UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY)

COMMISSION,

)

Plaintiff

)

)

)

)

)

)

JAMAL & KAMAL, 1NC.

)

D/B/A INTERNATIONAL HOUSE OF )

PANCAKES,

)

Defendant.

)

COMPLAINT JURY TRIAL DEMAND

NATURE OF THE ACTION

This action is brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and

Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to correct unlawful employment practices and to provide

appropriate relief to Christina Chapman ("Chapman"), Kenisha Tully ("Tully") and other

similarly situated females who were adversely affected by such practices. The Plaintiff Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC" or "Commission") alleges that Chapman and

Tully, both females, and other females were subjected to sexual harassment and a hostile work

environment because of their gender by Defendant Jamal & Kamal, Inc. d/b/a International

House of Pancakes ("Defendant", "Employer" or "Defendant Employer"). The allegations are

more particularly stated in paragraph 7 below.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

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

1343 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Sections 706(0(1) and (3) of
/

1

~ Process ........... )_ ( Dktd

~ Doc. No

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3) ("Title VII"), and pursuant to Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a.
2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were at all material times committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.
PARTIES 3. 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 706(0(1) and (3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3). 4. At all relevant times Defendant, a Texas-based corporation, has been doing business continuously in the State of Louisiana, within the jurisdiction of this Court, through its International House of Pancakes ("IHOP") franchised restaurants, and continuously has had at least 15 employees. 5. At all relevant times Defendant continuously has been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce under Sections 701 (b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § § 2000e (b), (g) and (h).
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 6. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit Chapman and Tully filed charges with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by Defendant. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled. 7. During 2004 Defendant engaged in unlawful employment practices at its Covington, Louisiana IHOP restaurant through one of its managers, in violation of Section
2

703(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a). These practices, including unwelcome and offensive sexual overtures, the initiation of graphic, sexually-oriented conversations, and touching and rubbing, constituted sexual harassment of Chapman, Tully and similarly-situated females and the creation of a sexually hostile work environment perpetrated by one of Defendant’s managers against Chapman, Tully and similarly-situated females in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a). Moreover, these practices were compounded by frequent manifestations of offensive, humiliating, gender-based hostility that were perpetrated by the same manager and directed toward Chapman, Tully and other similarly-situated females. These hostile manifestations included repeated references in front of other restaurant employees and patrons about Chapman’s and Tully’s breasts and derogatory references about them and other IHOP waitresses as "freaks" (a contemporary, derogatory slang term meaning a female who will do anything sexually) and "whores." Defendant knew or should have known about the sexual harassment and gender-based hostile work environment, but it failed to take prompt, corrective or remedial action. Accordingly, Defendant is liable for the sexual harassment and gender-based hostile work environment perpetrated by its manager in violation of Title VII.
8. The effect of the practices complained of in paragraph 7 above has been to deprive Chapman, Tully and similarly-situated females of equal employment opportunities, alter their conditions of employment and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees because of their gender, in violation of Section703(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a).
9. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 7 above were intentional.
3

10. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 7 above were done and/or allowed to be done with malice or reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Chapman, Tully, and any other similarly-situated females.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining the Defendant Employer, its officers, managers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in sexual harassment, the perpetration of a gender-based hostile work environment and any other employment practices which discriminate on the basis of sex in violation of Title VII. B. Order Defendant Employer to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which are designed 1) to prevent and correct sexual harassment and gender-based hostile work environments in its restaurants, and 2) which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices. C. Order Defendant Employer to make whole Christina Chapman, Kenisha Tully, and similarly-situated females by providing compensation for past and future non-pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices described in paragraph 7 above, including, but not limited to, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life, and humiliation, in amounts to be determined at trial. D. Order Defendant Employer to pay Christina Chapman, Kenisha Tully, and similarly-situated females punitive damages for its malicious and reckless conduct, as described in paragraph 7 above, in amounts to be determined at trial.
4

E. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public
interest.
F. 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.
ERIC S. DREIBAND General Counsel
GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS
~KEIT~T.~HILL~ 4"~Ass°ciate Gener~ Cout~el
Reg.i°ial A-tt°rney/ MICHELLE T. BUTLER Supervisory Trial Attorney Bar Roll No. 1286
ANOR GRAH~Iv~, T.A. Senior Trial Attorney
Bar Roll Number 25525 Senior Trial Attorney EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION New Orleans District Office 701 Loyola Avenue, Suite 600 New Orleans, Louisiana 70113 Telephone: (504) 589-6922
(504) 589-2701 Facsimile: (504) 589-2805

AGENT FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS:
Kamal Sbih 325 Highway 190 Covington, La 70435

 
 ----------

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

§

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

§

§

Plaintiff

§

§

v.

§

§

JAMAL & KAMAL, INC.

§

D/B/A INTERNATIONAL HOUSE OF

§

PANCAKES,

§

Defendant

§

JUDGE AFRICK MAG. ROBY

CONSENT DECREE
On June 29, 2005, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("the Commission" or the "EEOC") instituted Civil Action Number 05-2667 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, charging Defendant Jamal & Kamal, Inc. ("the Defendant") with violation of Section 703(a) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended, 42 u.S.c. § 2000e-2(a) ("Title VII"), and alleging that the Defendant engaged in unlawful employment practices because of sexual harassment and a gender-based hostile work environment perpetrated by one of its managers against Christina Chapman, Kenisha Tully and similarly-situated females.
The Commission and the Defendant now wish to resolve all claims and controversies encompassed by this lawsuit without the burden, expense or delay of further litigation, subject, however, to the approval of this Court.

1

-_PrFoecee-s;ss:s::==:

.2.AC.tDRmkDtde-p=;p:=

_Doc. No_ __

THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY AGREED BETWEEN THE COMMISSION AND THE DEFENDANT, AND ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that:
JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURAL MATTERS 1. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this lawsuit and over the parties to this lawsuit. 2. The purposes of Title VII will be furthered by the entry of this Decree, the terms of which constitute a fair and equitable settlement. 3. The negotiation, execution and entry of this Decree will resolve any and all claims of the Title VII violations brought by the Commission against the Defendant ariSing out of Commission Charge Numbers 270-2004-03537 and 270-2004-03743 and this lawsuit, Civil Action Number 05-2667 and the individual claims of Arianne Davis, Christina Chapman, Kenisha Tully and Donna Davis_ 4. This Decree relates only to the alleged Title VII violations raised or which could have been raised against the Defendant in EEOC Charge Numbers 270-2004-03537 and 2702004-03743 and this lawsuit. It is expressly acknowledged and agreed by the parties that this Decree does not relate to any other EEOC charges. INDIVIDUAL RELIEF 5. Within forty-five (45) days after the entry of this Decree the Defendant shall pay: (i) the sum of FIFTEEN THOUSAND DOLLARS ($15,000.00) as damages to Christina
Chapman for claims that were raised in Commission Charge Number 270-2004-03537 and this
lawsuit; (ii) the sum of TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS ($10,000.00) as damages to Kenisha Tully for claims that were raised in Commission Charge Number 270-2004-03743 and this lawsuit; (iii) the sum of TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($25,000.00) to Arianne Davis Bolds for claims that were raised in this lawsuit and in the sum of TEN THOUSAND
2

DOLLARS ($10,000.00) to Donna Davis for claims that were raised in the lawsuit. The Defendant shall provide contemporaneously to the EEOC's Regional Attorney for the Houston District Office (hereafter "Regional Attorney") a copy of all of the damage checks for Christina Chapman, Kenisha Tully, Arianne Davis Bolds and Donna Davis.
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF A. PERMANENT INJUNCTION 6. The Defendant and all persons acting in concert with it are permanently enjoined from intentionally engaging in sex or gender discrimination lUlder Title VII. 7. The Defendant is permanently enjoined from intentionally engaging in, or being a party to any action that has the effect of harassing or intimidating any employee on the basis of sex or gender. 8. The Defendant is permanently enjoined from intentionally creating, facilitating or permitting the existence of a work environment that is hostile to any employee through acts, such as physical andlor verbal abllse and/or derogatory comments, on the basis of sex or gender. 9. The Defendant is permanently enjoined in the future from intentionally discriminating in any manner against any individual because he or she has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in the investigations by the Commission or court proceeding in connection with this case. B. TITLE VII COMPLIANCE REQUiREMENTS 10. The Defendant agrees to comply with all requirements of Title VII. The Defendant agrees not to discriminate on the basis of sex or gender in all phases of employment. In furtherance of its Title VII compliance obligations, the Defendant acknowledges that it has terminated the employment of alleged harasser Jose Leon and agrees never to rehire Jose Leon
3

in any of its restaurants, regardless of location. To ensure that Mr. Leon is never rehired, the Defendant agrees to place a conspicuous written notice in the appropriate manager's policy and procedures manual in each of its restaurant offices and personally inform all of its restaurant managers and supervisors that Mr. Leon is not eligible for rehire. The defendant also agrees to notify its IHOP franchisor andlor any IHOP franchisee about the Defendant's permanent bar against re-hire of Jose Leon pursuant to this Consent Decree in the event it is contacted by its
IHOP franchisor and/or any IHOP franchisee regarding the prospective employment of Mr. Leon
at an IHOP restaurant or about prospective IHOP management certification for Jose Leon. C. REPORTING REQIDREMENTS 11. For the duration of this Decree the Defendant agrees to submit through Kamal
Sbih andlor his attorney semiannual written reports to the EEOC's Regional Attorney for the
Houston District. The initial report must be submitted within six (6) months after the entry of this Consent Decree or not later than May 15, 2007. Subsequent semiannual reports must be submitted on the following dates: November 15,2007; May 15,2008; November 15, 2008; May 15,2009; and November 15, 2009. These reports shall certify the Defendant's compliance with this Decree in accordance with paragraphs 10 and 12 through 14 of this Decree and further provide per semiannual reporting period as follows: (i) the identity by name, social security number, last known address and last known telephone numbers of any employees assigned to work in the Defendant's Covington, Louisiana restaurant who reported about sexual harassment or gender-based hostile work environment in accordance with IHOP policy within the prior sixmonth period, (ii) a statement as to whether and how the Defendant responded to such report(s), and (iii) a statement as to whether and how the report(s) were resolved. In the event any reports
4

are made, the EEOC shall have access, upon advance notice of at least ten (10) days to the Defendant, to any written reports or complaints of sexual harassment and/or gender-based hostile work environment and to any investigative documents that are in the control or possession of Defendant and/or its owners, officers, managers, agents, employees, successors, and/or assigns, which the Commission deems necessary to examine in the process of evaluating the employee report(s), which are referenced in subparagraph ll(i), to determine whether a violation of Title VII's prohibition against sexual harassment and gender-based hostile work environment has occurred.
D. TITLE VII TRAINING REQUIREMENTS 12. The Defendant agrees to conduct, for the duration of this decree, an annual twohour training program about Title VII and the Defendant's anti-harassment and complaintreporting policy(ies) for its owner Kamal Sbih (or his legal successor) and all supervisors and managers assigned to work in Defendant's Covington, Louisiana restaurant. The initial training program shall be conducted within six (6) months after the entry of this Decree. Each training program and trainer shall be reported to the Commission's Regional Attorney in accordance with the reporting requirements of this Decree. Each annual training program shall include the topics of unlawful gender discrimination against employees in violation of Title VII, including the topics of sexual harassment and gender-based hostile work environment, and an explanation of company policy about managers and supervisors promptly forwarding all complaints or reports about suspected work-place harassment to designated company official(s) who will respond to the complaint(s). Any supervisor or manager who does not attend any Title VII training program, as mandated by this Decree, shall be required to attend a make-up training program or
5

view a videotape of the entire original training program within one month of the missed program. The Defendant's initial and semiannual reports to the EEOC's Regional Attorney shall provide the identity(ties) of the Title VII and company policy trainer(s); all date(s) such training occurred; the names and positions of the managers and supervisors who attended the training and make-up training or videotape programs; the signatures of all these same individuals acknowledging their presence at such training programs; and the topics covered during all such programs or a copy of the program outlines, materials or videotapes that were utilized during the training.
E. POSTING REQUIREMENTS 13. In accordance with federal anti-discrimination laws that are enforced by the Commission, the Defendant agrees to post conspicuousfy the Commission's poster entitled: "Equal Employment Opportunity Is The Law" in prominent and accessible places in its restaurant in Covington, Louisiana where its employees work and where said poster can be readily observed by the Defendant's employees and applicants for employment.
F. TITLE VII POLICY DISSEMINATION AND POSTING
REQUIREMENTS
14. The Defendant agrees to send to the Commission a copy of its posted policy(ies) prohibiting harassment in violation of Title VII, which policy(ies) shall provide: (i) contact names, addresses and telephone numbers for complaining and reporting suspected work-place harassment and (ii) and require the Defendant's managers and supervisors to promptly forward all complaints or reports about suspected work-place harassment to designated company official(s) who will promptly respond to such complaints by investigation and disciplinary or
6

other corrective action. Such posted policy(ies) shall also provide all employees with company contact infonnation for confidentially reporting suspected work·place harassment to someone other than their supervisor in the event their supervisor is the suspected harasser. In the event that the Defendant does not yet have such posted policy(ies) which comply with this paragraph, then it will create, implement and send a copy of such posted policy(ies) to the EEOC's Regional Attorney within sixty (60) days after the entry of this Decree. The Defendant agrees to provide all its Covington, Louisiana·based employees with convenient access to its anti·harassment and complaint-reporting policy(ies) that comply with this Decree, including the contact names, addresses and telephone numbers for confidentially complaining and reporting suspected workplace harassment, by posting same in conspicuous work·place locations that are accessible to all employees. Additionally, the Defendant shall disseminate all its anti·harassment and complaint· reporting policy(ies) to all of its employees (including managers, supervisors, trainees, probationary employees, and all salaried and hourly·paid employees) and obtain their written, dated acknowledgments of their receipt and understanding of such policy(ies), and maintain all written, dated acknowledgments of such policy(ies) in its employees' personnel files. For the duration of this Decree, the Defendant shall certify in its initial and all semiannual reports to the Regional Attorney that it has posted and disseminated such policy(ies) in accordance with this paragraph. DURATION
15. This Consent Decree shall remain in force for three (3) years after the date of entry of this Decree.
7

VALIDITY, ENFORCEMENT AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

16. Should any provision of this Decree be declared or he detennined by any Court to

be illegal or invalid, the validity of the remaining parts, tenus and provisions shall not be

affected thereby, and said illegal or invalid part, term or provision shall he deemed not to be a

part of this Decree.

17. This Court shall retain jurisdiction over this action for the purpose of enforcing

this Decree, if necessary; and any party is empowered to enforce this Decree through the

applicable judicial enforcement procedures.

18. This Decree sets forth the entire agreement between the Commission and the

Defendant which resolves Commission Charge Numbers 270-2004-03537 and 270-2004-03743

and this lawsuit. This Decree fully supersedes any and all prior agreements or understandings

between the Commission and the Defendant pertaining to Commission Charge Number 270-

2004-03537 and 270-2004-03743 and this lawsuit. This Decree cannot be altered by oral

agreement between the Commission and the Defendant, but only by written Court-ordered

modification.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

~ New Orleans, Louisiana, this \,"", day of

,2006.

UNIT~ DISTRICT JUDGE

8

SUBMITTED AND APPROVED BY:

RONALD S. COOPER General Counsel
JAMESL.LEE Deputy General Counsel
GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel

---;lc , M~&~
N. ELEANOR GRA AM Senior Trial Attorney La. Bar Roll No. 16946 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
New Orleans Field Office 1555 Poydras Street, Suite 1900 New Orleans, LA 70112 Tel: (504) 595·2875 (Graham) Fax: (504) 589·6861 or 595·2886
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNiTY COMMISSION
AND
9

BARKLEY & THOMPSON, L.C. NICHOLAS D. DOUCET (#18542) 1515 Poydras Street, Suite 2350 New Orleans, LA 70112 Telephone: (504) 595-3350 Telecopier: (504) 595-3355 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT
10

 
 E.E.O.C. v. Jamal & Kamal, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2006)
2006 WL 285143 United States District Court,
E.D. Louisiana. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
v. JAMAL & KAMAL INC. d/b/a International House of Pancakes
No. Civ.A. 05-2667. | Feb. 7, 2006.
Attorneys and Law Firms Lillian M. Thornton, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission New Orleans District Office, New Orleans, LA, for Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Robert E. Barkley, Jr., Nicholas Dale Doucet, Barkley & Thompson, LC, New Orleans, LA, for Jamal & Kamal Inc. d/b/a International House of Pancakes. Opinion
ORDER AND REASONS
AFRICK, J. *1 Before the Court is a motion, filed on behalf of defendant, Jamal & Kamal, Inc d/b/a International House of Pancakes (“IHOP”), to dismiss the complaint of plaintiff, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.1 Alternatively, IHOP seeks a more definite statement pursuant to Rule 12(e) should the Court determine that the EEOC has stated a claim. For the following reasons, defendant’s motion is DENIED.
Background On June 29, 2005, the EEOC filed its complaint pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, against IHOP on behalf of two waitresses, Christina Chapman (“Chapman”) and Kenisha Tully (“Tully”), and other similarly situated females, alleging that Chapman, Tully, and others were subjected to a hostile work environment as a result of sexual harassment by an IHOP restaurant manager.2
Law and Analysis
I. Standard for a Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) A district court cannot dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted “unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 102, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957); Blackburn v. City of Marshall, 42 F.3d 925, 931 (5th Cir.1995). This Court will not look beyond the factual allegations in the pleadings to determine whether relief should be granted. See Spivey v. Robertson, 197 F.3d 772, 774 (5th Cir.1999); Baker v. Putnal, 75 F.3d 190, 196 (5th Cir.1996). In assessing a claim, a court must accept all well-pleaded facts in the pleading as true and liberally construe all factual allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Spivey, 197 F.3d at 774; Lowrey v. Tex. A & M Univ. Sys., 117 F.3d 242, 247 (5th Cir.1997). “However, ‘[i]n order to avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim, a plaintiff must plead specific
1

E.E.O.C. v. Jamal & Kamal, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2006)
facts, not mere conclusory allegations....” ’ Guidry v. Bank of LaPlace, 954 F.2d 278, 281 (5th Cir.1992)(quoting Elliott v. Foufas, 867 F.2d 877, 881 (5th Cir.1989)) (alteration in original). “ ‘[C]onclusory allegations and unwarranted deductions of fact are not admitted as true’ by a motion to dismiss.” Id. (quoting Associated Builders, Inc. v. Ala. Power Co., 505 F.2d 97, 100 (5th Cir.1974)). Moreover, “ ‘legal conclusions masquerading as factual conclusions will not suffice to prevent a motion to dismiss.” ’ Blackburn, 42 F.3d at 931 (quoting Fernandez-Montes v. Allied Pilots Ass’n, 987 F.2d 278, 284 (5th Cir.1993)). “[T]he complaint must contain either direct allegations on every material point necessary to sustain a recovery ... or contain allegations from which an inference fairly may be drawn that evidence on these material points will be introduced at trial.” Campbell v. City of San Antonio, 43 F.3d 973, 975 (5th Cir.1995) (internal quotation and citation omitted).
II. EEOC’s Hostile Work Environment Claim *2 The EEOC seeks to hold IHOP vicariously liable for sexual harassment directed toward Chapman, Tully, and other similarly situated females by an unidentified IHOP manager.3 The threshold issue presented by IHOP’s motion is whether the EEOC failed to sufficiently allege detailed factual allegations supporting its claim of severe or pervasive harassment which altered the employees’ conditions of employment and created an abusive working atmosphere.
In order to establish a prima facie case of sexual harassment by a supervisor, plaintiff must show, inter alia, that employees were subjected to severe and pervasive harassment by a supervisor based on their sex.4 See Wyatt v. Hunt Plywood Co., Inc., 497 F.3d 405, 409-10 (5th Cir.2002). Once the plaintiff establishes that the supervisor’s conduct was severe and pervasive, the employer can escape liability by establishing that “(1) it exercised reasonable care to prevent and promptly remedy the harassment, and (2) the complaining employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventative or corrective opportunities provided by the employer.” Id. (emphasis in original).
In support of its contention that plaintiff’s allegations of harassment are vague and conclusory, IHOP cites numerous summary judgment cases in which the courts analyzed whether factual allegations and evidence were sufficient to create a prima facie hostile work environment claim. See, e.g., Hyde v. Graebel/New Orleans Movers, Inc., No. Civ. A. 98-3126, 1999 WL 335385 (E.D.La. May 25, 1999); Hartfield v. Pizza Inn, Inc., No. Civ. A. 02-0097, 2002 WL 31056595, *3 (E.D.La. Sept.13, 2002) (recognizing that “what makes up a claim for a sexually hostile work environment is a fact-sensitive determination”); Harris v. City of Carrollton, No. Civ. A. 301CV1249M, 2002 WL 31697726 (N.D.Tex. Nov.27, 2002). IHOP suggests that plaintiff’s allegations are classic “buzz-word” allegations which are insufficient as a matter of law. Finally, IHOP also contends that because vicarious liability only attaches where the hostile work environment is created by a supervisor with immediate or higher authority over the complaining employee, plaintiff’s allegations that a “manager” harassed Chapman and Tully, without further alleging that the manager had authority, are deficient.
Regardless of the ultimate factual merits of the EEOC’s complaint, IHOP’s argument is unavailing on a motion to dismiss. The EEOC has pleaded in its complaint sufficiently detailed factual allegations supporting its claim that IHOP is vicariously liable for the actions of one of its manager. The EEOC’s burden on a motion to dismiss is to sufficiently plead a Title VII-based hostile work environment claim. Whether the evidence ultimately bears out defendant’s contention that plaintiff has failed to establish a prima facie hostile work environment claim is not before the Court.
The EEOC alleges that during 2004, at an IHOP restaurant in Covington, Louisiana, one of IHOP’s managers engaged in unlawful employment practices.5 Specifically, the EEOC alleges that the manager engaged in the following practices which amount to hostile work environment sexual harassment: unwelcome and offensive sexual overtures, the initiation of graphic, sexually-oriented conversations, and touching and rubbing.6 The complaint indicates that “these practices were compounded by frequent manifestations of offensive, humiliating, gender-based hostility that were perpetuated by the same manager and directed toward Chapman, Tully and other[s].”7 The EEOC’s complaint also states that the manager made “repeated references in front of other restaurant employees and patrons about Chapman’s and Tully’s breasts” and repeated referred to them as “freaks,” a contemporary, sexual slang term, and “whores.”8
*3 Taking these allegations as true, this Court cannot conclude that it appears beyond doubt that the EEOC could not prevail on its claim. The EEOC has adequately pleaded facts that, if true, would support its claim that at least two IHOP employees were subjected to a sexually hostile work environment. The complaint further alleges that IHOP knew or should have known about the harassment, and that it failed to take prompt, remedial action against its manager’s actions.9
The Fifth Circuit has noted that “[a]n employer is subject to vicarious liability [ ] for an actionable hostile work environment created by a supervisor with immediate (or successively higher) authority over the employee.” Ackel v. Nat’l Commc’ns, Inc., 339 F.3d 376, 383 (5th Cir.2003). The complaint clearly identifies the victims as waitresses and the harasser as a manager.
2

E.E.O.C. v. Jamal & Kamal, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2006)
While the complaint does not explicitly indicate that the manager had authority to change the terms and conditions of Chapman’s or Tully’s employment, an inference may be drawn that the manager, if not an immediate supervisor, had successively higher authority over these employees.
Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that plaintiff’s complaint contains more than conclusory allegations and “buzz-words” in support of plaintiff’s hostile work environment claim. The allegations are sufficient to state such a claim.

III. Rule 12(e) Request for a More Definite Statement In the alternative, IHOP has filed a motion for a more definite statement pursuant to Rule 12(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 12(e) provides:
If a pleading to which a responsive pleading is permitted is so vague or ambiguous that a party cannot reasonably be required to frame a responsive pleading, the party may move for a more definite statement before interposing a responsive pleading. The motion shall point out the defects complained of and the details desired. If the motion is granted and the order of the court is not obeyed within 10 days after notice of the order or within such other time as the court may fix, the court may strike the pleading to which the motion was directed or make such order as it deems just.
“[A Rule] 12(e) motion for a more definite statement is disfavored. It is universally deemed appropriate only when the pleading addressed is so vague it cannot be responded to.” Prudhomme v. Proctor & Gamble Co., 800 F.Supp. 390, 396 (E.D.La.1992) (citations omitted). Moreover, the Fifth Circuit has cautioned:
In view of the great liberality of F.R.Civ.P. 8, permitting notice pleading, it is clearly the policy of the Rules that Rule 12(e) should not be used to frustrate this policy by lightly requiring a plaintiff to amend his complaint which under Rule 8 is sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss. It is to be noted that a motion for more definite statement is not to be used to assist in getting facts in preparation for trial as such. Other rules relating to discovery, interrogatories and the like exist for this purpose.
*4 Mitchell, 269 F.2d at 132.
The Court finds that ordering a more definite statement from the EEOC is inappropriate. The EEOC’s complaint complies with the simple notice pleading requirements of Rule 8. See Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 51-14, 122 S.Ct. 992, 998-99, 152 L.Ed.2d 1 (2002). Specifically, the complaint gives IHOP fair notice of the basis for the EEOC’s claims, and it adequately provides the details of the allegedly harassing conduct.
Moreover, in Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., the United States Supreme Court emphasized that under a notice pleading system, “it is not appropriate to require a plaintiff to plead facts establishing a prima facie case....” 534 U.S. at 511, 122 S.Ct. at 997. IHOP’s memorandum in support of its motion to dismiss and its reply memorandum demonstrate that the EEOC’s pleadings are not so vague or ambiguous that it is unable to frame a responsive pleading. Accordingly,
For the above and foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that the motion, filed on behalf of defendant, Jamal & Kamal Inc. d/b/a International House of Pancakes, to dismiss the complaint filed on behalf of plaintiff, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant’s motion for a more definite statement pursuant to Rule 12(e) is DENIED.

Parallel Citations

87 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 42,291

Footnotes

1

Rec. Doc. No. 4.

3

E.E.O.C. v. Jamal & Kamal, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2006)

2

Rec. Doc. No. 1.

3

The EEOC’s complaint does not identify the alleged harasser-manager; however, the EEOC’s preliminary witness list for initial

disclosure, which IHOP included with its reply memorandum, identifies him as Jose Leon, a former IHOP shift manager.

4

Plaintiff does not state a quid pro quo sexual harassment claim in that the complaining employees do not allege that they suffered a

“tangible employment action” and, therefore, the Court proceeds with a hostile work environment analysis. See Casiano v. AT & T

Corp., 213 F.3d 278, 283-84 & 288, appendix (5th Cir.2000)(discussing and diagraming the Ellerth/Faragher “road map” for

sexual harassment cases).

5

Rec. Doc. No. 1.

6

Rec. Doc. No. 1.

7

Rec. Doc. No. 1.

8

Rec. Doc. No. 1.

9

Rec. Doc. No. 1.

4

 
 E.E.O.C. v. Jamal & Kamal, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2006)
2006 WL 2690226 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana.
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION v.
JAMAL & KAMAL, INC.
Civil Action No. 05-2667. | Sept. 18, 2006.
Attorneys and Law Firms
Nancy Eleanor Graham, Keith T. Hill, Lillian M. Thornton, Michelle T. Butler, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, New Orleans District Office, New Orleans, LA, for Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Nicholas Dale Doucet, Robert E. Barkley, Jr., Barkley & Thompson, LC, New Orleans, LA, for Jamal & Kamal, Inc.
Opinion
ORDER
KAREN WELLS ROBY, Magistrate Judge.
*1 Before the Court is IHOP’s Motion to Compel (doc. # 32) filed by the defendant, Jamal & Kamal, Inc., d/b/a International House of Pancakes, (“IHOP”) seeking an order from this Court compelling the production of an unsigned affidavit of Amanda Riviere. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) filed a timely opposition memorandum.
I. Factual and Procedural Background The EEOC filed this action on behalf of two waitresses, Christina Chapman and Kenisha Tully, and other similarly situated females, against IHOP for violations of Title VII. Specifically, the EEOC alleged that IHOP, through one of its managers created a sexually hostile work environment, by the manager engaging in unwelcome and offensive sexual overtures, initiation of graphic, sexually-oriented conversations, and touching and rubbing. The complaint further alleges that the manager made repeated sexual references in front of other employees and patrons about Chapman and Tully. IHOP answered, denying liability.
In its initial disclosures sent on November 21, 2005, the EEOC provided a log of administrative charge file documents that it contended were excepted from disclosure because of privilege. It indicated that a typed draft of an affidavit of a witness, Amanda Riviere, was prepared based on a personal interview with a senior trial attorney, N. Eleanor Graham. (See Def. Ex. 1 at 4). The log claimed the information was attorney work product.
On March 20, 2006, IHOP propounded its first request for production on the EEOC. Relevant to this motion, request for production number 3 sought “[a]ny and all drafts, unsigned or executed witness affidavits, or statements prepared and/or obtained by you or anyone acting on your behalf in this case.” (See Def. Ex. 2 at 9). The EEOC responded by stating that it:
objects to this request to the extent it seeks information or documentation that is privileged by virtue of the attorney or investigator work product doctrine, attorney client privilege, governmental deliberative process privilege, and/or because the information or documentation was prepared in anticipation of litigation and /or provided by a witness on the condition of privacy.
1

E.E.O.C. v. Jamal & Kamal, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2006)
(See Def. Ex. 15 at 3). The EEOC then provided several signed affidavits but did not provide the unsigned affidavit it prepared for Amanda Riviere. Letters were exchanged between IHOP and the EEOC about the Riviere affdavit, however, the EEOC maintained its position and continued to contend that the unsigned affidavit was work product.1 IHOP then filed the subject motion to compel the production of the draft affidavit.
II. Standard of Review Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) provides that “parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged that is relevant to the claim or defense of any party.” The discovery rules are accorded a broad and liberal treatment to effect their purpose of adequately informing litigants in civil trials. Hebert v. Lando, 441 U.S. 153, 176 (1979). Nevertheless, discovery does have “ultimate and necessary boundaries,” Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 (1978) (quoting Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 507 (1947)), and “it is well established that the scope of discovery is within the sound discretion of the trial court.” Coleman v. American Red Cross, 23 F.3d 1091, 1096 (6th Cir.1994).
*2 Rule 26(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs the disclosure of documents prepared in anticipation of litigation and provides:
a party may obtain discovery of documents and tangible things otherwise discoverable under subdivision (b)(1) of this rule and prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial by or for another party or by or for that other party’s representative (including the other party’s attorney, consultant, surety, indemnitor, insurer, or agent) only upon a showing that the party seeking discovery has substantial need of the materials in the preparation of the party’s case and that the party is unable without undue hardship to obtain the substantial equivalent of the materials by other means. In ordering discovery of such materials when the required showing has been made, the court shall protect against disclosure of the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of an attorney or other representative of a party concerning the litigation.
FED.R.CIV.P. 26(b)(3). The work-product doctrine shields from discovery the materials prepared by or for an attorney in preparation of litigation. Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 (1947); Blockbuster Entertainment Corp. v. McComb Video, Inc., 145 F.R.D. 402, 403 (M.D.La.1992). However, as the Rule provides, the work privilege is not limited to materials prepared by attorneys. It also affords protection to materials prepared by a “consultant, surety, indemnitor, insurer, or agent.” FED.R.CIV.P. 26(b)(3).
The doctrine is not an umbrella that shades all materials prepared by a lawyer, or agent of the client. It focuses only on materials assembled and brought into being in anticipation of litigation. Piatkowski v. Abdon Callais Offshore, L.L.C., 2000 WL 1145825, at *2 (E.D.La. Aug. 11, 2000). Excluded from the work-product doctrine are materials assembled in the ordinary course of business. United States v. El Paso Co., 682 F.2d 530 (5th Cir.1982). It also does not extend to the underlying facts relevant to the litigation. See generally Upjohn, 449 U.S. at 395-96.
Additionally, even if the document comes within the scope of the rule, “the protection afforded is conditional and may be set aside if the discovering party demonstrates a sufficiently pressing need for the data.” In re Kidder Peabody Sec. Litig., 168 F.R.D. 459, 462 (S.D.N.Y.1996).
III. Analysis IHOP contends that the unsigned affidavit is not work product because it was not prepared in anticipation of litigation. It contends that during the initial investigation the role of the EEOC is that of a neutral third party. It notes that the interview of Riviere occurred in early November, 2004, and that reasonable cause determinations for Chapman and Tully were not issued by the EEOC until February 17, 2005. It also notes that initial conciliation efforts occurred between February and April of 2005 and that the EEOC is statutorily prohibited from instituting litigation until after the conciliation failure. Thus, IHOP contends that the affidavit was drafted prior to the commencement of litigation and therefore could not be work product. It further contends that if the affidavit is similar to the other affidavits already produced, it is factual in nature and therefore not covered by the work product doctrine.
*3 IHOP also contends that even if the Court concludes that the document itself is work product, it has substantial need for the document because while it could subpoena Riviere, it is not certain whether Riviere ever saw the draft affidavit or could
2

E.E.O.C. v. Jamal & Kamal, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2006)
remember her exact statements to Graham almost two years ago. Further, it could not fully explore why Riviere chose not to sign the affidavit without the affidavit. IHOP cites to two cases it contends support its position.
The EEOC contends that the affidavit was prepared in anticipation of litigation because Chapman and Tully’s charges were identified as A1 priority charges with the greatest likelihood of litigation in September, 2004. The EEOC further contends that because the charges were identified as A1, Graham’s participation in the case more than routine. The EEOC notes that Graham personally conducted the interview of Riviere with the EEOC investigator, Charlotte Hokkannen, present. The EEOC further notes that during the interview, Graham was the only person taking notes and that the affidavit that was prepared was based partly on her notes, partly on her memory, and partly on her impressions of what Riviere represented during the interview.
The EEOC contends that because the affidavit remains unexecuted and embodies the recollections and impressions of EEOC trial counsel, the Court should not order production. Further, the EEOC contends that the two cases cited by IHOP are distinguishable from the this case.
The Court notes that the burden is on the party seeking to protect the document to show that the work product doctrine is applicable. The Court also notes that “[a] document can receive work product protection, even if it was prepared before the initiation of any litigation.” In Re Atlantic Fin. Mgmt Sec. Litig., 121 F.R.D. 141, 144 (D.Mass.1988). However, work product protection only applies to memoranda prepared in anticipation of litigation which “sets forth the attorney’s theory of the case and [their] litigation strategy.” Nat’l Labor Relations Bd. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S. 132, 154 (1975).
During the hearing the Court questioned counsel for the EEOC whether the affidavit in question contained her theory of the case. Counsel informed the Court that the does not detail her theory of the case but instead that she prepared the affidavit for the witness’s signature based partly on her best recollection of the witness’s testimony and partly on her notes.2
The Court concluded that an attorney’s memorialization of events, effectively acting as a stenographer, does not fall within the sphere of documentation protected by the work product privilege. Thus, the EEOC must produce the document.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT IHOP’s Motion to Compel (doc. # 32) is GRANTED.

Footnotes

1

The EEOC does not address the other objections raised in its original response to IHOP’s discovery. Accordingly the Court

considers those objections waived.

2

IHOP does not seek production of the interview notes.

3

 
 LAED CM/ECF - Live - Docket Report

https://ecf.laed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?288244166126092-L_3...

2000E, CLOSED, PROTO
U. S. District Court Eastern District of Louisiana (New Orleans) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:05-cv-02667-LMA-KWR

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Jamal & Kamal, Date Filed: 06/29/2005

Inc.

Date Terminated: 10/12/2006

Assigned to: Judge Lance M Africk

Jury Demand: Both

Referred to: Magistrate Judge Karen Wells Roby

Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs

Cause: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by Nancy Eleanor Graham Equal Employment Opportunity Commission New Orleans District Office 1555 Poydras St. Suite 1900 New Orleans, LA 70112 (504) 595-2875 Email: nancy.graham@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Keith T. Hill Equal Employment Opportunity Commission New Orleans District Office 701 Loyola Ave. Suite 600 New Orleans, LA 70113 (504) 589-6817

Lillian M. Thornton Lillian M. Thornton, Attorney at Law 48 Heritage Lane New Orleans, LA 70114 504-263-2346 Email: lillianmt@aol.com

Michelle T. Butler Equal Employment Opportunity Commission New Orleans District Office 1555 Poydras St. Suite 1900 New Orleans, LA 70112 (504) 595-2872

1 of 7

5/21/2007 10:03 AM

LAED CM/ECF - Live - Docket Report

https://ecf.laed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?288244166126092-L_3...

V.
Defendant
Jamal & Kamal, Inc. doing business as International House of Pancakes

Email: michelle.butler@eeoc.gov
represented by Nicholas Dale Doucet Barkley & Thompson, LC 1515 Poydras St. Suite 2350 New Orleans, LA 70112 (504) 595-3350 Email: ndoucet@barkleythompson.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert E. Barkley, Jr. Barkley & Thompson, LC 1515 Poydras St. Suite 2350 New Orleans, LA 70112 504-595-3350 Email: rbarkley@barkleythompson.com

Date Filed 06/29/2005
06/29/2005 08/04/2005 11/23/2005
12/05/2005
12/05/2005 12/15/2005

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT against Jamal & Kamal, Inc. filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(caa, ) (Entered: 06/30/2005)
2 Summons Issued as to Jamal & Kamal, Inc. (caa, ) (Entered: 06/30/2005)
3 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed; waiver sent to Jamal & Kamal, Inc. on 6/29/2005, answer due 8/29/2005. (ijg, ) (Entered: 08/05/2005)
4 MOTION to Dismiss Case, or alternatively, MOTION for More Definite Statement by Jamal & Kamal, Inc.. Motion Hearing set for 12/21/2005 09:00 AM before Judge Lance M Africk. (ijg, ) (Entered: 12/01/2005)
5 ORDER Scheduling Conference set for 1/30/2006 09:30 AM before Judge Roby. Signed by Judge Karen Wells Roby on 12/2/05.(ijg, ) Modified on 12/21/2005 (ijg, ). (Entered: 12/06/2005)
6 MOTION to reset Hearing re 4 MOTION to Dismiss Case MOTION for More Definite Statement by Jamal & Kamal, Inc.. (ijg, ) (Entered: 12/15/2005)
7 ORDER that 4 MOTION to Dismiss Case MOTION for More Definite Statement filed by Jamal & Kamal, Inc. is continued w/o date as set forth in document 6. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 12/9/2005.(ijg, ) (Entered: 12/15/2005)

2 of 7

5/21/2007 10:03 AM

LAED CM/ECF - Live - Docket Report

https://ecf.laed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?288244166126092-L_3...

12/21/2005 01/17/2006 01/30/2006
01/30/2006 01/31/2006 01/31/2006 01/31/2006 02/01/2006 02/03/2006 02/07/2006 02/17/2006 02/22/2006
03/06/2006 03/07/2006 03/23/2006

8 RESPONSE to Motion filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 4 MOTION to Dismiss Case MOTION for More Definite Statement. (ijg, ) (Entered: 12/21/2005)
12 MOTION for Leave to File Reply Brief by Jamal & Kamal, Inc.. (ijg, ) (Entered: 02/01/2006)
9 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Karen Wells Roby : Scheduling Conference held on 1/30/2006. Final Pretrial Conference set for 11/16/2006 01:30 PM before Magistrate Judge Karen Wells Roby. Jury Trial set for 12/11/2006 08:30 AM before Judge Lance M Africk. (Attachments: # 1 Pre-Trial Notice) (ijg, ) (Entered: 01/31/2006)
10 ORDER Settlement Conference set for 5/31/2006 09:00 AM and 10/12/2006 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Karen Wells Roby. Signed by Judge Karen Wells Roby.(ijg, ) (Entered: 01/31/2006)
11 Notice of 636(c) Non Consent to Proceed Before a Magistrate Judge . Signed by Judge Karen Wells Roby.(ijg, ) (Entered: 01/31/2006)
13 ORDER granting 12 Motion for Leave to File Reply Brief. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 1/30/2006. (ijg, ) (Entered: 02/01/2006)
14 REPLY Brief filed by Jamal & Kamal, Inc. in support of 4 MOTION to Dismiss Case MOTION for More Definite Statement. (ijg, ) (Entered: 02/01/2006)
15 ORDER Scheduling Conference set for 2/22/2006 09:45 AM before courtroom deputy by telephone, by Clerk.(ijg, ) (Entered: 02/01/2006)
16 Order Revoking Case Referral to Magistrate Judge. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 2/2/2006.(ijg, ) (Entered: 02/03/2006)
17 ORDER denying 4 Motion to Dismiss Case, alternatively 4 Motion for More Definite Statement . Signed by Judge Lance M Africk. (ijg, ) (Entered: 02/07/2006)
18 ANSWER to Complaint with Jury Demand by Defendant Jamal & Kamal, Inc..(ijg, ) (Entered: 02/21/2006)
19 SCHEDULING ORDER: Final Pretrial Conference set for 10/20/2006 11:00 AM before Judge Lance M Africk. Status Conference set for 3/23/2006 09:30 AM before Judge Lance M Africk. Jury Trial set for 11/13/2006 08:30 AM before Judge Lance M Africk.. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk. (Attachments: # 1 Pre-Trial Notice)(ijg, ) (Entered: 02/23/2006)
20 ORDER Settlement Conference set for 5/31/2006 02:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Karen Wells Roby. Signed by Judge Karen Wells Roby.(ijg, ) (Entered: 03/06/2006)
21 ORDER Status Conference set for 3/23/2006 09:30 AM before Judge Lance M Africk. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk.(ijg, ) (Entered: 03/07/2006)
22 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk : Status Conference held on 3/23/2006. PTC set 10/20/2006 11:00 AM. Trial set 11/13/2006 8:30 AM. (ijg, ) (Entered: 03/23/2006)

3 of 7

5/21/2007 10:03 AM

LAED CM/ECF - Live - Docket Report

https://ecf.laed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?288244166126092-L_3...

05/02/2006 05/02/2006
05/04/2006 05/31/2006 06/08/2006 06/08/2006 06/19/2006 06/20/2006 06/20/2006 06/26/2006
06/26/2006
06/27/2006 07/05/2006 08/14/2006
08/17/2006
08/17/2006 08/18/2006

23 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Kamal Sbih by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.(ijg, ) (Entered: 05/03/2006)
24 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Adopt Protective Order by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Jamal & Kamal, Inc.. (ijg, ) (Entered: 05/05/2006)
25 PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 5/3/2006.(ijg, ) (Entered: 05/05/2006)
26 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Karen Wells Roby : Settlement Conference held on 5/31/2006. (car, ) (Entered: 06/01/2006)
27 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Adam Jube by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Subpoena)(ijg, ) (Entered: 06/10/2006)
28 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Jessie Jube by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Subpoena)(ijg, ) (Entered: 06/10/2006)
29 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Ann Turco by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.(ijg, ) (Entered: 06/20/2006)
30 Return of Service of Subpoena served on Adam Jube on 6/13/06 by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.(blg, ) (Entered: 06/22/2006)
31 Return of Service of Subpoena served on Jessie Jube on 6/14/06 by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.(blg, ) (Entered: 06/22/2006)
33 USM Return of Service of deposition subpoena served on Adam Jube on 6/13/2006 by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.(ijg, ) (Entered: 07/01/2006)
34 USM Return of Service of deposition subpoena served on Jessie Jube on 6/14/2006 by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.(ijg, ) (Entered: 07/01/2006)
32 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Jose Leon by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.(cms, ) (Entered: 06/28/2006)
35 CONSENT PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Judge Karen Wells Roby on 7/3/2006.(ijg, ) (Entered: 07/05/2006)
36 MOTION to Compel by Jamal & Kamal, Inc. Motion Hearing set for 8/30/2006 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Karen Wells Roby. (Attachments: # 1 Rule 37.1 Certificate# 2 Memorandum in Support # 3 Exhibits# 4 Notice of Hearing)(ijg, ) (Entered: 08/15/2006)
37 DOCUMENT STRICKEN - NOTICE to Take Deposition of AHAB MOHAMMED & 30(B)(6) DESIGNEE by all plaintiffs.(Graham, Nancy) Modified on 8/18/2006 (ijg, ). (Entered: 08/17/2006)
38 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 37 Notice to Take Deposition Document has been stricken pursuant to FRCP 5(d). (ijg, ) (Entered: 08/18/2006)
39 Witness List by all plaintiffs. (Graham, Nancy) (Entered: 08/18/2006)

4 of 7

5/21/2007 10:03 AM

LAED CM/ECF - Live - Docket Report

https://ecf.laed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?288244166126092-L_3...

08/18/2006 08/19/2006 08/21/2006 08/22/2006 08/22/2006 08/22/2006
08/25/2006 08/28/2006 08/29/2006
08/29/2006 08/29/2006 08/30/2006 08/30/2006
09/05/2006 09/05/2006
09/07/2006
09/12/2006

40 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 39 Witness List ; Typed name omitted by s/; Attorney advised of signature requirements. (ijg, ) (Entered: 08/18/2006)
41 Witness List by all plaintiffs. (Graham, Nancy) (Entered: 08/19/2006)
42 Exhibit List by all plaintiffs. (Graham, Nancy) (Entered: 08/21/2006)
43 Witness and Exhibit List by Jamal & Kamal, Inc.. (cms, ) (Entered: 08/23/2006)
44 Witness and Exhibit List by Jamal & Kamal, Inc.. (cms, ) (Entered: 08/23/2006)
45 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 36 MOTION to Compel. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit # 2 Exhibit)(ala) (Entered: 08/24/2006)
46 ORDER Status Conference set for 8/30/2006 02:00 PM before Judge Lance M Africk.. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk.(ijg, ) (Entered: 08/28/2006)
48 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Reply Brief by Jamal & Kamal, Inc.. (ijg, ) (Entered: 08/29/2006)
47 ORDER Setting/Resetting ORAL argument on 36 MOTION to Compel: Motion Hearing set for 8/30/2006 11:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Karen Wells Roby.. Signed by Judge Karen Wells Roby.(car, ) (Entered: 08/29/2006)
49 ORDER granting 48 Motion for Leave to File Reply Brief. Signed by Judge Karen Wells Roby on 8/28/2006. (ijg, ) (Entered: 08/29/2006)
50 REPLY BRIEF filed by Jamal & Kamal, Inc. in Support of 36 MOTION to Compel. (ijg, ) (Entered: 08/29/2006)
51 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk : Status Conference held on 8/30/2006. (ijg, ) (Entered: 08/31/2006)
52 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Karen Wells Roby : Motion Hearing held on 8/30/2006 re 36 MOTION to Compel filed by Jamal & Kamal, Inc. - mtn submitted. (car, ) (Entered: 08/31/2006)
53 ORDER 52 Minute Entry dated August 30, 2006. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk.(ijg, ) (Entered: 09/05/2006)
54 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Jamal & Kamal, Inc.. Motion Hearing set for 9/20/2006 09:00 AM before Judge Lance M Africk. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits# 2 Memorandum in Support # 3 Statement of Contested/Uncontested Facts # 4 Notice of Hearing)(ijg, ) (Entered: 09/06/2006)
55 MOTION For Leave to Add Donna Davis as Class Member by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits# 2 Exhibit (IHOP's) FRCP Rule 26(a)(1) Initial Disclosures# 3 Exhibit (First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant))(ijg, ) (Entered: 09/09/2006)
56 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 54 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment. (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Contested/Uncontested Facts # 2 Affidavit # 3 Exhibit 1-4# 4 Exhibits 5-7)(ijg, ) (Entered: 09/13/2006)

5 of 7

5/21/2007 10:03 AM

LAED CM/ECF - Live - Docket Report

https://ecf.laed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?288244166126092-L_3...

09/14/2006
09/18/2006 09/19/2006 09/21/2006 09/21/2006 09/28/2006
10/06/2006 10/10/2006 10/12/2006 10/12/2006 10/12/2006 11/13/2006 11/15/2006 11/17/2006

57 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Jamal & Kamal, Inc. re 55 MOTION For Leave to Add Donna Davis as Class Member. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit # 2 Exhibit (continued)# 3 Exhibit (Continued))(ijg, ) (Entered: 09/15/2006)
58 ORDER granting 36 Motion to Compel . Signed by Judge Karen Wells Roby. (car, ) (Entered: 09/18/2006)
59 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by Jamal & Kamal, Inc.. (ijg, ) (Entered: 09/22/2006)
60 ORDER granting 59 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages . Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 9/20/2006. (ijg, ) (Entered: 09/22/2006)
61 REPLY to Response to Motion filed by Jamal & Kamal, Inc. re 54 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits)(ijg, ) (Entered: 09/22/2006)
62 MOTION to Amend/Correct 43 Witness and Exhibit List, 44 Witness and Exhibit List and MOTION for Expedited Consideration Thereon by Jamal & Kamal, Inc.. Motion Hearing set for 10/25/2006 09:00 AM before Judge Lance M Africk. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support # 2 Exhibits# 3 Notice of Hearing # 4 Certificate of Counsel)(gec, ) (Entered: 10/10/2006)
64 ORDER denying 62 Motion to Expedite Hearing on Motion to Amend Witness and Exhibit Lists. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 10/6/06. (gec, ) (Entered: 10/10/2006)
63 UNSIGNED ORDER re 62 MOTION to Amend Witness and Exhibit Lists. (gec, ) Modified on 10/10/2006 (gec, ). (Entered: 10/10/2006)
65 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Karen Wells Roby : Settlement Conference held on 10/12/2006. (car, ) (Entered: 10/12/2006)
66 ORDER DISMISSING CASE without prejudice. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 10/12/06.(gec, ) (Entered: 10/13/2006)
67 ORDER Case has settled. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk.(gec, ) (Entered: 10/13/2006)
68 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to approve and enter consent decree and to dismiss action by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (ijg, ) (Entered: 11/17/2006)
70 CONSENT DECREE 68 . Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 11/14/2006.(ijg, ) (Entered: 11/17/2006)
69 ORDER granting 68 Motion to approve and enter consent decree and to dismiss action . Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 11/14/2006. (ijg, ) (Entered: 11/17/2006)

PACER Service Center

6 of 7

5/21/2007 10:03 AM

LAED CM/ECF - Live - Docket Report

https://ecf.laed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?288244166126092-L_3...

Transaction Receipt

05/21/2007 10:02:07

PACER Login:

hs0328

Client Code:

eeoc

Description:

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

2:05-cv-02667-LMA-KWR

Billable Pages:

4

Cost:

0.32

7 of 7

5/21/2007 10:03 AM