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

UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
Yo
GEOLOGISTICS AMERICAS, INC.
Defendant.

CIVIL ACTION NO.
,.7"
COMPLAINT
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED INJUNCTIVE RELIEF SOUGHT

NATURE OF THE ACTION
This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of retaliation, and to provide appropriate relief to Mitzi Smith who was adversely affected by such practices. As stated with greater particularity in paragraph 7, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (hereinafter the "Commission") alleges that Ms. Smith was unlawfully terminated by her employer, Geologistics Americas, Inc., (hereinafter"Geologistics"), for complaining of gender discrimination. As a result of complaining to upper management about Geologistics’ discriminatory practices, Ms. Smith was terminated.

-1-

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Jurisdictionofthis Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§451, 1331, 1337, 1343 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Section 706(11(1) and (3) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3) ("Title VII"), and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981A. 2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed within the jurisdiction of the Untied States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville Division.
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff, 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(t")(1) and (3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3). 4. At all relevant times, Geologistics has continuously been doing business in the State of Florida and the City of Jacksonville, and has continuously had at least 15 employees. 5. At all relevant times, Geologistics has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701(b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§2000e(b), (g) and (h).
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 6. More than thirty days before the institution of this lawsuit, Ms. Smith filed a charge with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by Geologistics. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled.
-2-

7. Since at least March 1999, Defendant Employer has engaged in unlawful employment practices at its Jacksonville, Florida facility in violation of Section 704(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-3(a):
In or about April 2000, Ms. Smith complained to Defendant’s upper management about what she reasonably believed to be an unlawful employment practice. Specifically, Ms. Smith complained that she and other female employees were required to lift heavy merchandise by hand whereas their male counterparts had the benefit of mechanical forklifts. b. In or about April 2000, shortly after Ms. Smith complained of what she reasonably believed to be unlawful gender discrimination, Defendant retaliated against her for her complaints by terminating her employment. 8. The effect of the conduct complained of in paragraph 7 above has been to deprive Ms. Smith of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect her status as an employee because of her good faith opposition to what she reasonably believed to be unlawful employment practices. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 7 above were intentional. 10. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 7 above were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Ms. Smith.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant, their officers, successors, assigns,
-3-

and all persons in active concert or participation with them, from engaging in any employment practice which discriminates on the basis of an employee’s opposition to an unlawful employment practice.
B. Order Defendant, to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for its employees, and which eradicate the effects of its past unlawful employment practices.
C. Order Defendant to make whole Ms. Smith, by providing appropriate back pay with prejudgment interest, in amounts to be determined at trial, and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices, including but not limited to reinstatement and rightful place promotion or front pay.
D. Order Defendant to make whole Ms. Smith, by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described in paragraph 7 above, including out of pocket losses in amounts to be determined at trial.
E. Order Defendant to make whole Ms. Smith, by providing compensation for past and future nonpecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices complained of in paragraph 7 above, including emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, humiliation, and loss of enjoyment of life, in amounts to be determined at trial.
F. Order Defendant to pay Ms. Smith punitive damages for its malicious and reckless conduct described in paragraph 7 above, in amounts to be determined at trial.
G. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public interest.
-4-

Ho

Award the Commission its costs of this action.

JURY TRIAL DEMAND The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its complaint.

GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel
DELNER FRANKLIN-THOMAS Regional Attorney
MICHAEL J. FARRELL Supervisory Trial Attorney
/
Trial Att6mey Florida Bar Number: 0171591
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower Two South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131-1805 Telephone: (305) 530-6014 Facsimile: (305) 536-4494

-5-

 
 FILED

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ~_~(~ FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 01/~U~ - 7 ~M
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, MITZI B. SMITH, HOLLY DANIELS and BARBARA NEEL

~ U Lhr’~ I
~ No.: 3:01¢.’..x..~~’I~~L~.~~N~V,IRL lLt:E; .OFFLOFRLIDOARIDA Judge: ~ph W. N~m, Jr. ~te Judge: ~ E. Mo~

Plaintiffs,

Vo
GEOLOGISTICS AMERICAS, INC.
Defendant.

AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

NATURe, Or ACTION Plaintiffs, MITZI B. SM/TH ("Ms. Smith"), HOLLY DANIELS ("Ms. Daniels"), and BARBARA NEEL ("Ms. Ned"), by and through their undersigned attorney, sue Defendant GEOLOGISTICS AMERICAS, INC. ("De~" or "GeoLogisties") for damages in excess of $ 50, 000 for violations of their civil fights oeemring during their employment relationship with GeoLogistics. All Plaintiffs sue Defendant under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 1991, as amended, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e et seq. ("Title VII"), the Civil Rights Act of 1871, as amended, 42 U.S.C. Section 1981 ("Section 1981"), and the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, Section 760.01 et seq., Florida Statutes ("FCRA").
JURISDICT~, ON AND VENUE 1. This Court’s jurisdiction is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 451, 1331, 1337 and 1343. This action arises under 42 U.S.C. Sections 2000e et seq. and 42 U.S.C. Sections 1981 and 1981a.

2. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs Smith’s, Daniel’s and Neel’s state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1367.
3. Ms. Smith has exhausted her administrative remedies. On or about May 5, 2000, Ms. Smith filed a charge of discrimination with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") and on or about July 21, 2000, Ms. Smith filed a charge of discrimination with the Florida Human Rights Commission against the Defendant. A copy of Ms. Smith’s charge of discrimination is attached hereto as Exhibit "1". Thereafter, the EEOC filed an action on behalf of Ms. Smith. All conditions precedent to institution of this action by Ms. Smith have been fulfilled.
4. Ms. Daniels has exhausted her administrative remedies. On or about May 5, 2000, Ms. Daniels filed a charge of discrimination with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") and on or about July 21, 2000, Ms. Daniels filed a charge of discrimination with the Florida Human Rights Commission against the Defendant. A copy of Ms. Daniel’s charge of discrimination is attached hereto as Exhibit "2". Thereafter, by letter dated February 15, 2001, the EEOC issued MS. Daniels a Notice of Right to Sue, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "3". Ms. Daniels initiated this action within ninety (90) days of receipt of the EEOC’s Notice of Right to Sue. All conditions precedent to institution of this action by Ms. Daniels have been fialfilled.
5. Ms. Neel ~ exhausted her administrative remedies. On or about May 5, 2000, Ms. Neel filed a charge of discrimination with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") and on or about July 21, 2000, Ms. Neel filed a charge of discrimination with the Florida Human Rights Commission against the Defendant. A copy of Ms. Neel’s charge of discrimination is attached hereto as Exlfibit "4". Therea_Rer, by letter dated February 15, 2001,

the EEOC issued Ms. Ne¢l a Notice of Right to Sue, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "5". Ms. Neel initiated this action within ninety (90) days of receipt of the EEOC’s Notice of Right to Sue. All conditions precedent to institution of this action by Ms. Neel have been fulfilled.
6. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1391, venue of this action is proper in the Middle District of Florida because all of the alleged unlawful acts complained of herein occurred in Jacksonville, Florida.
PARTIES 7. Plaintifl~ the EEOC is the agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title VII, and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Sections 760(0(1) and (3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. Sections 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3). 8. At all times material hereto, Defendant continuously has been doing business in the State of Florida and the City of Jacksonville, and continuously has had at least 15 employees. At all times material hereto, Defendant continuously has been an employer engaged in an industry effecting commerce within the meaning of Title VII and the Florida Civil Rights Act. See 42 U.S.C. Section 2003 et seq., and Section 760.02(7), Florida Statutes. 9. Plaintiff-Intervenor Ms. Smith is a natural person who is a female, and now is residing in Glen St. Mary, Florida. At all times material hereto, Ms. Smith was employed by Defendant as Receiving and Processing worker in the warehouse. 10. Plaintiff-Intervenor Ms. Danicls is a natural person who is female, and now is residing in Glen St. Mary, Florida. At all times material hereto, Ms. Daniels was employed by Defendant as Receiving and Processing workor in the warehouse. 11. Plaintiff-Intervenor Ms. Ned is a natural person who is female, and now is residing
3

in Palm Beach County, Florida. At all times material hereto, Ms. Neel was employed by Defendant as Receiving and Processing worker in the warehouse. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS AS PERTAINING TO MS. SMITI-I~ MS. DANIELS and MS.
NEEL 12. At all times material hereto, Plaintiffs Smith, Daniels and Neel each were employed in Receiving and Processing department, in which among other duties, included the receiving and moving of heavy freight. 13. On or about January of 1999, the Corporate Safety Department of Defendant’s company required that all the power equipment operators be certified for future OSHA inspections, this included the operations of forldifls. 14. The male employees were given the training in order to obtain the certification beginning January, 1999. The Female employees, including the Plaintiff’s Smith, Daniels and Neel were denied certification. Consequently, while the male employees were able to use a forldi~ to ~ heavy boxes, the females, including the Plaintiff’s Smith, Daniels and Neel were forced to move the heavy boxes that at times exceeded 80 pounds. 15. At all times material hereto, Defendant’s Branch Manager, Mr. Jim Barrineau, performed his functions for the Defendant under the supervision of its Regional Vice President Ron Caplinger. 16. At aH times material hereto, Defendant’s Receiving and Processing Supervisor, Mr. Jessie Dear, performed his fimctions for the Defendant under the supervision of its Branch Manager Mr. Jim Barrineau. 17. At all times material hereto, Defendant’s Administration Manager, Mr.
4

Roberto Valdomar, performed his functions for the Defendant under the supervision of its Branch Manager Mr. Jim Bardneau.
18. That each of the Plaintiff’s inquired numerous times with their direct Receiving and Processing Supervisor, Mr. Jessie Dear, and with the Branch Manager, Mr. Jim Barrineau, who both were in charge of the certifications, and both responded that they were not going certify females in the use of forklifts.
19. That Mr. Jim Barrineau, Branch Manager, intentional continuous rejection based upon his belief that became known by the Plaintiff’s Smith, Daniels and Neel, that females, even though were doing the same heavy lifting as men who were using the forklift to move the heavy boxes, were not to be certified with the use of the forklift. His direction not to certify the females was made known to the Receiving and Processing Supervisor, Mr. Jessie Dear who followed his direction.
20. As a result of this intentional discriminatory action and violative conduct based upon gender (females), the Plaintiff’s Smith, Daniels and Neel were forced to move the heavy boxes by hand without the use of the forklifts.
21. That the Branch Manager, Mr. Jim Barrineau made it clear to the Plaintiffs Smith, Daniels and Ne¢I, that the men were to not assist the woman in the moving of these boxes and this policy was made clear to the men in the warehouse. This directive from Mr. Jim Barrineau was made known to Mr. Jesse Dear and was told to each of the Plaintiffs upon each inquiry made regarding certification by each of the Plaintiffs for having to move the heavy boxes without assistance by the men and without use of the forklift.
5

22. That based upon the Plaintiff’s duties as directed by the Branch Manager, Mr. Jim Barrineau, the Plaintiffs Smith, Daniels and Ned were to perform and did perform the same duties as the men without the assistance of the forkliR and the certification to use the forklift.
23. At no time during their employment by Defendant, did any of the Plaintiffs, Smith, Daniels and Neel, ever receive a written warning or written discipline by Defendant with regard to the performance of their functions.
24. That the Branch Manager, Mr. Jim Barrineau, treated the female employees, specifically, the Plaintiffs Smith, Daniels and Ned, differently than the men. That the plaintiffs were continuously subjected to the beliefs of the Branch Manager, Mr. Jim Barrineau, who spoke of their "inadequacies as a female" and "if females are going to do a "male" job as required, they will do so without any assistance of forklifts" as told to each of the Plaintiffs. These and other continuous comments regarding female workers, including the Plaintiffs Smith, Daniels and Neel were made by Mr. Jim Barrineau to Supervisors, Managers and male employees of the Defendant and as a result the Plaintiffs were being treated in discriminatory manner based upon their gender (female).
25. That the Branch Manager, Mr. Jim Barrineau, the Receiving and Processing Supervisor, Jesse Dear intentional discriminatory treatment of female employees was clear gender discrimination and harassment based upon gender (female) to which Plaintiffs were subjected and exposed, as aforementioned, polluted their work environment and had the purpose and effect of interfering with the Plaintiffs’ performance oftbeir employment duties for Defendant. Senior management, including Regional Vice President, Ron Caplinger, and Administration Manager, Roberto Valdomar, ignored the intentional gender discrimination in the workplace against the
6

female employees, including the Plaintiffs Smith, Daniels and Neel and no measures were taken to stop the gender discrimination.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS OF RETALIATION AS PERTAINING TO MITZI B. SMITH
26. Plaintiff Smith reported to Managers and Supervisors employed by the Defendant regarding her unfair treatment based on her gender on various occasions.
27. As a result of her complaints she was subjected to continuous harassment by managers, supervisors and co-workers.
28. On April 25, 2000, Mr. Jim Barrineau, Branch Manager and Mr. Roberto Valdomar, Administration Manager, continued at length to harass Ms. Smith by questioning Ms. Smith with regards to her seeking advice fi’om the undersigned attorney regarding unlawfifl employment practices at Defendant’s business, and continued to question Ms. Smith after Ms. Smith refused to continue the conversation with Mr. Barrineau and Mr. Roberto Valdomar.
29. Mr. Jim Barrineau continued to state to her "are you sure you know nothing about anyone or yourself seeking advice for discriminatory practices by me"; "you must tell me the truth and advise me as to what is being done"; "do you know about Holly Daniels and Barbara Neel filing with the EEOC" "Are you going to file a complaint". With each question he became more tyrant and angry with Ms. Smith.
30. Plaintiff Smith seeking advice of attorney concerning discriminatory practices by the Defendant, and seeking the advice of attorney in filing an EEOC complaint for such viohtions of unlawfifl employmem practices is clearly a participation and the retaliation by Defendant was only to thwart this process and prevent such charges to move forward.
31. There is a causal link between Plaintiff’s opposition to the unlawfixl employment
7

practices and refusal to answer questions regarding her protected opposition conduct and her subsequent discharge [The same day] from employment by Defendant. That Mr. Jim Barrineau documented these events by memorandum and internal documents of the Defendant that clearly shows the motive of the firing of Ms. Smith was for retaliation that was based upon her protected opposition conduct of unlawful discriminatory employment conduct by Defendant, and her protected right to seek relief with the EEOC and any other forum that would protect those rights.
32. The aforementioned adverse employment action by Defendant subsequent to Ms. Smith’s complaints, and refusal to answer harassing questions regarding her protected opposition conduct was intentional because of her opposition to unlawfid employment practices.
33. The aforementioned adverse employment action by Defendant was done with malice or reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Ms. Smith.
34. As a result of this direct and proximate result of Defendant’s unlawful employment practices and retaliation by firing Ms. Smith, Plaintiff Smith suffered damages to her professional reputation, a loss of dignity, a loss of the enjoyment of life, embarrassment, humiliation, and other forms of mental anguish and distress, loss of earning capacity, loss of wages, and loss of retirement benefits.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS OF RETALIATION AS PERTAINING TO HOLLY DANIELS
35. On or about April 19, 2000, the Branch Manager Mr. Jim Barrineau had Ms Daniels go to his office, and in the presence of Administration Manager, Roberto Valdomar, continued to question Ms. Daniels about her seeking advice from an attorney regarding the discriminatory practices that existed in the work place under his supervision.
36. That Mr. Jim Barrineau continued at length to harass Ms. Daniels with regards to
8

her seeking advice from the undersigned attorney, and continued to question Ms. Daniels a_Rer
Ms. Daniels refused to continue the conversation with Mr. Barrineau. Throughout this
questioning, Mr. Roberto Valdomar did not intervene to prevent such harassment to continue.
37. Mr. Jim Barrineau continued to state to her "are you sure you know nothing about
anyone or yourself seeking advice for discriminatory practices by me"; "you must tell me the
truth and advise me as to what is being done"; "do you know about Mitzi Smith and Barbara Neel
filing with the EEOC". With each question he became more tyrant and angry with Ms. Daniels.
38. That this harassment continued throughout the day, until Ms.
Daniels was ca/led into Mr. Jim Barrineau’s office that late aRemoon. Ms. Daniels was forced to
sign a document labeled "Memorandum" to Ms. Daniels and from Mr. Jim Barrineau dated April
19, 2000, regarding "personal issues." See attached Exhibit "6".
The memo stated:
I talked to Holly Daniels this morning in regards to discrimination issues, on my part, against female associates within this facility. She stated that she had no issues whatsoever towards me, but did make a remark concerning one of the other associates. She said that the associate was lazy and that he would not help other associates when help was needed. I assured her that this associate had been warned about his work habits, and that R would not be tolerated. I asked Holly that in the future, if she makes a complaint to her Imn~iate supervisor, and no action is taken, to please Use the open door policy and talk to me about the situation.
The Memorandum was signed by Mr. Jim Barrineau and Ms. Daniels was told to sign the
document, even over her objection and disagreement with the substantive content of the letter.
39. That the continued discriminatory practices based upon gender continued from
April 19, 2000 forward and the continuous retaliation by Mr. Jim Barrineau continued against Ms.
9

Daniels by subjecting her and exposing her, as aforementioned, in form of unwelcome verbal comments sufficiently sever and pervasive as to create an intimidating, hostile and offensive work environment, and were done so by the Defendant as retaliation for seeking advice by an attorney and seeking filing with EEOC for discriminatory practices that were present at the Defendant’s workplace.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS OF RETALIATION AS PERTAINING TO BARBARA NEE.___~.L
40. On or about April 19, 2000, the Branch Ma~ger Mr. Jim Barrineau had Ms. Ned go to his of~ce, and in the presence of Administration Manager, Roberto Valdomar, continued to question Ms. Ned about her seeking advice from an outside attorney regarding the ~tory pr~tices that existed in the work place under his supervision.
41. That Mr. Jim Barrineau continued at length to harass Ms. Neel with regards to her seeking advice from the undersigned attorney, and c~)ntinued to question Ms. Neel after Ms. Ned refused to continue the conversation with Mr. Barrineau. Throughout this questioning, Mr. Roberto Valdomar did not intervene to prevent such harassment to continue.
42. Mr. Jim Barrineau continued to state to her "are you sure you know nothing about anyone or yourself seeking advice for discriminatory practices by me"; "you must tell me the truth and advise me as to what is being done"; "do you know about Mitzi Smith and Holly Daniels filing with the EEOC". With each question he became more tyrant and angry with Ms. Ned.
43. That the continued discriminatory practices based upon gender continued from April 19, 2000 and the continuous retaJiation by Mr. Jim Barrineau continued against Ms. Neel by subjecting her and exposing her, as aforementioned, in form of unwelcome verbal comn~nts su~ciently sever and pervasive as to create an intimidating, hostile and offensive work
10

environment, and were done so by the Defendant as retaliation for seeking advice by an attorney and seeking filing with EEOC for discriminatory practices that were present at the Defendant’s workplace.
COUNT I DEFENDANT HAS VIOLATED TITLE VII
(Disparate Treatment) 44. Plaintiffs Smith, Daniels and Neel adopts and realleges paragraphs 1-25above as if incorporated herein~ 45. Plaintiffs Smith, Daniels and Neel are members of a protected class because they are females. 46. The Defendant is an employer that employs over 500 people, and is subject to 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e et seq. 47. That the Plaintiffs Smith, Daniels and Neel throughom their tenure with Defendant suffered disparate treatment in the terms and conditions of her ernployment from being denied certification to use forklit~s as required by the Defendant’s Corporate Safety Department implemented on or about January, 1999, which Defendant required that all the power equipment operators be certified for future OSHA inspections, which included the operations of forkli~s to being disparately disciplined. That the Plainfitfs were subjected to unwarranted comments by supervisors and had to perform without certification and with no ability to use the forklifts to move heavy boxes in the warehouse. 48. Members not in a protected class, males, have been certified and able to use the forklift to move heavy boxes. The Members not in a protected class, males, have not been treated in as harsh a manner, nor were they subject to a hostile work environment.
11

49. The Plaintiffs Smith, Daniels and Neel were not provided the same terms, conditions and privileges as their male co-workers.
a. The Plaintiffs Smith, Daniels and Neel were denied certification to use forklifts as required by the Defendant’s Corporate Safety Department policy implemented on or about January, 1999, which Defendant required that all the power equipment operators be certified for future OSHA inspections, which included the operations of forklifts. As a result, the Plaintiffs Smith, Daniels and Neel had to move heavy boxes without the use of a forklift.
b. The Plaintiffs Smith, Daniels and Necl were subjected to unwarranted comments by supervisors regarding their gender (female) and as a result were treated differently than their male co-workers.
c. The Plaintiffs Smith, Daniels and Neel were forced to work alone without any help from their male co-workers.
50. Mr. Jim Barrineau, Branch Manager of Defendant’s company made it clear to all of the Supervisors in various departments, to all Plaintiffs co-workers, and to all male co-workers his position on females in the workplace. His stated opinion of females inferior ability compared to men and that the females will not be certified to use the forklifts, resulted in each of the Supervisors including but not limited to, Receiving and Processing Supervisor, Mr. Jessie Dear and Administration Manager, Mr. Roberto Valdomar treating the females including the Plaintiffs Smith, Daniels and Ned differently than their male co-workers, and they were subject to continued harassment by Mr. Jim Barrineau. That senior management, including but not limited to Regional Vice President of Operatiom, Mr. Ron Caplinger, ignored the discriminatory practices and failed to implement measures to prevent such discrimination.
51. The Defendant has intentionally discriminated against females and Plaintiffs
12

Smith, Daniels and Neel in particular in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e et seq. by disparate treatment of Plaintiffs Smith, Daniels and Neel based upon their gender.
52. The effect oftbe actions complained of as aforementioned has been to deprive the Plaintiffs Smith, Daniels and Neel of equal employment opportunities, and otherwise to adversely affect their status as employees because of gender.
53. The unlawful employment practices complained of were intentional. 54. The unlawful employment practices against the Plaintiffs Smith, Daniels and Neel were done with malice or reckless indifference to the Plaintiff’s federally protected rights. 55. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s unlawful employment practices, the Plaintiffs Smith, Daniels and Neel were emotionally harmed, suffered, and will continue to suffer, a loss of wages and other employment benefits, a loss of earning capacity, damages to their professional reputation, a loss of dignity, a loss of the enjoyment of life, embarrassment, humiliation, and other forms of mental anguish and distress, and by not being certified were forced to move heavy boxes without the use of forkli~s. Wherefore, Plaintiffs Smith, Daniels and Neel requests this Court issue an order against Defendant awarding the Plaintiffs Smith, Daniels and Neel compensatory damages, lost back pay, reinstatement and/or front pay, punitive damages, attorney’s fees and costs, together with such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.
COUNT II DEFENDANT HAS VIOLATED TITLE VII
(Hostile Environment) 56. Plaintiffs Smith, Daniels and Neel adopts and realleges paragraphs 1-43 above as if incorporated herein. 57. Defendant discriminated against the Plaintiffs because oftheir gender in violation
13

of Title VII, by creating, tolerating and fostering a gender hostile and abusive work environment. The Plaintiffs were subject to numerous gender based derogatory comments, heavy workload, forced to move heavy equipment without the use of the forklifts, and being unable to be c~rtified to use the forklifts to move the heavy equipment.
58. The Plaintiffs Smith, Daniels and Neel are female and therefore are members of protected class. That the Plaintiffs Smith, Daniels and Neel repeatedly complained to management about the unwelcome harassment, and being not certified to use the forklifts to move the heavy boxes, but management and supervisors took no steps to abate the harassment.
59. M~mbers not in a protected class, males, have been certified and able to use the forklift to move heavy boxes. The Members not in a protected class, males, have not been treated in as harsh a manner, nor were they subject to a hostile work environment.
60. The aforementioned unwelcome gender based harassment comments were sufficiently severe and pervasive to affect the terms and conditions of Plaintiffs Smith’s, Daniel’s and Neel’s employment, and to create an intimidating, hostile, and offemive work environment in violation of Section 703(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e-2(a).
61. The effect of the actions complained of as aforementioned has been to deprive the Plaintiffs Smith, Daniels and Neel of equal employment opportunities, and otherwise to adversely affect their status as employees because of gender.
62. The unlawful employment practices complained of were intentional. 63. The unlawful employment practices against the Plaintiffs Smith, Dauiels and Neel was done with malice or reckless indifference to the Plaintiff’s federally protected rights. 64. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s unlawful employment practices,
14

the Plaintiffs Smith, Daniels and Ne¢l were emotionally harmed, suffered, and will continue to suffer, a loss of wages and other employment benefits, a loss of earning capacity, damages to their professional reputation, a loss of dignity, a loss of the enjoyment of life, embarrassment, humiliation, and other forms of mental anguish and distress, and by not being certified were forced to move heavy boxes without the use of forklifts.
Wherefore, Plaintiffs Smith, Daniels and Neel requests this Court issue an order against Defendant awarding the Plaintiffs Smith, Daniels and Neel compensatory damages, lost back pay, reinstatement and/or front pay, punitive damages, attorney’s fees and costs, together with such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.
COUNT III (PLAINTFFS SMITI:I~ DANIELS AND NEEL CLAIM Oli’ HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT AND GENDER DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF TI:IE FLORIDA
CML RIGHTS ACT) 65. Plaintiffs Smith, Daniels and N¢1 repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 43, as if fully set forth herein. 66. Defendant discriminated against Plaintiffs Smith, Daniels and Neel because of their gender in violation of the FCRA, by creating, tolerating and fostering a gender hostile and abusive work environment. 67. That the Plaintiffs Smith, Daniels and Neel throughout their tenure with Defendant suffered disparate treatment in the terms and conditions of their employment from being denied certification to use forkliiis as required by the Defendant’s Corporate Safety Department implemented on or about January, 1999, which Defendant required that all the power equipment operators be certified for future OSHA impectiom, which included the operations of forklifts.
15

That the Plaintiffs were subjected to unwarranted comments by supervisors and had to perform without certification and no ability to use the forklifts to move heavy boxes in the warehouse.
68. Members not in a protected class, males, have been certified and able to use the forklift to move heavy boxes. The Members not in a protected class, males, have not been treated in as harsh a manner, nor were they subject to a hostile work environment.
69. The Plaintiffs Smith, Daniels and Neel were not provided the same terms, Conditions and privileges as their male co-workers.
a. The Plaintiffs Smith, Daniels and Neel were denied certification to use forklifts as required by the Defendant’s Corporate Safety Department implemented on or about January, 1999, which Defendant required that all the power equipment operators be certified for future OSHA inspections, which included the operations of forklifts. As a result, the Plaintiffs Smith, Danieis and Neel had to move heavy boxes without the use of a forklift.
b. The Plaintiffs Smith, Daniels and Neel were subjected to unwarranted comments by supervisors regarding their gender (female) and as a result were treated differently than their male co-workers.
c. The Plaintiffs Smith, Daniels and Neel were forced to work alone without any help from their male co-workers.
70. Mr. Jim Barrineau, Branch Manager of Defendant’s company made it clear to all of the Supervisors in various departments, to all Plaintiffs co-workers, to all male co-workers his position on females in the workplace and their inferior ability compared to men, that the females will not be certified to use the forklifts and as a result each of the Supervisors including but not limited to, Receiving and Processing Supervisor, Mr. Jessie Dear and Administration Manager, Mr. Roberto Valdomar treated the females including the Plaintiffs Smith, Daniels and Neel
16

differently than their male co-workers, and they were subject to continued harassment by Mr. Jim Barrineau. That senior management, including but not limited to Regional Vice President of Operations, Mr. Ron Caplinger, ignored the discriminatory practices and failed to implement measures to prevent such discrimination.
71. The aforementioned unwelcome harassment comments were sufficiently severe and pervasive to affect the terms and conditions of Plaintiffs Smith’s, Daniel’s and Neel’s employa~nt, and to create an intimidating, hostile, and offensive work environment in violation of FCRA, Section 760.10, Florida Statutes.
72. The Defendant has intentionally discriminated against minorities and Plaintiffs Smith, Daniels and Neel in particular in violation of F.C.H.R., Florida Statutes by disparate treatment of Plaintiffs Smith, Daniels and Neel based upon their gender.
73. The effect of the actions complained of as aforementioned has been to deprive the Plaintiffs Smith, Daniels and Neel of equal employment opportunities, and otherwise to adversely affect their status as employees because of gender.
74. The unlawful employment practices complained of were intentional. 75. The unlawful employment practices against the Plaintiffs Smith, Daniels and Ne¢l were done with malice or reckless indifference to the Plaintiff’s freedom from discrimination within the State of Florida. 76. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s unlawful employment practices, the Plaintiffs Smith, Daniels and Ned were emotionally harmed, suffered, and will continue to suffer, a loss of wages and other employment benefits, a loss of earning capacity, damages to their professional reputation, a loss of dignity, a loss of the enjoyment of life, embarrassment,
17

humilhtion, and other forms of mental anguish and distress, and by not being certified were forced to move heavy boxes without the use of forkliRs.
Wherefore, Plaintiffs Smith, Daniels and Neel requests this Court issue an order against Defendant awarding the Plaintiffs Smith, Danieis and Neel compensatory damages, lost back pay, reinstatement and/or front pay, punitive damages, attorney’s fees and costs, together with such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.
COUNT IV (PLAINTIFF MITZI B. SMITH’S CLAIM OF RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF
TITLE VII) 77. Plaintiff Smith repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 25, and 26 through 34, as if fully set forth herein. 78. Plaintiff Smith reported to Managers and Supervisors employed by the Defendant regarding her unfair treatment based on her gender on various occasions. As a result of her complaints she was subjected to continuous harassment by managers, supervisors and co-workers. 79. On April 25, 2000, Mr. Jim Barrineau, Branch Manager and Mr. Roberto Valdomar, Administration Manager, continued at length to harass Ms. Smith by questioning Ms. Smith with regards to her seeking advice from the undersigned attorney regarding unlawful employment practices at Defendant’s business, and continued to question Ms. Smith after Ms. Smith refused to continue the conversation with Mr. Barrineau and Mr. Roberto Valdomar. 80. Mr. Jim Barrineau continued to state to her "are you sure you know nothing about anyone or yourself seeking advice for discriminatory practices by me"; "you must tell me the truth and advise me as to what is being done"; "do you know about Holly Daniels and Barbara Neel filing with the EEOC" "Are you going to file a complaint". With each question he became more tyrant and angry with Ms. Smith.
18

81. Plaintiff Smith seeking advice ofattomey concerning discriminatory practices by the Defendant, and seeking the advice of attorney in filing an EEOC complaint for such violations of unlawful employment practices is clearly participation and the retaliation by Defendant was only to thwart this process and prevent such charges to move forward.
81. There is a causal link between Plaintiff’s opposition to the unlawful employment Practices, and refusal to answer questions regarding her protected opposition conduct and her subsequent discharge [The same day] from employment by Defendant. That Mr. Jim Barrineau documented these events by memorandum and internal documents of the Defendant that clearly shows the motive of the firing of Ms. Smith was for retaliation that was based upon her protected opposition conduct of unlawful discriminatory employment conduct by Defendant, and her protected fight to seek relief with the EEOC and any other forum that would protect those rights.
82. The aforementioned adverse employment action by Defendant subsequent to Ms. Smith’s complaints, and refusal to answer harassing questions regarding her protected opposition conduct was intentional because of her opposition to unlawful employment practices.
83. The aforementioned adverse employment action by Defendant was done with malice or reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Ms. Smith.
84. As a result of this direct and proximate result of Defendant’s unlawful employment practices and retaliation by firing Ms. Smith, Plaintiff Smith suffered damages to her professional reputation, a loss of dignity, a loss of the enjoyment of life, embarrassment, humiliation, and other forms of mental anguish and distress, loss of earning capacity, loss of wages, and loss of retirement benefits.
Wherefore, Plaintiff Smith requests this Court issue an order against Defendant awarding the Plaintiff Smith compensatory damages, lost back pay, reinstatement and/or front pay, punitive
19

damages, attorney’s fees and costs, together with such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.
COUNT V (PLAINTIFF MITZI B. SMITH’S CLAIM OF RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF
THE FCRA 85. Plaintiff Smith repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 25, and 26 through 34, as if fully set forth herein. 86. Plaintiff Smith reported to Managers and Supervisors employed by the Defendant regarding her unfair treatment based on her gender on various occasions. As a result of her complaints she was subjected to continuous harassment by managers, supervisors and co-workers. $7. On April 25, 2000, Mr. Jim Bardneau, Branch Manager and Mr. Roberto Valdomar, Administration Manager, continued at length to harass Ms. Smith by questioning Ms. Smith with regards to her seeking advice from the undersigned attomey regarding unlawful ernployment practices at Defendant’s business, and continued to question Ms. Smith after Ms. Smith refused to continue the conversation with Mr. Barrineau and Mr. Roberto Valdornar. 88. Mr. Jim Barrineau continued to state to her "are you sure you know nothing about anyone or yourself seeking advice for discriminatory practices by me"; "you must tell me the truth and advise me as to what is being done"; "do you know about Holly Daniels and Barbara Neel filing with the EEOC" "Are you going to file a complaint". W’rth each question he became more tyrant and angry with Ms. Smith. 89. Plaintiff Smith seeking advice of attorney concerning discriminatory practices by the Defendant, and seeking the advice of attorney in filing an EEOC complaint for such violations
20

of unlawful employment practices is clearly a participation and the retaliation by Defendant was only to thwart this process and prevent such charges to move forward.
90. There is a causal link between Plaintiff’s opposition to the unlawful employment practices, and refusal to answer questions regarding her protected opposition conduct and her subsequent discharge [The same day] fi:om employment by Defendant. That Mr. Jim Barrineau documented these events by memorandum and intemal documents of the Defendant that clearly shows the motive of the firing of Ms. Smith was for retaliation that was based upon her protected opposition conduct of unlawful discriminatory employment conduct by Defendant, and her protected fight to seek relief with the EEOC and any other forum that would protect those rights.
91. The aforementioned adverse employment action by Defendant subsequent to Ms. Smith’s complaints, and refusal to answer harassing questiom regarding her protected opposition conduct was intentional because of her opposition to unlawful employment practices.
92. The aforementioned adverse employment action by Defendant was done with malice or reckless indifference to the rights protected by Florida Statutes.
93. As a result of this direct and proximate result of Defendant’s unlawful employrmnt practices and retaliation by firing Ms. Smith, Plaintiff Smith suffered damages to her professional reputation, a loss of dignity, a loss of the enjoyment of life, embarrassment, htaniliation, and other forms of mental anguish and distress, loss of earning capacity, loss of wages, and loss of retirement benefits.
Wherefore, Plaintiff Smith requests this Court issue an order against Defendant awarding the Plaintiff Smith compensatory damages, lost back pay, reinstatement and/or front pay, punitive damages, attorney’s fees and costs, together with such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.
21

COUNT VI (PLAINTIFF HOLLY DANIEL’S CLAIM OF RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF
TITLE VII)
94. Plaintiff Daniels repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 25, and 35 through 39, as if fully set forth herein.
95. PlaintiffDaniels reported her unfair treatment based on her gender on various occasions.
96. As a result of her complaints she was subjected to cominuous harassmem by managers, supervisors and co-workers.
97. On or about April 19, 2000, the Branch Manager Mr. Jim Barrineau had Ms. Daniels go to his office, and in the presence of Administration Manager, Roberto Valdomar, continued to question Ms. Danieis about her seeking advice from an attorney regarding the discriminatory practices that existed in the work place under his supervision.
98. That Mr. Jim Barfineau continued at length to harass Ms. Danieis with regards to her seeking advice from the undersigned attorney, and continued to question Ms. Daniels after Ms. Daniels refused to continue the conversation with Mr. Barrineau. Throughout this questioning, Mr. Roberto Valdomar did not intervene to prevent such harassment to continue.
99. Mr. Jim Barrineau continued to state to her "are you sure you know nothing about anyone or yourself seeking advice for discriminatory practices by me"; "you must tell me the truth and advise me as to what is being done"; "do you know about Mitzi Smith and Barbara Neel filing with the EEOC". With each question he became more tyrant and angry with Ms. Daniels.
100. That this continued harassment continued throughout the day, until Ms.
22

Daniels was called into Mr. Jim Barrineau’s office that late aRemoon. Ms. Daniels was forced to sign a document labeled "Memorandum" to Ms. Daniels and f~om Mr. Jim Barrineau dated April 19, 2000, regarding "personal issues." See attached Exhibit "6".
The memo stated: I talked to Holly Daniels this morning in regards to discrimination issues, on my part, against female associates within this facility. She stated that she had no issues whatsoever towards me, but did make a remark concerning one of the other associates. She said that the associate was lazy and that he would not help other associates when help was needed. I assured her that this associate had been warned about his work habits, and that it would not be tolerated. I asked Holly that in the future, if she makes a complaint to her Immediate supervisor, and no action is taken, to please Use the open door policy and talk to me about the situation.
The Memorandum was signed by Mr. Jim Bardnean and Ms. Daniels was told to sign the document, even over her objection and disagreement with the substantive content of the letter.
101. That the continued discriminatory practices based upon gender continued fi’om April 19, 2000 forward and the continuous retaliation by Mr. Jim Barrineau continued against MS. Daniels by subjecting her and exposing her, as aforementioned, in form of unwelcome verbal comments sufficiently sever and pervasive as to create an intimidating, hostile and offemive work environment, and were done so by the Defendant as retaliation for seeking advice by an attorney and seeking to file with EEOC for discriminatory practices that were present at the Defendant’s workplace.
102. Plaintiff Daniels seeking advice of attorney concerning discriminatory practices by
23

the Defendant, and seeking the advice of attorney in filing an EEOC complaint for such violations of unlawful employment practices is clearly participation and the retaliation by Defendant was only to thwart this process and prevent such charges to move forward.
103. There is a causal link between Plaintiff’s opposition to the unlawful employment practices and the retaliation of the signing of the Memorandum dated April 19, 2000. See Exhibit "6".
104. That the PlaintiffDaniels suffered adverse employment action by being subjected to more hostile treatment, by having to sign this memorandum against her will, and the continued harassment by management and supervisors.
105. The aforementioned adverse employment action by Defendant subsequent to PlaintiffDaniel’s complaints were intentional because of her protected activity and opposition conduct.
106. The aforementioned adverse employment action by Defendant was done with malice or reckless indifference to the federally protected fights of Ms. Danlels.
107. As a result of this direct and proximate result of Defendant’s unlawful employment practices, PlaintiffDaniels suffered damages to her professional reputation, a loss of dignity, a loss of the enjoyment of life, embarrassment, humiliation, and other forms of mental anguish and distress.
Wherefore, PlaintiffDaniels requests this Court issue an order against Defendant awarding the PlaintiffDaniels compensatory damages, lost back pay, reinstatement and/or f~ont pay, punitive damages, attorney’s fees and costs, together with such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.
24

COUNT VH (PLAINTIFF HOLLY DANIEL’S CLAIM OF RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF
THE FCRA 108. PlaintiffDaniels repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 25, and 35 through 39, as if fully set forth herein. 109. Plaintiff Daniels reported her unfair treatment based on her gender on various occasions to her direct supervisor and manager. 110. As a result of her complaints she was subjected to continuous harassment by managers, supervisors and co-workers. 111. On or about April 19, 2000, the Branch Manager Mr. Jim Barrineau had Ms. Daniels go to his office, and in the presence of Administration Manager, Roberto Valdomar, continued to question Ms. Daniels about her seeking advice from an attorney regarding the discriminatory practices that existed in the work place under his su~rvision. 112. That Mr. Jim Barrineau continued at length to harass Ms. Daniels with regards to her seeking advice lirom the undersigned attorney, and continued to question Ms. Daniels after Ms. Daniels refused to continue the conversation with Mr. Barrineau. Throughout this questioning, Mr. Roberto Valdomar did not intervene to prevent such harassment to continue. 113. Mr. Jim Barrineau continued to state to her "are you sure you know nothing about anyone or yourself seeking advice for discriminatory practices by me"; "you must tell me the truth and advise me as to what is being done"; "do you know about Mitzi Smith and Barbara Ned filing with the EEOC". With each question he became more tyrant and angry with Ms. Daniels. 114. That this continued harassment continued throughout the day, until Ms. Daniels was called into Mr. Jim Barrineau’s office that late afternoon. Ms. Darfiels was forced to sign a doc~t labeled "Memorandum" to Ms. Daniels and from Mr. Jim Barrineau dated April
25

19, 2000, regarding "personal issues." See attached Exhibit "6".
The memo stated: I talked to Holly Daniels this morning in regards to discrimination issues, on my part, against female associates within this facility. She stated that she had no issues whatsoever towards me, but did make a remark concerning one of the other associates. She said that the associate was lazy and that he would not help other associates when help was needed. I assured her that this associate had been warned about his work habits, and that it would not be tolerated. I asked Holly that in the future, if she makes a complaint to her Immediate supervisor, and no action is taken, to please Use the open door policy and talk to me about the situation.
The Memorandum was signed by Mr. Jim Barrineau and Ms. Daniels was told to sign the document, even over her objection and disagreement with the substantive content of the letter.
115. That the continued discriminatory practices based upon gender continued fi’om
April 19, 2000 forward and the continuous retaliation by Mr. Jim Barrineau continued against Ms.
Daniels by subjecting her and exposing her, as aforementioned, in form of unwelcome verbal
comments sufficiently sever and pervasive as to create an intimidating, hostile and offemive work
environment, and were done so by the Defendant as retaliation for seeking advice by an attorney
and seeking to file with EEOC for discriminatory practices that were present at the Defendant’s
workplace.
116. Plaintiff Daniels seeking advice of attorney concerning discriminatory practices by
the Defendant, and seeking the advice of attorney in filing an EEOC complaint for such violations
of unlawful employment practices is clearly participation and the retaliation by Defendant was
only to thwart this process and prevem such charges to move forward.
117. There is a causal link between Plaintiffs opposition to the unlawful employment
26

practices and the retaliation of the signing of the Memorandum dated April 19, 2000. 118. That the Plaintiff Daniels suffered adverse employment action by being subjected
to more hostile treatment, by having to sign this memorandum against her will, and the continued harassment by management and superiors.
119. The aforementioned adverse employmem action by Defendant subsequent to Plaintiff Daniel’ s complaints were intentional because of her protected activity and opposition conduct.
120. The aforementioned adverse employment action by Defendant was done with malice or reckless indifference to the rights established under Florida Statutes as protected fights of Ms. Daniels as a female class.
121. As a result of this direct and proximate result of Defendant’s unlawful employment practices, PlaintiffDaniels suffered damages to her professional reputation, a loss of dignity, a loss of the enjoyment of life, embarrassment, humiliation, and other forms of mental anguish and distress.
Wherefore, PlaintiffDaniels requests this Court issue an order against Defendant awarding the PlaintiffDaniels compensatory damages, lost back pay, reinstatemem and/or fi:om pay, punitive damages, attorney’s fees and costs, together with such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.
COUNT Vlll (PLAINTIFF BARBARA NEEL’S CLAIM OF RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF
TITLE VH) 122. PlaintiffNeel repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 25, and 40 through 43, as if fully set forth herein. 123. PlaintiffNeel reported her unfair treatment based on her gender on various
27

occasions to her direct supervisor and Branch Manager, Jim Barrineau. 124. As a result of her complaints she was subjected to continuous harassment by
rrm’mgers, supervisors and co-workers. 125. On or about April 19, 2000, the Branch Manager Mr. Jim Barrineau had Ms.
Ned go to his office, and in the presence of Administration Manager, Roberto Valdomar, continued to question Ms. Neel about her seeking advice from an outside attorney regarding the discriminatory practices that existed in the work place under his supervision.
126. That Mr. Jim Barrineau continued at length to harass Ms. Neel with regards to her seeking advice from the undersigned attorney, and continued to question Ms. Ned aRer Ms. Neel refused to continue the conversation with Mr. Barrineau. Throughout this questioning, Mr. Roberto Valdomar did not intervene to prevent such harassment to continue.
1:27. Mr. Jim Barrineau continued to state to her "are you sure you know nothing about anyone or yourself seeking advice for discriminatory practices by me"; "you must tell me the truth and advise me as to what is being done"; "do you know about Mitzi Smith and Holly Daniels filing with the EEOC". With each question he became more tyrant and angry with Ms. Neel.
128. That the continued discriminatory practices based upon gender continued fi’om April 19, 2000 and the continuous retaliation by Mr. Jim Barrineau continued against Ms. Neel by subjecting her and exposing her, as aforementioned, in form of unwelcome verbal comments sufficiently sever and pervasive as to create an intimidating, hostile and offensive work environment, and were done so by the Defendant as retaliation for seeking advice by an attomey and seeking filing with EEOC for discriminatory practices that were present at the Defendant’s workplace.
129. PlaintiffNeel seeking advice of attorney concerning discriminatory practices by
28

the Defendant, and seeking the advice of attorney in filing an EEOC complaint for such violations of unlawful employment practices is clearly participation and the retaliation by Defendant was only to thwart this process and prevent such charges to move forward.
130. There is a causal link between Plaintiff’s opposition to the unlawful employment practices and the retaliation. That the PlaintiffNeel suffered adverse employment action by being subjected to more hostile treatment, and the continued harassment by management and supervisors regarding her claim.
131. The aforementioned adverse employment action by Defendant subsequent to Plaintiff Neel’s complaints were intentional because of her protected activity and opposition conduct.
132. The aforementioned adverse employment action by Defendant was done with malice or reckless indifference to the fights established under Federal Statutes as protected rights of Ms. Neel.
133. As a result of this direct and proximate result of Defendant’s unlawful employment practices, PlaintiffNeel suffered damages to her professional reputation, a loss of dignity, a loss of the enjoyment of life, embarrassment, humiliation, and other forms of mental anguish and distress.
Wherefore, PlaintiffNeel requests this Court issue an order against Defendant awarding the PlaintiffNeel eornpensatory damages, lost back pay, reinstatement and/or front pay, punitive damages, attorney’s fees and costs, together with such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.
29

COUNT IX (PLAINTIFF BARBARA NEEL’S CLAIM OF RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF
THE FCRA 134. PlaintiffNeel repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 25 and 40 through 43, as if fully set forth herein. 135. PlaintiffNeel reported her unfair treatment based on her gender on various occasions to her direct supervisor and branch manager, Jim Barrineau. 136. As a result of her complaints she was subjected to continuous harassment by managers, supervisors and co-workers. 137. On or about April 19, 2000, the Branch Manager Mr. Jim Barrineau had Ms. Neel go to his office, and in the presence of Administration Manager, Roberto Valdomar, continued to question Ms. Neel about her seeking advice from an outside attorney regarding the discriminatory practices that existed in the work place under his supervision. 137. That Mr. Jim Barrineau continued at length to harass Ms. Neel with regards to her seeking advice from the undersigned attorney, and continued to question Ms. Neel alter Ms. Neel refused to continue the conversation with Mr. Barrineau. Throughout this questioning, Mr. Roberto Valdomar did not intervene to prevent such harassment to continue. 138. Mr. Jim Barrineau continued to state to her "are you sure you know nothing about anyone or yourself seeking advice for discriminatory practices by me"; "you must tell me the truth and advise me as to what is being done"; "do you know about Mitzi Smith and Holly Daniels filing with the EEOC". With each question he became more tyrant and angry with Ms. Neel. 139. That the continued discriminatory practices based upon gender continued from
3O

April 19, 2000 and the continuous retaliation by Mr. Jim Barrineau continued against Ms. Neel by subjecting her and exposing her, as aforementioned, in form of unwelcome verbal comments sufficiently sever and pervasive as to create an intimidating, hostile and offemive work environment, and were done so by the Defendant as retaliation for seeking advice by an attorney and seeking filing with EEOC for discriminatory practices that were present at the Defendant’s workplace.
140. Plaintiff Neel seeking advice of attorney concerning discriminatory practices by the Defendant, and seeking the advice of attorney in filing an EEOC complaint for such violations of unlawful employment practices is clearly participation and the retaliation by Defendant was only to thwart this process and prevent such charges to move forward.
141. There is a causal link between Plaintiff’s opposition to the unlawful employment practices and the retaliation. That the PlaintiffNeel suffered adverse employment action by being subjected to more hostile treatment, and th~ continued harassment by management and supervisors regarding her claim.
141. The aforementioned adverse ~nployment action by Defendant subsequent to PlaintiffNeel’s complaints were intentional bemuse of her protected activity and opposition conduct.
142. The aforementioned adver~ employment action by Defendant was done with malice or reckless indifference to the rights established under Florida Statutes as protected rights of Ms. Neel as a female class.
143. As a result of this direct and proximate result of Defendant’s unlawful
31

employmem practices, PlaintiffNeel suffered damages to her professional reputation, a loss of dignity, a loss of the enjoyment of life, embarrassment, humiliation, and other forms of mental anguish and distress.
Wherefore, PlaintiffNeel requests this Court issue an order against Defendant awarding the PlaintiffNeel compensatory damages, lost back pay, reinstatement and/or t~ont pay, punitive damages, attorney’s fees and costs, together with such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.
DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(b), Plaintiffs Ms. Smith, Ms. Daniels and Ms. Neel hereby demand a trim by jury on all issues triable of rights by a jury.
Respectfully submitted, The Law Offices of Jay F. Romano, P.A. Attorney for Plaintiff Smith, Daniels and Neel 10 Fairway Drive Suite 131 Deerfield Beach, Florida 33441 (561) 271-17~
y~~loAYtnt~oRronmeayno da Bar No.: 0934097
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Amended Complaint has been furnished by U.S. Mail this 1~t day of August, 2001, addressed as follows: Cheryl A. Cooper, Trial Attorney, U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
32

COMMISSION, Two South Biscayne Blvd., One Biscayne Tower, Suite 2700, Miami, Florida 33131, and I)avid E. Block, Esquire, JACKSON LEWIS SCHNITZLER & KRUPMAN, First Union Financial Center, Suite 2600, 200 South Biscayne B~ ~M_~1-2374.
~/R6mano ~! A~omey
33

EXHIBIT 1

CHARGE OF nlSCRIMINATION
¯ fo, m ]s affected by the P~vacy Act~ 1974; See Privacy Act Statement ~afore
~o-lda Comm on ~uman Re3~t~ons S~e or l~al Age.~, if any

.:
F-/ xrA I !50A02315
"’

"
:t~fi~

’
CITY, STATE AND ZIP CODE

~

’ -~, . " "

’

~D ~S THE EMPLOYER, LABOR ORGANIZATION,’ EMPLOYMENT AGENCY APPRENTICESHIP COMMIT.TEE~?~

~TE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT AOENCY-WH~"D~RI~.NATED. AGAZNST M~-

~"

-] NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES, MEMBEkS iTELEPHONE’~,r.cI.dr ,~...:..~

eo~ogls..~lcs Amer]cas, Inc.

~

Cat D (Spl .+)

L£1 ~ODRESS

CITY, STATE AND ZIP CODE

~I (9"~4) 786-270~": -
COUNTY

.1~West S~de l~dustrial Dr~v, Jac~sonvil!e Fb ~2219

. O~I

"E~ ADdrESS

G~TY, STATE AND Z~P CODE

J COUNTY DATE DISCRZMINA]ION TOOK PLACE

03/25/1999

05/05/2000

[] CONTINUING AGTION

]n January of 1999, the Corporate Safety Department required that 1.~ ~.he power equlpment operators be certified for future OSHA n~p~:ctlons, this !nc~_uded the operation of the forklifts. The male ;,.,~,ioyees were giver,, the tralnlng in order to obtain the certiflcatlcm. !owever, i and other females were denied the certlf!catlon. .-~:~.~equer.tly, while the male employees were able to use a forklift to :!’t boxes, ".~e females were forced to move the heavy boxes manually.
:~ addition, the ma2e employees were allowed to work ful]-time forty ours wh~]e the females were only allowed to work thirty two hours even ):,-,~gh tLere was plenty of work. On April 25, 2000, Jim Barrineau, ~.-ahcl~ Manager and Rober%o Valdomar, Assistant Supervisor, questioned me ,.bout the sexual dlscr~m~nat~on charges and my involvement with an .~.~’.orney regarding these charges. I denied having any knowledge because
did not want %o lose my Job. Then, Jim Barrlneau te.~mlnated me /[stlng that production in the warehouse is low. To by knowledge the -c:,pa::y i~ fl]]ed with orders to be completed.
?. When we a~ked Jessie Dear, Receiving and Processing Supervisor a]~d .7~,m Barr~neau, ~ranch Manager in cha; ~e of certification, the r.eason we .~ere not being cert]fied, they stated that they were not going to :ert~ fy females.

T~xt ~s Continued on Attached Sheet(.S)

wan1 tn!~ charge flied wJlh both the EEOC and the State O~ NOTARY

necessary for

Local Requirements)

Agency, lff any. I *Ill advlse ~he agencies If I change ~ar~ or talept, cne number an~ cooperate folly W~t~ them J. the~ swear 0r atf~ that ! hays read the above cha~ge ~ that

¢~c_.~s_~n~._of mI charge l__~cor~ance wl~h ~hetr procedures. It 1~ true to the best of my k~owledge, Information aria belief.

cec’=a~e undeP penalty ,~f perjury that the forago~Lhg is true ,d correct ..

SIGNATURE OF COMPLAI,~NT

,,~ ~ _~ -_ ~o00 ~ c.~..~ ~.~y ",’:~,,..,,,,,.~

SUBSCRIBED AND S~;:ORN TO BEFORE :~E THIS DATE
(Month, day an~ year)

Florida Commission on Human kelations

~ ~ =q"~

Complainant ¯ Mltzl Smith

Respondent
Geologistics Americas, Incorporated

EEOC No: FCHR No: 2003372

CERTIFICATE OF AUTI-~NTICITY OF DOCUMENTS
I, the undersigned, do hereby certify that the attaohed documents are hue aad
correct copies of originals as filed with the Florida Commission on Human Relations.
Date: February 15_, 200_1
~ase’Closur¢ a~d-Recor~ Un/t D’A~toinett¢ Davis, Coordinator Florida Commission on Human Relations
Attachments: Copy of FCHR charge
Copies Furnished to: Jay F,. Romano The Law Offiee~ of Jay F. Romano, P.A, 20423 State Road 7, gF6-203 Boca Raton, Florida 33498

LORIDA COMMISSION ON 325 John Knox Ri~//d,.~uite :’.Tallaliassee

Street Addre~ ’

-~:!

F*CiD" State, and Zip~T.Code t~f

’~0~ .0

’ ’~ ’~6t:k ’(it ;to Call you th~.e.)...

List the employer, labor organization, employment agency, apprenticeship committee, government agency, or other pers

discriminated against you.

Name _

,~ , _

,~’o. of Employees

Telephone ~o. (area c_o~}

Street Address

-- --

C~ity,~State, ~tnd Zip_Code...

County ~"

CAUSE OF DISC~M~ATION [ I ~ATION~ O~GIN ~ ] A~E [ ! MA~AL STA~’S ~ ~TALIATION

DATE: M.OST K£cr,..q~r OR COoITIT~U~G DIc~’IU]~’~ TOOK PLAC£ (month, day, y~r) ~"

TELE PARTICULARS ARE (If additional space is needed, attach extra sheet(s): L Personal Harm:

IL Respondent’s Reasons for Personal Harm:

Discrimination Statement:

[ g~QUF.$’I" TO BE AFFORDED FULL RELIEF TO wHICH I A3I ENTITLED TO UNDER THE ~kW~.

Under penalfl~ of perJu~, I deeia~ ~at ! have r~d ~e fobbing charge of discrimination and that the facts s~ted in it are true.

SIGNAT~E O~ COMPLMN~T

DATE

ATFACHED EXHIBIT "A" : DISCRIMINATION CHARGE lVfltzi Sm/th D/O/B: 06/21/~9
,The Particulm~ Are:
January of 1999, the CorpoLete Safety D~’~_~that all the power equipment operators be Certified for fixttWeOSI-~. " ~ions, this included the operation of the forklifts. The male employees were given the training in order to obtain the certification. However, I and other females were denied the certification. Consequently, while the male employees were able to use a forklift to liil boxes, the females were forced to move heavy
boxes manually.
In addition, the male employees were allowed to work full-time forty hours, while the females were only allowed to work thirty two hours even though there was plenty of work. On April 25, 2000, Jim Barrineau, Branch Manager, and Roberto Valdomar, Assistant Supervisor, questioned me about the sexual/gender discrimination charges and my involvement with an Attorney regarding these charges. I denied having any knowledge because I did not want to lose my job. Then, Jim Barrineau terminated me stating that production in the warehouse is low. To my knowledge the company is filled with orders to be completed, and since my termination the company has hired additional workers.
o When we (Female Employees) would ask Jessie Dear, Receiving and Processing Supervisor and Ytm Barrineau, Branch Manager in charge of certification, the reason we were not being certified, they stated that they were not going to certify females.
I believe Respondent (Employer) discriminated and retaliated against me because of my sex, female, and because I complained about the discriminatory practice, in violation of my Civil Rights Guaranteed by Florida Law, and I request to be afforded full relief to which I am entitled to under the Law (s).

EXHIBIT 2

: ’." .... _k-.:,~,.~ :’,- ’.

"

. "

-

’:~~--:- ’ ..~.,P.%’.~d.~d.a:.’".~." Comm_,

r

".

,: ....
on:;Hom~n

:~. R...e. l’

.~:.~..

-

’ ’

"

.and--EEOC"

""F,’.,Oi<:,~..~,.’~.~8, ulen ~alnr.~,~apy-~.~,,-:-,o-L;",~-~;V~U--

’ ....... ~ ~-I

:NAMED IS THE::..E.IJPLOYER, LABOR ORG^NZ-ZATION.;~..:~MP.L,G..¥.MENT A,GEt~-.CY A, PPRENTICESH]:P COMMITT-EE’~,~!

, S~ATE OR ~i:o’C~;L"GOvERNMENT AGENCY WHO DzS’cRZ~:NA’I’EDAGAZNST ME

’NA’~E " ’

’

I NUI~iER OF i~MPt.OYEE$. I~£MBER$ I’I’E’I.EP~O,E[j’ne,.#../:o. ’0...~ ’

OeoLoRfstlCS Amen’leas. ~nc.

’l cat D (501 ~) ,

,

(90~) .786-.2700 I

STREET ~,,ODR, E$$

--

C]t¥; STATe ~tl(I) ZZP CODe

l

80~5 West Sl~e Ind,.atrial Driv, Jaok~ol]ville, ~L ~22~9 _

I COUNTY
~ 0~I

i

STREET ADDRESS

CITy, STATE AND ZIP’ CoDE

COUNTY

,

DATE D~SCRIMINAT]ON TOOK PLACE "

!
08/0111999 05105/2000

~ cOnTINUInG

ACTIUM

i. In January off 1999, the Corporate Safety Department required that all the power equipment opera~ors be certified for future OSHA inspections, this included the operation of the forklifts. The male employees were given the trai~ing in order to obtain ~he certification. However, I and other fe~ales were den~ed ~he cer~Iflcatlon. Consequently, while the male employees were able to use a forklift to llft boxes, ~he females were forced to move the heavy boxes manually.
In addition, the male employees were allowed to work full-time forty hours while the females were only allowed to work thirty two hours even though there was plenty o~ work. On April i9, 2000, Jim Barrlneau, Branch Manager questioned me abo~t the sexual discrimination charges and my involvement with an Attorney regarding these charges. I denled having any knowledge because I did not want to lose m~ Job. Later on chat day. Jim Barr!neau forced me to slgn a memorandum da~ed ~/19/2000 from him stating that he did not discriminate against females. He questioned me again abou~ the charges of dlscrimlna~ion. I denied everything.

2. When we asked Jessie Dear, Receiving and Processing Supervisor and Jim Barrlneau, Branch Manager in charge of eertlflcatlon, the reason we were not being eerrlfIed, they stared that they were not going to
Text .is Continued on Attached Sheet(s)

SIGNATURE OF COMPLAINANT SuBsCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS DATE (uonCn. ~ay =~u year)

Florida Commission on Human Relations

~,. ~,/ .’

Complainant,
Holy L. Wutas

~.~.

.*ds~lm Sash. ~e a~r
D~m E~n Geor~ F~Tdl

Respondent Geologlstlcs Americas, Incorporated

EEOC No;
FCHR No: 2003373 -

CERTIF~!_CATE OF AUTHENTICITY O]~ DOCUMENT_~S
I, the undersigned, do hereby certify tl~t the attached documents ~re tru¢ and
correct copies of originals as filed with the Florida Commission on Human Relations.
Date: February 15. 2001
~UnJt
D’Antoinette Davis., Coordinator
Florida Commission on Human Relations
Attachments: Copy of FCHR charge
Copies Furnished to: Jay F. Romano The Law Offices of Jay F. Romano, P.A. 20423 State Road 7 #F6-203 Boca Raton, Florida 33498

: ~

325 Johu ~ox Road,S~Ite:240, Bufid~ ~. :~

S~t Ad~t- -

"fN0me Telephone ~umber

LNt ~e employer, labor organ~ation, employment agency, tpprentic~hlp com~ttee, government agency, or o~er person who
dlscN~at~ ag~nst you.

Street Address

City, State, and Zip Code

CAU$1~ O~ DL~(~M.LNATION RA,~ED 0N (Ch~k tpp~priat* ~X

T~ F~CL~ ~ (If ad~ouaI space is needed, a~aeh e~ra sh~s): I. ~e~onal H~m:

H. Respondent’s Reasons for Personal Harm:

HI. Discrimination Statement:

I REQUEST TO BE AFFORDED FULL RELIef TO WHICH I AM .ENTITLED TO L~DER THE LAW(S).

Under penalti~ of pe~uD’, [ d~la~ trite ] have r~d the forgoing ~h~e of discrimination and that ~e fa~ stated in it are tru~

SIGNATURE OF COgeNT

"

1~

A’FrACHED EXHIBIT "A" : DISCRIMINATION CHARGE Holly L. Daniels D/O/B: 08/10/60
I. In January of 1999, the.Co~.~.¢ Safety Department required, that all the power equipment opemors:b6~bertified for future OSHA impections, this included the operation of the forklifts. The male employees were given the training in order to obtain the certification. However, I and other females were denied the certification. Consequently, while the male employees were able to use a forklift to lift boxes, the females were forced to move heavy boxes manually.
In addition, the male employees were allowed to work full-time forty hours, while the females were only allowed to work thirty two hours even though there was plenty of work. On April 19, 2000, Ytm Barrineau, Branch Manager questioned me about the sextml/gender discrimination charges and my involvement with an Attorney regarding these charges. I denied having any knowledge because I did not want to lose my job. Later on that same day, Jim Barrineau forced me to sign a memorandum dated 4/19/2000 from him stating that he did not discriminate against females. He questioned me again about the charges of discrimination. I denied everything for fear of my job.
o When we (Fcrnale Employees) would ask Jessie Dear, Rcceiviug and Processing Supervisor and Jim Barrineau, Branch Manager in charge of certification, the reason we were not being certified, they stated that they were not going to certify females.
° I believe Respondent (’Employer) discriminated and retaliated against me because of my sex, female, and because I complained about the discriminatory practice, in violation of my Civil Rights Guaranteed by Florida Law, and I request to be afforded full relief to which I am entitled to under the Law (s).

EXHIBIT

~.QUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMt~ "SION
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUE
(CONCILIATION FAILURE)

To:

From: Miami District Office

Holly L. Daniels P.O. Box 248 Glen St. Mary, FL 32040

Equal Employment Opportunity One Biscayne Tower, Suite 2700 2 South Bi$cayne Boulevard Miami, Flodda 33131-1805

On behalf of a person aggrieved whose identity is CONFIDENTIAL

(29 C.F.R. 1601.7(a))
Charge Number | 50-A0-2316

IEEOC Representative ]aeq~,clirl¢ .Qabriel. Investigator

ITelephone Number 305/530-6015

TO THE PERSON AGGRIEVED:

This Notice concludes the EEOC’s processing of the above-numbered charge. The EEOC found reasonable cause to believe that violations of the statute(s) occurred with respect to some or all of the matters alleged in the charge but could not obtain a settlement with the Respondent that would provide relief for you. In addition, the EEOC has decided that it will not bring suit against the Respondent at this time based on this charge and will close its file in this case. This does not mean that the EEOC is certifying that the Respondent is in compliance with the law, or that the EEOC will not sue the Respondent later or intervene later in your lawsuit if you decide to sue on your own behalf.

-- NOTICE OF SUIT RIGHTS -(See the additional information attached to thi~ form.)

Title VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and/or Age Discrimination in Employment Act: This will be the only notice of your right to sue that we will send you. You may pursue this matter further by bringing suit in federal or state court against the Respondent(s) named in the charge. Your suit must be ~ed WITHIN 90 DAYS from your receipt of this Notice. Otherwise your right to sue based on the above-numbered charge will be lost.
Equal Pay Act (EPA): EPA suits must be brought in federal or state court within 2 years (3 years for willful violations) of the alleged EPA underpayment. This means that backpay due for any violations that occurred more than 2 years (3 years)

before: you f’de suit maYFEB~__notlbe~ collectible.2~

"

~~~ -On Behalf of the

.

(Date Mailed)

Enclosures
Information sheet Copy of Charge

~

/ederico Costales, District Director

Jay F. Romano, P.A. 20423 State Road 7 #F6-203 Boca Raton, FL 33498-6797
I I :_EOC Form 161-A (10/96)

David Block, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS SCHNITZLER & KRUPMAN First Union Financial Center - Suite 2600 200 South Biscayne Blvd. Miami, FL 33131-2374

I III

I II

EXHIBIT 4

..Barbara, Noel

_..

. ...... ¯

CHAROE NUIISER
150AQ~+317 , and EEOC
[ (90_£I) 22-0-6’~!..~.‘

GeoLo~Isklcs Ame~i~_as.. Ing.,

’l+-,~t D (so1 +),

I

STREET AOORES8

(:|TY, STATE ARO Z~ GQOE

8015 West Side..Znduatrial__D~iv. ~.~ckson~ille, ~.~2219

STREET ADORES9

CITY, Ill"ATI~ AND 2tp ~ODE

(90a) 7~86-2700
~ ~OU~TY

1

0~1

0,/01/1999

05/05/2000

i. In January of 1999, the Corporate Safety Department required that all the power equipment operators be certified for future OSHA lnspectlons, this included the opera~ion of the forklifts. The male employees were given the training in orde~ to obtain the certification. However, I and other female~ were denied the cer~Iflcation. Consequently, while the male employeem were able te u~e a ro~klir~ to llft boxes, the females were forced to move th~ heavy boxes manually.
Since ~he inception of the undersigned moving forward with the sexual discrimination charge. Jim Ba~ineau, B~anoh Manager, has been re~aliatlng against me by continuously harassing me and questioning me
about the ~exual dlserlmlnation charges and my Involvemen~ with an
Attorney regarding these charges. I denied having any knowledge because I did not want to lose my Job.
2. When we asked Jessie Dear, Receiving and Processing Supervisor and Jim Barrineau, Branch Manager in charge of certification, the reason we were not being cer~ifled, ~hey s~a~ed ~ha~ they were not going to certify females."

3. I believe Respondent diserimlnated and retaliated agalns~ me because of my sex, female, and because I complained abou~ the dlacrim/nator¥ practice, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 196~,
_ ag~ended.
~ I want thls ch~ge fixed wltfl both t~ EEOC end t.o 6tltl oe ~T~Y - (~. ntellllPy for ~lte

pro~s~ng of my. ~rge In accor~nce ~tth thllr ~rocld~ri/. , t Ind co~eCt,

It I+ true to the best of ~ kn~Ildge, Xnf~r~tlon an,d, ~.1’ 1ef

~I~OG FO~M 5 (Hey. <~1991~- Char01~ Plrty (s,’X’~,~eu.,’-~) ................

" Florida Commission on Human Relations

Complainant .Barbara Ned
Respondent GeoIogtstlcs Amerlca~, Incorporated

EEOC No: FCHR No: 2003374

tTERTIFICATI~ OF AUTHENTICITY OF DOCUMENTS
I, the tmdersiglaed, do hereby certify that the attached documents are true and
correct copies of originals as filed with the Florida Commission on Human Relations.
Date: February 15, 2001
D’Antoinette Davis, Coordinator Florida Com~ssion on Human Relations
Attachments: Copy of FCHR charge
Copies Furnished to: ,lay F. Romano The Law Offices of Jay F. Romano, P.A. 20423 State Road 7, #F6-203 Boca Raton, Florida 33498

"LOI~.tDA CObLMISSION ON 325 John Knox Road

"RELATIONS F

committee, government agency, or other person who

No, of

s

S t Addrm

~

~ity~ State, and ~p Code

County

CAUSE OF DISCRIMi~ATION BASED ON" (Cheek [ | RACE -[ I COLOR ,~EX ( I ~IGION {I DISABILI~"
[ I NA~ O~G~ ( ] AGE [ ] M~ $TA~ ~~TION

(mon~ dsy, year)

I. Pe~onal Ha~:

(If additional space is needed, attach extra sheet(s):

II. Respoudent’s Reasons for Personal Harm:

]I1. Discrimination Statement:

! REQUEST TO B~ AFFORDED FULL RELISF TO WHICH I AM ENTrl’LED TO UNDER THE LAW(S).

Under penalties of perjury, I declare tha~,~v¢ read the fo .t~going charge of discrimination and that the facts stated in it are true.

~IG~’ATUP-~E OF COMPLAI~~. ~

.

, , DATE

ATrACHED EXHIBIT "A" : DISCRIMINATION CHARGE Barbara Nee,1
.In J .ammry of 1999, the Corporate Safety Deparunem require., that allthe p0w~ ~luipment operators be certified for future OSHA ~’ons, this inchded the operation of the forklift. The male employees Were given the training in order to obtain the c~’tific, ati6n, However, I and other females were denied the cezlification. Consequently, while the male employees were able to use a forklift to lift boxes, the females were forced to move heavy
boxes manua~y.
Since the inception of my going to an Attorney, I have been retaliated against by my supervisors in the continuous harassment regarding my claim and sexual/gender discrimination charges that I was to file and have filed.
When we (Female Employees) would ask Jessie Dear, Receiving and Processing Supervisor and Ytm Barrineau, Branch Manager in charge of certification, the reason we were not being certified, they stated that they were not going to certify females.
I believe Respondent (Employer) discriminated and retaliated against me because of my sex, female, and because I complained about the discriminatory practice, in viohtion of my Civil Rights Guaranteed by Florida Law, and I request to be afforded full relief to which I am entitled to under the Law (s).

EXHIBIT 5

"E.QUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COLE’. SION
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUE
(CONCILIA T/ON FAILURE)

To: Barbara Neel 180 Yatch Club Way #309 Hypoluxo, FL 33462
On behalf of a person aggrieved whose identiO, is CONFIDENTIAL (29 C.F.R. 1601.7(a))

From:

Miami District Office Equal Employment Opportunity (~ne Biscayne Tower, Suite 2700 2 South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131-1805

Charge Number

EEOC Representative

Telephone Number

150-A0-2317

Jacqueline Gabriel. ~[nvestigat0r

305/530-6015

" TO THE PERSON AGGRIEVED:

This Notice concludes the EEOC’s processing of the above-numbered charge. The EEOC found reasonable cause to believe that violations of the statute(s) occurred with respect to some or all of the matters alleged in the charge but could not obtain a -

: settlement with the Respondent that would provide relief for you. In addition, the EEOC has decided that it will not bring suit

¯ against the Respondent at this time based on this charge and will close its file in this case. This does not mean that the EEOC

is certifying that the Respondent is in compliance with the law, or that the EEOC will not sue the Respondent later or

- intervene later in your lawsuit if you decide to sue on your own behalf.

=

-- NOTICE OF SUIT RIGHTS -(See the additional information attached to this form.)
Title VII, ~he Americans with Disabilities Act, and/or Age Discrimination in Employment Act: This will be the only notice of your right to sue that we will send you. You may pursue this matter further by bringing suit in federal or state court against the Respondent(s) named in the charge. Your suit must be filed WITHIN 90 DAYS from your receipt of this Notice. Other~vise your right to sue based on the above-numbered charge will be lost.

Equal Pay Act (EPA): EPA suits must be brought in federal or state court within 2 years (3 years for willful violations) of the alleged EPA underpayment. This means that backpay due for any violations that occurred more than 2 years (3 years) before you rde suit may not be collectible.

FEB 15
(Date Mailed)
Enclosures Information sheet Copy of Charge

O~ Behal/~f of t~ion
I ederico Costales, District Director

Jay F. Romano, P.A. 20423 State Road 7 #F6-203 Boca Raton, FL 33498-6797

David Block, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS SCHNITZLER & KRUPMAN First Union Financial Center - Suite 2600 200 South Biscayne Blvd. Miami, FL 33131-2374

EEOC Form 161-A (10/96)

EXHIBIT 6

’4
To: Holly Danlels From: J~m Barrineau Date: 04/19/00 Re: Persond Issues
I tatked to Holly Dani¢Is this morning in regards to discrirnirmtion issues, on my part. agatnat female associat, ea withJa this facility. She stated that she had no issues whatsoever towards me, but she did make a remark concemi.ng one of the other associates. She said th~ the ~ociat~ was lazy ~md thai h¢ would not help other ~ocia~ when h~lp was n¢~l. I assurod her that this ~ssociate had bccn about his work habits, and th~ it would not be tolerate. I ~sked Holly that in the thtttre, if she m~cs a complaint to h~r supervisor’, and no action is taken, to please uso the open door policy and taLk to me
/ Branch M n=ger
G .e~Logisdcs ~

 
 Case 3:01-cv-00216-TJC Document 34 Filed 04/23/2002 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
UNITED STATED EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

23t; 1001 APR

3b

Plaintiff,

and

MITZI B. SMITH, HOllY DANIELS and BARBARA NEEl,

Intervenors

vs.

Case No. 3:01-cv-216-J-21TEM

GEOlOGISTICS AMERICAS, INC.,

Defendant.

ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Motion for Protective Order (Doc. #26) and Defendant's Opposition to the Equal Opportunity Commission's Motion for a Protective Order (Doc. #31).
After having considered the matters raised, the Court will Grant, for now, the Motion for the Protective Order, but Order the two parties to confer further to attempt to resolve disputes over discovery, with the following to serve as a guideline.
Plaintiff EEOC cited EEOC v. HBE Corporation, 157 F.R.D. 465 (E.D. Mo. 1994), in its motion in arguing that its trial attorney would be the only person who could comply with Defendant's subpoena under Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(b)(6) seeking the person "with the most knowledge ... " of the retaliation claim concerning Defendant. In that case, the court noted that the EEOC had fully complied with "all of the defendant's discovery requests, including

Case 3:01-cv-00216-TJC Document 34 Filed 04/23/2002 Page 2 of 4
turning over its complete investigative file identifying all witnesses requested by the defendant and known to the plaintiff to have relevant information." Id. at 466-7. In the instant case, neither party has informed the Court as to whether the investigative file has been supplied to Defendant.
Given the restrictive nature of the subpoena request for the person with the "most knowledge," Plaintiff's argument that it would require trial counsel has some persuasion. However, the Court is skeptical that there is not any other individual at EEOC, from District Director Federico Costales (who signed the Letter of Determination) down to investigators who may have prepared an investigative file, who could testify with reasonable knowledge
of the case, if testimony were necessary.
Defendant claims in its Opposition (Doc. #31, ~~ 15-18) that EEOC did not fully comply with its written interrogatories (and, indeed, if furnishing a copy of the letter of determination was the only compliance, the Court might well agree), but the Defendant has not filed any motions to compel.
The Court agrees with Defendant's argument that a government agency such as EEOC should not be allowed to initiate an action and then avoid discovery to which private litigants would be entitled. In Hoffman v. United Telecommunications, Inc., 117 F.R.D. 436, 438 (D. Kan. 1987), the defendant was seeking from EEOC "information regarding policies, practice and procedures of defendants" which it found discriminatory. In this case, the Defendant is seeking information on EEOC's interpretation of its own policy. Given the liberal construction allowed in pretrial discovery, the Court is inclined to allow some leeway, but Defendant needs to be more precise in stating where its headed in this line of discovery, and the relevance.
2

Case 3:01-cv-00216-TJC Document 34 Filed 04/23/2002 Page 3 of 4

Although the initial complaint may have been concise, it alleged factually in

paragraph seven (7) that "Ms. Smith" complained to management about a practice

allegedly discriminatory (see Doc. #26, Ex. B at p. 8-4) and that shortly thereafter, in

retaliation, she was terminated from employment (see Doc. #26, Ex. B, at p. 8-11). There

may be factual disputes over what actually happened, but Defendant's claim that "Nothing

in the EEOC's complaint explains how the alleged acts of Defendant violated the EEOC

anti-retaliation policies" (Doc. #31 at 8) stretches the imagination.

Thus, having considered the matter, it is hereby

ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff EEOC's Motion for Protective Order (Doc. # 26) is GRANTED.

2. The parties are further ordered to confer within ten (10) days toward providing

Defendant all appropriate factual discovery from EEOC's files, and report back to the Court

within twenty days it there is still any dispute over discovery. The Court will hold a

prompt hearing if any disputes remain.

;;.3, DONE AND ORDERED at Jacksonville, Florida this

day of April, 2002.

~iesto: II Counsel of Record ro Se Parties, if any

THOMAS E. MORRIS United States Magistrate Judge

3

Case 3:01-cv-00216-TJC Date Printed: 04/23/2002

Document 34 Filed 04/23/2002 F I L E COP Y

Page 4 of 4

Notice sent to:

f\

CherYl A. Cooper, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower

2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2700

Miami, FL 33131

Gwendolyn Y. Reams, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131

Delner Franklin-Thomas, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131

Michael J. Farrell, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2700
Miami, FL 33131

David E. Block, Esq. Jackson Lewis Schnitzler & Krupman First Union Financial Center - Suite 2600 200 S. Biscayne Blvd.
Miami, FL 33131-2374

Jay F. Romano, Esq. Law Offices of Jay F. Ramano, P.A. 10 Fairway Dr., Suite 131 Deerfield Beach, FL 33441-6797

 
 Case 3:01-cv-00216-TJC Document 38 Filed 05/03/2002 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
UNITED STATED EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,

~.~ ii..t:.D

-t 1001 MAY

2: 32

" : . : : ' ;-:C:YF.ICT COURT
C .. ::; OF FLORIDA . . ... . ~'[ [lRiOA

and

MITZI B. SMITH, HOllY DANIELS and BARBARA NEEl,

Intervenors

vs.

Case No. 3:01-cv-216-J-21TEM

GEOlOGISTICS AMERICAS, INC.,

Defendant.

ORDER
The Court has before it Defendant's Emergency Motion to Quash Regarding the Deposition of Defendant's 30(B)(6) Representative (Doc. #28) and Plaintiff EEOC's Response (Doc. #36).
Although the Court is sympathetic to the burden involved on the witness, it cannot find that the sole purpose of the deposition is to harass or annoy the witness or Defendant, nor can the Court ascertain any other reason under Fed. R. Civ. P., Rule 26(c) that would call for a protective order. Because the potential for punitive damages is present in the case, evidence of the Defendant's income and assets may be admissible and Plaintiff should be allowed discovery on those matters. Cf. Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc., 453 U.S. 247, 270 (1981), Bessierv. Precise Tool & Engineering Co., Inc., 778 F. Supp. 1509, 1513-4 (W.O. Mo. 1991). The Court does not find that proof of an insurance policy and

Case 3:01-cv-00216-TJC Document 38 Filed 05/03/2002 Page 2 of 3

a year-old annual report are sufficient to disallow the requested discovery.

Apparently Plaintiff sought additional financial information in its Request for

Production, but Defendant declined to provide it (see Composite Exhibit 2 to Doc. #36).

Whether providing that information would have avoided the need for the deposition is

unknown. The Court would hope parties could engage in voluntary discovery that would

avoid the necessity for depositions such as that at issue.

The Court understands the location of the deposition has been shifted,

appropriately, to Jacksonville, rather than Miami, and is scheduled for May 6, 2002, rather

than May 7, 2002.

Given those facts, the Motion to Quash (Doc. #28) is DENIED. Defendant shall

produce the witness and documents requested in the subpoena.
3d DONE AND ORDERED at Jacksonville, Florida this

day of May, 2002

,
~WOPIiI estO: Counsel of Record

THOMAS E. MORRIS United States Magistrate Judge

2

Case 3:01-cv-00216-TJC Document 38 Filed 05/03/2002 Page 3 of 3 F I L E COP Y
Date Printed: 05/07/2002

Notice sent~to:

.

Cheryl A. Cooper, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131

Gwendolyn Y. Reams, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131

Delner Franklin-Thomas, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131

Michael J. Farrell, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2700
Miami, FL 33131

David E. Block, Esq. Jackson Lewis Schnitzler & Krupman First Union Financial Center - Suite 2600 200 S. Biscayne Blvd.
Miami, FL 33131-2374

Jay F. Romano, Esq. Law Offices of Jay F. Ramano, P.A. 10 Fairway Dr., Suite 131 Deerfield Beach, FL 33441-6797

 
 Case 3:01-cv-00216-TJC Document 51 Filed 07/16/2002 Page 1 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
UNITED STATED EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

FILED
a~ llJlJl JUt f b t A fI: 'l4 i

Plaintiff,

and

MITZI B. SMITH, HOllY DANIELS and BARBARA NEEl,

Plaintiffs/Intervenors

vs.

Case No. 3:01-cv-216-J-21TEM

GEOlOGISTICS AMERICAS, INC.,

Defendant.

ORDER This case is before the Court on Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's ("EEOC") Motion to Compel Defendant to Supplement Its Responses to Plaintiff's First Request for Production (Doc. #39, Motion to Compel), filed May 17, 2002. EEOC's First Request for Production ("RFP") was propounded on or about November 21, 2001. Defendant responded to the RFP on or about December 25, 2001. On or about February 25, 2002, Defendant supplemented its responses to EEOC with the production of a recently discovered internal memorandum written in April 2000 by Mr. James Barrineau, Defendant's local warehouse and branch manager during the time period involved in the instant complaint, to Mr. Ronald Caplinger, who was Mr. Barrineau's supervisor. The subject matter of the memorandum involves a plan for reduction in workforce due to revenue losses the first quarter of 2000. (See Doc. #39, Ex. A.) EEOC

Case 3:01-cv-00216-TJC Document 51 Filed 07/16/2002 Page 2 of 6
took the deposition of Mr. James Barrineau on February 27, 2002. Plaintiff EEOC now seeks to compel the production of Mr. Barrineau's computer hard drive on which the reduction in workforce memorandum was discovered. The Case Management and Scheduling Order (Doc. #17) specifies that discovery in this case should have been completed by May 17, 2002.
Defendant opposes Plaintiff's Motion to Compel on the basis that EEOC is attempting to circumvent the discovery deadline by misleading the Court with a request to "supplement" prior responses, when in fact the computer hard drive was not previously requested (Doc. #43). Thus, Defendant asserts that EEOC's Motion to Compel is untimely and EEOC has had a full and fair opportunity to conduct discovery regarding the document at issue. The Court is inclined to agree with Defendant on this matter.
Motions to compel discovery under Rule 37(a) are committed to the sound discretion of the trial court. Commercial Union Insurance Co. v. We strope, 730 F.2d 729, 731 (11th Cir. 1984). The trial court's exercise of discretion regarding discovery orders will be sustained absent a finding of abuse of that discretion to the prejudice of a party. Id.
The overall purpose of discovery under the Federal Rules is to require the disclosure of all relevant information so that the ultimate resolution of disputed issues in any civil action may be based on a full and accurate understanding of the true facts, and therefore embody a fair and just result. United States v. Proctor & Gamble Co., 356 U.S. 677, 682 (1958). Discovery is intended to operate with minimal judicial supervision unless a dispute arises and one of the parties files a motion involving judicial intervention. "The rules require that discovery be accomplished voluntarily; that is, the parties should affirmatively disclose relevant information without the necessity of court orders compelling disclosure."
2

Case 3:01-cv-00216-TJC Document 51 Filed 07/16/2002 Page 3 of 6
Bush Ranch v. EI. DuPont Nemours and Co., 918 F. Supp. 1524, 1542 (M.D. Ga. 1995). However, the parties in the instant litigation have waged a procedural motions war throughout the pretrial proceedings and have repeatedly sought Court intervention on what should be routine discovery matters.
Rule 16(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a showing of good cause to deviate from the deadlines set in the scheduling order. As previously noted, discovery in this case was sched uled for completion not later than May 17, 2002, the date of EEOC's eleventh hour Motion to Compel. In order to show good cause under Rule 16(b), the moving party must establish that scheduling deadlines could not be met despite a party's diligent efforts. See, Thorn v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida, Inc., 192 F.RD. 308, 309 (M. D. Fla. 2000) (internal citations omitted). The Court finds EEOC has not demonstrated good cause for the requested production. EEOC was aware of the subject memorandum on February 25,2002. Mr. Barrineau was deposed concerning its contents on February 27,2002. There was much discussion at that deposition concerning EEOC's desire for additional discovery concerning Mr. Barrineau's hard drive in general and the memorandum in issue specifically. (See Doc. #39, Ex. C, Transcript Excerpt of James Barrineau's Deposition.) Yet, EEOC chose not to bring its Motion to Compel on this matter until time for discovery was past. The Court does not find EEOC's delay in moving the Court constitutes "diligent efforts."
Even if the Court were to find good cause to allow this discovery beyond the scheduled deadline, itwould not require the production Mr. Barrineau's hard drive because the request is overly broad and intrusive. Rule 26(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides the court may limit discovery otherwise provided by the applicable
3

Case 3:01-cv-00216-TJC Document 51 Filed 07/16/2002 Page 4 of 6
rules if: (i) the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or
is obtainable from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive; (ii) the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity by discovery in the action to obtain the information sought; or (iii) the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs the likely benefit ...." FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b). EEOC seeks to discover Mr. Barrineau's hard drive so as to "confirm the date on which [the disputed memorandum] was created" because it asserts the document is "wholly self-serving for the Defendant and, therefore, suspect in view of the timing and manner of production." (Doc. #39, pp. 3 & 7.) EEOC also claims its review of the hard drive is necessary "in order to assess whether or not there are other computerized files which are relevant and material to the instant action." (Jd. at 8.) Defendant states it has produced all documents responsive to EEOC's request for production. (Doc. #43 at 4.) The Court will not presume bad faith on the part of one party based solely upon an unsubstantiated assertion from another party. In the instant action, the Court is confident any verifiable improprieties would be brought to the Court's attention by the "injured" party; the Court would deal sternly with any confirmed misconduct. Plaintiff EEOC had ample time within which to bring this Motion to Compel before the discovery deadline. The Court also finds EEOC could have verified the authenticity of the document by more convenient, less intrusive and less burdensome means before filing its Motion to Compel. Forexample, the deposition of Mr. Ronald Caplingerwas scheduled for May 2, 2002 (Doc. #32), but there is nothing in the record to suggest EEOC explored whether or not Mr. Caplinger ever received the reduction in workforce memo from Mr.
4

Case 3:01-cv-00216-TJC Document 51 Filed 07/16/2002 Page 5 of 6
Barrineau. Nothing in the record suggests it was ever verified whether all employees named in the memo were in fact discharged in accordance with the proposed reduction in workforce plan. Further, there is no evidence in the record EEOC attempted to verify the revenue losses reported in the memorandum, the accuracy of which could either support or tend to negate the creation of the memo at the time and in the manner disclosed, as Defendant asserts. The computer files and documents stored on the subject hard drive very likely include confidential business and personal information which do not touch the subject matter of the instant action; disclosure of such information may be harmful to the involved parties. EEOC has not shown good cause to warrant such expansive discovery.
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, Plaintiff EEOC's Motion to Compel (Doc. #39) is hereby DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED at Jacksonville, Florida this _--,~<....;.'t_"_ 'I' _ day ofJuly, 2002.

Copies to:
r,/} All Counsel of Record Pro Se parties, if any

THOMAS E. MORRIS United States Magistrate Judge

5

Case 3:01-cv-00216-TJC FDIocuLmEent 51COPFileYd 07/16/2002 Page 6 of 6 Date Printed: 07/16/2002

; Notice sent to:

I

Cheryl A. Cooper, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Miami District Office

One Biscayne Tower

2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2700

Miami, FL 33131

Gwendolyn Y. Reams, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131

Delner Franklin-Thomas, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131

Michael J. Farrell, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131

David E. Block, Esq. Jackson Lewis LLP First Union Financial Center - Suite 2600 200 S. Biscayne Blvd. Miami, FL 33131-2374

Jay F. Romano, Esq. Law Offices of Jay F. Ramano, P.A. 10 Fairway Dr., Suite 131 Deerfield Beach, FL 33441-6797

Karen Evans Litigation Resolution 169 E. Flagler St. Suite 1200 Miami, FL 33131-1205

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --

 
 Case 3:01-cv-00216-TJC Document 61 Filed 09/19/2002 Page 1 of 25

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
:.:? MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA L~:2 I q P 12: 0 I
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

~TEDSTATESEQUALEN.WLOYMENT
OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, MITZI B. SMITH, HOLLY DANIELS, and BARBARA NEEL
Plaintiffs,
v.
GEOLOGISTICS AMERICAS, INC.,
Defendant.
------------------------------~/

CASE NO.3: 01-CV-216-J-21-HTS

ORDER This cause comes before the Court on Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 52), the Intervenor-Plaintiffs' Response (Dkt. 55) in opposition thereto, and Plaintiff~EOC's Response (Dkt. 57) in opposition thereto. I. Introduction In this suit, the Plaintiffs asserts claims for gender discrimination and harassment, as well as retaliation. The Plaintiffs are the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"), Mitzi Smith ("Smith"), Holly Daniels ("Daniels"), and BarbaraNeel ("Neel"). I The

A072A (Rev.8I82)

I The three individual Plaintiffs will be collectively referred to as "Intervenor-Plaintiffs." Any general reference hereafter to "Plaintiffs" is meant to include both the EEOC and the Intervenor-Plaintiffs.

Case 3:01-cv-00216-TJC Document 61 Filed 09/19/2002 Page 2 of 25
Defendant is Geologistics Americas, Inc. ("Geologistics"), employer of Smith, Daniels, and Neel at the relevant times.
Initially, Smith, Daniels, and Neel each filed administrative charges of discrimination with the EEOC alleging various violations ofTitle VII. The EEOC elected to file suit only as to Smith's retaliation claim and filed its one-count Complaint (Dkt. 1) asserting such a claim. Thereafter, Smith, Daniels, and Neel filed a Motion to Intervene (Dkt. 2) in this action. That motion was granted, whereupon they filed their nine-count Amended Complaint (Dkt. 16). The claims therein include:
• Count I, gender disparate treatment claim under Title VII by all Intervenor-Plaintiffs;
• Count II, gender hostile work environment claim under Title VII by all Intervenor-Plaintiffs;
• Count III, hostile work environment and gender discrimination under the Florida Civil Rights Act ("FCRA") by all Intervenor-Plaintiffs;
• Count IV, Title VII retaliation claim by Smith; Count V, FCRA retaliation claim by Smith;
• Count VI, Title VII retaliation claim by Daniels; • Count VII, FCRA retaliation claim by Daniels; • Count VIII, Title VII retaliation claim by Neel; and • Count IX, FCRA retaliation claim by Neel. As a result, there are currently two complaints in this case. Moreover, the EEOC's Complaint and the Intervenor-Plaintiff's Amended Complaint overlap as each asserts a claim
2
A072A (Rev.8I82)

Case 3:01-cv-00216-TJC Document 61 Filed 09/19/2002 Page 3 of 25
under Title VII for the retaliation in the firing of Smith. See Okt. 1 at 3 (sole Count ofEEOC~s
Complaint); Okt. 16 at 18-20 (Count IV ofIntervenor-Plaintifrs Amended Complaint).
II. Background
The Court~s effort to streamline the consideration of what portended-and has~ in fact~
turned out-to be lengthy submissions by requiring the parties to prepare and file statements of
undisputed facts supported by record citations and similar oppositions, see Okt. 45 (Order of
June 4~ 2002)~ has proven less useful than anticipated.2 Nonetheless~ the following undisputed
2 The non-movants appear to have become so consumed with disputing every factual assertion made by their opponent that their asserted disputations are frequently meaningless and often contradict subsequent factual assertions they have made.
For example, as to PlaintiffNeel, the Defendant asserts that Mr. Barrineau met with her on April 19,2000, and
asked her ifshe was filing suit against the company, to which she untruthfully replied that she was not. See Dkt. 52 at 149.
The Intervenor-Plaintiffs dispute the correctness of this assertion, contending that Barrineau harassed Neel for over thirty minutes, repeatedly asking her ifshe was suing the company, causing her to deny involvement in the suit for fear of being fired. See Dkt. 55 at, 49. But it is, in fact, the crux ofNeel's retaliation claims (Counts VIII and IX) that Barrineau did call her into his office and ask herifshe was going to sue the Defendant. See Dkt. 16 at" 125-27, 137-38 (allegations of Counts VIII and IX oflntervenor-Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint).
Likewise, as to Smith and the EEOC, the Defendant asserts that Mr. Barrineau met with Smith on April 24, 2000, and asked her if she was filing suit against the company, to which she untruthfully replied that she was not. See Dkt. 52 at , 62. The EEOC disputes the correctness of this assertion, contending that Barrineau was aggressive, repeatedly asking
Smith if she were involved in the suit, causing her to deny involvement in the suit for fear of being fired. See Dkt. 57 at 11
7. But, as above, the EEOC later relies on the occurrence of this meeting and Barrineau's having asked Smith ifshe was
going to sue the Defendant as some of its key evidence in support of its retaliation claim. See Dkt. 57 at p.18, 11 ] 8.
Thus, neither of the above is a good faith disputation, as no party denies that these meetings took place or that Barrineau asked Neel and Smith about their intentions to file suit. Quite to the contrary, those facts underpin seven of the ten claims asserted by Plaintiffs in this suit. Any additional facts the respective Plaintiffs may have wished to add to the calculus regarding Barrineau's attitude, persistence, or the length of the meeting do not dispute the fact that the meeting took place and what it regarded. Rather, those additional matters were ones the Plaintiffs were clearly afforded an opportunity to address in their Statement of Additional Material Facts. See Dkt. 45 at 3 (providing for such statements).
The purpose of recounting the above is to admonish counsel to be more thoughtful in the future, whether in argument or submissions (e.g., joint pretrial statement). This case already portends to be somewhat lengthy, ~ ]8 at 9 (Case Management Report estimating 5-day jury trial), particularly given the number of parties-plaintiff. The Court will not abide the unnecessary consumption of time caused by disputation of such points.
3
A072A (Rev.8I82)

Case 3:01-cv-00216-TJC Document 61 Filed 09/19/2002 Page 4 of 25

facts, taken in a light most favorable to the Plaintiffs for purposes of considering the subject motion, have been distilled by the Court. Particularly material disputed facts that have become evident are noted.
Defendant operates a warehouse in Jacksonville, Florida, that receives freight destined to be shipped to retail stores in the Caribbean and South America. That freight is received into two areas ofDefendant's warehouse: the ReceivingDepartmentandthe Processing Department. However, the fact of this separate designation is disputed by the Intervenor-Plaintiffs, who assert that these designations were not created until at or after the time of the alleged discriminatory practices.3 Nevertheless, to avoid confusion, this terminology will be used to distinguish between these two groups ofemployees. All four ProcessingDepartment employees at the relevant time, including the Intervenor-Plaintiffs, are female. Although no party has pointed to any specific portion of the record, it appears from many portions of the record reviewed by the Court-and is thus accepted for purposes ofthis motion-that all ofthe Receiving Department employees were male at the times relevant to this suit.4
The genesis of this case can be traced to the fact that the Receiving Department employees are trained, and thus permitted, to use forklifts in unloading the freight delivered to

A072A (Rev.8182)

3 In this regard, the Intervenor-Plaintiffs have pointed the Court to the deposition testimony of James Barrineau, their supervisor during the relevant times, who testified that he wrote job descriptions for the Defendant's facility in June of2000 and was not aware that any such descriptions had existed previously.
4 The one portion ofthe parties' submissions that expressly asserts that the Receiving Department was all male is not supported by the portions of the record cited therein. See Dkt. 57 at p.13-14,' 2 (EEOC's Response to summary judgment).
4

Case 3:01-cv-00216-TJC Document 61 Filed 09/19/2002 Page 5 of 25
their area, while the Processing Department employees must use other means (manual lifting, non-motorized pallet jacks) to move and unload the freight delivered to their area. Further, the Intervenor-Plaintiffs assert that they were frequently required to help the Receiving Department employees unload freight delivered to the Receiving Department, but were not allowed to use a forklift when doing so. Both sides agree that it is necessary to use a forklift to unload the freight delivered to the Receiving Department.
Prior to March 1, 2000, the Receiving and Processing Department employees were supervised by William Neel ("William Neel"), who happens to be the husband ofIntervenorPlaintiff Barbara Neel but who left Defendant's employment to take a job in South Florida. After March I, 2000, Receiving and Processing Department employees were supervised by Jessie Dear ("Dear"). Dear was himself supervised by Branch Manager Jim Barrineau ("Barrineau") who also oversaw Administration Manager Roberto Valdomar ("Valdomar"). Barrineau reported to Regional Vice-President Ron Caplinger ("Caplinger").
On several occasions after March 1,2000, the Intervenor-Plaintiffs asked Dear and/or Barrineau to let them become certified to operate forklifts, but they were denied such training. At least one ofthe Intervenor-Plaintiffs asserts that she also complained to Caplinger about the lack of forklift fraining. Smith claims that, on at least one occasion, Barrineau stated to her, Daniels, and Neel that he did not like supervising women and did not think that women should be working in a warehouse such as Defendant's.
5
A072A (Rev.8/82)

Case 3:01-cv-00216-TJC Document 61 Filed 09/19/2002 Page 6 of 25

On April 19,2002, Barrineau separately called Daniels and Neel to his office and asked them whether they intended to file a lawsuit against Defendant and if they had any complaints about how they were being treated. Both women falsely denied that they were contemplating suit against Defendant because, as later stated, they felt they would be fIred if they admitted their true intentions. Both women claim that Barrineau was aggressive towards them during the meeting and otherwise harassed them during that day.
SpecifIcally, Daniels claims throughout the remainder of April 19, after the meeting, Barrineau criticized how she worked and later caller her back to his offIce and forced her to sign a memorandum regarding their meeting. Daniels has alternately stated that she did not read the memorandum and that she disagreed with its contents. In general terms, the memorandum states that Barrineau spoke with Daniels regarding "discrimination issues" and that she said she had no such concerns. Daniels still works for Defendant, was provided forklift training in June of 2000, was later promoted to a low-level supervisory position, and has received two raises since May of2000.5

A072A (Rav.8I82)

5 The Intervenor-Plaintiffs' Response asserts that these facts are "disputed." See generally Dkt. 55 at 20-21. But what follows thereafter are merely the Intervenor-Plaintiffs' arguments regarding the relevance ofthe Defendant's factual assertions. And where contrary assertions are made, they either do not create a genuine issue or are not supported by the portion of the record. cited. Some examples follow.
Defendant asserts that Daniels was provided forklift training in June of 2000. See Okt. 52 at 137 (citing portion of Daniels' deposition in which she admits she was given forklift training in June of2000). The Intervenor-Plaintiffs state this fact is disputed, then go on to argue that the fact that Daniels was provided forklift training in June 2000 does not mitigate her claims or undo Defendant's discrimination. See Dkt. 55 at' 37. (Leaving aside the implicit admission of the fact assertedly disputed.)
The Intervenor-Plaintiffs' Response claims that Daniels has suffered financial damage by being unable to obtain other employment as a result of Defendant's alleged discrimination, ~ Dkt. 55 at pp.20-21, , 38 (citing Daniels depo, Okt.
(continued ... )
6

Case 3:01-cv-00216-TJC Document 61 Filed 09/19/2002 Page 7 of 25

Neel had sustained an on-the-job injury on March 30, 2000, and was thereafter placed on light duty. She was still on light duty on April 19, 2000, when she states she was sent home early following her meeting with Barrineau and thus concluded that she had been fired. Neel's time cards do reflect that, after working full days on April 17 and 18, 2000, (Monday and Tuesday), she punched out after only one hour on April 19, 2000, and did not work the rest of that week. However, while those time cards also show that she did not work at all the weeks , ending April 29 and May 6, 2000, they do show that she worked full-time (40 hours) plus some overtime (4.25 hours) the week ending May 13,2000, and worked a full day on Monday, May 15,2000, her last day. According to a "Worker's Compensation Medical Treatment and Status Report" form, on Wednesday, May 17, 2000, she was examined again; restricted to sedentary work only and prohibited from lifting more than 10 pounds; and cleared to return to work that day. After that, Neel went on full-time Worker's Compensation benefit. Within the next few 'months, she sold her house in the Jacksonville area and moved to South Florida, where her husband had relocated.

A072A (Rev.8f82)

S( ... continued) 56, Ex. 1 at 241-42); yet in the cited portions of Daniels' deposition she states that she does not know why she did not get the other job she interviewed for while employed by Defendant. See Dkt. 56, Ex. 1 at 242.
Regarding subsequent pay raises, in her deposition, Daniels stated that she has received two pay raises since May of 2000. However, in her affidavit filed in response to the summary judgment motion, she avers that she was entitled to two other raises (in March and July of unspecified year(s» and that "everybody [else]" got such raises. These assertions do not raise a genuine dispute because Daniels' affidavit does not disclose how these matters are within her personal knowledge. See Rule 56(d), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (requiring affidavits in opposition to summary judgment motion, inter alia, to be made on personal knowledge, show affirmatively the basis of the affiant's knowledge on the particular matter, and to include, where applicable, documents). Daniels' averments regarding her entitlement to raises and the fact that "everybody [else)" got such raises are simply not properly supported.
7

Case 3:01-cv-00216-TJC Document 61 Filed 09/19/2002 Page 8 of 25
On April 24, 2000, Barrineau called Smith to his office and asked her whether she intended to file a lawsuit against Defendant and if she had any complaints about how she was being treated. As had Daniels and Neel, Smith falsely denied that she was contemplating suit against Defendant because, as later stated, she felt she would be fired if she admitted her true intentions. Smith was terminated later that day, based on Defendant's contention that there was a lack ofwork and that Smith was a disruptive employee who had made ethnically insensitive comments to Indian and Black co-employees. As set forth below in the discussion of Intervenor-PlaintiffSmith and the EEOC's retaliation claims, these latter two facts are disputed and thus are not accepted as true for purposes ofthis motion. See, infr~ part VII.B. III. Summary Judgment Standard
Defendant has filed the instant motion seeking the entry ofsummary judgment pursuant to Rule 56, Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure ("FRCP"). Summaryjudgment is appropriate only when a court is satisfied "that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter oflaw." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). In making this determination, a court must view all the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. See Samples on Behalf of Samples v. City of Atlanta, 846 F.2d 1328, 1330 (lIth Cir. 1988). The burden of establishing the absence of a genuine issue is on the moving party. See Celotex Com. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986). However, the burden extends only to facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law. "Factual disputes that are irrelevant or unnecessary will not be counted." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242,
8
A072A (Rev.8182)

Case 3:01-cv-00216-TJC Document 61 Filed 09/19/2002 Page 9 of 25
248 (1986). Once this burden is met, the non-moving party must "go beyond the pleadings and by her own affidavits, or by the 'depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, ' designate 'specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. '" Celotex Com., 477
u.s. at 342. However, a plaintiffneed only present evidence from which a jury might return
a verdict in his favor in order to survive a summary judgment motion. See Samples on Behalf of Samples v. City of Atlanta, 846 F.2d at 1330.
Lastly, as the Defendant has addressed each of the Plaintiffs' claims under a McDonnell-Douglas-type circumstantial evidence analysis, and all Plaintiffs have responded in kind, the Court will only address such a framework in considering the instant motion. IV. Intervenor-Plaintiffs' Title VII Disparate Treatment Claim, Count I
In order to establish a Title VII disparate treatment gender discrimination claim under a circumstantial evidence analysis, a plaintiffmust first establish a prima facie case, by showing that: (1) she is a member of a protected class; (2) that she suffered an adverse employment action; (3) her employer gave favorable treatment to similarly situated employees who were not within the protected class; and (4) she was qualified for herjob. Compare Holifield v. Reno, 115 F.3d 1555, 1562 (1 ph Cir. 1997)(setting forth prima facie case for race discrimination under Title VII). If the plaintiff establishes her prima facie case, the defendant must then proffer a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for its different treatment. See id. at 1564. Ifthe defendant meets this burden ofproduction, it is then incumbent on the employee to demonstrate that such reason is merely a pretext for discrimination. See id.
9
A072A (Aev.8182)

Case 3:01-cv-00216-TJC Document 61 Filed 09/19/2002 Page 10 of 25
By only presenting argument regarding the second and third elements ofthe prima facie case, Defendants implicitly concede the first and fourth elements which, in any event, are sufficiently supported by the evidence for purposes of this motion.
As to the third element, Defendants argue that the Intervenor-Plaintiffs cannot establish the requisite adverse employment action because there is no evidence that the inability to use the forklift affected their jobs in a tangible way and, in any event, use of a forklift was not required for Processing Department employees such as the Intervenor-Plaintiffs. The Court concludes that the Intervenor-Plaintiffs have presented sufficient evidence as to this third element through the evidence that the freight delivered to the Receiving Department often required the use of a forklift and that the Processing Department employees were routinely called upon to assist the Receiving Department employees but not permitted to use a forklift when doing so by virtue of not also being provided with forklift training. A genuine issue of material fact thus appears to exist as to the third element.
As to the fourth element ofthe prima facie case, Defendants argue that the IntervenorPlaintiffs, as Processing Department employees, are not similarly situated to the Receiving Department employees and thus cannot compare themselves to those employees. The crux of this argument hinges upon Defendant's reliance on a set offacts under which the Processing and Receiving Department employees are separate and under which the Processing Department employees are only required to handle the lighter freight delivered to their area. As set forth above, both these facts are sufficiently disputed and the Intervenor-Plaintiffs have presented
10
A072A (Rev.8182)

Case 3:01-cv-00216-TJC Document 61 Filed 09/19/2002 Page 11 of 25
'sufficient evidence that they were called upon to do the same work, in the same area, and with the same freight as the Receiving Department employees. Thus a genuine issue ofmaterial fact appears to exist as to the fourth element.
For its legitimate non-discriminatory reason, Defendant offers that: (1) forklift use is not an essential function ofa Processing Department employee's job; (2) that it is impractical to use a forklift in the Processing Department because of the small size of that area; (3) that it is unnecessary to use a forklift in that area both because of its small size and the relative lighter weight of the freight delivered there; and (4) that there are a limited number of forklifts available in Defendant's facility and such must be assigned where essential. While at least the first and third ofthese reasons are factually disputed, Defendant has still met its low burden of production in this regard.
The Court concludes that the Intervenor-Plaintiffs have pointed to sufficient facts to create a genuine dispute as to whether the above proffered reasons are merely a pretext for discrimination. Contrary to Defendant's assertion, Plaintiffs have presented testimony that they were routinely called upon to perform the same work as the Receiving Department employees but not permitted to use a forklift when doing so. This testimony, when coupled with the Intervenor-Plairitiffs' testimony about their requests of Barrineau to receive forklift training, his denial of such, and his alleged sexist comments made when so denying them the training, create a genuine dispute as to whether the real reason Defendant would not give the IntervenorPlaintiffs forklift training was because oftheir gender. Accordingly, the Defendant's Motion
11
A072A (Rev.8182)

Case 3:01-cv-00216-TJC Document 61 Filed 09/19/2002 Page 12 of 25

for Summary Judgment is due to be denied as to Count I ofthe Intervenor-Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint.6 V. Intervenor-Plaintiffs' Title VII Hostile Work Environment Claim, Count II
In order to prove sexual harassment-which includes so-called hostile work environment :claims-a plaintiffmust show that: (1) she belongs to a protected class; (2) she was subjected to unwelcome sexual harassment, such as sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other ":conduct ofa sexual nature; (3) the harassment was based on her sex; (4) the harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the terms and conditions of employment and create a discriminatorily abusive working environment; and (5) a basis for holding the employer liable. See Mendozav. Borden. Inc., 195 F.3d 1238, 1245 (l ph Cir. 1999).
Defendant has presented two arguments in favor ofsummary judgment, one procedural and the other substantive. As to the former, Defendant asserts that, because the IntervenorPlaintiffs' hostile work environment claims were not included in their administrativecomplaints filed with the EEOC, those claims cannot be asserted in this suit. As to the latter, Defendant attacks the second element set forth above: the severity and pervasiveness of the alleged harassment. As set forth below, the Court finds that the Intervenor-Plaintiffs cannot prevail on the second element of their claim-although for a slightly different reason than argued by

A072A (Rev.8f82)

6 Defendant has also argued that the Intervenor-Plaintiffs' claims are moot as the Defendant provided forklift training to all employees in approximately June of2000, leaving only a small period of time during which the IntervenorPlaintiffs were denied forklift training and use. However, based on the evidence presented by the Intervenor-Plaintiffs, including that those female employees who were later provided with the training were effectively denied the actual use of forklifts when they were required to assist the Receiving Department employees, summary judgment will also be denied on this basis.
12

Case 3:01-cv-00216-TJC Document 61 Filed 09/19/2002 Page 13 of 25

Defendant-and thus their claims fails on substantive grounds. Accordinglyt the Court need not decide the procedural issue.
The Intervenor-Plaintiffst argument regarding the severity and pervasiveness of the alleged sexual harassment is minimal and conclusory. See Dkt. 55 at 41-2 (comprising barely one-halfpage). Thereint the Intervenor-Plaintiffs simply assert that they did "suffer[] a severe and pervasive hostile work environment that was permeated with discriminatory intimidationt ridiculet and insulft and that they have proven such through the evidence they have marshaled. See id. (citing depositions ofDaniels and Barbara Neelt affidavit and deposition ofFred Colet7 and deposition of William Neel). However, examination of the cited portions of these submissions reveals that they do not support the Intervenor-Plaintiffs' arguments or this claim, and these submissions separately point up the overall deficiency in the Intervenor-Plaintiffs' hostile work environment claim.
The cited portions ofDaniels' deposition contain her testimony that she heard Barrineau state that a woman doing a man's job will do so without a forklift as well as her conclusion that her work environment was hostile because she was not permitted to use a forklift when she was required to do the same work as the male Receiving Department employees. The cited portions ofBarbara Neel's deposition contain her testimony that she heard Barrineau state that he would not give women forklift training. The cited portion of Cole's deposition and his affidavit both

A072A (Rev.8182)

1 Fred Cole was also an employee of Defendant, but had a different immediate supervisor from the IntervenorPlaintiffs.
13

Case 3:01-cv-00216-TJC Document 61 Filed 09/19/2002 Page 14 of 25
state that he heard Barrineau state that if he (Barrineau) had his way, no women and no Hispanics would work for Defendant. The cited portion ofWilliam Neel's deposition contains Neel's opinion that Barrineau was not happy that women worked in the Defendant's facility, but lacks reference to any underlying facts or quotations from Barrineau which support that opInIon.
The above-marshaled evidence is consistent with the apparent theory ofthe IntervenorPlaintiffs' Count III hostile work environment claim, as can be inferred from the allegations thereof. Specifically, Count III oftheir Amended Complaint alleges that they were subjected to a gender-hostile work environment by virtue of: (1) being subjected to numerous, genderbased derogatory comments; (2) having a heavy workload; (3) being forced to move heavy items without the use ofa forklift; and (4) being denied certification that would allow them to use a forklift. See Dkt. 16 at ~ 57.
Aside from those comments made by Barrineau in relation to forklift training and the actual denial ofsuch training, the Intervenor-Plaintiffs have simply not adduced any evidence of being subjected to numerous, gender-based derogatory comments or other actions. Those comments made by Barrineau in relation to forklift training, like the allegations ofthe Amended Complaint discussed above, are some ofthe things the Intervenor-Plaintiffs may arguably use to support certain elements oftheir Count I disparate treatment claim. However, they are not properly recast as hostile work environment claims. Accordingly, the Defendant's Motion for
14
A072A (Rev.8I82)

Case 3:01-cv-00216-TJC Document 61 Filed 09/19/2002 Page 15 of 25
Summary Judgment is due to be granted as to Count II ofthe Intervenor-Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint. , VI. Intervenor-Plaintiffs' Florida Civil Rights Act Claims, Count IllS
As the FCRA is patterned after the relevant federal anti-discrimination laws, claims under the FCRA are governed by the same analysis as such claims under the analogous federal - law.9 Accordingly, the analysis applicable to a federal claim is equally applicable to the analogous FCRA claim. Thus, to the extent that Count III purports to state a claim for disparate treatment under the FCRA for failure to provide forklift training to women, Defendant's summary judgment motion is due to be denied for the same reasons set forth in part IV., above. Likewise, to the extent that Count III purports to state a claim for hostile work environment under the FCRA, Defendant's summary judgment motion is due to be granted for the same reasons set forth in part IV., above.

A072A (Rev.8182)

8 The Intervenor-Plaintiffs separately stated their Title VII disparate treatment and hostile work environment claims in Counts I and II of their Amended Complaint (Dkt. ]6). However. it appears that they intended for their Count III FCRA claim to state theories ofboth gender hostile work environment. see Dkt. 16 at" 66. 67 (second sentence). 69b. 70. and 71. and disparate treatment on the basis of gender. See id. at" 67 (first sentence). 68. 69a. 69c. and 72. But see Dkt. 55 at 2 (Intervenor-Plaintiff's Response to summary judgment motionXreferring. confusingly. to Count III as alleging FCRA claims "based on gender and hostile work environment").
While this assertion of two theories in one count is contrary to Rule IO(c), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (requiring that separate claims be stated in separate counts), as this case is already well beyond the pleading stage, the Court will not require a repleader. Count III of the Amended Complaint will thus be addressed as asserting FCRA claims of gender hostile work environment and disparate treatment on the basis of gender.
9 Florida laws which are mirrored after federal laws are construed, and claims thereunder analyzed, in accord with those federal laws. See Brand v. Florida Power Com., 633 So.2d 504,507-09 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994).
15

Case 3:01-cv-00216-TJC Document 61 Filed 09/19/2002 Page 16 of 25

VII. Intervenor-Plaintiffs' Federal and State Retaliation Claims, Counts IV-IX, and EEOC's Title VII Retaliation Claim on Behalf of Intervenor-Plaintiff Smith
In order to establish a claim ofretaliation under a circumstantial evidence analysis under
Title VII, a plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case, by showing (1) that she engaged in
some statutorily protected activity; (2) that she suffered an adverse employment action; and (3)
that there is some causal relationship between the two events. See Holifield v. Reno, 115 F.3d
1555, 1566 (11 th Cir. 1997). Ifthe plaintiffestablishes her prima facie case, the defendant must
then proffer a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for the adverse employment action. See id.
If the defendant meets this burden of production, it is then incumbent on the employee to
demonstrate that such reason is merely a pretext for retaliation. See id. \0
As set forth below, the analyses as to the retaliation claims of the EEOC and Smith
versus those of Daniels and Neel diverge after consideration of the first element of the prima
facie case. Thus, following a discussion ofthat element applicable to all Plaintiffs' retaliation
claims, the Court will discuss the claims of the former and the latter groups separately. The anti-retaliation provision of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a), prohibits
discriminat[ion] against any . . . employee[] because he has opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice by this subchapter, or because he had made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this subchapter.

A072A (Rev.8182)

10 As set forth above in part VI., the analysis applicable to a claim under the federal anti-discrimination laws is equally applicable to analogous claims under the FCRA. Hence the analysis set forth herein for Title VII retaliation claims is equally applicable to such claims under the FCRA.
16

Case 3:01-cv-00216-TJC Document 61 Filed 09/19/2002 Page 17 of 25

It has been held, and is consistent with § 2000e-3(a), that complaining to management about perceived discrimination or otherwise expressing one's belief to supervisors that particular conduct is discrimination, even where no administrative complaint is ever filed with the EEOC, is "opposition" within the meaning ofthe anti-retaliation provision. See Iannone v. Frederic R. Harris. Inc., 941 F.Supp. 403, 410 (S.D.N.Y. 1996); Arzate v. City ofTopeka, 884 F.Supp. 1494, 1503 (D.Kan. 1995); Cobbv. Anheuser Busch. Inc., 793 F.Supp. 1457, 1489-90 (E.D. Mo. 1990).
Plaintiffs have marshaled sufficient evidence that they complained to management ofthe perceived inequity in forklift training prior to the asserted adverse employment actions.I I

A072A (Rev.8I82)

II Such "opposition" (i.e., Smith's complaining to her supervisors) is the theory of protected activity argued by the EEOC in support of the first element of the prima facie case as to the Title VII retaliation claim in its Complaint. See Dkt. 57 at 22. However, it is not clear from the Intervenor-Plaintiffs' Response what protected activity they assert they engaged in to satisfy the first element ofthe prima facie case as to Counts IV through IX oftheir Amended Complaint. See Dkt. 55 at 42(lntervenor-Plaintiffs' ResponseXstating merely, "The Defendant was aware of the statutorily protected behavior." without providing further explanation or providing a record citation). The Court infers this cryptic statement to refer to the evidence that the Intervenor-Plaintiffs communicated to various of their supervisors that they thought Defendant's failure to provide them forklift training constituted gender discrimination.
However, the Intervenor-Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint alleges that it was their consultation with their attorney that constituted "participation" protected by the anti-retaliation provision of § 2000e-3(a). See Dkt. 16 at 11181,89, 102, 116, 129, 140 (Counts IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, resp.). It appears to be an issue of flTSt impression whether mere consultation with an attorney, without a communication to the employer asserting that an unlawful employment practice is occurring, is activity protected by § 2000e-3(a). The few reported cases in which a retaliation claim was based on an employee's consultation with an attorney are cases in which the employee and/or her attorney had also already communicated to the employerthe employee's beliefthat an unlawful employment practice was occurring. See, ~ Rhoads v. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp., 257 F.3d 373, 392 (4111 Cir. 2001). These cases can thus be grouped with the above-cited "opposition" cases based on that latter fact.
The Court's somewhat lim ited research thus far has only uncovered one case that discusses mere consultation with an attorney. See Doe v. Kobo. Nast. & Graf. P.C., 862 F.Supp. 1310, 1316 (E.D. Penn. 1994)(citing 1984 EEOC Decision as representing EEOC's position that consultation with an attorney is protected activity). However, it seems doubtful that such consultation would constitute "participation ... in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this subchapter," where consultation is with a private attorney, although such could possibly be "opposition." If the Intervenor-Plaintiff Smith still intends to pursue her retaliation claims under a theory of "participation" or "opposition" based solely on her consultation with her private attorney-as contrasted with an opposition theory based on her informal complaints to her
(continued ... )
17

Case 3:01-cv-00216-TJC Document 61 Filed 09/19/2002 Page 18 of 25

Plaintiffs have thus satisfied the first element oftheir prima facie case ofretaliation under Title
VII and the FCRA as to Counts IV through IX ofthe Intervenor-Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint
and the sole count of the EEOC's Complaint.
A. Intervenor-Plaintiffs Daniels and Neel (Counts VI-IX of IntervenorPlaintiffs' Amended Complaint)
As set forth above, the second element of a prima facie case of retaliation is that the
employee have suffered some "adverse employment action."
An adverse employment action is an ultimate employment decision, such as a discharge or failure to hire, or other conduct that "alters the employee's compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, deprives him or her of employment opportunities, or adversely affects his or her status as an employee." Conduct that falls short of an ultimate employment decision must meet "some threshold level of substantiality ... to be cognizable ...."
Gupta, 212 F.3d at 587(intemal citations omitted).
The civil rights statutes were not intended to become "general ciVility code[s];" thus the
determination of whether an employer's action or omission constitutes adverse employment
action, i.e., whether something alters or changes a term or condition ofemployment, is judged,
at least in part, from an objective standpoint. See Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., Inc.,
523 U.S. 75, 8f(l998). For example, in order to constitute actionable harassment, a hostile
work environment must be both objectively and subjectively offensive. See Harris v. Forklift

A072A (Rev.8182)

11( ..• continued) supervisors or other management-counsel shall be expected to muster further legal and factual support for such a theory.
18

Case 3:01-cv-00216-TJC Document 61 Filed 09/19/2002 Page 19 of 25
Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17,21-22 (1993). Such a standard serves to "filter out complaints attacking 'ordinary tribulations of the workplace,'" Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 788 (1998), because
[m]inor matters do not constitute adverse employment actions. "A materially adverse change in the terms and conditions of employment must be more disruptive than a mere inconvenience or an alteration ofjob responsibilities." Hartsfield v. Miami-Dade County, 90 F.Supp.2d 1363, 1374 (S.D. Fla. 2000)(quoting Crady v. Liberty National Bank, 993 F.2d 132, 136 (7th Cir. 1993)). Unlike Intervenor-Plaintiff Smith, discussed below in part VII.B., Intervenor-Plaintiffs Daniels and Neel were not terminated. Hence, it is necessary to more closely examine the acts and omissions that they assert constitute retaliatory conduct. Doing so, the Court concludes that neither Daniels nor Neel can show the requisite adverse employment action necessary to make out a prima facie case of retaliation under Title VII or the FCRA. Each points to a discrete act " by Barrineau on April 19, 2000, that constituted retaliation, as well as his general demeanor that day, including during the meeting. See Dkt. 55 at 42-43. The former and then the latter categories are discussed below. Daniels claims that being forced to sign the memorandum that she disagrees with was a retaliatory act. However even assuming the memorandum does not accurately recount the meeting, she has not shown how such has effected a material change in her work terms. To the contrary, the record shows that she has continued in Defendant's employ since that time,
19
A072A (Rev.8I82)

Case 3:01-cv-00216-TJC Document 61 Filed 09/19/2002 Page 20 of 25

ultimately receiving forklift training, was promoted, and received pay raises. Neel states she thought she was terminated on April 19, 2000. However, while work records show she left early that day, she returned to work within three weeks, worked a full week, and then worked a full day the following week before being placed on working restrictions that would appear to .preclude completely the very type of work her job entailed.
Both women claim, without sufficient substantiation, that Barrineau harassed each of ,them during their respective meetings and otherwise during the day of April 19, 2000. However, neither has meaningfully elaborated on those assertions. Nor has either pointed to any facts that show, or provide a basis for inferring, that they suffered a tangible job detriment as a result of this meeting. See Dkt. 55 at 41-42.12
There is clearly a dispute as to Barrineau's demeanor during the April 19,2002, meetings ! with Daniels and Neel. While employers are clearly entitled to undertake their own
investigations if they suspect or learn of discrimination, allowing the alleged discriminator to question the complaining employees is arguably not the wisest practice. But where the complaining employee cannot show that she suffered any detriment as a result of one such incident, the adverse employment action element is simply not met. Accordingly, the

A072A (Aev.8182)

12 The Intervenor-Plaintiffs have not cited to the Court any caselaw regarding whether and under what circumstance the questioning of an employee about administrative charges or a lawsuit can constitute retaliation under § 2000e-3(a). The Court's research has disclosed one case concluding that «intensive interrogation" of an employee as to why he filed a charge of discrimination did violate § 2000e-3(a}. See Paxton v. Union Nat' I Bank, 688 F.2d 552, 572 (8th Cir. 1982). However, that opinion provides so few ofthe underlying facts, and those facts provided are so general, that the case effectively cannot be analogized. See id. (stating merely that employee was "questioned at great length" and later characterizing such as «intensive interrogation").
20

Case 3:01-cv-00216-TJC Document 61 Filed 09/19/2002 Page 21 of 25
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is due to be granted as to Counts VI, VII, VIII, and IX of Intervenor-Plaintiffs Daniels and Neel's Amended Complaint.
B. Intervenor-Plaintiff Smith (sole Count of EEOC's Complaint and Counts IV and V of Intervenor-Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint)
It is not contested that Smith was terminated in April of 2000 after "opposing" Defendant's alleged unlawful practice ofdenying forklift training to women by complaining to her supervisors and management. This is sufficient to establish an adverse employment action, the second element ofthe prima facie case. Further, the short time between Smith's complaints and her termination suggests the existence of a genuine issue regarding the necessary causal relationship, the third element of the prima facie case.
For its proffer ofa Iegitimate nondiscriminatoryreason for terminating Smith, Defendant asserts that, due to a down-tum in its business, it needed to reduce its overall workforce and had been doing so for some time before April 2000. Defendant proffers that when it came time to reduce the workforce in the Processing Department, Defendant selected Smith because she was "disruptive," ajudgment based on her having previously made ethnically insensitive comments to an Indian co-employee and having called a Black co-employee a "black bitch." While , Plaintiff disputes the factual issues of whether Defendant actually needed to reduce its workforce and whether Smith did use the above-offensive language, Defendant has still met its minimal burden ofproduction in this regard.
21
A072A (Rev,8I82)

Case 3:01-cv-00216-TJC Document 61 Filed 09/19/2002 Page 22 of 25
In attacking the above-stated proffered legitimate non-nondiscriminatory reason for Smith's termination, she and the EEOC point to evidence which: (1) attacks the documentation and other evidence upon which Defendant relies to show a downturn in its business and to show that it had actually been decreasing the size of its workforce; and (2) questions whether Smith made the asserted offensive remarks. As to this second category ofevidence, the EEOC argues that pretext is shown because, even if Plaintiffhad made the alleged statements, the Defendant did not discipline Smith immediately, but instead waited to do so, only terminating her after she had complained about employment practices. The above-cited evidence is sufficient to rebut Defendant's asserted legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons and to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Defendant retaliated against Smith in violation of Title VII and the FCRA. Accordingly, the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is due to be denied as to the sole Count of the EEOC's Complaint and as to Counts IV and V of Intervenor-Plaintiff Smith's Amended Complaint. VIII. Miscellaneous Arguments
The Defendant has made various other arguments in support of summary judgment on particular issues that are not entirely dispositive. For example, Defendant has sought summary adjudication that certain ofthe Intervenor-Plaintiffs have not properly mitigated their damages or that punitive damages are not appropriate on the evidence adduced to date. The highlydisputed nature of many of the facts relevant to these issues preclude summary judgment on
22
A072A (Rev.8182)

Case 3:01-cv-00216-TJC Document 61 Filed 09/19/2002 Page 23 of 25

these grounds. Accordingly, to the extent not expressly granted herein, the Defendant's

summaryjudgment motion will otherwise be denied, including on these miscellaneous grounds.

Upon consideration ofthe foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED:

1. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 52) is GRANTED in part as

follows:

• Summary judgment is GRANTED in favor of Defendant and against Intervenor-Plaintiffs Mitzi Smith, Holly Daniels, and Barbara Neel on Count II oftheir Amended Complaint (Dkt. 16);

• Summary judgment is GRANTED in favor of Defendant and against Intervenor-Plaintiffs Mitzi Smith, Holly Daniels, and Barbara Neel on that portion of Count III of their Amended Complaint (Dkt. 16) which asserts a claim for hostile work environment under the Florida Civil Rights Act; and

• Summary judgment is GRANTED in favor of Defendant and against Intervenor-Plaintiffs Holly Daniels and Barbara Neel on Counts VI, VII, VIII, and IX of their Amended Complaint (Dkt. 16).

In all other respects, the Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 52) is DENIED.

2. Pursuant to Rule 54(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Clerk is directed to

withhold entry ofjudgment on the above rulings until further order of the Court.

J!l ~f DONE AND ORDERED, at Jacksonville, Florida, this

September,

A072A (Aev.8182)

JUDGE 23

Case 3:01-cv-00216-TJC Document 61 Filed 09/19/2002 Page 24 of 25

Counsel of record Pro se party, ifany Courtroom Deputy Clerk Judicial Assistant

fUlI·ll6....,..,.,

24
A072A (Rev.8182)

Case 3:01-cv-00216-TJC Date Printed: 09/19/2002
Notice sent to:

DoFcuImeLntE61 CFOilePd 0Y9/19/2002

Page 25 of 25
J

Cheryl A. Cooper, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131
( Gwendolyn Y. Reams, Esq.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131
( Delner Franklin-Thomas, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131
/
Michael J. Farrell, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2700 ~ Miami, FL 33131

David E. Block, Esq. Jackson Lewis LLP First Union Financial Center - Suite 2600
200 S. Biscayne Blvd.
/ Miami, FL 33131-2374 Jay F. Romano, Esq. Law Offices of Jay F. Ramano, P.A.
10 Fairway Dr., Suite 131 Deerfield Beach, FL 33441-6797

 
 Case 3:01-cv-00216-TJC Document 110 Filed 03/04/2003 Page 1 of 7

-r-{.y JIIJ, SO ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED, this

of •

2003 .

Wi sl&ble United States District Judge

v( -1 COPIES DlStRlBUTID

Case 3:01-cv-00216-TJC Document 110 Filed 03/04/2003 Page 2 of 7
EXHIBIT "A": GEOLOGISTICS AMERICAS, INC.'S ANTI-DISCRIMINATION POLICY

------------~ - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Case 3:01-cv-00216-TJC

Document 110

Filed 03/04/2003 Page 3 of 7

" GEOlOGISlICS

To:

All Employees

Subject:

Equal Opportunity

Date:

September I, 2002

Geo-Logistics is an equal opportunity employer and makes employment decisions on the basis of merit. We want to have the best available persons in every job. Company policy prohibits wlawful discrimination based on race, color, creed, sex, religion, marital status, age, national origin or anccs1ry. physical or mental disability, medical condition. sexual orientation. or any other considcr8tion made unlawful by federal, state or local laws. All such discrimination is unlawful.

GcoLogistics is committed to complying with all applicable laws providing equal employment opportunities. This commitment applies to aU persons involved in the operations of the Company and prohibits unlawful discrimination by any employee of the Company, including supervisors and c0workers.

To comply with applicable laws ensuring equal employment opportunities to qualified individuals with a disability. Gco-Logistics will make reasonable accommodations for the known physical or mental limitations of an otherwise qualified individual with a disability who is an applicant or an employee unless undue hardship would result.

Any applicant or employee who requires an accommodation in order to perform the essential functions of the job should contact a Company representative with day-to-day personnel responsibilities and request such an accommodation. The individual with the disability should specify what accommodation he or she needs to perform the job. Oeo-Logistics then will conduct an investigation to identify the barriers that make it difficult for the applicant or employee to have an equal opportlmity to perform his or her job. The Company will identify possible accommodations, if any. that will help eliminate the limitation. If the accommodation is reasonable and will not impose an undue hardship, the Company will make the accommodation.

If you believe you have been subjected to any form of unlawful discrimination, provide a written complaint to your supervisor or the individual with day-to-day personnel responsibilities. Your complaint should be specific and should include the names of the individuals involved and the names of any witnesses. Geo-Logistics will immediately undertake an effective. thorough and objective investigation and attempt to resolve the situation. If the Company determines that unlawful discrimination has occurred, effective remedial action will be taken commensurate with the severity of the offense. Appropriate action also will be taken to deter any future discrimination. The Company will not retaliate against you for filing a complaint and will not knowingly permit retaliation by management employees or your co-workers.

Tom Escott CEO of the Americas

Case 3:01-cv-00216-TJC Document 110 Filed 03/04/2003 Page 4 of 7
EXHIBITB

Case 3:01-cv-00216-TJC Document 110 Filed 03/04/2003 Page 5 of 7

February 10, 2003

( : ) GEOlOGISTICS
Geologistics Amerlcaa Inc. 1251 East Dyer Road Suite 200 Santa Ana, CA 92705
T 714.513.3145 F 714.513.3150 mbartyczak@geo-Iogistics.com
www.g.o-Iogistjcs.com
FMC No. 890-R

To Whom It May Concern:
This letter serves to confirm that Ms. Mitzi 8. Smith was employed by GeoLogistics Americas, Inc. in the position of processor at the company's facility at Jacksonville, Florida. She was employed from March 9, 1999 through April 24, 2000, at a salary of nine dollars ($9.00) per hour.
This information is being provided pursuant to GeoLogistics Americas, Inc. 's policy of responding to reference requests from former employees or potential employers by providing information limited to the former employee's position, length of service and salary.

Case 3:01-cv-00216-TJC Document 110 Filed 03/04/2003 Page 6 of 7

EXHIBIT "C": NOTICE

NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES POSTED PURSUANT TO A CONSENT DECREE BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
AND GEOLOGISTCIS AMERICAS, INC.

This notice is being posted pursuant to a Consent Decree entered by the United States District

Court for the Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville Division, in Egual Employment Opportunity

Commission v. GeoLogistics Americas. Inc.. Civil Action No. 3:01-CV-216-J-32TEM.

GeoLogistics Americas, Inc. has agreed that it will not discriminate against employees in violation

of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"). Title VII protects individuals from

employment discrimination because oftheir race, religion, color, sex (including sexual harassment

and pregnancy) andlornational origin. Title VII also protects individuals from retaliation for having

complained of an unlawful employment practice. GeoLogistics Americas, Inc. will not condone

discrimination of any kind as set forth in federal laws.

Furthermore, GeoLogistics Americas, Inc. assures its employees that it supports Title VII

and will not take any action against an individual because he/she has exercised hislher rights under

the law to oppose discriminatory acts or to file charges with the EEOC.

Appropriate corrective action, up to and including termination, shall be taken against any

employee (including management personnel) found to violate the policies regarding discrimination,

based upon the circumstances involved.

This notice shall remain posted for three (3) years from the date signed. Employees or

applicants for employment who have questions about their rights under Title VII or any other federal

anti-discrimination law may telephone the Miami District Office of the Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission at 1-800-669-4000 or (305) 530-6001.

Signed this __ day of

, 2003.

President GeoLogistics Americas, Inc.

Case 3:01-cv-00216-TJC FDIocuLmEent 11C0OPFilYed 03/04/2003 Page 7 of 7
Date Printed: 03/04/2003
Notice sent to:
Cheryl A. Cooper, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131
Gwendolyn Y. Reams, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131
Delner Franklin-Thomas, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131
Michael J. Farrell, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131
David E. Block, Esq. Jackson Lewis LLP One Biscayne Tower, Suite 3500 2 S. Biscayne Blvd. Miami, FL 33131-2374
Christine L. Wilson, Esq. Jackson Lewis LLP One Biscayne Tower, Suite 3500 2 S. Biscayne Blvd. Miami, FL 33131-2374
Jay F. Romano, Esq. Law Offices of Jay F. Ramano, P.A. 10 Fairway Dr., Suite 131 Deerfield Beach, FL 33441-6797

 
 Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida -... https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?103911407853048-L_3...
CLOSED, MOTREF, TEM
U.S. District Court Middle District of Florida (Jacksonville) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:01-cv-00216-TJC

U.S. Equal Employmen v. Geologistics America Assigned to: Judge Timothy J. Corrigan Demand: $0 Cause: 42:2000 Job Discrimination (Sex)

Date Filed: 02/21/2001 Date Terminated: 03/04/2003 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff
United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by Cheryl A. Cooper Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Suite 2700 2 S Biscayne Blvd Miami, FL 33131 305/808-1853 Fax: 305/808-1835 Email: cheryl.cooper@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Delner Franklin-Thomas Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Suite 2700 2 S Biscayne Blvd Miami, FL 33131 305/530-6001 Email: delner.franklin-thomas@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gwendolyn Y. Reams Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131 305/530-6010 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael J. Farrell Jill S. Schwartz & Associates, PA

1 of 12

5/30/2007 11:41 AM

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida -... https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?103911407853048-L_3...

Intervenor Plaintiff Holly Daniels
Intervenor Plaintiff Barbara Neel
V. Defendant Geologistics Americas, Inc.

Suite 200 180 Park Ave N Winter Park, FL 32789 407/647-8911 Fax: 407/628-4994 Email: mfarrell@schwartzlawfirm.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jay F. Romano Law Offices of Jay F. Romano, P.A. Mizner Park, Suite 275 433 Plaza Real Boca Raton, FL 33432-6797 561/962-4196 Fax: 561/470-4981 Email: jromanopa@yahoo.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jay F. Romano (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Christine L. Wilson Jackson Lewis, LLP One Biscayne Tower - Ste 3500 2 S Biscayne Blvd Miami, FL 33133 305/577-7600 Ext 7605 Fax: 305/373-4466 Email: wilsonc@jacksonlewis.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David E. Block Jackson Lewis, LLP One Biscayne Tower - Ste 3500 2 S Biscayne Blvd Miami, FL 33133 305/577-7600 Fax: 305/373-4466 Email: blockd@jacksonlewis.com

2 of 12

5/30/2007 11:41 AM

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida -... https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?103911407853048-L_3...

Intervenor Plaintiff Mitzi B. Smith
Mediator Karen Evans TERMINATED: 09/06/2002

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jay F. Romano (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Karen Evans # Litigation Resolution 169 E. Flagler St., Suite 1325 Miami, FL 33131-1205 305/371-3250 PRO SE

Date Filed 10/04/1992 02/21/2001 02/21/2001 02/21/2001 02/26/2001
03/08/2001 03/08/2001 03/08/2001
03/08/2001 04/19/2001

#

Docket Text

67 NOTICE of settlement conference by U.S. Equal Employmen (mfk) (Entered: 10/07/2002)
1 COMPLAINT filed; jury demand (lss) (Entered: 02/23/2001)
MAGISTRATE JUDGE CASE ASSIGNMENT Magistrate assigned: Howard T. Snyder (lss) (Entered: 02/23/2001)
SUMMONS(ES) issued for Geologistics America . Consent(s) issued. (lss) (Entered: 02/23/2001)
2 MOTION with incorporated memorandum in support to intervene by Mitzi B. Smith, Holly Daniels and Barbara Neel referred to Magistrate Judge Howard T. Snyder (lss) (Entered: 02/26/2001)
3 NOTICE to counsel of new case number and judge assignment (signed by deputy clerk) ctc (spw) (Entered: 03/08/2001)
MAGISTRATE JUDGE CASE ASSIGNMENT Magistrate assigned: Thomas E. Morris (spw) (Entered: 03/08/2001)
MOTION(S) referred: [2-1] motion to intervene by Mitzi B. Smith, Holly Daniels and Barbara Neel referred to Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Morris (spw) (Entered: 03/08/2001)
4 NOTICE of designation under Local Rule 3.05 - TRACK 2. (ctc) (mfk) (Entered: 03/08/2001)
5 WAIVER OF SERVICE returned executed as to Geologistics America on 3/2/01; Answer due on 5/1/01 for Geologistics America (lss) (Entered: 04/19/2001)

3 of 12

5/30/2007 11:41 AM

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida -... https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?103911407853048-L_3...

04/30/2001 05/01/2001 05/01/2001 05/07/2001 05/18/2001 06/01/2001
06/08/2001 06/13/2001 07/27/2001
08/06/2001 08/07/2001 08/24/2001 09/10/2001 10/01/2001

6 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of [4-1] track 2 notice by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (lss) (Entered: 05/01/2001)
7 RESPONSE by Geologistics America in opposition to [2-1] motion to intervene by Mitzi B. Smith, Holly Daniels and Barbara Neel (lss) (Entered: 05/01/2001)
8 ANSWER and affirmative defenses to [1-1] complaint by Geologistics America; jury demand (lss) (Entered: 05/01/2001)
9 MOTION by Mitzi B. Smith, Holly Daniels, Barbara Neel for leave to file response to defendants opposition to plaintiffs' motion to intervene referred to Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Morris (lss) (Entered: 05/07/2001)
10 OPPOSITION by Geologistics America to [9-1] motion for leave to file a response to defendant's opposition to plaintiffs' motion to intervene (filed in Orlando) (ls) (Entered: 05/22/2001)
11 ORDER granting [9-1] motion for leave to file response to defendants opposition to plaintiffs' motion to intervene, intervenors' reply to response to motion reset to 6/18/01 for [2-1] motion to intervene by Mitzi B. Smith, Holly Daniels and Barbara Neel ( Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Morris ) ctc (ls) (Entered: 06/01/2001)
12 RESPONSE by Mitzi B. Smith, Holly Daniels, Barbara Neel in opposition to [10-1] opposition response (lrb) (Entered: 06/13/2001)
13 MOTION by U.S. Equal Employment with memorandum in support to extend time to convene case management conference and file case management report referred to Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Morris (lrb) (Entered: 06/13/2001)
14 ORDER granting [2-1] motion to intervene by Mitzi B. Smith, Holly Daniels and Barbara Neel, granting [13-1] motion to extend time to convene case management conference and file case management report, resetting amended complaint deadline at 8/16/01 for Barbara Neel, Holly Daniels, Mitzi B. Smith ; the parties shall meet and hold their case management conference within 40 days from the date of the amended complaint; the case management report shall be filed within 10 days thereafter ( Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Morris ) ctc (lrb) (Entered: 07/30/2001)
15 NOTICE by Mitzi B. Smith, Holly Daniels, Barbara Neel of change of address for counsel (lrb) (Entered: 08/06/2001)
16 AMENDED COMPLAINT by Mitzi B. Smith, Holly Daniels, Barbara Neel amending [1-1] complaint (Answer due 8/21/01 for Geologistics America ); jury demand (lrb) (Entered: 08/07/2001)
17 ANSWER by Geologistics America to [16-1] amended complaint (lrb) (Entered: 08/24/2001)
18 CASE MANAGEMENT REPORT (lrb) (Entered: 09/10/2001)
19 CASE MANAGEMENT AND SCHEDULING ORDER: setting third party claims / joining of parties 1/17/02; discovery cutoff 5/17/02; dispositive motion filing deadline for 7/16/02; final pretrial conference for 9:45 10/2/02; pretrial statement due on or before 9/27/02; jury trial set for term of 11/4/02 through

4 of 12

5/30/2007 11:41 AM

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida -... https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?103911407853048-L_3...

10/01/2001 10/11/2001 10/12/2001 10/16/2001 11/01/2001 04/01/2002 04/05/2002 04/08/2002 04/11/2002
04/11/2002
04/11/2002 04/17/2002 04/18/2002 04/18/2002

11/22/02; trial briefs, proposed voir dire due 5 days prior to commencement of trial term scheduled for Judge Ralph W. Nimmons Jr. (signed by Judge Ralph W. Nimmons Jr.) ctc (AMENDED 10/24/02 (Doc. #74)) (lpp) Modified on 10/24/2002 (Entered: 10/01/2001)
20 ORDER directing answers to standard interrogatories. Parties' responses to standard interrogatories due 10/12/01 (Signed by Judge Ralph W. Nimmons Jr.) ctc (lpp) (Entered: 10/01/2001)
21 RESPONSE to standard interrogatories filed by EEOC (lpp) (Entered: 10/11/2001)
22 RESPONSE to Court's interrogatories filed by Geologistics America (lpp) (Entered: 10/12/2001)
23 ANSWERS to Court directed interrogatories propounded on plaintiffs Mitzi B. Smith, Holly Daniels, Barbara Neel dated Court Order of 10/1/01 (lpp) (Entered: 10/16/2001)
24 FILING OF RESPONSE to affirmative defenses by Mitzi B. Smith, Holly Daniels, Barbara Neel (lpp) (Entered: 11/01/2001)
25 MOTION by Geologistics America for leave to file a memorandum of law in excess of 20 pages in support of its motion for summary judgment (slc) (Entered: 04/01/2002)
26 MOTION by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity with memorandum in support for protective order referred to Magistrate Judge E. Morris (slc) (Entered: 04/05/2002)
27 ORDER: defendant's response to [26-1] motion for protective order set to 4/16/02 (Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Morris ) ctc (slc) (Entered: 04/08/2002)
28 EMERGENCY MOTION by Geologistics America with memorandum in support to quash (emergency) , for a protective order (emergency) , and for sanctions regarding the deposition of defendant's 30(B)(6) representative (emergency) referred to Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Morris (slc) (Entered: 04/11/2002)
29 EMERGENCY MOTION by Geologistics America with memorandum in support to quash (emergency) , for a protective order (emergency) , and for sanctions regarding the deposition of Ronald Caplinger (emergency) referred to Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Morris (slc) (Entered: 04/11/2002)
30 NOTICE by EEOC of filing exhibit I to [26-1] motion for protective order (slc) (Entered: 04/11/2002)
31 OPPOSITION RESPONSE by Geologistics America to EEOC's [26-1] motion for a protective order (slc) (Entered: 04/17/2002)
32 NOTICE by Geologistics America of withdrawal of [29-1] emergency motion to quash, for a protective order, and for sanctions regarding the deposition of Ronald Caplinger (slc) (Entered: 04/18/2002)
WITHDRAWAL of (terminating) [29-1] emergency motion to quash, [29-2] motion for a protective order, [29-3] motion for sanctions regarding the deposition of Ronald Caplinger per #32 (slc) (Entered: 04/18/2002)

5 of 12

5/30/2007 11:41 AM

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida -... https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?103911407853048-L_3...

04/19/2002 04/23/2002
04/24/2002 04/29/2002 05/03/2002 05/03/2002 05/17/2002 05/17/2002 05/21/2002 05/21/2002 05/24/2002 05/31/2002 06/03/2002

33 ORDER referring case to mediation. Appointing Karen Evans as mediator. Conduct hearing by 8/30/02 Lead counsel, Cheryl A. Cooper, to coordinate dates and by 5/31/02 file a notice of mediation schedule. ( Signed by Judge Ralph W. Nimmons Jr. ) ctc (jec) (Entered: 04/22/2002)
34 ORDER granting [26-1] motion for protective order. The parties are ordered to confer within 10 days toward providing defendant all appropriate factual discovery from EEOC's files, and report back to the court within 20 days if there is still any dispute over discovery. The court will hold a prompt hearing if any disputes remain. ( Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Morris ) ctc (jec) (Entered: 04/23/2002)
35 RESPONSE by EEOC to defendant's [32-1] notice of withdrawal of emergency motion to quash, for a protective order, and for sanctions regarding the deposition of Ronald Caplinger (slc) (Entered: 04/24/2002)
36 RESPONSE by U.S. Equal Employmen to [28-1] emergency motion to quash, [28-2] emergency motion for a protective order, [28-3] emergency motion for sanctions regarding the deposition of defendant's 30(B)(6) representative (jec) (Entered: 04/29/2002)
37 REPLY by Geologistics America to [35-1] response to notice of withdrawal of emergency motion to quash, for a protective order, and for sanctions regarding the deposition of Ronald Caplinger (jec) (Entered: 05/03/2002)
38 ORDER denying [28-1] emergency motion to quash, terminating [28-2] emergency motion for a protective order, terminating [28-3] emergency motion for sanctions regarding the deposition of defendant's 30(B)(6) representative ( Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Morris ) ctc (jec) (Entered: 05/07/2002)
39 MOTION by U.S. Equal Employmen with memorandum in support to compel defendant to supplement its responses to plaintiff's first request for production referred to Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Morris (jec) (Entered: 05/17/2002)
40 MOTION by U.S. Equal Employmen with memorandum in support to compel discovery of relevant personnel files referred to Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Morris (jec) (Entered: 05/17/2002)
41 NOTICE of withdrawal of EEOC'S motion to compel discovery of relevant personnel files by U.S. Equal Employmen (jec) (Entered: 05/21/2002)
WITHDRAWAL of terminating [40-1] motion to compel discovery of relevant personnel files (jec) (Entered: 05/21/2002)
42 JOINT STIPULATION with respect to production of confidential information by plaintiff U.S. Equal Employment, intervenor-plaintiff Mitzi B. Smith, intervenor-plaintiff Holly Daniels, intervenor-plaintiff Barbara Neel, defendant Geologistics America (slc) (Entered: 05/24/2002)
43 OPPOSITION by Geologistics America to [39-1] motion to compel defendant to supplement its responses to plaintiff's first request for production (jec) (Entered: 05/31/2002)
44 NOTICE OF MEDIATION SCHEDULE, by mediator: set mediation conference for 10:00 8/21/02 (jec) (Entered: 06/03/2002)

6 of 12

5/30/2007 11:41 AM

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida -... https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?103911407853048-L_3...

06/04/2002
06/05/2002
06/10/2002 06/25/2002 06/28/2002 06/28/2002 07/16/2002 07/16/2002 07/16/2002 07/16/2002 07/26/2002 07/26/2002 07/29/2002 07/30/2002 07/30/2002

45 ORDER granting defendant's [25-1] motion for leave to file a memorandum of law in excess of 20 pages in support of its motion for summary judgment, and the parties may file briefs that exceed the page limitation of L.R. 3.01(c) and otherwise comply with the provisions of this order (Signed by Judge Ralph W. Nimmons Jr.) ctc (slc) (Entered: 06/05/2002)
46 ORDER on Mediation Schedule: scheduling mediation conference for 10:00 8/21/02 at the office of Mediator Karen Evans in Miami, FL; the mediator's report shall be filed within 5 days thereafter (Signed by Judge Ralph W. Nimmons Jr.) ctc (slc) (Entered: 06/06/2002)
47 NOTICE by Geologistics America of unavailability of counsel Christine L. Wilson from 8/2/02 to 8/9/02 (slc) (Entered: 06/10/2002)
48 NOTICE OF HEARING: reset mediation conference for 10:00 8/26/02 (signed by Karen Evans, Mediator) (mfk) (Entered: 06/25/2002)
49 NOTICE of counsel's law firm name change for defendant Geologistics America (mfk) (Entered: 06/28/2002)
50 ORDER, reset mediation conference for 10:00 8/26/02 ( Signed by Judge Ralph W. Nimmons Jr. ) ctc (mfk) (Entered: 07/01/2002)
51 ORDER denying [39-1] motion to compel defendant to supplement its responses to plaintiff's first request for production ( Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Morris ) ctc (ls) (Entered: 07/16/2002)
52 MOTION by Geologistics America with memorandum in support for summary judgment (ls) (Entered: 07/16/2002)
53 AFFIDAVIT of Christine L. Wilson, Esquire by Geologistics America Re: [52-1] motion for summary judgment (exhibits filed separately) (ls) Modified on 07/16/2002 (Entered: 07/16/2002)
54 SUMMARY JUDGMENT NOTICE, response to motion set to 7/30/02 for [52-1] motion for summary judgment by defendant ( Signed by Deputy Clerk ) ctc (ls) (Entered: 07/16/2002)
55 RESPONSE and memorandum of law by Mitzi B. Smith, Holly Daniels, Barbara Neel in opposition to [52-1] motion for final summary judgment (mfk) (Entered: 07/29/2002)
56 AFFIDAVIT of Jay F. Romano, Esquire by Mitzi B. Smith, Holly Daniels, Barbara Neel Re: [55-1] opposition response (Exhibits 1 through 23 filed in two separate folders) (mfk) (Entered: 07/29/2002)
AFFIDAVIT of Jay F. Romano, Esquire by Mitzi B. Smith, Holly Daniels, Barbara Neel Re: [55-1] opposition response (Exhibits 1 through 23 filed in 2 separate folders) (mfk) (Entered: 07/29/2002)
57 RESPONSE by U.S. Equal Employmen in opposition to [52-1] motion for summary judgment (mfk) (Entered: 07/31/2002)
58 NOTICE of filing (cited evidence to opposition response [Doc. #57]) by U.S. Equal Employmen (filed in 2 separate folders) (mfk) (Entered: 07/31/2002)

7 of 12

5/30/2007 11:41 AM

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida -... https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?103911407853048-L_3...

08/29/2002 09/06/2002 09/19/2002
09/23/2002 09/24/2002 09/27/2002
10/03/2002 10/04/2002 10/04/2002 10/16/2002 10/18/2002

59 NOTICE of potential trial conflict by Geologistics America (mfk) (Entered: 08/29/2002)
60 MEDIATION REPORT. Mediation conference held: 08/26/02. Karen Evans, mediator. Hearing outcome: Impasse (mfk) (Entered: 09/06/2002)
61 ORDER granting in part [52-1] motion for summary judgment as follows: Summary judgment is GRANTED in favor of defendant and against intervenor-plaintiffs Mitzi Smith, Holly Daniels, and Barbara Neel on Count II of their Amended Complaint (Dkt. 16); Summary judgment is GRANTED in favor of defendant and against intervenor-plaintiffs Mitzi Smith, Holly Daniels, and Barbara Neel on that portion of Count III of their Amended Complaint (Dkt. 16) which asserts a claim for hostile work environment under the Florida Civil Rights Act; and Summary judgment is GRANTED in favor of defendant and against intervenor-plaintiffs Holly Daniels and Barbara Neel on Counts VI, VII, VIII, and IX of their Amended Complaint (Dkt. 16). In all other respects, the motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 52) is DENIED; the Clerk is directed to withhold entry of judgment on the above ruling until further order of the Court ( Signed by Judge Ralph W. Nimmons Jr. ) ctc (mfk) Modified on 09/20/2002 (Entered: 09/19/2002)
62 FIRST MOTION by Mitzi B. Smith, Holly Daniels with memorandum in support in limine to exclude evidence regarding plaintiff-interveners' relationship to plaintiff-intervener, Barbara Neel (mfk) (Entered: 09/24/2002)
63 NOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT to the Honorable Judge Timothy J. Corrigan . ctc (mfk) (Entered: 09/24/2002)
64 ORDER: Counsel for plaintiff EEOC shall coordinate the date of the settlement conference with Judge Morris' chambers and file a notice of the date of the settlement conference and its outcome; vacating remaining dates in the [19-1] Scheduling order ( Signed by Judge Timothy J. Corrigan ) ctc (jec) (Entered: 09/27/2002)
65 NOTICE OF HEARING: SCHEDULING mediation conference for 9:45 10/16/02 with the Honorable Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Morris ; Mr. Lawrence Dickson and Mr. Michael Bartyczak are permitted to participate by telephone. ( Signed by Deputy Clerk ) ctc (mfk) (Entered: 10/03/2002)
66 NOTICE of filing by U.S. Equal Employmen (Notice of Settlement Conference) (mfk) (Entered: 10/07/2002)
68 MEMORANDUM by Geologistics America in opposition to [62-1] motion in limine to exclude evidence regarding plaintiff-interveners' relationship to plaintiff-intervener, Barbara Neel (mfk) (Entered: 10/07/2002)
69 SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE / mediation proceeding held on 10/16/02 before Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Morris; parties reached impasse (mfk) (Entered: 10/18/2002)
70 NOTICE by Geologistics America of change of address for counsel (mfk) (Entered: 10/18/2002)

8 of 12

5/30/2007 11:41 AM

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida -... https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?103911407853048-L_3...

10/18/2002 10/18/2002 10/23/2002 10/24/2002
11/20/2002 11/22/2002 11/25/2002
12/03/2002 12/03/2002 12/03/2002 12/03/2002 12/03/2002 12/06/2002

71 NOTICE OF HEARING: SCHEDULING telephone conference for 5:00 10/23/02 scheduled for Judge Timothy J. Corrigan ( Signed by Deputy Clerk ) ctc (mfk) (Entered: 10/18/2002)
72 NOTICE of mediation outcome by U.S. Equal Employmen (mfk) (Entered: 10/18/2002)
73 TELEPHONE STATUS HEARING re: setting of further proceedings held on 10/23/02 before Judge Timothy J. Corrigan Court Reporter: 02-50 (ls) (Entered: 10/24/2002)
74 AMENDED CASE MANAGEMENT AND SCHEDULING ORDER setting Pretrial statement due on or before 12/3/02; final Pretrial conference 10:00 12/6/02; Jury trial set for trial term during 1/7/03 through 1/24/03; Scheduled for Judge Timothy J. Corrigan ( signed by Judge Timothy J. Corrigan ) ctc (ls) (Entered: 10/24/2002)
75 AMENDED NOTICE OF HEARING: RESCHEDULING pretrial conference for 9:00 12/6/02 scheduled for Judge Timothy J. Corrigan ( Signed by Deputy Clerk ) ctc (mfk) Modified on 11/20/2002 (Entered: 11/20/2002)
76 AGREED MOTION by U.S. Equal Employmen, Geologistics America, Mitzi B. Smith, et al., to allow trial counsel to bring cellular telephones and laptop computers into the courthouse (agreed) (mfk) (Entered: 11/22/2002)
77 ORDER granting [76-1] agreed motion to allow trial counsel to bring cellular telephones and laptop computers into the courthouse; no later than 1/3/03, counsel shall file a joint notice stating who will be bringing the cellular telephones and laptop computers into the courthouse so that the court security officers can be properly notified (Signed by Judge Timothy J. Corrigan) ctc (slc) (Entered: 11/25/2002)
78 JOINT PRETRIAL STATEMENT. (mfk) (Entered: 12/03/2002)
79 MOTION by Geologistics America with memorandum in support in limine no. 1 to exclude evidence of other complaints, administrative charges or claims of discrimination brought against defendant by non-parties that are not the subject of this litigation (mfk) (Entered: 12/03/2002)
80 MOTION by Geologistics America with memorandum in support in limine no. 2 to exclude all reference to the letters of determination and notices of right to sue issued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (mfk) (Entered: 12/03/2002)
81 MOTION by Geologistics America with memorandum in support in limine no. 3 to exclude all reference to Mitzi Smith's claim that heaving lifting caused her to need a hysterectomy (mfk) (Entered: 12/03/2002)
82 MOTION by Geologistics America with memorandum in support in limine no. 4 to exclude all reference to the EEOC'S letters regarding the parties' failure to conciliate (mfk) (Entered: 12/03/2002)
83 PRETRIAL CONFERENCE held on 12/06/02 before Judge Timothy J. Corrigan Court Reporter: Shannon Bishop (mfk) (Entered: 12/06/2002)

9 of 12

5/30/2007 11:41 AM

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida -... https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?103911407853048-L_3...

12/09/2002
12/16/2002 12/17/2002 12/18/2002
12/20/2002 12/20/2002 12/20/2002 12/20/2002 12/20/2002 12/20/2002

84 ORDER: response by the parties to the pending motions and any additional motions are set to 12/20/02 for [62-1] motion in limine; for [79-1] motion in limine no. 1; for [80-1] motion in limine no. 2; for [81-1] motion in limine no. 3; and for [82-1] motion in limine no. 4 ; Responses to any new motions will be due by 01/08/03; Page and line designation for depositions by 01/08/03; Plaintiff Smith shall provide a final back wage computation, with back up, to defendant no later than 12/13/02; SCHEDULING jury trial for 9:00 1/6/03 scheduled for Judge Timothy J. Corrigan ( Signed by Judge Timothy J. Corrigan ) ctc (mfk) (Entered: 12/11/2002)
85 NOTICE regarding authority to bring cellular telephones and laptop computers into the courthouse by Geologistics America in RESPONSE to [77-1] order (ls) (Entered: 12/16/2002)
86 TRANSCRIPT of motion hearing held on 12/6/02 before Judge Timothy J. Corrigan. Transcript filed separately. (ls) (Entered: 12/17/2002)
87 ORDER: The individuals may enter the U.S. Courthouse on 01/13/03 with cellular telephones and laptop computers and, further, are granted permission to use their equipment within the facilities; Cheryl Cooper - laptop computer, Michael Farrell - cellular telephone, Jay Romano - cellular telephone, Christine L. Wilson - cellular telephone-laptop computer; date the equipment may be brought into the facility January 13-17, 2003 (or when trial occurs) ( Signed by Judge Timothy J. Corrigan ) ctc (mfk) (Entered: 12/18/2002)
88 JOINT STATEMENT of the case, by U.S. Equal Employmen, Geologistics America, Mitzi B. Smith, Holly Daniels, Barbara Neel (spw) (Entered: 12/20/2002)
89 JOINT PROPOSED voir dire questions by U.S. Equal Employment, Mitzi B. Smith, Holly Daniels, Barbara Neel (spw) (Entered: 12/20/2002)
90 JOINT RESPONSE by U.S. Equal Employment, Mitzi B. Smith, Holly Daniels, Barbara Neel to [79-1] motion in limine no. 1 to exclude evidence of other complaints, administrative charges or claims of discrimination brought against defendant by non-parties that are not the subject of this litigation (spw) (Entered: 12/20/2002)
91 JOINT RESPONSE by U.S. Equal Employment, Mitzi B. Smith, Holly Daniels, Barbara Neel to [80-1] motion in limine no. 2 to exclude all reference to the letters of determination and notices of right to sue issued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (spw) (Entered: 12/20/2002)
92 JOINT RESPONSE by U.S. Equal Employment, Mitzi B. Smith, Holly Daniels, Barbara Neel to [81-1] motion in limine no. 3 to exclude all reference to Mitzi Smith's claim that heaving lifting caused her to need a hysterectomy (spw) (Entered: 12/20/2002)
93 JOINT STIPULATION as to the issue of conciliation, and withdrawing motion in limine #4 by plaintiff U.S. Equal Employment, defendant Geologistics America, intervenor-plaintiff Mitzi B. Smith, intervenor-plaintiff Holly Daniels, intervenor-plaintiff Barbara Neel . (spw) (Entered: 12/20/2002)

10 of 12

5/30/2007 11:41 AM

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida -... https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?103911407853048-L_3...

12/20/2002 12/20/2002 12/20/2002 12/20/2002 12/20/2002 12/20/2002 12/20/2002 12/20/2002 12/20/2002 12/20/2002 12/20/2002 12/23/2002
01/17/2003
02/20/2003 02/20/2003 02/26/2003

WITHDRAWAL of/ terminating [82-1] motion in limine no. 4 to exclude all reference to the EEOC'S letters regarding the parties' failure to conciliate per #93 (spw) (Entered: 12/20/2002)
94 MOTION by U.S. Equal Employmen, Mitzi B. Smith, Holly Daniels, Barbara Neel for extension of deadline to file trial brief (spw) (Entered: 12/20/2002)
95 JOINT PROPOSED jury instructions by U.S. Equal Employment, Geologistics America, Mitzi B. Smith, Holly Daniels, Barbara Neel (spw) (Entered: 12/20/2002)
96 TRIAL BRIEF by Geologistics America (spw) (Entered: 12/20/2002)
97 PROPOSED jury instructions by Geologistics America (spw) (Entered: 12/20/2002)
98 PROPOSED verdict form filed by Geologistics America (spw) (Entered: 12/20/2002)
99 PROPOSED voir dire questions by Geologistics America (spw) (Entered: 12/20/2002)
100 OBJECTIONS by U.S. Equal Employmen, Mitzi B. Smith, Holly Daniels, Barbara Neel to [97-1] defendant's proposed jury instructions (spw) (Entered: 12/20/2002)
100 (and) PROPOSED jury instructions by U.S. Equal Employment, Mitzi B. Smith, Holly Daniels, Barbara Neel (spw) (Entered: 12/20/2002)
101 PROPOSED verdict form filed by U.S. Equal Employmen, Mitzi B. Smith, Holly Daniels, Barbara Neel (spw) (Entered: 12/20/2002)
102 TRIAL CALENDAR for trial term 01/06/03 scheduled for Judge Timothy J. Corrigan Jury trial for trial term commencing at 9:00 on 1/6/03 (CASE NO. 4) ( Signed by Judge Timothy J. Corrigan ) ctc (mfk) (Entered: 12/23/2002)
103 ORDER: parties should file a stipulation of dismissal or other appropriate documents to close out this file by 2/21/03; if the parties have not filed settlement pleadings or a request for extension by the 2/21/03 deadline, the court will enter its own order dismissing this case without prejudice; this case is now removed from the January 2003 trial calendar (Signed by Judge Timothy J. Corrigan) ctc (slc) (Entered: 12/23/2002)
104 ORDER mooting [62-1] first motion in limine; mooting [79-1] motion in limine #1; mooting [80-1] motion in limine #2; mooting [81-1] motion in limine # 3; mooting plaintiffs' [94-1] motion for extension of deadline to file trial brief (Signed by Judge Timothy J. Corrigan) ctc (slc) (Entered: 01/17/2003)
105 NOTICE of filing of Consent Decree by U.S. Equal Employmen (mfk) (Entered: 02/21/2003)
RECEIVED proposed Consent Decree by parties (mfk) (Entered: 02/21/2003)
106 TELEPHONE CONFERENCE held on 02/26/03 before Judge Timothy J. Corrigan Court Reporter: Shannon Bishop (mfk) (Entered: 02/26/2003)

11 of 12

5/30/2007 11:41 AM

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida -... https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?103911407853048-L_3...

02/27/2003 02/28/2003 03/04/2003
03/04/2003
03/04/2003

107 NOTICE of filing proposed order adopting consent decree and order of dismissal by U.S. Equal Employmen (mfk) (Entered: 02/27/2003)
108 STIPULATION of dismissal with prejudice by U.S. Equal Employmen, Geologistics America, Mitzi B. Smith, et al. (mfk) (Entered: 02/28/2003)
109 ORDER: the court adopts the consent decree in its entirety; dismissing action with prejudice ; the court will retain jurisdiction for the limited purpose of the enforcement of the consent decree; the clerk shall close the file (Signed by Judge Timothy J. Corrigan) ctc (slc) (Entered: 03/04/2003)
110 CONSENT DECREE by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Mitzi B. Smith, Geologistics Americas, Inc. (resolved as indicated in the consent decree) (signed by District Judge Timothy J. Corrigan) (slc) (Entered: 03/04/2003)
CASE CLOSED. (slc) (Entered: 03/04/2003)

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

05/30/2007 12:41:19

PACER Login:

hs0328

Client Code:

Description:

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

Billable Pages: 7

Cost:

eeoc 3:01-cv-00216-TJC 0.56

12 of 12

5/30/2007 11:41 AM

 
 THREE FLORIDA EMPLOYERS TO PAY TOTAL OF $570,000 FO...

http://www.eeoc.gov/press/3-18-03.html

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE March 18, 2003

CONTACT: Federico Costales Miami District Director (305) 530-6060
Delner Franklin-Thomas Miami Regional Attorney (305) 530-6001
Michael J. Farrell Supervisory Trial Attorney (305) 530-6008 TTY: (305) 536-5721

Three Florida Employers to Pay Total of $570,000 for Unlawful Retaliation, in EEOC Settlements
Discrimination Cases Span State from Jacksonville to Tampa to Florida Keys
MIAMI - The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) today announced the settlement of three recent retaliation lawsuits against Florida employers filed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, netting a combined total of $570,000 for charging parties as well as significant injunctive and remedial relief. The settlements occurred on March 3, 2003, against GeoLogistics Americas, Inc. of Jacksonville for $100,000, in January 2003 against the Marine Bank of the Florida Keys for $220,000, and in late December 2002 against Norstan Apparel Shops, Inc. of Tampa for $250,000. All three suits were filed after the EEOC exhausted its conciliation efforts to reach voluntary pre-litigation settlements, after investigating each case and finding that discrimination took place.
"These cases all involved allegations of discriminatory discharge of employees for exercising federally protected rights," said Delner Franklin-Thomas, Regional Attorney for the EEOC's Miami District Office, which has jurisdiction over Florida. "Retaliating against employees for complaining about what they reasonably believed to be employment discrimination is completely contrary to federal law. The settlement of these lawsuits should remind employers that retaliation is unlawful and will not be tolerated by the EEOC."
The EEOC's suit against GeoLogistics Americas, Inc. (Civil Action No. 3:01-CV-216-J-32TEM) alleged that the Branch Manager in Jacksonville fired a female employee in retaliation for exercising her right to complain of what she reasonably believed to be gender discrimination. Specifically, she complained that GeoLogistics provided forklift training and certification to the male employees required to lift the same heavy freight from one area of the company's warehouse to another, but consistently denied her requests for such training and certification because of her sex.
An order adopting a Consent Decree, signed by United States District Court Judge Timothy J. Corrigan, finally brought the litigation to closure on March 3 and required GeoLogistics to pay $100,000 to the female employee. In addition to the payment of monetary relief, the Consent Decree required GeoLogistics to employ injunctive measures during the next three years, including:
The distribution and posting of an anti-discrimination policy to all employees;
Annual training of its managers on Title VII retaliation by experienced employment trainers; and
Semi-annual reporting to EEOC regarding its compliance process.
The Commission will monitor GeoLogistics' compliance with all provisions of the Consent Decree throughout its three year duration.
In January of this year, the EEOC's Miami office settled a similar lawsuit against Marine Bank of the Florida Keys (Case No. 01-10082-CIV-PAINE). In that case, the EEOC charged the company with allowing a vice president's sexually offensive conduct to go unchecked and subsequently terminating one of the female employees for complaining about the sexually offensive conduct. The Marine Bank litigation was resolved with the company agreeing to pay two claimants $220,000 as well as agreeing to implement extensive

1 of 2

5/30/2007 12:12 PM

THREE FLORIDA EMPLOYERS TO PAY TOTAL OF $570,000 FO...

http://www.eeoc.gov/press/3-18-03.html

injunctive relief, including annual training at all of its facilities in the state of Florida for both management and supervisory employees, a laminated notice posting, and semi-annual monitoring reports.
Similarly, in late December 2002, the federal agency's Miami office successfully secured substantial injunctive relief, and $250,000 in monetary relief, including back pay and compensatory damages for a female manager who worked for Norstan Apparel Shops, Inc. in Tampa (Case No. 8:01-CV-379-T-26EAJ). EEOC's lawsuit contended that the store manager was fired for complaining to district managers about the sexual harassment that female employees under her supervision suffered at the hand of another male manager.
Federico Costales, Director of the EEOC's Miami District Office, said: "We are satisfied that the injunctive measures required by all three Consent Decrees will ensure that preventive measures are in place to protect the rights of other employees in the workplace." He added that he would like to see more employers set in place preventive measure that will advance the eradication of discrimination in the workplace, especially for retaliation which is on the rise nationally.
Costales noted that retaliation charge filings with the EEOC nationwide have sharply increased by 33% from 17,070 filings in Fiscal Year 1995 to 22,768 filings in FY 2002. In Florida, there were 1,725 retaliation filings in FY 2002, accounting for 29% of all discrimination charge filings in the state. Most charges filed with the EEOC in which merit is found are resolved through conciliation and voluntary pre-litigation settlements.
In addition to enforcing Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on national origin, sex (including pregnancy and sexual harassment), race, color, religion, and retaliation, the EEOC enforces the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967; The Equal Pay Act of 1963; the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990; and sections of the Civil Rights Act of 1991. Further information about the Commission is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.
This page was last modified on March 18, 2003.

Return to Home Page

2 of 2

5/30/2007 12:12 PM

 
 EEOC LITIGATION SETTLEMENT REPORT - MARCH 2003

http://www.eeoc.gov/litigation/settlements/settlement03-03.html

EEOC v. GeoLogistics Americas, Inc. No. 3:01-CV-216-J-32TEM (M.D. Fla. March 3, 2003)
The Miami District Office alleged in this Title VII action that defendant, a freight and cargo shipping agent, retaliated against charging party, an employee in defendant's Processing Department, when it fired her after she complained that she was denied training opportunities because of her sex (female). The Processing Department, which was responsible for distributing merchandise to department stores, had only female employees and the Receiving Department, which was responsible for unloading pallets of merchandise using forklifts, had only male employees. Defendant routinely assigned charging party and other women to assist in the Receiving Department, and charging party asked to receive the same training and certification as a forklift operator that the men received. Defendant denied her request, and after charging party objected to what she believed was sex discrimination, she was fired. The case was resolved through a consent decree which provides for payment of $100,000 to charging party. Defendant agrees not to retaliate against any individual who objects to unlawful conduct under Title VII based upon a reasonable belief or who files a charge with or cooperates with EEOC during the investigation of an alleged violation.

1 of 1

5/30/2007 12:12 PM