complaint against Defendant HealthHelp, Inc. allege:

20 1. This is an action seeking damages and equitable relief for unlawful employment

21
practices 'on the basis of retaliation and in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights of 1964

22
and title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991.

23

2. This Court has jurisdiction of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§451, 1331,

24
1337, 1343 and 1345.

25
3. Venue is proper in the District of Arizona pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(b) as all

26 acts occurred in this District.

27

1

4.

2 Court.

The amounts in con1roversy exceed the minimum jurisdictional1imits of this

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17 department that they would not palticipate in such a discriminator; practice t.l,.at violates

18 federallaw.

19

11. Subsequent to Intervenors complaining of the acts set forth in paragraph 8 and

20 after infOlming the human resources department that they would not partidpate in such a

21 discriminatory practice that violates federal law, Defendant HealthHelp, Inc. retaliated against

22 Intervenors and said retaliation culminated in Intervenors being terminated in June, 2001, .

23

12. The acts of Defendant HealthHelp, Inc. as set forth in the preceding paragraphs

24 constitute a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights of 1964 and title I of the Civil Rights Act

25 of 1991. 26

27

2

1

13. The acts of Defendant HealthHelp, Inc. as set forth in the preceding paragraphs

2 were intentional and committed with malice and reckless indifference to the federally

3 protected rights of Intervenors.

4

5 WHEREFORE, Intervenors respectfully request this Court to:

6

A. Issue a judgment declaring that the conduct of Defendant HealthHelp, Inc., as

7 set forth herein, violated Intervenors' rights pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights of 1964

8 and title I ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1991.

9

B. Issue preliminary and pennanent injunctions against Defendant HealthHelp, Inc.

10 prohibiting it from committing similar unlawful acts in the future.

11

C. Issue a judgment awarding Intervenors compensatory damages against

12 Defendant HealthHelp, Inc. in an amount to be detennined at trial.

13

D. Issue a judgment awarding Intervenors punitive damages against Defendant

14 HealtbHelp, Inc. in an amount to be determined at trial.

15

E. Issue a judgment awarding Intervenors their reasonable costs and attorneys fees

16 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988 and any other applicable law.

17

F. Issue a judgment awarding Intervenors ail other relief that IS just and

18 appropriate under the circumstances.

19

G. Intervenors demand a trial by jury.

20

21

DATED this 28th day of August, 2003.

22

23

RAKE & CATANESE, p.e.

24
25

l \!
By~.

\ )\

o

" j),\~'\ ' ..~ .._. "

26

=DaviQ--J.-tatan~se 3246 North 16t Street

27

Phoenix, Arizona 85016

Attorneys for Intervenors

3

1 COPY of the foregoing mailed this 28th day ofAugust, 2003 to:
2
Sally C. Shanley 3 EEOC
3300 N. Central Ave., Ste. 690 4 Phoenix, Arizona 85012
5 Attorneys for PlaintiffEEOC

6

James L. Blair, Esq.
Charles s. Hover, III

7 RENAUD, COOK & DRURY, P.A. Two Renaissance Square

8 40 North Central, Suite 1600 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4449

9 10

At

meys for Defendant HealthHelp

' _. _. ~-_

'!""'" --~~.

• .......

-J ,

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

4

 
 E.E.O.C. v. HealthHelp, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)
2005 WL 2416515 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
United States District Court, D. Arizona.
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v.
HEALTHHELP, INC., Defendant, Janis HAGY, Carolyn Johnson, and Arlene Warren, Intervenor Plaintiffs.
Janis HAGY, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
HEALTHHELP, INC. Defendant.
No. CV–03–1204PHXRGS, CV–03–1216PHXRGS. | Sept. 27, 2005.
Attorneys and Law Firms
C. Emanuel Smith, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Phoenix, AZ, Sally Clifford Shanley, Mary Joleen O’Neill, Esq., for Plaintiff.
James Lawrence Blair, Charles Stedman Hover, III, Esq., Renaud Cook & Drury PA, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant.
David Joseph Catanese, Rake & Catanese PC, Phoenix, AZ, for Intervenor Plaintiffs.
Opinion
ORDER
STRAND, Senior J.
*1 Pending before the Court are Defendant HealthHelp, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. # 59] and Plaintiff EEOC’s and Plaintiff/ Intervenors Janis Hagy’s, Carolyn Johnson’s, and Arlene Warren’s (collectively “Plaintiffs” ‘) Motion to Strike Defendant’s “Objections to Intervenors’ Separate Statement of Facts” [Doc. # 71]. Following oral argument held on August 30, 2005, the Court took the matter under advisement. Having considered the parties’ written and oral arguments, as well as the applicable law, for the reasons set forth below, the Court will deny Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and grant Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike Defendant’s “Objections to Intervenors’ Separate Statement of Facts”.1
I. BACKGROUND Defendant HealthHelp, Inc. partners with health care providers to manage radiology services for a number of insurers. [Doc. # 59, p. 2] Plaintiff/Intervenors Carolyn Johnson, Janis Hagy, and Arlene Warren were employees in HealthHelp’s Phoenix office in the Spring of 2001. [Id.] Ms. Warren was the quality assurance manager at HealthHelp. [Doc. # 63, Exh. C, p. 11] Ms. Warren reported to Ms. Hagy, who was the executive director of the clinical staff. Ms. Hagy reported to Ms. Johnson, who was a vice-president of the company. Ms. Johnson reported to the company president, Cherrill Farnsworth. [Doc. # 59. p. 2]
During this time, Donna Baker–Miller was director of business development and worked in the Phoenix office. [Doc. # 63, Exh. D, pp. 13–14] Paul Tufano was a company vice-president who was responsible for the human resources department. In this capacity, he supervised human resources manager Angela Hightower Dick. Both Mr. Tufano and Ms. Dick worked in HealthHelp’s corporate headquarters in Houston. [Doc. # 63, Exh. E, p. 12; Exh. A, p. 3]
On May 1, 2001, Plaintiffs allege that Ms. Baker–Miller came to the office of Janis Hagy and Arlene Warren and told them that they could not hire “Blacks or Jews” for a contract being implemented in Oregon. [Doc. # 63, Exh. B, p. 18] Janis Hagy
1

E.E.O.C. v. HealthHelp, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)
objected to Ms. Baker–Miller, stating that such a requirement would violate federal law. [Doc. # 63, Exh. B, pp. 19–20] Ms. Baker–Miller stated that Blue Cross Blue Shield of Oregon had advised her and company president Cherrill Farnsworth that such a policy was a contractual requirement. [Id.] Ms. Hagy responded that she could not violate federal law. [Doc. # 63, Exh. B, p. 20]
The following day, Ms. Warren and Ms. Hagy met with Ms. Johnson and reported Ms. Baker–Miller’s alleged discriminatory directive. [Doc. # 63, Exh. B, pp. 23–24; Exh. C, pp. 22, 27–28] Ms. Hagy asked Ms. Johnson for direction on the matter, and Ms. Johnson advised her to call human resources in Houston. Accordingly, the next day, Ms. Hagy called Angela Dick on the speaker phone from Ms. Johnson’s office. Ms. Dick was aware that Ms. Johnson also was on the call. Ms. Hagy reported her concern that the directive was a discriminatory practice. [Doc. # 63, Exh. L, pp. 91–93] Ms. Dick advised Ms. Hagy that the company would not require her to discriminate and stated that she would contact her supervisor, Paul Tufano, on the issue. [Doc. # 63, Exh. B, p. 25]
*2 Shortly thereafter, while sitting next to Ms. Johnson in Ms. Johnson’s parked car, Ms. Hagy received a call from Paul Tufano on her cellphone. Ms. Hagy related the conversation with Ms. Baker–Miller. Mr. Tufano suggested that the job description could be re-written to allow only males between twenty-five and thirty years of age to be eligible for the position. Ms. Hagy informed him that to do so also would be discriminatory. Mr. Tufano responded that the company job descriptions could be written as deemed appropriate by the company. [Doc. # 63, Exh. B, pp. 28–29] Ms. Hagy replied that she could not discriminate in her hiring. [Doc. # 63, Exh. B, p. 29] Mr. Tufano advised Ms. Hagy that he needed to speak to Blue Cross Blue Shield regarding the matter and that he would get back to her, which, according to Ms. Hagy, he did not do. [Id.]
Approximately two months later, in June 2001, Ms. Johnson, Ms. Hagy, and Ms. Warren were terminated from their employment by HealthHelp. [Plaintiffs’ Complaint, Doc. # 1, ¶ 7(c) ] On June 24, 2003, the EEOC filed the instant lawsuit, in which Ms. Johnson, Ms. Hagy, and Ms. Warren subsequently intervened as Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs allege that they were terminated in retaliation for opposing discriminatory hiring practices in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991.
On November 30, 2004, HealthHelp filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, arguing that there is no evidence that Ms. Warren or Ms. Johnson opposed the alleged directive, therefore neither party can demonstrate “that she was engaged in an activity protected under Title VII which caused her to be terminated.” Accordingly, HealthHelp requests the Court to “enter summary judgment in its favor on the claims of plaintiff EEOC and intervenor plaintiffs Carolyn Johnson and Arlene Warren.”
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW A court must grant summary judgment if the pleadings and supporting documents, viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party “show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322–23, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). A material fact is one “that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law....” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). A dispute is genuine “if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-moving party.” Id. The court must resolve all ambiguities and draw all reasonable inferences in favor the non-moving party. Provenz v. Miller, 102 F.3d 1478, 1483 (9th Cir.1996).
A principal purpose of summary judgment is “to isolate and dispose of factually unsupported claims.” Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323–24. Summary judgment is appropriate against a party who “fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of a element essential to that party’s case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.” Id. at 322. The moving party need not disprove matters on which the opponent has the burden of proof at trial. Id. at 317. The party opposing summary judgment “may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of [the party’s] pleadings, but ... must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e); Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio, 475 U.S. 574, 585–88, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986).
III. DISCUSSION *3 Section 704(a) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits retaliation against any employee who opposes unlawful discrimination. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–3(a)(1976). A prima facie case is established if the plaintiff demonstrates that (1) she has engaged in activity protected under Title VII; (2) she has suffered an adverse employment action; and (3) there is a causal
2

E.E.O.C. v. HealthHelp, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)
link between the protected expression and the adverse action. Ray v. Henderson, 217 F.3d 1234, 1240 (9th Cir.2000). In its motion, HealthHelp argues that Ms. Warren and Ms. Johnson did not oppose the alleged discrimination and therefore cannot establish the first element of a prima facie case.
Plaintiff Arlene Warren HealthHelp concedes that Ms. Warren expressed her concerns about Ms. Baker–Miller’s alleged discriminatory directive to Ms. Hagy and Ms. Johnson. [See Doc. # 59, p. 3] Indeed, the record confirms her actions:
Q: BY MR. HOVER:
After this incident where Donna Baker–Miller came in and gave you that alleged directive, did you object to it to anybody within the HealthHelp organization?
A: Janis Hagy
Q: Anybody else?
A: Carolyn Johnson
...
Q: And do you remember what you told Janis Hagy specifically with regard to your objection to that supposed directive?
A: That is was against the law.
[Doc. # 63, Exh. C, pp. 27–28]
HealthHelp appears to argue, without any citation to authority, that because Ms. Warren did not “talk[ ] to anyone in Houston personally about the alleged directive,” she did not engage in a protected activity by opposing the alleged unlawful discrimination. [See Doc. # 59, p. 4 (emphasis added) ]. The Court disagrees that it was necessary for Ms. Warren to complain to corporate headquarters about the alleged discrimination in order to establish the first element of her prima facie case. Ms. Warren properly objected to her immediate supervisor, Janis Hagy, as well as to company vice-president Carolyn Johnson. Accordingly, resolving all ambiguities and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor the non-moving party, see Provenz v. Miller, 102 F.3d at 1483, the Court concludes that a reasonable jury could find that Arlene Warren engaged in protected activity under Title VII and will deny HealthHelp’s Motion for Summary Judgment with respect to this Plaintiff.
Plaintiff Carolyn Johnson HealthHelp argues that Carolyn Johnson’s testimony does not establish that she raised any opposition to the alleged directive from Donna Baker–Miller; rather, according to HealthHelp, it establishes only that she was present during telephone conversations between Janis Hagy and members of management in Houston. Specifically, HealthHelp cites the conversation between Janis Hagy and Angela Dick, noting that Ms. Johnson testified in her deposition that she listened to said conversation on the speaker phone in her office but did not recall if she participated therein. [See Doc. # 59, Exh. A, p. 93] HealthHelp also cites the call received by Janis Hagy from Paul Tufano while she was seated in Ms. Johnson’s car. HealthHelp argues that “Ms. Johnson did not recall the specifics of that conversation nor testify that she participated by opposing the alleged directive.” [See Doc. # 59, p. 5] In support of this argument, HealthHelp cites Ms. Johnson’s testimony regarding a memo written by Paul Tufano dated May 3, 2001, which allegedly summarized their conversation that day. [Doc. # 59, Exh. A, pp. 161–166] A review of this testimony reveals that Ms. Johnson stated that she indeed had a conversation with Mr. Tufano regarding the alleged discriminatory directive, although she disagreed that the memo documented the substance of this conversation:
*4 Q.... Is it true that on May 3, you may have talked to him [Paul Tufano] about this incident you’ve dated May 1?
A. We did.
3

E.E.O.C. v. HealthHelp, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)
...
Q. Did you have a conversation with him on May 3, perhaps?
A. He called back wanting to know what occurred.
Q. Okay.
A. And we reported it exactly as we’ve said before.
Q. But you’re saying this [memo] doesn’t document that conversation?
A. Doesn’t appear to me that it does.
[Id., pp. 163, 165]
In addition, Paul Tufano testified that he received a call from Carolyn Johnson expressing her concern regarding Donna Baker–Miller’s directive:
Q. Can you tell me the first thing you ever heard about this incident that occurred?
...
A. Okay.... Carolyn called me and had communicated to me that Ms. Baker communicated to the clinical staff that there were issues related to the hiring of African Americans and individuals of Jewish descent as it related to our hiring in the Regence Oregon contract based upon her—“her” being Donna Baker’s experience or knowledge of hate groups in the Oregon area. And ...
Q. Go ahead.
A. And Ms. Johnson shared her concern because she was involved with the recruiting. She was actually leading the recruiting effort for the staff related to this contract. She was concerned that what was being represented by Ms. Baker was not our corporate policy and that she and her staff were being asked to do something that didn’t make sense to her. And I had communicated to her—“her” being Carolyn Johnson—I said, “Look, the company’s policy is very clear. We hire the most qualified person with the skill set we are looking for regardless of race, color, creed, or religion or ethnic background, period....”
...
Q. Okay. Why would Carolyn have called you concerning this issue?
A. I guess two reasons: one, because I am a fellow officer, and, two, I had a reasonable relationship with Carolyn. I thought she was very professional, and I felt that that conversation was due to that relationship that we had; is that she was concerned and she called, as well as the fact that I was responsible for Human Resources through Angela Dick.
[Doc. # 63, Exh. E, pp. 9–12]
Accordingly, resolving all ambiguities and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor the non-moving party, see Provenz v. Miller, 102 F.3d at 1483, the Court concludes that a reasonable jury could find that Carolyn Johnson engaged in protected activity under Title VII; HealthHelp therefore is not entitled to summary judgment with respect to this Plaintiff.
IV. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above,
IT IS ORDERED denying Defendant HealthHelp, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment. [Doc. # 59]
HealthHelp having filed an appropriate Reply Brief conforming to the requirements set forth in LRCiv 7.2 of the Rules of Practice of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona,
4

E.E.O.C. v. HealthHelp, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike Defendant’s subsequently filed pleading entitled “Objections to Intervenors’ Separate Statement of Facts.” [Doc. # 71]
*5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of the Court to strike said pleading from the file. [Doc. # 69]

Footnotes

1

Accordingly, the Court has not considered any material presented in Defendant’s pleading in reaching its decision.

5

 
 CM/ECF - azd - Docket Report

https://ecf.azd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?111764083863697-L_35...

CLOSED, LEAD, STD
U.S. District Court DISTRICT OF ARIZONA (Phoenix Division) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:03-cv-01204-RGS

EEOC v. HealthHelp Inc Assigned to: Judge Roger G Strand Demand: $0 Cause: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

Date Filed: 06/24/2003 Date Terminated: 04/12/2006 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by C Emanuel Smith EEOC 3300 N Central Ave Ste 690 Phoenix, AZ 85012-1848 602-640-5033 Fax: 602-640-5009 Email: emanuel.smith@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mary Joleen O'Neill EEOC 3300 N Central Ave Ste 690 Phoenix, Az 85012-1848 602-640-5044 Fax: 602-640-5009 Email: mary.oneill@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sally Clifford Shanley EEOC 3300 N Central Ave Suite 690 Phoenix, AZ 85012-1848 602-640-5007 Fax: 602-640-5009 Email: sally.shanley@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.

1 of 11

6/1/2007 11:15 AM

CM/ECF - azd - Docket Report
Defendant HealthHelp Inc a foreign corporation
Intervenor Plaintiff Janis Hagy
Intervenor Plaintiff Carolyn Johnson Intervenor Plaintiff Arlene Warren
2 of 11

https://ecf.azd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?111764083863697-L_35...
represented by Charles Stedman Hover, III Renaud Cook Drury Mesaros PA Phelps Dodge Tower 1 N Central Ave Ste 900 Phoenix, AZ 85004-4417 602-256-3046 Fax: 602-307-5853 Email: chover@rcdmlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James Lawrence Blair Renaud Cook Drury Mesaros PA Phelps Dodge Tower Phelps Dodge Tower 1 N Central Ave Ste 900 Phoenix, AZ 85004 602-307-9900 Fax: 602-307-5853 Email: jblair@rcdmlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David Joseph Catanese Rake & Catanese PC 2701 E Camelback Rd Ste 160 Phoenix, AZ 85016-7104 602-264-9081 Email: dcatanese@aztriallaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David Joseph Catanese (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David Joseph Catanese (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
6/1/2007 11:15 AM

CM/ECF - azd - Docket Report

https://ecf.azd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?111764083863697-L_35...

Date Filed 06/24/2003 07/01/2003 07/01/2003
07/16/2003 07/22/2003 07/23/2003 08/01/2003
08/08/2003 08/29/2003 08/29/2003
10/01/2003 10/03/2003 10/03/2003 10/07/2003

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT FILED (LSP) (Entered: 06/25/2003)
2 RETURN OF SERVICE EXECUTED summons/complaint upon dft HealthHelp Inc, by service on CT Corporation (on Molly Chapman) on 6/26/03 in Phoenix, AZ (former emp) (Entered: 07/08/2003)
3 MOTION to intervene (to assert claims in this matter) by Janis Hagy, Carolyn Johnson, Arlene Warren [3-1] , to consolidate cases (CV 03-1204 PHX-RGS and CV 03-1216 PHX-ROS) by intervenor Janis Hagy, intervenor Carolyn Johnson, intervenor Arlene Warren [3-2] (former emp) (Entered: 07/08/2003)
4 STIPULATION to extend time to answer complaint through 7/23/03 [1-1] by pla, dft [4-1] (DMT) (Entered: 07/18/2003)
5 ORDER by Judge Roger G. Strand granting stipulation to extend time to answer complaint through 7/23/03 [1-1] by pla, dft [4-1] (cc: all counsel) (DMT) (Entered: 07/22/2003)
6 ANSWER to complaint [1-1] by dft; jury demand (DMT) (Entered: 07/25/2003)
7 ORDER by Judge Roger G. Strand granting motion to intervene as party plas(to assert claims in this matter) by Janis Hagy, Carolyn Johnson, Arlene Warren [3-1], granting motion to consolidate cases (CV 03-1204 PHX-RGS and CV 03-1216 PHX-ROS) by intervenor Janis Hagy, intervenor Carolyn Johnson, intervenor Arlene Warren [3-2] Case consolidated 2:03-cv-1204 with member cases 2:03-cv-1216 (cc: all counsel) (DMT) (Entered: 08/01/2003)
8 ORDER by Judge Roger G. Strand action designated as a standard track case; prel scheduling conf set for 10:30 10/8/03 (cc: all counsel) (DMT) (Entered: 08/08/2003)
9 COMPLAINT FILED by intervornors Hagy, Johnson, Warren against dft Healthhelp, Inc (DMT) (Entered: 09/04/2003)
9 DEMAND for jury trial by intervenor-plaintiff Janis Hagy in 2:03-cv-01204, intervenor-plaintiff Carolyn Johnson in 2:03-cv-01204, intervenor-plaintiff Arlene Warren in 2:03-cv-01204 (part of complaint 9-1) (DMT) (Entered: 09/04/2003)
10 CASE MGT PLAN/REPORT by plas, dft (DMT) (Entered: 10/02/2003)
11 ANSWER to complaint [1-1] by dft in 2:03-cv-01204 (DMT) (Entered: 10/06/2003)
12 ANSWER to complaint of intervenors [9-1] by dft in 2:03-cv-01204; jury demand (DMT) (Entered: 10/06/2003)
13 MINUTE ORDER: Due to a conflict on the Court's calendar, IT IS ORDERED moving the Rule 16 Scheduling Conference currently set on October 8, 2003 to October 20, 2003 at 2:30 p.m. in 2:03-cv-01204 and in 2:03-cv-01216 (cc: RGS, all counsel) (KSB) (Entered: 10/07/2003)

3 of 11

6/1/2007 11:15 AM

CM/ECF - azd - Docket Report

https://ecf.azd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?111764083863697-L_35...

10/20/2003
10/22/2003
11/07/2003 11/12/2003 11/12/2003 02/13/2004 02/19/2004 02/27/2004 03/01/2004 03/04/2004 03/05/2004

14 MINUTE ENTRY before Judge Roger G. Strand. Crt Rptr: Linda Schroeder-Willis. Appearances: Sally Clifford Shanley counsel for the plaintiff; Charles Hover counsel for the defendant; David Joseph Catanese counsel for Intervenor. Rule 16 scheduling conference held. Discovery deadline set for 6/30/04; dispositive motion deadline set for 7/31/04; expert reports shall be filed by 2/28/04; rebuttal expert reports shall be filed by 4/25/04; pretrial conference set for 10/18/04 at 10:30 a.m. in 2:03-cv-01204 and 2:03-cv-01216; jury trial set for 11/16/04 at 9:30 a.m. in 2:03-cv-01204 and 2:03-cv-01216. [cc: RGS, All Counsel] [14] (CLF) (Entered: 10/21/2003)
15 ORDER by Judge Roger G. Strand that 5 business days prior to the final pretrial conference of 10/18/04 parties shall file a jointly proposed final pretrial memorandum as to mailing address, phone and fax numbers for parties and their counsel, statement of jurisdiction, statment of the case for the jury, contentions of the parties, stipulation and uncontested facts, contested issues of fact and law, list of witnesses within 5 days prior to trial; list of exhibits and depositions, motions in limine by 2 weeks before trial, voir dire questions, jury instructions, evidence presentation, probable length of trial, certifications (cc: all counsel) (DMT) (Entered: 10/22/2003)
16 NOTICE of compliance of initial disclosure statement pursuant to FRCivP 26(a) by intervenor-plaintiffs in 2:03-cv-01204 (DMT) (Entered: 11/10/2003)
17 NOTICE of compliance of initial disclosure statement pursuant to FRCivP 26(a) by dft HealthHelp Inc in 2:03-cv-01204 (DMT) (Entered: 11/12/2003)
18 NOTICE of compliance of initial disclosure statement pursuant to FRCivP 26(a) by pla in 2:03-cv-01204 (DMT) (Entered: 11/18/2003)
19 NOTICE by dft HealthHelp Inc in 2:03-cv-01204 of change of address and name of firm to Renaud Cook Drury Mesaros of Phelps Dodge Tower 1 N Central Avenue Suite 900 602-307-9900 (DMT) (Entered: 02/18/2004)
20 NOTICE of compliance of first supplemental disclosure statement pursuant to FRCivP 26(a) by dft HealthHelp Inc in 2:03-cv-01204 (DMT) (Entered: 02/24/2004)
21 NOTICE of compliance of initial disclosure statement pursuant to FRCivP 26(a) as to expert's report by intervenor-plaintiff Janis Hagy in 2:03-cv-01204, intervenor-plaintiff Carolyn Johnson in 2:03-cv-01204, intervenor-plaintiff Arlene Warren in 2:03-cv-01204 (DMT) (Entered: 03/02/2004)
22 STIPULATION to extend time to 3/5/04 for dft to file/ provide Rule 26(a)(2) expert disclosure by pla in 2:03-cv-01204, dft in 2:03-cv-01204, intervenor-plaintiff in 2:03-cv-01204 (DMT) (Entered: 03/03/2004)
23 ORDER by Judge Roger G. Strand granting stipulation to extend time to 3/5/04 for dft to file/ provide Rule 26(a)(2) expert disclosure by pla in 2:03-cv-01204, dft in 2:03-cv-01204, intervenor-plaintiff in 2:03-cv-01204 in 2:03-cv-01204 (cc: all counsel) (DMT) (Entered: 03/04/2004)
24 NOTICE of compliance of second supplemental disclosure statement pursuant to FRCivP 26(a) by dft in 2:03-cv-01204 (DMT) (Entered: 03/09/2004)

4 of 11

6/1/2007 11:15 AM

CM/ECF - azd - Docket Report

https://ecf.azd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?111764083863697-L_35...

03/16/2004 03/17/2004 03/29/2004 05/03/2004 05/12/2004 05/21/2004 05/26/2004 06/15/2004 06/15/2004 06/17/2004 06/18/2004
06/18/2004 06/23/2004 07/02/2004 07/16/2004 07/16/2004

25 NOTICE of service of discovery by dft in 2:03-cv-01204. (DMT) (Entered: 03/18/2004)
26 NOTICE by pla in 2:03-cv-01204 OF TAKING DEPO OF Donna Baker-Miller on 3/17/04, of Paul Tufano and HealthHelp Inc on 3/31/04 and Cherrill Farnsworth on 4/1/04 (DMT) (Entered: 03/18/2004)
27 NOTICE by dft in 2:03-cv-01204 OF TAKING DEPO OF Don Grostic on the following date(s): 4/7/04 (DMT) (Entered: 03/30/2004)
28 NOTICE of service of discovery by pla EEOC in 2:03-cv-01204. (former emp) (Entered: 05/06/2004)
29 NOTICE of service of discovery by dft HealthHelp Inc in 2:03-cv-01204, dft Healthhelp Inc in 2:03-cv-01216. (FMP) (Entered: 05/14/2004)
30 NOTICE of service of discovery by pla in 2:03-cv-01204. (DMT) (Entered: 05/24/2004)
31 NOTICE by dft in 2:03-cv-01204 OF TAKING DEPO OF custodian of records of McKesson Corp on the following date(s): 6/7/04 (DMT) (Entered: 05/27/2004)
32 NOTICE of compliance of third supplemental disclosure statement pursuant to FRCivP 26(a) by dft HealthHelp Inc in 2:03-cv-01204 (DMT) (Entered: 06/16/2004)
33 NOTICE of service of discovery by dft HealthHelp Inc in 2:03-cv-01204. (DMT) (Entered: 06/16/2004)
34 STIPULATION to extend disc ddl being fact disc to 8/13/04 and dispositive motions to 8/20/04 by pla in 2:03-cv-01204, dft in 2:03-cv-01204, intervenor-plaintiff in 2:03-cv-01204 (DMT) (Entered: 06/18/2004)
35 ORDER by Judge Roger G. Strand granting stipulation to extend disc ddl being fact disc to 8/13/04 and dispositive motions to 8/20/04 by pla in 2:03-cv-01204, dft in 2:03-cv-01204, intervenor-plaintiff in 2:03-cv-01204 in 2:03-cv-01204 ; fact discovery ddl set for 8/13/04 in 2:03-cv-01204, in 2:03-cv-01216 ; dispositive motions due 8/20/04 in 2:03-cv-01204, in 2:03-cv-01216 (cc: all counsel) (DMT) (Entered: 06/18/2004)
36 NOTICE of compliance of fourth supplemental disclosure statement pursuant to FRCivP 26(a) by dft in 2:03-cv-01204 (DMT) (Entered: 06/21/2004)
37 NOTICE by dft in 2:03-cv-01204 OF TAKING DEPO OF Arvid Johnson on the following date(s): 7/22/04 (DMT) (Entered: 06/24/2004)
38 NOTICE by dft HealthHelp Inc in 2:03-cv-01204 OF TAKING DEPO OF Thomas Mitchell, Ph D on the following date(s): 7/28/04 (DMT) (Entered: 07/06/2004)
39 NOTICE by pla in 2:03-cv-01204 OF TAKING DEPO OF Dr William Orrison on the following date(s): 7/23/04 (DMT) (Entered: 07/19/2004)
40 NOTICE by pla in 2:03-cv-01204 OF TAKING DEPO OF Marsha Kirwan on the following date(s): 7/22/04 (DMT) (Entered: 07/19/2004)

5 of 11

6/1/2007 11:15 AM

CM/ECF - azd - Docket Report

https://ecf.azd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?111764083863697-L_35...

08/10/2004 08/24/2004
09/03/2004 09/09/2004
10/08/2004 10/27/2004 10/28/2004 11/02/2004 11/04/2004 11/08/2004 11/10/2004 11/10/2004 11/10/2004

41 STIPULATION to extend time for disc to 9/15/04 and dispositive motion to 9/22/04 by pla in 2:03-cv-01204, dft in 2:03-cv-01204, intervenor-plaintiff in 2:03-cv-01204 (DMT) (Entered: 08/12/2004)
42 ORDER by Judge Roger G. Strand granting stipulation to extend time for disc to 9/15/04 and dispositive motion to 9/22/04 by pla in 2:03-cv-01204, dft in 2:03-cv-01204, intervenor-plaintiff in 2:03-cv-01204 in 2:03-cv-01204 ; discovery ddl set for 9/15/04 in 2:03-cv-01204, in 2:03-cv-01216 ; dispositive motions due 9/22/04 in 2:03-cv-01204, in 2:03-cv-01216 (cc: all counsel) (DMT) (Entered: 08/24/2004)
43 STIPULATION to extend time for disc to 10/31/04 and all other dates for 90 days by pla in 2:03-cv-01204, dft in 2:03-cv-01204, intervenor-plaintiff in 2:03-cv-01204 (DMT) (Entered: 09/08/2004)
44 ORDER by Judge Roger G. Strand granting stipulation to extend time for disc to 10/31/04 and all other dates for 90 days by pla in 2:03-cv-01204, dft in 2:03-cv-01204, intervenor-plaintiff in 2:03-cv-01204 in 2:03-cv-01204 ; discovery ddl set for 10/31/04 in 2:03-cv-01204, in 2:03-cv-01216 ; dispositive motions due 11/30/04 in 2:03-cv-01204, in 2:03-cv-01216 ; Pretrial conference set for 1:30 1/10/05 in 2:03-cv-01204, in 2:03-cv-01216 , ; jury trial set for 9:30 2/1/05 in 2:03-cv-01204, in 2:03-cv-01216 (cc: all counsel) (DMT) (Entered: 09/09/2004)
45 NOTICE of compliance of fifth supplemental disclosure statement pursuant to FRCivP 26(a) by dft HealthHelp Inc in 2:03-cv-01204 (DMT) (Entered: 10/13/2004)
46 STIPULATION to extend time for discovery to 11/12/04 by pla , dfts, intervenor-plaintiff (KCS) (Entered: 10/29/2004)
47 NOTICE of compliance of sixth supplemental disclosure statement pursuant to FRCivP 26(a) by dft in 2:03-cv-01204 (DMT) (Entered: 11/02/2004)
48 ORDER by Judge Roger G. Strand granting stipulation to extend time for discovery to 11/12/04 as to fact disc of 4 depositions by pla , dfts, intervenor-plaintiff in 2:03-cv-01204 ; discovery ddl set for 11/12/04 in 2:03-cv-01204, in 2:03-cv-01216 (cc: all counsel) (DMT) (Entered: 11/02/2004)
49 NOTICE of service of seventh supplemental disclosure statement pursuant to FRCivP 26(a) by dft HealthHelp Inc in 2:03-cv-01204 (KCS) (Entered: 11/09/2004)
50 NOTICE by pla EEOC in 2:03-cv-01204 OF TAKING DEPO OF Randy Blazak, Ph.D. on the following date(s): 11/09/04 (KCS) (Entered: 11/10/2004)
51 NOTICE by pla EEOC in 2:03-cv-01204 OF TAKING DEPO OF Angela Dick on the following date(s): 11/17/04 (SRB) (Entered: 11/17/2004)
52 NOTICE by pla EEOC in 2:03-cv-01204 OF TAKING DEPO OF Randall Lindner on the following date(s): 11/17/04 (SRB) (Entered: 11/17/2004)
53 NOTICE by pla EEOC in 2:03-cv-01204 OF TAKING DEPO OF Steve Jackson on the following date(s): 11/17/04 (SRB) (Entered: 11/17/2004)

6 of 11

6/1/2007 11:15 AM

CM/ECF - azd - Docket Report

https://ecf.azd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?111764083863697-L_35...

11/16/2004 11/17/2004 11/18/2004 11/18/2004 11/23/2004
11/30/2004 11/30/2004 12/07/2004
12/07/2004
12/29/2004 12/29/2004 01/21/2005
01/21/2005
01/24/2005

54 STIPULATION to extend case deadlines by pla EEOC in 2:03-cv-01204 (SRB) (Entered: 11/22/2004)
56 NOTICE of compliance of eighth supplemental disclosure statement pursuant to FRCivP 26(a) by dft in 2:03-cv-01204 (DMT) (Entered: 11/23/2004)
55 NOTICE by pla in 2:03-cv-01204 OF TAKING DEPO OF Randall Lindner, Angela Dick on the following date(s): 12/7/04 (DMT) (Entered: 11/23/2004)
57 AMENDED NOTICE by pla in 2:03-cv-01204 OF TAKING DEPO OF Steve Jackson on the following date(s): 12/7/04 (DMT) (Entered: 11/23/2004)
58 ORDER by Judge Roger G. Strand granting stipulation to extend case deadlines by pla EEOC in 2:03-cv-01204 in 2:03-cv-01204. Ddl to complete depositions of A Dick, R Lindner and S Jackson extended to 12/10/04. All other dates remain the same (cc: all counsel) (DMT) (Entered: 11/23/2004)
59 MOTION for summary judgment by dft HealthHelp Inc in 2:03-cv-01204 [59-1] (SRB) (Entered: 12/03/2004)
60 STATEMENT OF FACTS by dft HealthHelp Inc in 2:03-cv-01204 re motion for summary judgment by dft HealthHelp Inc in 2:03-cv-01204 [59-1] [59-1] (SRB) (Entered: 12/03/2004)
61 MINUTE ORDER: The Court ORDERS setting this matter for oral argument re: Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [59-1] on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 at 11:00 a.m. before the Honorable Roger G. Strand. (cc: all counsel) [0-1] (KSB) (Entered: 12/07/2004)
62 MINUTE ORDER: A motion for summary judgment having been filed, the Court ORDERS vacating the Pretrial Conference currently set on January 10, 2005 and the Jury Trial currently set on February 1, 2005 before the Honorable Roger G. Strand, to be reset if necessary after ruling on the motion. (cc: all counsel) [0-3] (KSB) (Entered: 12/07/2004)
63 RESPONSE by pla/intervenor-plaintiffs to Motion for summary judgment by dft HealthHelp Inc in 2:03-cv-01204 [59-1] (SAT) (Entered: 01/04/2005)
64 SEPARATE STATEMENT OF FACTS by pla/intervenor-plaintiffs in Support of the Response to [63-1] Motion for Summary Judgment by dft HealthHelp Inc in 2:03-cv-01204 [59-1] (SAT) (Entered: 01/04/2005)
65 MOTION (stipulated) to extend time for dft to file reply to pla EEOC and pla Intervenors response to motion for summary judgment (to 1/25/05) by dft HealthHelp Inc in 2:03-cv-01204 [65-1] (no proposed document) (LAD) (Entered: 01/21/2005)
66 ORDER by Judge Roger G. Strand granting motion (stipulated) to extend time for dft to file reply to pla EEOC and pla Intervenors response to motion for summary judgment (to 1/25/05) by dft HealthHelp Inc in 2:03-cv-01204 [65-1] (no proposed document) in 2:03-cv-01204 (cc: all counsel) (LAD) (Entered: 01/21/2005)
67 NOTICE OF ERRATA by dft HealthHelp Inc in 2:03-cv-01204 to it's motion for extention 65-1 (DMT) (Entered: 01/31/2005)

7 of 11

6/1/2007 11:15 AM

CM/ECF - azd - Docket Report

https://ecf.azd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?111764083863697-L_35...

01/25/2005 01/25/2005 01/31/2005 02/01/2005 02/15/2005 02/17/2005 02/28/2005 05/26/2005
08/24/2005
08/24/2005 08/29/2005 08/30/2005 08/30/2005

69 OBJECTIONS by dft HealthHelp Inc in 2:03-cv-01204 to intervenor's seperate statement of facts [64-1] (SRB) Modified on 9/30/2005 (MAP) DOUMENT #69 STRICKEN PURSUANT TO ORDER #80 FILED ON 9/30/05 (Entered: 02/01/2005)
70 REPLY by dft HealthHelp Inc in 2:03-cv-01204 to response to motion for summary judgment by dft HealthHelp Inc in 2:03-cv-01204 [59-1] (SRB) (Entered: 02/01/2005)
68 MINUTE ORDER: Due to a conflict on the Court's calendar, IT IS ORDERED resetting motion for summary judgment by dft HealthHelp Inc in 2:03-cv-01204 [59-1] to 11:00 a.m. on 3/15/05. (cc: all counsel) [68-1] (TCA) (Entered: 01/31/2005)
71 MOTION to strike dft's objection to intervenors' separate statement of facts [69-1] by pla EEOC in 2:03-cv-01204 [71-1] (DMT) (Entered: 02/08/2005)
73 RESPONSE by dft HealthHelp Inc in 2:03-cv-01204 to motion to strike dft's objection to intervenors' separate statement of facts [69-1] by pla EEOC in 2:03-cv-01204 [71-1] (LAD) (Entered: 02/18/2005)
72 MINUTE ORDER: IT IS ORDERED resetting motion for summary judgment by dft HealthHelp Inc in 2:03-cv-01204 [59-1] at 11:00 a.m. on 6/20/05. (cc: all counsel) [72-1] (TCA) (Entered: 02/17/2005)
74 REPLY by pla EEOC in 2:03-cv-01204 to response to motion to strike dft's objection to intervenors' separate statement of facts [69-1] by pla EEOC in 2:03-cv-01204 [71-1] (KCS) (Entered: 03/07/2005)
75 MINUTE ORDER: Due to a conflict on the Court's calendar, IT IS ORDERED resetting motion to strike dft's objection to intervenors' separate statement of facts [69-1] by pla EEOC in 2:03-cv-01204 [71-1] to 1:30 p.m. on 8/30/05, and the motion for summary judgment by dft HealthHelp Inc in 2:03-cv-01204 [59-1] toi 1:30 p.m. on 8/30/05. (cc: all counsel) [75-1] (TCA) (Entered: 05/26/2005)
76 Minute Order: IT IS ORDERED correcting the Court's Minute Order [75] entered on 5/26/05. Oral argument shall be heard on Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [59] only and not on Plaintiff's Motion to Strike [71]. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED re-affirming the hearing set for 8/30/2005 at 1:30 PM in Courtroom 602, 401 West Washington Street, Phoenix, AZ 85003 before Judge Roger G Strand as the date and time set for the hearing on said motion. (KAR, ) (Entered: 08/24/2005)
Copy of document number 76, mailed to David Joseph Catanese on this date. (KAR, ) (Entered: 08/24/2005)
77 NOTICE of Change of Address by Benjamin Robert Jemsek (Jemsek, Benjamin) (Entered: 08/29/2005)
78 NOTICE of Change of Address by Carolyn Johnson and Arlene Warren (Jemsek, Benjamin) Modified on 8/31/2005 (LSP). (Entered: 08/30/2005)
79 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Roger G Strand: Motion Hearing held on 8/30/2005 re [59] Motion for Summary Judgment filed by HealthHelp Inc,. Ruling on motion taken under advisement. (Court Reporter Gary Moll.)

8 of 11

6/1/2007 11:15 AM

CM/ECF - azd - Docket Report

https://ecf.azd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?111764083863697-L_35...

08/30/2005 08/31/2005 09/30/2005 10/20/2005 10/20/2005
10/21/2005 11/21/2005 12/01/2005
12/19/2005
01/23/2006 01/24/2006 01/26/2006 01/31/2006

(KAR, ) (Entered: 08/31/2005)
ORDER taking under advisement [59] Motion for Summary Judgment, as indicated in hearing on 8/30/2005. (KAR, ) (Entered: 08/31/2005)
Copy of document number 79, mailed to David Joseph Catanese on this date. (KAR, ) (Entered: 08/31/2005)
80 ORDER denying [59] Motion for Summary Judgment FURTHER ORDERED granting [71] Motion to Strike Objections [69] . Signed by Judge Roger G Strand on 9/27/05. (MAP, ) (Entered: 09/30/2005)
81 REQUEST re: Request for Rule 16 Conference by Intervenor Plaintiff Carolyn Johnson. (Catanese, David) (Entered: 10/20/2005)
82 Minute Order. IT IS ORDERED setting a Pretrial Conference in this matter for 12/12/2005 at 2:30 PM in Courtroom 602, 401 West Washington Street, Phoenix, AZ 85003 before Judge Roger G Strand. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED setting a Jury Trial for 1/10/2006 at 9:30 AM in Courtroom 602, 401 West Washington Street, Phoenix, AZ 85003 before Judge Roger G Strand. (This is a text-only entry, no.pdf document is attached.) (KAR, ) (Entered: 10/20/2005)
83 WITHDRAWAL OF DOCUMENT re 81 Request Rule 16 Conference by Intervenor Plaintiff Carolyn Johnson. (Catanese, David) (Entered: 10/21/2005)
84 Joint MOTION to Continue Trial Dates and Request for Settlement Conference by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Shanley, Sally) (Entered: 11/21/2005)
85 ORDER that the matter is referred by automated random selection to Magistrate Judge Morton Sitver solely for the purpose of scheduling and conducting a settlement conference. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting 84 Motion to Continue. Jury Trial re-set for 3/7/2006 09:30 AM before Judge Roger G Strand. Pretrial Conference re-set for 2/13/2006 02:30 PM before Judge Roger G Strand. Signed by Judge Roger G Strand on 11/29/05. (LSP) (Entered: 12/01/2005)
86 NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE AND SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT ORDER. Settlement Conference set for 2/8/2006 at 09:30 AM before Magistrate Judge Morton Sitver.. Signed by Judge Morton Sitver on 12/16/05. (TLJ, ) (Entered: 12/19/2005)
87 MOTION to Continue Trial Dates to Permit Settlement Negotiations by HealthHelp Inc. (Blair, James) (Entered: 01/23/2006)
88 RESPONSE in Opposition re 87 MOTION to Continue Trial Dates to Permit Settlement Negotiations filed by Carolyn Johnson. (Catanese, David) (Entered: 01/24/2006)
89 Reply re 88 Response in Opposition to Motion Reply to Intervenors Re: HealthHelp's Motion to Continue Trial Dates to Permit Settlement Negotiations by Defendant HealthHelp Inc. (Blair, James) (Entered: 01/26/2006)
90 RESPONSE to Motion re 87 MOTION to Continue Trial Dates to Permit Settlement Negotiations filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Shanley, Sally) (Entered: 01/31/2006)

9 of 11

6/1/2007 11:15 AM

CM/ECF - azd - Docket Report

https://ecf.azd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?111764083863697-L_35...

02/02/2006 02/02/2006 02/08/2006
03/31/2006 03/31/2006 04/12/2006 04/12/2006

91 ORDER granting 87 Motion to Continue Trial Dates. Jury Trial reset for 4/25/2006 09:30 AM before Judge Roger G Strand. Pretrial Conference reset for 4/4/2006 01:30 PM before Judge Roger G Strand. Signed by Judge Roger G Strand on 02/01/06. (DNH ) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/2/2006 (SBU, ). (Entered: 02/02/2006)
92 NOTICE OF CORRECTION BY THE CLERK re 91 Order on Motion to Continue. Description of deficiency: Wrong pdf document attached. Follow up by Clerks Office: The deficiency indicated above has been addressed by the Clerk. Court use only: DNH. (SBU, ) (Entered: 02/02/2006)
93 Minute Entry--Settlement conference conducted by Judge Morton Sitver on 2/8/06.PARTIES PRESENT: Plaintiff: EEOC Attorneys: Sally Shanley; Valerie Meyer; Intervenor Attorney: David Catanese; Intervenors: Carolyn Johnson; Janis Hagy; Arlene Warren; Defendant: Attorney: Jim Blair; Charles Hover; Roger Randall-Lexington Insurance Co.; Ed Mashek (representative)SETTLEMENT REACHED (Court Reporter CourtSmart.) (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.)(VAM, ) (Entered: 02/08/2006)
94 Joint MOTION to Approve Consent Judgment by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Consent Decree for Approval)(Shanley, Sally) (Entered: 03/31/2006)
95 STIPULATION of Dismissal with Prejudice by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Shanley, Sally) (Entered: 03/31/2006)
96 ORDER granting stipulation 95. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Intervenors' claims are dismissed with prejudice, each of the parties to bear its own costs. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court retains jurisdiction over the Consent Decree, separately entered this date.. Signed by Judge Roger G Strand on 4/7/06. (TLJ) (Entered: 04/12/2006)
97 CONSENT JUDGMENT granting motion 94. Dft and its officers, agents, employees, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, both at the time that this Decree becomes effective and for the duration of this Decree, are permanently enjoined for the duration of the Decree from retaliating against any employee because he or she: (i) opposes or opposed discriminatory practices made unlawful by Title VII; (ii) files or filed a charge of discrimination or assists, assisted, participates, or participated in the filing of a charge of discrimination; or (iii) assists, assisted, participates or participated in an investigation or proceeding brought under the Federal or State laws prohibiting discrimination or retaliation. Dft shall pay a settlement in the amount of $450,000.00 to be divided and distributed as set forth in Exhibit A. Dft shall institute and carry out policies and practices that help assure a work environment free from retaliation. Dft shall post for the duration of this Decree, in a prominent place frequented by its employees at its facilities, the Notice attached as Exhibit B. Dft shall provide training on unlawful discrimination and retaliation. Within 60 days of the entry of this Decree, Dft shall develop written policies concerning discrimination and retaliation, to conform with the law, and submit the policy for review to the Regional Attorney of the Phoenix District Office of the EEOC. Dft shall report in writing and in affidavit form to the Regional Attorney of the Commission's Phoenix District Office, beginning six months from the date of the

10 of 11

6/1/2007 11:15 AM

CM/ECF - azd - Docket Report

https://ecf.azd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?111764083863697-L_35...
entry of this Decree, and thereafter every year for the duration of the Decree. Each party shall bear its costs and attorney's fees incurred as a result of this action through the filing of this Decree. The duration of this Decree shall be 24 months from its entry. Absent extension, this Decree shall expire by its own terms at the end of 24 months from the date of entry without further action by the parties. The parties agree to entry of this Decree and judgment subject to final approval by the Court.. Signed by Judge Roger G Strand on 4/7/06. (TLJ) (Entered: 04/12/2006)

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

06/01/2007 09:16:09

PACER Login:

hs0328

Client Code:

Description:

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

Billable Pages: 7

Cost:

eeoc 2:03-cv-01204-RGS 0.56

11 of 11

6/1/2007 11:15 AM