WILLIAM R. TAMAYO, REGIONAL ATTORNEY U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION SAN FRANCISCO DISTRICT OFFICE 350 THE EMBARCADERO, SUITE 500 SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94105-1260
KATHRYN OLSON, SUPERVISORY TRIAL ATTORNEY TERI HEALY, SENIOR TRIAL ATTORNEY EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 909 FIRST AVENUE, SUITE 400 SEATTLE, WA 98104 TEL: (206) 220-68 16 FAX: (206) 220-691 1 teri.healy@jeeoc.~
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Plaintiff, v.
VIDEO ONLY, INC. Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO.

C V ' O ~ - L . D. -< : K I

COMPLAINT

4

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

NATURE OF T E 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 race, national origin

and retaliation and to provide appropriate relief to Jayson Lewis and Michael Gonzales. The

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleges that defendant subjected Mr. Lewis and

COMPLAINT- Page 1 of 5

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITYCOMMlSSlON

909 First Avenue, Suite 400

Seattle, Washington 98104-1061

Telephone: (206) 220-6883

Facsimile: (206) 220-691 1

TDD: (206) 220-6882

Mr. Gonzales to harassment based on race, national origin, and religion and then retaliated against Mr. Lewis and Mr. Gonzales for complaining about the harassment. Plaintiff seeks monetary relief, including nonpecuniary compensatory and punitive damages, and injunctive relief, on behalf of Mr. Lewis and Mr. Gonzales.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. $8451, 1331, 1337, 1343 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to sections 706(f)(l) and (3) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. sections 2000e-5(f)(l) and (3)
("Title VII"), and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of l991,42 U.S.C. 5 1981a.
2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the District of Oregon.
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "Commission"), is the agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title VII, and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Section 706(f)(l) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5(f)(l). 4. At all relevant times, defendant Video Only, Inc. has been a corporation continuously doing business in the State of Idaho and has continuously had at least 15 employees. 5. At all relevant times, defendant Video Only, Inc. 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).

COMPLAINT- Page 2 of 5

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNlTYCOMMlSSlON
909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington 98104-1061
Telephone: (206) 220-6883 Facsimile: (206) 220-691 1
TDD: (206) 220-6882

STATEMENT OF CLAIMS

6 . More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Mr. Lewis and Mr.

Gonzales filed charges with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by Video Only, Inc.

All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled.

7 . From at least February 2005, defendant engaged in unlawful employment
practices at its Jantzen Beach location in Portland, Oregon store in violation of $ 5 703(a) and 704(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. 55 2000e-2(a) and -3(a). Defendant engaged in these unlawful

practices by subjecting Mr. Lewis and Mr. Gonzales to repeated racial, national origin and

religious harassment and by retaliating against Mr. Lewis and Mr. Gonzales for their complaints

regarding the harassment.

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

deprive Mr. Lewis and Mr. Gonzales of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely

affect his status as an employee.

9. 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 Mr. Lewis and

Mr. Gonzales.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court:

A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining defendant, its officers, successors, agents,

assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in any retaliatory

employment practices.
COMPLAINT- Page 3 of 5

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITYCOMMISSION
909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington 98104-1061
Telephone: (206) 220-6883 Facsimile: (206) 220-691 1
TDD: (206) 220-6882

B. Order defendant to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for all employees, and which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices.
C. Order defendant to make whole Mr. Lewis and Mr. Gonzales by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described in paragraph 7 above, including past and future out-of-pocket expenses, in amounts to be determined at trial.
D. Order defendant to make whole Mr. Lewis and Mr. Gonzales by providing compensation for past and future nonpecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices complained of in paragraph 7 above, including without limitation emotional pain, suffering, and loss of enjoyment of life, in amounts to be determined at trial.
E. Order defendant to pay Mr. Lewis and Mr. Gonzales punitive damages for its malicious and reckless conduct described in paragraph 7 above, in amounts to be determined at trial.
F. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public interest.
G. Award the Commission its costs of this action. /I/ II / I// I//

COMPLAINT- Page 4 of 5

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT
OPPORTUNlTYCOMMISSlON 909 First Avenue, Suite 400
Seattle, Washington 98104-1061 Telephone: (206) 220-6883 Facsimile: (206) 220-691 1 TDD: (206) 220-6882

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

DATED this 22nd day of September, 2006.

WILLIAM R. TAMAYO Regional Attorney San Francisco District Office 350 The Embarcadero, Ste. 500 San Francisco, California 94105-1260 Telephone (4 15) 625-5645 Facsimile (415) 625-5657
KATHRYN OLSON Supervisory Trial Attorney
TERI HEALY Senior Trial Attorney

RONALD S. COOPER General Counsel
JAMES L. LEE Deputy General Counsel GWENDOLYN Y. REAMS Associate General Counsel

COMMISSION Seattle Field Office 909 1" Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington 98104-1061 Telephone (206) 220-69 16 Facsimile (206) 220-69 11

/

Office of the General Counsel

1801 "L" Street NW

Washington, D.C. 20507

Attorneys for Plaintiff

COMPLAINT- Page 5 of 5

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITYCOMMISSION
909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington 98104-1061
Telephone: (206) 220-6883 Facsimile: (206) 220-6911
TDD: (206) 220-6882

 
 Andrew M. Altschul, OSB No. 98030 andrew@portlandemploymentlaw. com ALTSCHUL LAW OFFICE, PC 117 SW Taylor Street, Suite 2600 Portland, OR 97204 Telephone: (503) 417-0444 Facsimile: (503) 417-0501
Attorneys for Plaintiffs-Intervenors

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPURTUNITY COMMISSION,

Civil No. CV O6- 1362-KI

Plaintiff, v. VIDEO ONLY, INC.,

COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFFSINTERVENORS
JURY TRIAL DEMAND

Defendant.

MICHAEL GONZALES, JAYSON LEWIS,

Plaintiffs-Intervenors,

v.

VIDEO ONLY, INC.,

Defendant.

Page 1 - COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFFS-INTERVENORS

I. NATURE OF THE ACTION This action is filed in conjunction with the Complaint filed by the EEOC and in addition to the discrimination claims alleged by the EEOC adds additional federal and state law claims arising out of the same actions and occurrences.
11. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. This arises under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,42 USC 5 2000e, et
seq ("Title VII"),42 USC $1981, the Civil Rights Act or 1991, the Fair Credit and Reporting
Act, 15 USC $ 1681 et seq ("FCRA") and ORS 659A 030. 2. This court has federal question jurisdiction over the federal claims pursuant to 28
USC 5 1331,42 USC 5 2000e-5(f)(l) (right to intervene), 42 USC 5 1981 and 15 USC 5 1681p.
3. This court has supplementaljurisdiction over the state law claims based on 28
USC 5 1367(a) because the Intervenors' claims arise from the same operative facts and involve
similar issues of law as their federal claims. 4. Venue is proper in this court because the employment practices and conduct
alleged to be unlawful were committed with in the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the District of Oregon.
111. PARTIES 5 . At all times material to this action, Plaintiff-Intervenor Michael Gonzales ("Gonzales") is a Hispanic residing in Beaverton, Oregon and an employee of Defendant Video Only, Inc ("Video Only") at its Jantzen Beach location in Portland, Oregon. 6 . At all times material to this action, Plaintiff-Intervenor Jayson Lewis ("Lewis") is an African-American employee whose children are Jewish residing in Portland, Oregon and an
Page 2 - COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFFS-INTERVENORS

employee of Video Only at its Janzen Beach location in Portland, Oregon and/or its Beaverton, Oregon location.
7. At all times material to this action, Video Only has been a corporation continuously doing business in the State of Oregon and has employed more then 15 persons.
IV. ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES 8. Plaintiffs-Intervenors timely filed individual charges against Video Only alleging racial, national origin and religious discrimination as well as retaliation under Title VII and Oregon's equivalent laws, ORS 659A.030, with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). The EEOC investigated the charges and issued determinations that there was reason to believe that violations had occurred against each Plaintiff-Intervenor. After a conciliation process did not resolve the claims, the EEOC filed suit on September 25,2006.
V. FACTS 9. Lewis was hired as a salesperson at Video Only's Janzen Beach location in or about February, 2005. 10. Gonzales was hired as a salesperson at Video Only's Janzen Beach location in or about June, 2005. 11. Since the beginning of his employment at Video Only, Lewis was repeatedly harassed by management personnel and their subordinates because of his race and religion. Lewis was also subjected to retaliation fkom both management personnel and their subordinates for complaining about the on-going harassment. This retaliation continues to this day. 12. On or about November, 2005, after Lewis complained about the on-going harassment to corporate headquarters, Video Only hired a private investigator to investigate Lewis' background and character without notice or written authorization.
Page 3 - COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFFS-INTERVENORS

13. Since the beginning of his employment at Video Only, Gonzales was repeatedly harassed by management personnel and their subordinates because of his national origin and routinely subjected him to disparaging and derogatory remarks, jokes and other conduct because of the race, national origin, andlor religion of his co-workers. Gonzales was also subjected to retaliation from both management personnel and their subordinates for complaining about the on-going harassment. This retaliation continues to this day.
14. On or about November, 2005, after Gonzlaes complained about the on-going harassment to corporate headquarters, Video Only hired a private investigator to investigate Gonazles' background and character without notice or written authorization.
15. The effect of the practices complained of in paragraphs 11 through 14 have been to deprive Lewis and Gonzales of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees, terms of conditions of employment and terms of conditions of their contractual relationship with Video Only.
VI. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELEIF (Discrimination under Title VII and ORS 659A.O3O(b)) 16. Plaintiffs-Intervenors reallege paragraphs 1-15. 17. By the conduct set forth above, Video Only committed unlawful discrimination in violation of Title VII and ORS 659A.O3O(b).
VII. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Retaliation under Title VII and ORS 659A.O30(f))
18. Plaintiffs-Intervenors reallege paragraphs 1-17.
19. By the conduct set forth above, Video Only committed unlawful retaliation in violation of Title VII and ORS 659A.O30(f).
Page 4 - COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFFS-INTERVENORS

VIII. THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Violations of 42 USC 5 1981)
20. Plaintiffs-Intervenors reallege paragraphs 1-19.

2 1. By the harassment and retaliation set forth above, Video Only has violated
Plaintiffs-Intervenorsright to "make and enforce contracts . . . as is enjoyed by white citizens."

42 USC 1981(a).

IX. FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Civil Liability for Willful Violation of FCRA, 15 USC $1681n)

22. Plaintiffs-Intervenors reallege paragraphs 1-21.

23. By the conduct alleged in paragraphs 12 and 14 Video Only willfully failed to

comply with the permissible purposes and disclosure requirements of sections 604 and 606 of

FCRA. 15 USC $$ 1681b and 1681d.

X. REQUESTS FOR RELIEF

24. Plaintiffs-Intervenors demand relief as follows:

a. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining defendant, its officers,

successors, agents, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it from

engaging in any discriminatory or retaliatory employment practices;

b.

Awarding Gonzales and Lewis all available damages under 42 USC 8

2000e-5(g); 42 USC 5 1981; 42 USC 5 1981a, and ORS 659A.885 including, without limit, lost

back and future wages and benefits, emotional distress, punitive damages, costs and reasonable

attorneys fees in amounts to be determined at trial;

Page 5 - COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFFS-INTERVENORS

c. Awarding Gonzales and Lewis each $1,000.00 plus punitive damages,

costs and reasonable attorneys fees as authorized under 15 U.S.C. § 1681n in amounts to be

determined at trial;

d. Awarding Gonzales and Lewis pre-judgment and post-judgment interest

on all damages awarded; and

e. Awarding Gonzales and Lewis such other relief as this Court deems just

and equitable.

DATED: November 2,2006.

_____/___

V ~ n d r e wM. Altschul, OSB No. 98030 Telephone: (503) 417-0444 Facsimile: (503) 417-0501 Email: andrew@portlandemploymentlaw.com
Attorney for Plaintiffs-Intervenors

Page 6 - COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFFS-INTERVENORS

 
 Case 3:06-cv-01362-KI Document 116 Filed 06/11/08 Page 1 of 22

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF OREGON

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )

COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

and

)

)

MICHAEL GONZALES, JAYSON LEWIS, )

)

Plaintiffs in Intervention )

vs.

)

)

VIDEO ONLY, INC.,

)

)

Defendant.

)

)

Civil Case No. 06-1362-KI OPINION AND ORDER

John F. Stanley Teri L. Healy Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) 909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington 98104-1061

Page 1 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 3:06-cv-01362-KI Document 116 Filed 06/11/08 Page 2 of 22
William R. Tamayo U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 350 Embarcadero Ste. 500 San Francisco, California 94105-1260
Attorneys for Plaintiff Andrew M. Altschul Buchanan Angeli Altschul LLP 321 SW 4th Avenue, Suite 600 Portland, Oregon 97204
Attorney for Plaintiff-Intervenors Clarence M. Belnavis Rachelle Hong Barton Fisher & Phillips LLP 111 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 1250 Portland, Oregon 97204
Attorneys for Defendant
KING, Judge: Plaintiff-intervenors Jayson Lewis and Michael Gonzales allegedly were subjected to
racial, national origin, and religious harassment while working for defendant Video Only, Inc. at its Jantzen Beach store and then were retaliated against when they complained. Plaintiff EEOC alleges claims under Title VII. Lewis and Gonzales allege claims under Title VII, ORS 659A, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Before the court are cross motions for partial summary judgment. For the reasons below, I grant summary judgment to plaintiffs on their retaliation claims and strike the Faragher affirmative defense. I also conclude that Video Only violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act but leave the issue of willfulness for the jury.
Page 2 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 3:06-cv-01362-KI Document 116 Filed 06/11/08 Page 3 of 22
FACTS Michael Gonzales and Jayson Lewis worked at Video Only’s Jantzen Beach store. Peter Edwards is Video Only’s president and owner. James Lothian is general manager. Lothian’s duties include managing the relationships with the company’s attorneys, insuring that the company complies with labor and employment laws, and reviewing new hires. James McGuire, the area manager for Oregon, worked out of the Jantzen Beach store. Cyle Wood was the Jantzen Beach store manager. Lewis and Gonzales both signed employment applications which contained three paragraphs immediately above the signature line. The first of these paragraphs informs the applicant that, pursuant to State and Federal Fair Credit Reporting Act[s], a background investigation may be obtained for employment purposes. The third of these paragraphs authorized Video Only and the investigation service to solicit information, including through the use of personal interviews. The Video Only Employee Handbook contained a section on unlawful harassment which prohibited harassment of all groups protected by law. The policy gave examples of unlawful behavior and told employees to report harassment by confronting the harasser if possible, or giving a written complaint to the employee’s supervisor, any other supervisor, or management personnel. The policy stated that complaints would be investigated, remedial action would be taken and made known to the complaining employee, and the company would not permit retaliation for filing a complaint. The Handbook is given to all new hires but several employees testified in deposition that they only skimmed it.
Page 3 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 3:06-cv-01362-KI Document 116 Filed 06/11/08 Page 4 of 22
On November 1, 2005, Andrew Altschul, attorney for Lewis and Gonzales, sent a letter to Edwards complaining that the two employees were being harassed and discriminated against. The letter detailed numerous specific incidents of harassment by both managers and co-workers on a constant basis.
Within a few days, Edwards summoned McGuire to Edwards’ office in Seattle to discuss the letter. According to Edwards, McGuire was stunned and did not think the charges were true. Edwards told McGuire to review the situation with Cyle Wood and for the two of them to give Edwards a report. Edwards told McGuire that the matter was substantial and could not be ignored. Edwards also told McGuire to keep the issue “under his hat.” McGuire Dep. at 258-59.
McGuire returned to the store and, on Edwards’ instruction, removed from the walls pictures and cartoons which Altschul complained about in his letter.
Four or five days later, McGuire called Edwards and told him that he had considered the letter and thought that there were some things said at the store but that it was all normal sales camaraderie and banter.
Edwards states that within a day or two after speaking to McGuire, Edwards asked Lothian to engage an investigator to wait on standby for use in the investigation of the harassment complaints. Lothian contacted Lynn McKinney, a private investigator who had done some theft investigations for Video Only. Lothian asked McKinney to check out a couple of employees, Lewis and Gonzales, but did not mention that the investigation was in relation to claims of harassment. Lothian intended to have McKinney broaden the investigation later to check into the harassment allegations. Lothian believed that Edwards instructed him to structure
Page 4 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 3:06-cv-01362-KI Document 116 Filed 06/11/08 Page 5 of 22
the investigation in this manner. Edwards denied that he requested a background investigation of Lewis and Gonzales.
Lewis was told by his fiancee that an investigator spoke to her mother to ask if Lewis had ever beaten her. Lewis was told by former coworkers that the investigator came to their workplaces to ask if Lewis had ever sued anybody for race discrimination. Gonzales was told by a former manager and by family members that a private investigator was asking disturbing questions about him. McKinney also ran criminal background checks on the two men.
At about the same time that he hired McKinney, Lothian also retained the Amburgey & Rubin law firm to assist with the investigation of the harassment allegations. The law firm had Lothian call off the McKinney investigation. A lawyer from Video Only called McKinney, told him to “cease and desist,” and told him not to write a report. McKinney never delivered a report, either written or oral, to anyone.
On January 3 and 4, 2006, Lewis and Gonzales filed charges with the EEOC. At the request of Altschul, Video Only temporarily transferred Lewis in mid-January 2006 to the Beaverton store. Altschul requested this transfer only if it would be an undue hardship to Video Only to immediately transfer McGuire and another alleged harassing employee out of the Jantzen Beach store. After a week, Lewis asked to be transferred back to Jantzen Beach and returned there. Video Only’s attorney conducted training sessions on January 31 and February 1, 2006 concerning the procedures for responding to claims of harassment and discrimination. Store managers and sales managers were required to attend. Calista Branesky was named at the training as the point of contact. Her other duties included dealing with employee compensation
Page 5 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 3:06-cv-01362-KI Document 116 Filed 06/11/08 Page 6 of 22
and employee benefits. Branesky was not comfortable handling complaints of discrimination, harassment, or retaliation and intended to refer all of them to Lothian. Prior to this training, the only training on harassment was provided during the 1990s to area managers during general retail management seminars.
The Saturday following the training, McGuire had a meeting with everybody in the Jantzen Beach store and a second meeting with warehouse employees to tell everyone that harassment would not be tolerated and that if anybody felt uncomfortable for any reason to bring it to the attention of one of the local supervisors or to call Lothian or Branesky in Seattle.
On February 10, 2006, Video Only transferred McGuire to the Beaverton store. Edwards does not consider the transfer a form of discipline because Video Only has not yet reached a conclusion on who was the offending party. McGuire earned nearly as much in the Beaverton store as in the Jantzen Beach store and, in hindsight, saw the move as positive.
LEGAL STANDARDS Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). The initial burden is on the moving party to point out the absence of any genuine issue of material fact. Once the initial burden is satisfied, the burden shifts to the opponent to demonstrate through the production of probative evidence that there remains an issue of fact to be tried. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). On a motion for summary judgment, the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Universal Health Services, Inc. v. Thompson, 363 F.3d 1013, 1019 (9th Cir. 2004).
Page 6 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 3:06-cv-01362-KI Document 116 Filed 06/11/08 Page 7 of 22
DISCUSSION I. Retaliation Claims
The EEOC, Gonzales, and Lewis (collectively, “plaintiffs”) jointly seek summary judgment on their retaliation claims alleged under Title VII, ORS 659A, and § 1981. If successful, they ask that damages be awarded by a jury.
Plaintiffs note that Video Only hired an investigator to check into the backgrounds of Gonzales and Lewis after Altschul sent the letter complaining of harassment. Plaintiffs argue that during the first month after receiving the letter, Video Only made no effort to investigate their concerns. Because of the nature of the investigation, plaintiffs contend that they are entitled to summary judgment. According to plaintiffs, the issue is not whether Gonzales and Lewis felt the act was retaliatory or whether Video Only had a pure evil motive. Instead the issue is whether Video Only knowingly or recklessly engaged in conduct that might negatively impact a reasonable worker from coming forward in the future.
Video Only contends that there is a factual issue concerning its motive in hiring the investigator. According to Video Only, it had never investigated a discrimination complaint and decided to hire an investigator to perform the actual investigation with outside counsel guiding the process. Based on incomplete instructions, the investigator started checking the employees’ backgrounds rather than the harassment allegations. Video Only argues that a jury could find that its intent was to investigate the harassment allegations and not retaliate against the employees who came forward.
Title VII prohibits discrimination against an employee “because he has opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice” by Title VII. To establish a Title VII retaliation
Page 7 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 3:06-cv-01362-KI Document 116 Filed 06/11/08 Page 8 of 22
claim, a plaintiff can establish a prima facie case by establishing the following factors: (1) involvement in a protected activity; (2) an adverse employment action; and (3) a causal link between the activity and the employment action. If the plaintiff establishes the prima facie case, the burden shifts as in a disparate treatment case. Stegall v. Citadel Broadcasting Co., 350 F.3d 1061, 1066 (9th Cir. 2003).
Title VII’s anti-retaliation provision “protects an individual not from all retaliation, but from retaliation that produces an injury or harm.” Burlington North. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 52, 67, 126 S. Ct. 2405 (2006). In a retaliation claim, “a plaintiff must show that a reasonable employee would have found the challenged action materially adverse, which in this context means it well might have dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.” Id. at 68 (internal quotation omitted).
Video Only does not dispute for purposes of this motion that Altschul’s November 1, 2005 letter is protected activity or that the background investigation was an adverse employment action. Based on the record before me, I agree. In particular, I conclude that the background investigation would be aggravating to most employees and might dissuade them from complaining about discrimination. The only issue is about the causal link.
This is a very different situation from a typical retaliation claim in which the parties dispute whether an action such as a termination was taken in retaliation for complaining about discrimination. Here, it is undisputed that the only reason Video Only began the background investigation was in response to Altschul’s letter. If Video Only had not received the letter, it would not have retained the investigator. I am unconvinced of the relevance of Video Only’s argument that there is a factual issue on whether it had a retaliatory motive when it ordered the
Page 8 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 3:06-cv-01362-KI Document 116 Filed 06/11/08 Page 9 of 22
investigation or, as it contends, the instructions about beginning the investigation became confused within the corporation. In either case, Video Only ordered the investigation because of Gonzales’ and Lewis’ complaints and for no other reason. In either case, the effect on Gonzales and Lewis is the same. Likewise, the investigation’s likelihood to dissuade others from complaining about discrimination is unchanged by Video Only’s motive.
The causal link here is so clear that it is causing confusion because of the uniqueness of the situation. I conclude as a matter of law that Video Only violated Title VII by retaliating against Gonzales and Lewis when it ordered the background investigation.
Both the state law retaliation claim and the § 1981 retaliation claim are analyzed the same way. ORS 659A.030(1)(f); Surrell v. California Water Service Co., 518 F.3d 1097, 1105 (9th Cir. 2008) (§ 1981); CBOCS West, Inc. v. Humphries, __ U.S. __, 2008 WL 2167860, *4 (May 27, 2008) (§ 1981 encompasses employment-related retaliation claims).
I grant plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and hold that Video Only is liable for the retaliation claims alleged under Title VII, ORS Ch. 659A, and § 1981. The jury will determine the damages at trial. II. Faragher Affirmative Defense
Video Only alleged in its second affirmative defense that plaintiffs’ claims are barred in whole or in part because Video Only exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct any harassing or discriminatory behavior and plaintiffs unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventative or corrective opportunities to avoid harm.
Although an employer can be strictly liable for a supervisor’s harassment under certain circumstances, employers can escape liability if they can prove an affirmative defense first stated
Page 9 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 3:06-cv-01362-KI Document 116 Filed 06/11/08 Page 10 of 22
by the Court in Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998). If no tangible employment action was taken against the employee, the employer may prove the affirmative defense by a preponderance of the evidence by showing: (1) it exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct the harassment; and (2) the employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventative or corrective opportunities or otherwise failed to avoid harm. Hardage v. CBS Broadcasting, Inc., 427 F.3d 1177, 1185, 1188 (9th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 55 (2006). The first prong of the defense requires both preventative and remedial measures. Id. at 1185.
Plaintiffs jointly seek summary judgment dismissing the Faragher affirmative defense.1 Neither Gonzales nor Lewis contend that they suffered a tangible employment action. Moreover, one of the alleged harassers, McGuire, was their supervisor. Thus, the defense is generally available to Video Only.
I must address an evidentiary issue, however. Plaintiffs moved to compel documents resulting from the investigation conducted by the Amburgey & Rubin law firm. I denied the motion to compel based on Video Only’s representation that it would not rely on this investigation to prove the Faragher defense. Because conducting the investigation supports Video Only’s position, my ruling that it could not rely on the investigation means that for purposes of this motion, or the jury trial for that matter, Amburgey & Rubin did not conduct an investigation at all.
1 Plaintiffs confirmed in their reply brief that they are not basing their motion on the second prong of the defense–whether they unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventative or corrective opportunities–because Video Only cannot rely on the defense if it cannot prove the first prong. Page 10 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 3:06-cv-01362-KI Document 116 Filed 06/11/08 Page 11 of 22
A. Prevention of Harassment Plaintiffs contend there is no evidence that Video Only exercised reasonable care to prevent harassment. Although Video Only has a written anti-harassment policy within its Employee Handbook, plaintiffs argue that Video Only did not take any measures to encourage employee or managerial awareness about the policy. Plaintiffs note that no training on the policy was held prior to the present complaints and that many employees and managers testified that they only skimmed the Handbook. Video Only contends that the issue is whether it took reasonable steps to prevent harassment, not whether it could have done more. The company argues that its anti-discrimination policy is thorough and exceeds some policies deemed sufficient by courts. Because the policy is included in its Employee Handbook that is distributed on the first day of work, Video Only contends that the dissemination of the policy is sufficient under Ninth Circuit case law. The company also notes that both Gonzales and Lewis signed acknowledgments that they received the Handbook, had an opportunity to review it, and understood the personnel policies. The content of the Video Only anti-harassment policy is similar to the policy approved in Kohler v. Inter-Tel Technologies, 244 F.3d 1167, 1180 n.10 (9th Cir. 2001). Both policies state that the companies are committed to providing an environment free from harassment and that harassment is a serious offense which subjects offenders to discipline up to and including termination. Both policies set up a complaint procedure with multiple people to choose from to take a report. Both policies state that an investigation will occur and retaliation is prohibited. Video Only’s policy also includes a list of possible harassing conduct. Both companies distribute
Page 11 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 3:06-cv-01362-KI Document 116 Filed 06/11/08 Page 12 of 22
the policies on the first day of work. Plaintiffs point out that the policy in Kohler was distributed separately from the handbook, which included a separate summary of the policy. I see little significance to this difference. Video Only’s policy is not difficult to find in the Employee Handbook and is listed in the table of contents.
I also note that there was no employee training on harassment in Kohler, as was the case at Video Only prior to plaintiffs’ complaints. Kohler affirmed the district court’s summary judgment ruling that the dissemination of the policy established that the employer exercised reasonable care to prevent harassment in the workplace. Id. at 1180. Although training in addition to dissemination of a written policy is preferable, I am unaware of any Ninth Circuit cases requiring training in order to prevail on the Faragher defense. Accordingly, I conclude that Video Only has created a factual issue on whether it exercised reasonable care to prevent the harassment.
B. Correction of the Harassment Plaintiffs also contend there is no evidence that Video Only exercised reasonable care to promptly correct the harassment. They note that Video Only failed to investigate their complaints. Instead, it hired an investigator to look into the background of Gonzales and Lewis. Training held in response to these complaints did not clearly spell out everyone’s role in handling complaints and only select managers were trained. According to plaintiffs, Video Only did not demand that the harassment cease, did not threaten to discipline anyone, and told McGuire to keep the complaints under his hat. Plaintiffs argue that the transfer of McGuire occurred too late to be considered prompt remedial action and was not disciplinary in nature. Plaintiffs characterize Lewis’ temporary transfer, at Lewis’ request, as nonremedial because Video Only
Page 12 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 3:06-cv-01362-KI Document 116 Filed 06/11/08 Page 13 of 22
was unresponsive during the time to Lewis’ inquiries into McGuire’s status at the Jantzen Beach store, resulting in Lewis returning to that store.
Video Only contends that it has raised a factual issue that it exercised reasonable care to promptly correct the harassment. It argues that after the training, managers understood their roles in responding to new complaints of harassment. In specific response to the complaints alleged by Gonzales and Lewis, Video Only notes that Edwards summoned McGuire to Seattle to discuss the matter the day after receiving the letter. Edwards asked Lothian to hire an investigator, get legal counsel, and initiate an investigation. After the initial investigator went off-track, Amburgey & Rubin instructed the investigator to cease work. McGuire removed any questionable material from the store, Lewis was temporarily transferred at his request, McGuire implemented the training in the Jantzen Beach store, and McGuire was demoted and transferred. Video Only argues that the Ninth Circuit does not absolutely require an investigation because the sufficiency of the remedial steps are the important issue. It notes that some of the above conduct was an internal investigation and that the response was reasonably prompt.
The parties dispute whether an investigation into the harassment allegations is a requirement for the Faragher defense. Over a strong dissent, the Ninth Circuit stated:
In Swenson v. Potter, 271 F.3d 1184 (9th Cir. 2001), we explained that “[n]otice of the sexually harassing conduct triggers an employer’s duty to take prompt corrective action that is ‘reasonably calculated to end the harassment.’” Id. at 1192 (citations omitted). “The reasonableness of the remedy depends on its ability to: (1) ‘stop harassment by the person who engaged in harassment;’ and (2) ‘persuade potential harassers to refrain from unlawful conduct.’” Nichols, 256 F.3d at 875. Although an “investigation is a key step,” Swenson, 271 F.3d at 1193, we “consider the overall picture” to determine whether the employer’s response was appropriate. Id. at 1197.
Page 13 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 3:06-cv-01362-KI Document 116 Filed 06/11/08 Page 14 of 22
Hardage, 427 F.3d at 1186. Hardage held that the employer was properly granted summary judgment in its favor, based on the Faragher defense, when the employer conducted no investigation at the express request of the complaining employee. Id. at 1188. Thus, although an investigation is a key step, it is not absolutely required.
The appellate court in Nichols v. Azteca Restaurant Enterprises, Inc., 256 F.3d 864 (9th Cir. 2001), reversed the trial court’s finding for defendant after a bench trial. Nichols held that the employer did not exercise reasonable care to promptly correct the harassment. Id. at 877. The employer “made no effort to investigate [plaintiff’s] complaint; it did not discuss his allegations with the perpetrators; it did not demand that the unwelcome conduct cease; and it did not threaten more serious discipline in the event the harassment continued.” Id. at 876. The human resources director told the plaintiff to report if offensive conduct recurred. The director also conducted a handful of spot checks during the two weeks after plaintiff’s complaint. The court characterized this as placing “virtually all of its remedial burden on the victimized employee.” Id.
Video Only took the following steps to correct the harassment. Edwards immediately summoned McGuire, the highest level manager at the Jantzen Beach store, to come to Seattle to respond to the allegations in Altschul’s letter. McGuire immediately removed pictures and cartoons objected to in the letter. After two and one half months, Lewis was temporarily transferred to another store. Lewis requested the transfer because the work environment was still unacceptable to him. After three months, Video Only held a training for managers at Jantzen Beach. McGuire followed this up with a brief meeting for all employees at the store to state that harassment was unacceptable and to explain the complaint mechanism. After three and one half
Page 14 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 3:06-cv-01362-KI Document 116 Filed 06/11/08 Page 15 of 22
months, Video Only transferred McGuire to the Beaverton store. There is a factual issue on whether the transfer was a demotion. Although McGuire’s title was reduced, his earnings were nearly the same.
Video Only also engaged, or failed to engage, in conduct which weighs against its argument that it exercised reasonable care to promptly correct the harassment. Other than talking to McGuire, Video Only did no further investigation into the problem. It did not talk to other alleged harassers. It did not talk to the victims to gain additional details. Instead, it began a background investigation of the victims which I held to be retaliatory as a matter of law. There is no evidence that demands were made to individual harassers that they stop the behavior or face serious discipline. There is no evidence that anyone was disciplined at all, other than possibly McGuire, who looks back at his transfer as a positive move. Video Only failed in many of the same respects as the employer in Nichols.
In addition, most of the positive actions Video Only took were delayed three months. The company cites Dhyne v. Meiners Thriftway, Inc., 184 F.3d 983 (8th Cir. 1999), to argue that a two-month delay does not foreclose the Faragher defense because the actions were not prompt enough. Id. at 988 (in affirming trial court’s denial of judgment as a matter of law on harassment claim, appellate court held that a reasonable jury could find that employer should not have delayed two months before taking effective action or bringing complaints to higher management). I first note that Video Only’s three month delay is fifty percent longer than the two-month delay in Dhyne. Further, even if Video Only was not sure who was responsible for the harassment, the pictures and cartoons that McGuire removed demonstrated that training was necessary. The record provides no reason for a three-month delay in holding a training.
Page 15 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 3:06-cv-01362-KI Document 116 Filed 06/11/08 Page 16 of 22
Moreover, the more extensive training was only provided to managers and not all employees, who were only spoken to by McGuire at a brief meeting, also delayed three months. Employers who successfully avoided liability have acted much more promptly. See Montero v. AGCO Corp., 192 F.3d 856, 862 (9th Cir. 1999) (within eleven days after plaintiff’s complaint of harassment, corporate managers flew from Illinois to California, investigated the complaint, terminated one harasser, and formally disciplined two others).
After considering the overall picture, I conclude that Video Only has not raised a factual issue that it exercised reasonable care in promptly correcting the harassment. Consequently, it cannot avoid liability through the Faragher defense. I grant plaintiffs’ motion and strike the defense. III. Fair Credit Reporting Act Claim
Gonzales and Lewis allege that Video Only violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) by willfully failing to comply with the permissible purposes and disclosure requirements of sections 604 and 606 of the Act, 15 U.S.C. §§1681b and 1681d. More specifically, plaintiffs contend in their motion that Video Only willfully violated the FCRA by attempting to procure a consumer report and investigative consumer report for an improper purpose, without proper disclosure, and under false pretenses. The parties filed cross motions for summary judgment on the claim. If plaintiffs prevail, they ask that actual damages, statutory damages, and punitive damages be determined at trial.
Plaintiffs argue that Video Only hired a private investigator, McKinney, to conduct background checks of Gonzales and Lewis immediately after receiving their counsel’s letter complaining of harassment. Because McKinney used personal interviews to obtain information,
Page 16 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 3:06-cv-01362-KI Document 116 Filed 06/11/08 Page 17 of 22
plaintiffs argue that Video Only requested both consumer reports and investigative consumer reports. The only notification plaintiffs had prior to Video Only’s hiring of McKinney was a notice in their signed employment applications that the company might obtain a background investigation and might rely on personal interviews.
Plaintiffs argue that Video Only violated several FCRA requirements: (1) the reports must only be obtained for one of the listed employment purposes; (2) the inquiry may not violate any federal or state law, specifically, that the report was sought in retaliation for reporting the harassment; (3) the reports were commissioned under false pretenses because Video Only did not inform McKinney that plaintiffs had complained about harassment; (4) there was no disclosure in a separate document that a consumer report may be obtained for employment purposes; and (5) the investigative consumer report was not disclosed in writing within three days after the report was first requested. Plaintiffs contend that the disclosure violations are willful, entitling them to punitive damages.
Video Only’s main defense is that McKinney never provided any type of report to Video Only because after he took the initial steps in his investigation, McKinney was told to stop the investigation and not to prepare a report. Video Only contends that the FCRA can only be violated if the company actually uses or obtains a consumer report. It argues that the collection of information does not fall within the definition of a report because, under the statute, a report is something that is furnished by the consumer reporting agency.
Page 17 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 3:06-cv-01362-KI Document 116 Filed 06/11/08 Page 18 of 22
A. The Need for a Completed Report One of Congress’s stated findings supporting enactment of the FCRA is that “[t]here is a need to insure that consumer reporting agencies exercise their grave responsibilities with fairness, impartiality, and a respect for the consumer’s right to privacy.” 15 U.S.C. § 1681(a)(4). The damage to the privacy right is first inflicted when a person starts gathering data for a consumer report, even if no oral or written report is ever delivered to the requester. That point is underscored by the fact that Lewis and Gonzales were both warned by former employers that someone was asking questions about them. Further, both men started calling other former employers to warn that an investigator was likely to come calling. Lewis was extremely upset by the questions put to his fiancee’s mother. I realize that only one section of the FCRA specifically refers to inquiries:
A consumer reporting agency shall not make an inquiry for the purposes of preparing an investigative consumer report on a consumer for employment purposes if the making of the inquiry by an employer or prospective employer of the consumer would violate any applicable Federal or State equal employment opportunity law or regulation. 15 U.S.C. § 1681d(d)(2). An argument can be made that if inquiries–with no report following–were to violate the Act, Congress would have specified inquires in other sections. I do not believe that this argument outweighs the stated finding supporting the FCRA. Accordingly, I conclude that Video Only can be liable for violations of the FCRA even though it called off the McKinney investigation prior to any report being made. Under the following definitions, Lothian’s general instructions to McKinney would have resulted in both a “consumer report” and an “investigative consumer report” if McKinney’s efforts had not been stopped.
Page 18 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 3:06-cv-01362-KI Document 116 Filed 06/11/08 Page 19 of 22
The term “consumer report” means any written, oral, or other communication of any information by a consumer reporting agency bearing on a consumer’s credit worthiness, credit standing, credit capacity, character, general reputation, personal characteristics, or mode of living, which is used or expected to be used or collected in whole or in part for the purpose of serving as a factor in establishing the consumer’s eligibility for –
(A) credit or insurance to be used primarily for personal, family or household purposes;
(B) employment purposes; or
(C) any other purpose authorized under section 1681b of this title.
15 U.S.C. § 1681a(d).
The term “investigative consumer report” means a consumer report or portion thereof in which information on a consumer’s character, general reputation, personal characteristics, or mode of living is obtained through personal interviews with neighbors, friends, or associates of the consumer reported on or with others with whom he is acquainted or who may have knowledge concerning any such items of information. However, such information shall not include specific factual information on a consumer’s credit record obtained directly from a creditor of the consumer or from a consumer reporting agency when such information was obtained directly from a creditor of the consumer or from the consumer.
15 U.S.C. § 1681a(e). In sum, I conclude no completed report is necessary to violate the FCRA.
B. Violations of the FCRA
Video Only argues that two of the subclaims–that the report violates another law and that
the report was commissioned under false pretenses–were not pleaded or raised in any other
context and should not be considered on summary judgment.
Plaintiffs are not required to plead the precise portions of a statute that were violated, as
long as defendant has fair notice of the factual basis of the claim. Additional specificity can be
sought through discovery devices. See Crull v. GEM Insurance Co., 58 F.3d 1386, 1391 (9th
Page 19 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 3:06-cv-01362-KI Document 116 Filed 06/11/08 Page 20 of 22
Cir. 1995) (pleadings do not need to identify a particular legal theory under which recovery is sought); Mendiondo v. Centinela Hospital Medical Center, 521 F.3d 1097, 1104 (9th Cir. 2008) (plaintiff must give defendant fair notice of the claim and the grounds on which it rests); Skaff v. Meridien North America Beverly Hills, LLC, 506 F.3d 832, 842 (9th Cir. 2007) (discovery can provide specificity on the claims). Plaintiffs’ factual allegations are adequate for the court to consider all portions of the statute which they now argue Video Only violated.
I grant summary judgment of liability that Video Only violated the following sections of the FCRA:
1. 15 § 1681b(b)(2)(A)(I). This section provides that at any time before the report is procured, a disclosure is made in a document that consists solely of the disclosure that a consumer report may be obtained for employment purposes. Video Only disclosed this possibility as part of its job application, which is not a document consisting solely of the disclosure.
2. 15 § 1681d(a)(1)(A). A person may not procure an investigative consumer report unless he discloses to the consumer that this may be done and the disclosure is written and delivered to the consumer not later than three days after the date on which the report was first requested. Video Only did not make this disclosure.
3. 15 § 1681b(a)(3). Video Only did not seek a report for one of the permissible purposes listed in the FCRA. The only purpose which comes close–employment purposes–is defined as a report used to evaluate a consumer for employment, promotion, reassignment, or retention as an employee. 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(h). Lothian did not obtain the report for one of
Page 20 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 3:06-cv-01362-KI Document 116 Filed 06/11/08 Page 21 of 22
these reasons and admits there was no misconduct on the part of Lewis or Gonzalez, one of the exclusions under 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(x).
4. An additional violation for obtaining a consumer report under false pretenses for failing to disclose the impermissible purpose for which the report is desired. Hansen v. Morgan, 582 F.2d 1214, 1219-20 (9th Cir. 1978) (interpreting 15 U.S.C. § 1681q).
In defense of the false pretenses subclaim, Video Only argues that it did not mislead McKinney by telling him its motivation was due to one reason when it was really another. Instead, Video Only contends that it initiated its discrimination investigation by investigating plaintiffs’ backgrounds. This point is not relevant to the analysis described in Hansen, however, which considers the statutory permissible purposes and not the underlying motive.
I do not find that Video Only violated 15 U.S.C. § 1681d(d)(2), which states: A consumer reporting agency shall not make an inquiry for the purpose of
preparing an investigative consumer report on a consumer for employment purposes if the making of the inquiry by an employer or prospective employer of the consumer would violate any applicable Federal or State equal employment opportunity law or regulation. I interpret this section to allow for liability against only the consumer reporting agency, McKinney here, and not against Video Only. I grant Video Only’s motion and dismiss this section of plaintiffs’ claim. The jury will be deciding the damages for these violations. I cannot say as a matter of law that Video Only acted willfully, as it is defined by the FCRA, and leave the issue for the jury.
Page 21 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 3:06-cv-01362-KI Document 116 Filed 06/11/08 Page 22 of 22

CONCLUSION

Plaintiffs’ Joint Motion for Summary Judgment on Defendant’s Second Affirmative

Defense (#67) is granted. Plaintiff-Intervenors’ Motion for Summary Judgment on their Fair

Credit Reporting Act Claim (#72) is granted in part. Plaintiffs’ Joint Motion for Summary

Judgment on their Claims of Retaliation (#74) is granted. Defendant Video Only’s Motion for

Partial Summary Judgment (#79) is granted in part and denied in part.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated this 11th

day of June, 2008.

/s/ Garr M. King Garr M. King United States District Judge

Page 22 - OPINION AND ORDER

 
 Case 3:06-cv-01362-KI Document 120 Filed 07/30/08 Page 1 of 12

WILLIAM TAMAYO, REGIONAL ATTORNEY U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION SAN FRANCISCO DISTRICT 350 THE EMBARCADERO, SUITE 500 SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94105-1260

Fll.&08Jll

'Yl1
..:N

363s~'OO'

JOHN F. STANLEY, SUPERVISORY TRIAL ATTORNEY TERI HEALY, SENIOR TRIAL ATIORNEY U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 909 FIRST AVENUE, SUITE 400 SEATTLE, WA 98104 ten .healy@eeoc.gov Tel: (206) 220-6915 Fax: (206) 220-6911

ATTORNEYSFOR PLAINTIFF EEOC

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

COMMISSION

CIVIL ACTION NO. CV 06-1362-KI

Plaintiff, v.

t

CONSENT DECREE

VIDEO ONLY, INC. Defendant.

EEOC v. VIDEO ONLY, INC. [PROPOSED] CONSENT DECREE Page 1
- I-

EQUA.U;MI'LOYMENT OI'I'ORTUNITYCOMMISSION
Sunlt Fld. om..
9t9 .'rst Avt'nve, SUife 4G8 sumo, Wasbl.E1•• 98104-1061
Tri<pboeo; (206) UQ.6885 Facil..U.: (206) 120-6911 TDD: (206) UQ.688Z

Case 3:06-cv-01362-KI Document 120 Filed 07/30/08 Page 2 of 12
I. INTRODUCTION 1. This action originated with discrimination Charge Nos 380-2006-00466 and 3802006-00465, filed by Jayson Lewis and Michael Gonzales with the EEOC on January 3 and 4, 2006. Lewis and Gonzales alleged that Video Only, Inc. ("Video Only") discriminated on the basis ofrace, national origin and religion by subjecting them to harassment, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.c. § 2000e etseq. In addition, Lewis and Gonzales alleged that Video Only retaliated against them when they complained about harassment, in violation of Section 704 of Title VII, 42 USC § 2000e-3. Video Only denied the aIIegations of discrimination, harassment and retaliation. 2. The EEOC issued a letter of determination on July 18, 2006 with a finding of reasonable cause to believe that Video Only violated Title VII by subjecting Lewis and Gonzales to a hostile work environment because of their race, national origin, religion,and by retaliating against Lewis and Gonzales for complaining about the harassment. 3. The EEOC filed this lawsuit on September 26,2006 in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, on behalf of Jayson Lewis and Michael Gonzales based on race, national origin, religion and retaliation. On November 6, 2006, Jayson Lewis and Michael Gonzales' unopposed motion to intervene was granted by the court.

EEOC v. VIDEO ONLY, INC. [PROPOSEDI CONSENT DECREE Page 2
-2-

~QUAI. EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITYCOMMISSION
SeoUle Aeld om..
909 FIrst Avenu.. Suite 400 Suttl.. W IDgt.. 98104-1061
Te'.ph : (lot) ZZ~1l85 F••oII1lU.: (l06) ZZ0..(;911
TDD: (206) ZZo-61l8l

Case 3:06-cv-01362-KI Document 120 Filed 07/30/08 Page 3 of 12

4. On June 11,2008, the court granted Plaintiffs' motion for summaryjudgment finding that Defendants retaliated against Jayson Lewis and Michael Gonzales after they complained about harassment and that Video Only had violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
5. The parties want to conclude fully and finally Jayson Lewis and Michaels Gonzales' claims arising out of the EEOC's complaint, its Letters of Determination, and the charges of discrimination filed with the EEOC. The EEOC and Video Only enter into this Consent Decree to further the objectives of equal employment opportunity as set forth in Title VII.
II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 6. 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(t)(1) and (3) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.c. §§ 2000e-5(t)(I) and (3), Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.c. §1981a, and Section 704 of Title VII, 42 USC § 2000e-3. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful in the EEOC's complaint filed herein occurred within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the District of Oregon.
III. SETTLEMENT SCOPE 7. This Consent Decree is the final and complete resolution of all Title VII allegations of unlawful employment practices contained in the EEOC's complaint, including all

EEOC v. VIDEO ONLY, INC. (PROPOSED) CONSENT DECREE Page 3
-3-

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITYCOMMISSION
Seattl. Fjold 0flI..
909 Finl "'..ue, SullO 400 Scalll.. Wubln!ltoo 9111.04-106.1
Tot.plton.: (2061110-61185 F...lnliI.: (106P2~11
TDD: (206) 210.a81

Case 3:06-cv-01362-KI Document 120 Filed 07/30/08 Page 4 of 12
claims by the parties for attorney fees and costs. The Consent Decree resolves all issues and claims arising out of the EEOC's complaint, and is binding and final as to all such issues and claims.
IV. MONETARY RELIEF
8. Video Only agrees to pay a total of $630,000 to resolve the lawsuit EEOC filed
based on charges filed by Jayson LewiS and Michael Gonzales and Civil Case No. 08-0122 based on two charges filed by Travis Herron and Dave Guralnick. Payment will be made within ten (10) days of the date of entry of this Consent Decree. Payment shall be effected by sending, via certified mail, a settlement check to addresses to be provided, with copies to the EEOC.
VI. INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER RELIEF A General Provisions 9. Video Only, its officers, agents, managers, assistant managers and other supervisors shall comply with Title VII. To further this commitment Video Only shall monitor the affirmative obligations of this Consent Decree. 10. Video Only, its officers, agents, managers, assistant managers and other supervisors are further enjoined from retaliating against any applicant or employee for opposing a practice deemed unlawful by Title VII or for making a charge, testifYing, assisting, or participating in any investigation, proceeding, or hearing associated with this action. In

EEOC v. VIDEO ONLY, INC. (PROPOSED] CONSENT DECREE Page. 4
-4-

EQUAl. EMPLOYMENT OrrORTUNITYCOMMI$.SION
Seattle Fiel~ om..
909 Flnl Anneo; Sull. AGO seoUl., W••hill/llOU 98104-1061
Tolepho••: (206.l22~ F...lmU.: (206) 220-6911
Tl)D: (206) 220.6582

Case 3:06-cv-01362-KI Document 120 Filed 07/30/08 Page 5 of 12
recognition of obligations under Title VII, Video Only shall institute the policies and practices set forth below at its facilities.
B. Anti-Discrimination Polices and Procedures 11. Video Only shall carry out anti-discrimination policies, procedures and training for employees, supervisors and management personnel and shall provide equal employment opportunities for all employees consistent with its obligations under the law. Video Only shall ensure that the practices of its managers and supervisors are consistent with the obligations of this paragraph, and compliance with Video Only policies will be considered in the performance evaluations of management personnel. 12. Within sixty (60) days of the date Qfthe effective date of this Consent Decree, Video Only shall provide to the EEOC: (a) an EEO policy which addresses Video Only's obligation to provide a work environment free of harassment, discrimination, and retaliation for its employees, states its commitment not to retaliate against any employee for engaging in protected EEO activity, and provides contact information for the individual within the company responsible for handling harassment, discrimination and retaliation complaints; and (b) confirmation that it distributed its EEO policy to all present employees and will distribute it to all future employees, both management and non-management, for the duration of this Decree.

EEOCv. VIDEO ONLY, INC. [PROPOSED] CONSENT DECREE PageS
-5-

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT
OPPORTUNITYCOMMISSION
~.nl. F1<!d om••
9.' .F1nt A\'enue. Suire 480
seamo, W"bID~ •• 98104-1061
Tcloph•••: (106) 2:l0-4ll8S F.<SlmU.: (106) U0-6911
roD: (106) UlHiIB1

Case 3:06-cv-01362-KI Document 120 Filed 07/30/08 Page 6 of 12

C. Training 13. Within ninety (90) days of the execution of this Consent Decree, VideQ Only shall present to all Southcenter and all Oregon employees, managers, assistant managers, and supervisors, no less than four (4) hours of face-to-face training by a qualified trainer on harassment, employment discrimination, and retaliation for engaging in protected EEO activity. The EEOC shall have the opportunity to view the training materials prior to the training date. Annually thereafter, Video Only shall require: (I) all Southcenter and all Oregon employees, managers, assistant managers and supervisors, and corporate headquarters personnel, to complete four (4) hours offace-ta-face training by a qualified trainer on harassment, employment discrimination and retaliation. D. Reference Requests 14. Video Only is enjoined from disclosing any information about, or making reference to, any charge of discrimination that is the subject of this lawsuit in responding to employment reference requests for information about the recipients of settlement funds named by the EEOC. Rather, it shall provide only the employment dates and position title in response to reference requests for those named individuals. E. Policies Designed to Promote Supervisor Accountability 15. Video Only shall advise all managers and supervisors of their duty to ensure compliance with its EEO policies, and to report any incident or complaint of harassment,

EEOC v. VIDF;O ONLY, INC. IPROPOSF;DJ CONSF;NT DECREE Page 6
-6-

EQlIAL EMPWVM[~T OPPOIlTUNITYCOMMISSION
S..ttl. F1cld om••
llO9 First AVOllU., Sull.400 StaId.. Wasblogtoil 98104-1061
Y"'pbOil': (20612Z<HiI.S ~·••,lmU.: (ZII612Z<Hi9l1
TDD: (Z06121o-6ll82

Case 3:06-cv-01362-KI Document 120 Filed 07/30/08 Page 7 of 12
discrimination, or retaliation, of which they bec<>me aware. Video Only shall also advise all managers and supervisors that if a manager or supervisor violates Video Ohly's EEO policies, he/she may be subject to discipline up to and including tennination and compensation may be affected.
16. Video Only agrees that it shall include "commitment to equal employment opportunity" or similar designation as a criterion for promotion to, or evaluation of, supervisory positions.
17. Video Only agrees to designate a specific individual who will respond to all complaints or inquiries of harassment, discrimination and/or retaliation. This individual shall be listed on Video Only's EEO policy distributed to all employees, as stated in Paragraph 12 above, along with a direct contact number for this individual. Video Only agrees that the designee named pursuant to this paragraph shall attend training, separate from the trainiIig provided for in paragraph 13, that describes proper complaint handling procedures and processes. This training shall occur annually for the life of this consent decree and shall last at least 4 hours.
F. Reporting 18. Video Only shall report in declaration form to the EEOC beginning six (6) months from the date of the entry of this Decree, and thereafter every twelve months for the duration of the decree the following infonnation:

EEOC v. VIDEO ONLY, INC.
[PROPOSED) CONSENT DECREE Page 7
- 7-

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OrPORTUNITYCOMMISSION
s..tt1. Fldd om..
.H9 F1m Ave-u., Suite 0100 Soan1<; Wuhl_g1•• 91104-106\
T.lepllo••: (206) 110-6885
Fo..IIDU": li06) zz_11
TDD: (106) 110-61181

Case 3:06-cv-01362-KI Document 120 Filed 07/30/08 Page 8 of 12

a. Certification of the completion of training and list of attendees set forth in Paragraphs 13 and 17 above, and a list of all attendees including job titles. b. Certification that its EEO policy has been sent to all current and newly hired employees as described in Paragraph 12 above. c. A copy of its EEO policy and a list of any changes, modifications, revocations or revisions to its EEO policies and procedures which concern or affect the subject of discrimination and retaliation; and d. A summary of all harassment, discrimination and retaliation complaints, if any, filed by employees, identified by name, and the resolution of each complaint. G. Posting 19. Video Only shall post a Notice, attached as Exhibit I to this Consent Decree. The Notice shall be posted at all Southcenter and Oregon Video Only facilities on a centrally located bulletin board or other place where such notices are normally posted and read by employees for the duration of the Consent Decree.
VII. ENFORCEMENT 20. If the EEOC determines that Video Only has not complied with the terms of this Decree, the EEOC shall provide written notification of the alleged breach to Video Only. The EEOC shall not petition the Court for enforcement of the Decree for at least thirty (30) days after providing written notification of the alleged breach. The 30-day period following the written

EEOC v. VIDEO ONLV, INC. (PROPOSED) CONSENT DECREE Page 8
·8·

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPQRTUNITYCOMMISSION
SUttI.F1e1.OIll« 'lO'lFint Ave.u.. Suit. 400 Se<ll~". W..~blKfO. 98104-1061 TeIoph...: (J06H2l1-688S FuslmD.:(106) 220-6911
TDD: (106) 2JlHU1

Case 3:06-cv-01362-KI Document 120 Filed 07/30/08 Page 9 of 12
notice shall be used by the parties for good faith efforts to resolve the dispute, or for Video Only to cure the breach. In those cases where it would take longer than thirty (30) days to cute the breach, Video Only may have such additional time as may be necessary by agreement with the EEOC so long as Video Only takes all reasonable efforts to cure the breach within the thirty (30) day period.
VIII. RETENTION OF JURISDICTION 21. The United States District Court for the District of Oregon shall retain jurisdiction over this matter for the duration of the Decree.
IX. DURATION AND TERMINATION 22. This Decree shall be in effect for three (3) years from the date the Court enters this Decree. If the EEOC petitions the Court for breach ofthe Decree, and the Court finds Video Only to be in violation of the terms of the Decree, the Court may extend the duration of the Decree.
X. CONCLUSION 23. The parties are not bound by any provision of this decree until it is signed by authorized representatives of each party and is entered by the Court.

EEOC v. VIDEO ONLY. INC.
(PROPOSED] CONSENT DECREE Page 9
·9-

EQUAL EMPLO'I'ME1\,. OPPORTUNITYCOMMISSION
Sealtle Reldorn.. _ Flnt A....... Suite 400 Seattl., W..lUDlllOa 98184-1061 ·T.lep~n.: (%06) Z1O-<I1I8S
F...hnJl.: (Z061 UH91 I TDD: (ZG6) UG-68lIZ

Case 3:06-cv-01362-KI Document 120 Filed 07/30/08 Page 10 of 12

Dated this 221h day of July 2008.
BY: Is/William Tamayo
WILLIAM TAMAYO Regional Attorney San Francisco District Office 350 The Embarcadero, Suite 500 San Francisco, California 94105-1260
JOHN F. STANLEY Supervisory Trial Attorney TERIHEALY Sr. Trial Attorney Seattle Field Office 909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington 98104 Ph. (206) 220-6916 Fax (206) 220-6911 Tcri.Healy(ti'EEOC.gov Attorneys for Plaintiff EEOC
BY: Is/ David G. Hosenpud
David G. Hosenpud LAN POWELL, PC 621 SW 2nd Ave., Suite 2100 Portland, OR 97204 Phone: (503) 778-2141 Fax: (503) 778-2200 Email: hosenpudd@lanepowell.com Attorneys for Defendant
EEOC v. VIDEO ONLY, INC. [PROPOSED) CONSENT DECREE Palte 10
- 10-

EQUAL EMPWVMENT OPPORTUNITYCOMMISSION
Seattle Field Olllc. 909 Fint AvaDU" Sull. 40.0 Seattle; WUhlal\OD 91104-1061 ToIapho." (2116) 22006l1&.~
Faaimilo: (-1116) ZZ0,6911 TOP: (;lG6) 228-4112

Case 3:06-cv-01362-KI Document 120 Filed 07/30/08 Page 11 of 12
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
This notice is posted pursuant to a Consent Decree entered by the Court in the District of Oregon, in the case EEOC v. Video Only, Inc., 06-1362Kl, alleging that Video Only, Inc. ("Video Only") violated Title VII when it subjected two employees to a hostile work environment based on their race, national origin, and religion and then retaliated against them for complaining about the harassment which the company denies. The Consent Decree enjoins the company from certain conduct prohibited by law. Under the terms of the Decree, the company will enforce its anti-discrimination policies and procedures in its workforce. The company will also provide anti-discrimination and harassment training to its employees. The company will also provide reports to EEOC on its compliance with the terms of the consent decree. Video Only has agreed to provide monetary relief to the individuals in this lawsuit.
Federal law prohibits an employer from discriminating ag~inst any individual based on the individual's race, national origin and religion with respect to hiring, promotion, demotion, terms and conditions of employment, and/or termination. Federal law also prohibits an employer from allowing any employee to be harassed based on these bases. It is also unlawful for an employer to retaliate against any individual because he or she complains of discrimination or harassment,cooperates with the investigation ofa discrimination or harassment charge by Video Only or a government agency, participates as a witness or potential witness in any investigation or legal proceeding, or otherwise exercises his or her rights under the law. Any employee who is found to have retaliated against any other employee because such employee participated in this lawsuit will be subject to substantial discipline, up to and including immediate discharge. Should you have any complaints ofdiscrimination or retaliation, you should contact your supervisor or any upper level management individual. They can be reached at 503-2~3-3400. Employees have the right to bring complaints of discrimination, harassment and/or retaliation to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Seattle Field Office at 909 151 Avenue, Suite 400, Seattle, WA 98104-1061, 206/220-6885, 1-800-699-4000, and/or the Washington State Human Rights Commission at 711 South Capitol Way, Suite 4()2, Olympia, WA 98504, 800/233-3247, and/or the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries 800 NE Oregon St., Suite 1045, Portland, Or 97232, 971-6730762. Employees or applicants may also contact Video Only, Inc. at 206-444-1655 to report harassment, discrimination or retaliation.

Case 3:06-cv-01362-KI Document 120 Filed 07/30/08 Page 12 of 12
ORDER APPROVING CONSENT DECREE
The Court, having considered the foregoing stipulated agreement of the parties, HEREBY ORDERS THAT the foregoing Consent Decree be, and the same hereby is, approved as the final decree of this Court in full settlement ofthis action. This lawsuit is hereby dismissed with prejudice and without costs or attorneys' fees to the defendant Video Only, Inc. or to the plaintiff, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The Court retains jurisdiction of this matter for purposes of enforcing the Consent Decree approved herein.

 
 6/6/2017

District of Oregon CM/ECF LIVE Release Version 6.1
FRC, PROTECTIVE ORD, TERMINATED,
U.S. District Court District of Oregon (Portland (3)) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:06-cv-01362-KI

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission et al v. Video Only, Inc. Assigned to: Judge Garr M. King Cause: 28:451 Employment Discrimination

Date Filed: 09/25/2006 Date Terminated: 07/30/2008 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Employment Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by John F. Stanley Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) 909 First Avenue Suite 400 Seattle, WA 98104-1061 (206) 220-6896 Fax: (206) 220-6911 Email: john.stanley@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Teri L. Healy Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) 909 First Avenue Suite 400 Seattle, WA 98104 (206)220-6916 Fax: (206) 220-6911 Email: teri.healy@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kathryn Blaire Olson Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) 909 First Avenue Suite 400 Seattle, WA 98104-1061 (206) 220-6895 Fax: (206) 220-6869 Email: Kathryn.olson@eeoc.gov TERMINATED: 05/29/2007

https://ecf.ord.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?102880616910114-L_1_0-1

William R. Tamayo U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
1/14

6/6/2017

District of Oregon CM/ECF LIVE Release Version 6.1
450 Golden Gate Ave. 5th Floor West PO Box 36025 San Francisco, CA 94102-3661 415-522-3366 Fax: 415-522-3425 Email: william.tamayo@eeoc.gov

V. Intervenor Plaintiff Michael Gonzales TERMINATED: 08/13/2008
Intervenor Plaintiff Jayson Lewis TERMINATED: 08/13/2008

represented by Andrew M. Altschul Buchanan Angeli Altschul & Sullivan LLP 321 SW 4th Avenue Suite 600 Portland, OR 97204 503-974-5015 Fax: 971-230-0337 Email: andrew@baaslaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrew M. Altschul (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Video Only, Inc.
https://ecf.ord.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?102880616910114-L_1_0-1

represented by Clarence M. Belnavis Fisher & Phillips, LLP 111 S.W. Fifth Avenue Suite 4040 Portland, OR 97204 503-242-4262 Fax: 503-242-4263 Email: cbelnavis@laborlawyers.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sharon Bolesky Buchanan Angeli Altschul & Sullivan, LLP 321 S.W. 4th Avenue Suite 600 Portland, OR 97204 503-974-5015 Fax: 971-230-0337 Email: sharon@baaslaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
2/14

6/6/2017

District of Oregon CM/ECF LIVE Release Version 6.1
David G. Hosenpud Lane Powell, PC 601 SW Second Avenue Suite 2100 Portland, OR 97204-3158 503-778-2100 Fax: 503-778-2200 Email: hosenpudd@lanepowell.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rachelle K.H. Barton Fisher & Phillips, LLP 111 S.W. Fifth Avenue Suite 4040 Portland, OR 97204 (503) 242-4262, ext. 18 Fax: (503) 242-4263 Email: rbarton@laborlawyers.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sean M. Driscoll Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart P.C. 222 SW Columbia Street Suite 1500 Portland, OR 97201 503-552-2140 Fax: 503-224-4518 Email: sean.driscoll@ogletreedeakins.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 09/25/2006 09/25/2006
10/25/2006 10/27/2006 11/02/2006 12/01/2006

# Docket Text
1 Complaint. Summons issued as to Video Only, Inc., c/o David Buchanan, Registered Agent. Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against Video Only, Inc.. (eo) (Entered: 09/26/2006)
2 Discovery and Pretrial Scheduling Order and Notice of Case Assignment to the Honorable Garr M. King. Discovery is to be completed by 1/23/2007. Joint Alternate Dispute Resolution Report is due by 2/22/2007. Pretrial Order is due by 2/22/2007. Ordered by Judge Garr M. King. (eo) (Entered: 09/26/2006)
3 Unopposed Motion to Intervene. Filed by Michael Gonzales, Jayson Lewis. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A) (Altschul, Andrew) (Entered: 10/25/2006)
4 ORDER - Granting Plaintiffs-Intervenors Unopposed Motion to Intervene 3 . PlaintiffIntervenors shall separately ﬁle their Complaint within 10 days. Ordered by Judge Garr M. King. (mja) (Entered: 10/27/2006)
5 Intervener Complaint.Filed by Michael Gonzales, Jayson Lewis against Video Only, Inc.. (pvh) (Entered: 11/06/2006)
6 Answer to Complaint by the EEOC. Filed by Video Only, Inc.. (Belnavis, Clarence) (Entered: 12/01/2006)

https://ecf.ord.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?102880616910114-L_1_0-1

3/14

6/6/2017
12/01/2006 01/03/2007
01/05/2007 05/03/2007 05/08/2007
05/14/2007
05/14/2007 05/18/2007 05/18/2007 05/18/2007 05/18/2007 05/18/2007

District of Oregon CM/ECF LIVE Release Version 6.1
7 Answer to Intervener Complaint. Filed by Video Only, Inc.. (Belnavis, Clarence) (Entered: 12/01/2006)
8 Scheduling Order by Garr M. King. Order - Granting the parties' letter request to extend case schedule as follows: Discovery is to be completed by 5/31/2007. Dispositive Motions are due by 6/7/2007. Setting a Telephone Rule 16 Conference is set for 5/15/2007 at 09:30AM. The court will initiate the call to the following parties: Teri L. Healy (206)220-6916, Kathryn Blaire Olson (206) 220-6895, Rachelle K.H. Barton (503) 242-4262, ext. 18, Clarence M. Belnavis (503) 242-4262, and Andrew M. Altschul (503)417-0444. Ordered by Judge Garr M. King. (mja) (Entered: 01/03/2007)
9 Scheduling Order by Garr M. King. Order - The Pretrial Order is due by 7/6/2007. Ordered by Judge Garr M. King. (mja) (Entered: 01/05/2007)
10 Joint Motion for Extension of Discovery & PTO Deadlines Stipulated Joint Motion to Extend Discovery and all Pretrial Deadlines. Filed by all defendants. (Belnavis, Clarence) (Entered: 05/03/2007)
11 Scheduling Order by Garr M. King. Order - Due to a conﬂict in the court's schedule, the court is resetting the Telephone Rule 16 Conference from 5/15/2007 to 5/14/2007 at 02:00PM. The court will initiate the call to the following parties: Teri L. Healy (206)2206916, Kathryn Blaire Olson (206) 220-6895, Rachelle K.H. Barton (503) 242-4262, ext. 18, Clarence M. Belnavis (503) 242-4262, and Andrew M. Altschul (503)417-0444. Ordered by Judge Garr M. King. (mja) (Entered: 05/08/2007)
12 MINUTES of Telephone Conference: Order - The parties' Joint Motion to Extend Discovery and all Pretrial Deadlines 10 is GRANTED as follows: Discovery to be completed by 9/28/2007. Dispositive Motions are due by 10/29/2007. Plaintiff shall designate the names of experts by 10/15/2007. Defendant shall designate the names of experts by 10/31/2007. The parties shall exchange Expert Reports 2/8/2008. Pretrial Order is waived. Setting a Pretrial Conference for 2/11/2008 at 1:30PM in Portland, Courtroom 9A, before Judge Garr M. King. Setting a 4-day Jury Trial for 2/19/2008 at 9:00AM in Portland, Courtroom 9A, before Judge Garr M. King. Teri Healy present as counsel for plaintiff(s). Rachelle K.H. Barton and Clarence m. Belnavis present as counsel for defendant(s). Andrew Altschul present as counsel for intervenor plaintiff. Court Reporter: Nancy Walker. Garr M. King presiding. (mja) (Entered: 05/15/2007)
13 Trial Management Order. Signed on 05/14/07 by Judge Garr M. King. (pvh) (Entered: 05/15/2007)
14 Joint Motion to Compel. Filed by Michael Gonzales, Jayson Lewis. (Altschul, Andrew) (Entered: 05/18/2007)
15 Joint Motion to Compel Investigation Materials or Alternatively Motion for Partial Summary Judgment On Defendant's Second Afﬁrmative Defense. Oral Argumentrequested Filed by Michael Gonzales, Jayson Lewis. (Altschul, Andrew) (Entered: 05/18/2007)
16 Joint Memorandum in Support Motion to Compel. Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Related document(s): Motion to compel 14 .) (Healy, Teri) (Entered: 05/18/2007)
17 Joint Memorandum in Support Investigation Materials or Alternatively Motion for Partial Summary Judgment On Defendant's Second Afﬁrmative Defense. Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Related document(s): Motion to compel 15 .) (Healy, Teri) (Entered: 05/18/2007)
18 Declaration of Teri L. Healy IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS JOINT MOTION TO COMPEL AND PLAINTIFFS JOINT MOTION TO COMPEL INVESTIGATION

https://ecf.ord.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?102880616910114-L_1_0-1

4/14

6/6/2017

District of Oregon CM/ECF LIVE Release Version 6.1
MATERIALS OR ALTERNATIVELY MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT. Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Related document(s): Motion to compel 15 , Motion to compel 14 .) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit D# 5 Exhibit E# 6 Exhibit F# 7 Exhibit G# 8 Exhibit H# 9 Exhibit I# 10 Exhibit J# 11 Exhibit K# 12 Exhibit L# 13 Exhibit M# 14 Exhibit N# 15 Exhibit O# 16 Exhibit P# 17 Exhibit Q# 18 Exhibit R# 19 Exhibit S# 20 Exhibit T# 21 Exhibit U# 22 Exhibit V# 23 Exhibit W) (Healy, Teri) (Entered: 05/18/2007)

05/18/2007

19 Declaration of Andrew Altschul in Support of Plaintiffs' Joint Motions to Compel. Filed by Michael Gonzales, Jayson Lewis. (Related document(s): Motion to compel 15 , Motion to compel 14 .) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2, part 1# 3 Exhibit 2, part 2# 4 Exhibit 3# 5 Exhibit 4# 6 Exhibit 5# 7 Exhibit 6, part 1# 8 Exhibit 6, part 2# 9 Exhibit 7# 10 Exhibit 8# 11 Exhibit 9# 12 Exhibit 10) (Altschul, Andrew) Modiﬁed text on 5/23/2007 (Hunt, Patricia). (Entered: 05/18/2007)

05/29/2007

20 Notice of Attorney Withdrawal:.Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Stanley, John) (Entered: 05/29/2007)

05/31/2007

21 Motion for Extension of Time to File a Response/Reply Defendant's Motion to Extend Time to Respond to Joint Motion to Compel Investigation Materials or Alternatively Motion for Partial Summary Judgment On Defendant's Second Afﬁrmative Defense 15 , Joint Motion to Compel 14 . Filed by all defendants. (Belnavis, Clarence) (Entered: 05/31/2007)

06/01/2007

22 ORDER - Granting Defendant's Motion for Extension of Time to File Response 21 up to and including 6/4/2007. Ordered by Judge Garr M. King. (mja) (Entered: 06/01/2007)

06/04/2007

23 Declaration of Rachelle Hong Barton in Support of Defendant's Response and Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel or Alternatively Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Filed by all defendants. (Related document(s): Motion to compel 15 , Motion to compel 14 .) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit # 2 Exhibit # 3 Exhibit # 4 Exhibit # 5 Exhibit # 6 Exhibit # 7 Exhibit # 8 Exhibit # 9 Exhibit) (Belnavis, Clarence) (Entered: 06/04/2007)

06/04/2007

24 Response Defendant's Response to Plaintiffs' Joint Motion to Compel Non-Investigation Materials to Joint Motion to Compel 14 . Filed by all defendants. (Belnavis, Clarence) (Entered: 06/04/2007)

06/04/2007

25 Response Defendant's Response and Opposition to Joint Motion to Compel Investigation Materials or Alternatively Motion for Partial Summary Judgment On Defendant's Second Afﬁrmative Defense 15 . Filed by all defendants. (Belnavis, Clarence) (Entered: 06/04/2007)

06/18/2007

26 Reply to Joint Motion to Compel Investigation Materials or Alternatively Motion for Partial Summary Judgment On Defendant's Second Afﬁrmative Defense 15 Oral Argument requested. Filed by Michael Gonzales, Jayson Lewis. (Altschul, Andrew) (Entered: 06/18/2007)

06/18/2007

27 Supplemental Declaration of Andrew Altschul in Support of Plaintiffs' Joint Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Defendant's Second Afﬁrmative Defense. Filed by Michael Gonzales, Jayson Lewis. (Related document(s): Motion to compel 15 .) (Altschul, Andrew) (Entered: 06/18/2007)

06/20/2007

28 Scheduling Order by Garr M. King. Order - Setting a Telephone Conference to discuss the parties' Joint Motions to Compel or Alternatively Motion for Summary Judgment 14 & 15 for 6/28/2007 at 10:45AM. The court will initiate the call to the following parties: Teri L. Healy(206) 220-6916, John Freeman Stanley (206) 220-6896, Rachelle K.H. Barton (503) 242-4262, ext. 18, Clarence M. Belnavis (503) 242-4262 and Andrew M. Altschul (503)417-0444. This conference is being set for the Judge to ask cousel

https://ecf.ord.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?102880616910114-L_1_0-1

5/14

6/6/2017

District of Oregon CM/ECF LIVE Release Version 6.1
questions and give his rulings on the motions. There is no need for counsel to prepare for argument. Ordered by Judge Garr M. King. (mja) (Entered: 06/20/2007)

06/21/2007

29 Scheduling Order by Garr M. King. Order - At the Plaintiff's request, the Court is resetting the Telephone Conference from 6/28/2007 to 6/27/2007 at 01:30PM. The Court will initiate the call to the following parties: Teri L. Healy(206) 220-6916, John Freeman Stanley (206) 220-6896, Rachelle K.H. Barton (503) 242-4262, ext. 18, Clarence M. Belnavis (503) 242-4262 and Andrew M. Altschul (503)417-0444. Ordered by Judge Garr M. King. (mja) (Entered: 06/21/2007)

06/26/2007

30 Notice OF UNAVAILABILITY OF COUNSEL.Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Healy, Teri) (Entered: 06/26/2007)

06/27/2007

31 MINUTES of Telephone Conference: Order - Plaintiffs' Joint Motion to Compel 14 is GRANTED in PART and DENIED in PART as stated on the record. Order - Plaintiffs' Joint Motion to Compel Investigation Materials or Alternatively Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Defendant's Second Afﬁrmative Defense 15 is DENIED with leave to RENEW Partial Summary Judgment Motion. Teri Healy and John Stanley present as counsel for plaintiff(s). Andrew M. Altschul present as counsel for intervenor plaintiff. Clarence Belnavis and Rachelle Barton present as counsel for defendant. Court Reporter: Steven Hardgrove. Garr M. King presiding. (mja) (Entered: 06/27/2007)

07/26/2007

32 Stipulated Motion for Protective Order. Filed by Michael Gonzales, Jayson Lewis. (Altschul, Andrew) (Entered: 07/26/2007)

07/30/2007

33 Stipulation and Protective Order. Signed on 07/30/07 by Judge Garr M. King. (pvh) (Entered: 07/30/2007)

09/18/2007

34 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Discovery & PTO Deadlines. Filed by Michael Gonzales, Jayson Lewis. (Altschul, Andrew) (Entered: 09/18/2007)

09/19/2007

35 Scheduling Order by Garr M. King. Order - Setting a Telephone Conference to discuss Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Extension of Discovery and PTO Deadlines 34 for 9/27/2007 at 09:30AM. The Court will initiate the call to the following parties: Teri L. Healy(206) 220-6916, John Freeman Stanley (206) 220-6896, Rachelle K.H. Barton (503) 242-4262, ext. 18, Clarence M. Belnavis (503) 242-4262 and Andrew M. Altschul (503)417-0444. Ordered by Judge Garr M. King. (mja) (Entered: 09/19/2007)

09/27/2007

36 MINUTES of Telephone Conference: Order - Intervenor Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Extension of Discovery & PTO Deadlines 34 is GRANTED as follows: Discovery is to be completed by 11/28/2007. Dispositive Motions are due by 12/28/2007. Exchange expert reports by 3/18/2008. Resetting the Pretrial Conference from 2/11/2008 to 4/14/2008 at 02:30PM in Portland, Courtroom 9A, before Judge Garr M. King. Resetting the 4-day Jury Trial from 2/19/2008 to 4/22/2008 at 09:00AM in Portland, Courtroom 9A, before Judge Garr M. King. Teri Healy and Andrew Altschul present as counsel for plaintiff(s). Rachelle K. H. Barton present as counsel for defendant(s). Court Reporter: Nancy Walker. Garr M. King presiding.Presiding Judge: King, Garr M. (Entered: 09/27/2007)

10/22/2007

37 Unopposed Motion to extend discovery and dispositive motion deadlines. Filed by Video Only, Inc.. (Barton, Rachelle) (Entered: 10/22/2007)

10/24/2007

38 Scheduling Order by Garr M. King. Order - Setting a Telephone Conference to discuss Defendant's Unopposed Motion to Extend Discovery and Dispositive Motion Deadlines 37 for 11/1/2007 at 01:45PM. The court will initiate the call to the following parties: Teri L. Healy(206) 220-6916, John Freeman Stanley (206) 220-6896, Rachelle K.H. Barton (503) 242-4262, ext. 18, Clarence M. Belnavis (503) 242-4262 and Andrew M. Altschul (503)417-0444. Ordered by Judge Garr M. King. (mja) (Entered: 10/24/2007)

https://ecf.ord.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?102880616910114-L_1_0-1

6/14

6/6/2017
10/29/2007

District of Oregon CM/ECF LIVE Release Version 6.1
39 Scheduling Order by Garr M. King. Order - Due to a conﬂict in the Court's schedule, the Court is resetting the TIME set for the Telephone Conference from 11/1/2007 at 1:45PM to 11/1/2007 at 9:00AM. The court will initiate the call to the following parties: Teri L. Healy (206) 220-6916, John Freeman Stanley (206) 220-6896, Rachelle K.H. Barton (503) 242-4262, ext. 18, Clarence M. Belnavis (503) 242-4262 and Andrew M. Altschul (503)417-0444. Ordered by Judge Garr M. King. (mja) (Entered: 10/29/2007)

10/30/2007 11/02/2007

40 Order - At the parties' request, the court is resetting Telephone Conference from 11/1/2007 to 11/2/2007 at 8:30AM.. The court will initiate the call to the following parties: Teri L. Healy (206) 220-6916, Rachelle K.H. Barton (503) 242-4262, ext. 18, Clarence M. Belnavis (503) 242-4262 and Andrew M. Altschul (503)417-0444. Ordered by Judge Garr M. King. (mja) (Entered: 10/30/2007)
41 MINUTES of Proceedings held before Judge Garr M. King - ORDER - Defendant's Unopposed Motion to extend discovery and dispositive motion deadlines 37 is GRANTED, as follows: The deadline for completion of discovery is extended to 1/28/2008. Dispositive Motions are now due by 2/26/2008. Parties shall exchange expert reports by 3/18/08. The Pretrial Conference is RESET to 5/27/2008 at 01:30PM, in Courtroom #9A, before Judge Garr M. King. The 4-day Jury Trial is RESET to 6/3/2008 at 09:00AM, in Courtroom #9A, before Judge Garr M. King. Teri L. Healy and Andrew Altschul present as counsel for plaintiffs. Rachelle Barton present as counsel for defendant(s). Court Reporter: Nancy Walker. (kb) (Entered: 11/02/2007)

11/06/2007

42 Scheduling Order by Garr M. King. Order - Due to a conﬂict in the court's schedule, the court is resetting the TIME set for the Pretrial Conference from 5/27/2008 at 1:30PM to 5/27/2008 at 02:30PM in Portland, Courtroom 9A, before Judge Garr M. King. Ordered by Judge Garr M. King. (mja) (Entered: 11/06/2007)

11/09/2007

43 Notice OF UNAVAILABILITY OF COUNSEL.Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Healy, Teri) (Entered: 11/09/2007)

01/04/2008

44 Motion for Extension of Discovery & PTO Deadlines. Filed by Video Only, Inc.. (Belnavis, Clarence) (Entered: 01/04/2008)

01/07/2008

45 Scheduling Order by Garr M. King. Order - Setting a Telephone Conference to discuss Defendant's Motion for Extension of Discovery & PTO Deadlines 44 for 1/28/2008 at 11:00AM. The Court will initiate the call to the following parties: Teri L. Healy (206)2206916, John Freeman Stanley (206) 220-6896, Rachelle K.H. Barton (503) 242-4262, ext. 18, Clarence M. Belnavis (503) 242-4262 amd Andrew M. Altschul (503)417-0444. Ordered by Judge Garr M. King. (mja) (Entered: 01/07/2008)

01/15/2008

46 Motion to Consolidate. Oral Argumentrequested Filed by Michael Gonzales, Jayson Lewis. (Altschul, Andrew) (Entered: 01/15/2008)

01/15/2008

47 Memorandum in Support of Motion to Consolidate. Filed by Michael Gonzales, Jayson Lewis. (Related document(s): Motion to Consolidate 46 .) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A) (Altschul, Andrew) (Entered: 01/15/2008)

01/17/2008

48 Response Defendant Video Only, Inc.'s Opposition to Plaintiff-Intervenors' Motion to Consolidate to Motion to Consolidate 46 . Filed by Video Only, Inc.. (Barton, Rachelle) (Entered: 01/17/2008)

01/17/2008

49 Declaration of Rachelle Hong Barton in Support of Defendant Video Only, Inc.'s Opposition to Plaintiff-Intervenors' Motion to Consolidate. Filed by Video Only, Inc.. (Related document(s): Motion to Consolidate 46 .) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C) (Barton, Rachelle) (Entered: 01/17/2008)

01/25/2008 50 Reply to Motion to Consolidate 46 Oral Argument requested. Filed by Michael Gonzales,

https://ecf.ord.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?102880616910114-L_1_0-1

7/14

6/6/2017
01/28/2008
01/30/2008
02/25/2008 03/05/2008 03/06/2008
03/17/2008 03/17/2008 03/17/2008 03/20/2008 03/20/2008 04/02/2008 04/03/2008

District of Oregon CM/ECF LIVE Release Version 6.1
Jayson Lewis. (Altschul, Andrew) (Entered: 01/25/2008)
51 MINUTES of Telephone Conference: Order - Intervenor Plaintiffs' Motion to Consolidate 46 is DENIED with leave to RENEW. Defendant's Motion for Extension of Discovery & PTO Deadlines 44 is GRANTED as follows: Discovery is to be completed by 2/27/2008. Dispositive Motions are due by 3/27/2008. Resetting the Pretrial Conference from 5/27/2008 to 7/7/2008 at 02:30PM in Portland, Courtroom 9A, before Judge Garr M. King. Resetting the 4-day Jury Trial from 6/3/2008 to 7/15/2008 at 09:00AM in Portland, Courtroom 9A, before Judge Garr M. King. Teri Healy present as counsel for plaintiff(s). Rachelle Barton, Clarence Belnavis and Andrew Altschul present as counsel for defendant(s). Court Reporter: Nanacy Walker. Garr M. King presiding. (mja) (Entered: 01/28/2008)
52 Scheduling Order by Garr M. King. Order - At the plaintiff's request, the court is resetting the Pretrial Conference from 7/7/2008 to 7/24/2008 at 10:30AM in Portland, Courtroom 9A, before Judge Garr M. King. the 4-day Jury Trial is reset from 7/15/2008 to 8/5/2008 at 09:00AM in Portland, Courtroom 9A, before Judge Garr M. King. Ordered by Judge Garr M. King. (mja) (Entered: 01/30/2008)
53 Corporate Disclosure Statement. Filed by Video Only, Inc.. (Barton, Rachelle) (Entered: 02/25/2008)
54 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time Re Dispositive Motion Deadline and for Waiver of LR 56.1's Conscise Statement of Facts Requirement. Filed by Michael Gonzales, Jayson Lewis. (Altschul, Andrew) (Entered: 03/05/2008)
55 ORDER - Intervenor Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time Re Dispositive Motion Deadline and for Waiver of LR 56.1's Conscise Statement of Facts Requirement 54 is GRANTED in PART. Motions due April 10, 2008. The Court will defer ruling on waiving the requirement to ﬁle a concise statement of material facts until it learns the positions of the other parties. Ordered by Judge Garr M. King. (mja) (Entered: 03/06/2008)
56 Motion for Order to Show Cause Application For Order to Show Cause and Proposed Order. Filed by Video Only, Inc.. (Belnavis, Clarence) (Entered: 03/17/2008)
57 Memorandum in Support Defendant Video Only, Inc.'s Memorandum in Support of Application for Order to Show Cause. Filed by Video Only, Inc.. (Related document(s): Motion for order to show cause 56 .) (Belnavis, Clarence) (Entered: 03/17/2008)
58 Declaration of Rachelle Hong Barton in Support of Application for Order to Show Cause. Filed by Video Only, Inc.. (Related document(s): Motion for order to show cause 56 .) (Belnavis, Clarence) (Entered: 03/17/2008)
59 Order - Intervenor Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time Re Dispositive Motion Deadline and for Waiver of LR 56.1's Conscise Statement of Facts Requirement 54 is GRANTED in PART. Local Rule 56.1's concise statement of material facts requirement is WAIVED. Ordered by Judge Garr M. King. (mja) (Entered: 03/20/2008)
60 Order to Show Cause. Show Cause Hearing is set for 4/24/2008 at 03:00PM in Portland before Judge Garr M. King. Signed on 03/18/08 by Judge Garr M. King. (pvh) (Entered: 03/20/2008)
61 Notice of Change of Address of Counsel for Plaintiffs in Intervention.Filed by Michael Gonzales, Jayson Lewis. (Altschul, Andrew) (Entered: 04/02/2008)
62 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time Unopposed Motion to Extend the Dispositive Motion Deadline. Filed by Video Only, Inc.. (Barton, Rachelle) (Entered: 04/03/2008)

https://ecf.ord.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?102880616910114-L_1_0-1

8/14

6/6/2017
04/08/2008 04/21/2008 04/21/2008 04/24/2008 04/24/2008
04/24/2008
04/24/2008 04/24/2008
04/24/2008 04/24/2008 04/24/2008

District of Oregon CM/ECF LIVE Release Version 6.1
64 ORDER - Defendant's Unopposed Motion to Extend the Dispositive Motion Deadline 62 is GRANTED up to and including 4/24/2008. Ordered by Judge Garr M. King. (mja) (Entered: 04/08/2008)
65 Motion to Consolidate. Oral Argument requested. Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Healy, Teri) (Entered: 04/21/2008)
66 Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff's Motion to Consolidate. Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Related document(s): Motion to Consolidate 65 .) (Attachments: # 1 Declaration# 2 Exhibit A) (Healy, Teri) (Entered: 04/21/2008)
67 Joint Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Defendant's Second Afﬁrmative Defenses. Oral Argument requested. Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Healy, Teri) (Entered: 04/24/2008)
68 Memorandum in Support. Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Related document(s): Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 67 .) (Healy, Teri) NOTE: Counsel contacted the Court and indicated that the PDF document attached to this ﬁling was incorrect. The PDF has been removed, and a corrected version of the Memorandum in Support has been ﬁled as documents # 70 ). Please disregard this entry. (Oss, Eric). (Entered: 04/24/2008)
69 Declaration of Teri Healy. Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Related document(s): Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 67 .) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit D - PART 1# 5 Exhibit D - PART 2# 6 Exhibit E# 7 Exhibit F# 8 Exhibit G# 9 Exhibit H# 10 Exhibit I# 11 Exhibit J# 12 Exhibit K# 13 Exhibit L# 14 Errata M# 15 Exhibit N# 16 Exhibit O# 17 Exhibit P# 18 Exhibit Q# 19 Errata R# 20 Exhibit S) (Healy, Teri) (Entered: 04/24/2008)
70 CORRECTED Memorandum in Support. Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Related document(s): Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 67 .) (Healy, Teri) NOTE: This document corrects docket #68, which was ﬁled with an incorrect PDF attachment. (Oss, Eric). (Entered: 04/24/2008)
71 Order for Administrative Correction of the Record regarding Memorandum in Support (# 68 ) ﬁled by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. A Clerical error has been discovered in the case record. In accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a), the Clerk is directed to make the following administrative corrections to the record and to notify all parties accordingly. NOTE: The Court was informed by Plaintiff's counsel that document #68, the Memorandum in Support, was ﬁled with an incorrect PDF attachment. A corrected version was immediately ﬁled as document # 70 . The Court has removed the erroneous PDF attachment to docket #68. Please refer to docket # 70 as the Corrected Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff's Joint Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (# 67 ), and disregard docket #68. (eo) (Entered: 04/24/2008)
72 Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff-Intervenor's Fair Credit Reporting Act Claim. ORAL ARGUMENT requested. Filed by Michael Gonzales and Jayson Lewis. (Altschul, Andrew) (Entered: 04/24/2008)
73 Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff-Intervenor's Motion for Summary Judgment on Their Fair Credit Reporting Act Claim. Filed by Michael Gonzales and Jayson Lewis. (Related document(s): Motion for Summary Judgment 72 .) (Altschul, Andrew) (Entered: 04/24/2008)
74 Joint Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs' Claims of Retaliation. ORAL ARGUMENT requested. Filed by Michael Gonzales, Jayson Lewis, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Altschul, Andrew) (Entered: 04/24/2008)

https://ecf.ord.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?102880616910114-L_1_0-1

9/14

6/6/2017
04/24/2008 04/24/2008
04/24/2008
04/24/2008
04/24/2008 04/24/2008 04/24/2008 04/25/2008 04/25/2008
04/30/2008 04/30/2008

District of Oregon CM/ECF LIVE Release Version 6.1
75 Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs' Joint Motion for Summary Judgment on Their Claims of Retaliation. Filed by Michael Gonzales, Jayson Lewis, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Related document(s): Motion for Summary Judgment 74 .) (Altschul, Andrew) (Entered: 04/24/2008)
76 Declaration of Andrew Altschul in Support of Plaintiffs' Motions for Summary Judgment. Filed by Michael Gonzales, Jayson Lewis. (Related document(s): Motion for Summary Judgment 72 , Motion for Summary Judgment 74 .) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit 3# 4 Exhibit 4# 5 Exhibit 5# 6 Exhibit 6# 7 Exhibit 7# 8 Exhibit 8# 9 Exhibit 9# 10 Exhibit 10) (Altschul, Andrew) Modiﬁed text of Exhibit on 4/25/2008 (Hunt, Patricia). Modiﬁed to restrict internet access to exhibits 7 & 8 due to the existence of personal identiﬁers on 9/26/2011 (eo). (Entered: 04/24/2008)
77 MINUTES of Show Cause Hearing: Order - Pranil Singh appeared for the hearing and agreed to make himself available for deposition on May 2, 2008 at 1:00PM, at Fisher & Phillips, LLP. Teri L. Healy present as counsel for plaintiff(s). Dana Sullivan for Andrew Altschul present as counsel for intervenor plaintiffs. Clarence M. Belnavis present as counsel for defendant(s). Court Reporter: Nancy Walker. Garr M. King presiding. (mja) (Entered: 04/24/2008)
78 Order for Administrative Correction of the Record. A Clerical error has been discovered in the case record. In accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a), the Clerk is directed to make the following administrative corrections to the record and to notify all parties accordingly. Intervenor plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support 72 & 73 are corrected to reﬂect that they are ﬁled by both intervenor plaintiffs. The Clerk is directed to edit the docket text to reﬂect both parties as the ﬁlers. (mja) (Entered: 04/24/2008)
79 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Oral Argument requested. Filed by Video Only, Inc.. (Belnavis, Clarence) (Entered: 04/24/2008)
80 Memorandum in Support. Filed by Video Only, Inc.. (Related document(s): Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 79 .) (Belnavis, Clarence) (Entered: 04/24/2008)
81 Declaration of Rachelle Hong Barton. Filed by Video Only, Inc.. (Related document(s): Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 79 .) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits 1 - 9) (Belnavis, Clarence) Modiﬁed text of attachment on 4/25/2008 (Hunt, Patricia). (Entered: 04/24/2008)
82 Response in Opposition to EEOC's to Motion to Consolidate 65 . Filed by Video Only, Inc.. (Driscoll, Sean) (Entered: 04/25/2008)
83 Scheduling Order by Garr M. King. Order - Setting Oral Argument on Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 57 , Intervenor Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 72 , Plaintiff and Intervenor Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment 74 and Defendant Video Only, Inc's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 79 for 6/11/2008 at 09:30AM in Portland, Courtroom 9A, before Judge Garr M. King. Ordered by Judge Garr M. King. (mja) (Entered: 04/25/2008)
84 Notice of Association of Attorney Sharon Bolesky and David G. Hosenpud for Video Only, Inc..Filed by Video Only, Inc.. (Hosenpud, David) (Entered: 04/30/2008)
85 Defendant Video Only, Inc.'s Expert Witness Disclosure Statement. Filed by Video Only, Inc.. (Belnavis, Clarence) Modiﬁed text of ECF entry on 5/1/2008 (Hunt, Patricia). DOCUMENT FILED IN ERROR AND HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM PUBLIC VIEWING (SEE ORDER 87 ). Modiﬁed on 5/1/2008 (Austad, Mary). Modiﬁed on 5/1/2008 (Austad, Mary). (Entered: 04/30/2008)

https://ecf.ord.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?102880616910114-L_1_0-1

10/14

6/6/2017
05/01/2008

District of Oregon CM/ECF LIVE Release Version 6.1
86 Scheduling Order by Garr M. King. Order - At the plaintiffs' request, the Court is resetting the Oral Argument Hearing from 6/11/2008 to 6/3/2008 at 11:00AM in Portland, Courtroom 9A, before Judge Garr M. King. Ordered by Judge Garr M. King. (mja) (Entered: 05/01/2008)

05/01/2008

87 Order regarding Witness statement 85 ﬁled by Video Only, Inc. for Administrative Correction of the Record. A Clerical error has been discovered in the case record. In accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a), the Clerk is directed to make the following administrative corrections to the record and to notify all parties accordingly. Defendant's Expert Witness Disclosure Statement 85 was ﬁled in error. The Clerk is directed to remove the document from docket sheet. (mja) (Entered: 05/01/2008)

05/02/2008

88 ORDER: Denying Plaintiff's Motion to Consolidate 65 . Signed on 5/2/2008 by Judge Garr M. King. (See formal order, 2-pages) (ecp) (Entered: 05/07/2008)

05/08/2008

89 Motion for Leave to File Overlength Response Brief. Expedited Consideration Requested. Filed by Video Only, Inc.. (Driscoll, Sean) Modiﬁed text of ECF entry on 5/13/2008 (Hunt, Patricia). (Entered: 05/08/2008)

05/08/2008

90 Declaration of Sean M. Driscoll in Support of LR 7.2 Motion for Leave to File Overlength Brief. Filed by Video Only, Inc.. (Related document(s): Motion for Leave 89 .) (Driscoll, Sean) (Entered: 05/08/2008)

05/08/2008

91 Response in Opposition to Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 79 Oral Argument requested. Filed by Michael Gonzales, Jayson Lewis. (Altschul, Andrew) (Entered: 05/08/2008)

05/08/2008

92 Supplemental Declaration of Andrew Altschul. Filed by Michael Gonzales, Jayson Lewis. (Related document(s): Response in Opposition to Motion 91 .) (Altschul, Andrew) (Entered: 05/08/2008)

05/08/2008

93 Declaration of Clarence M. Belnavis in Support of Defendant Video Only's Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motions for Summary Judgment. Filed by Video Only, Inc.. (Related document(s): Motion for Summary Judgment 72 , Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 67 , Motion for Summary Judgment 74 .) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits A, B, C, D; # 2 Exhibit E; # 3 Exhibits F, G, H, I) (Belnavis, Clarence) Modiﬁed ECF text of attachment description on 5/13/2008 (Hunt, Patricia). (Entered: 05/08/2008)

05/08/2008

94 Response in Opposition to Joint Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs' Claims of Retaliation 74 . Filed by Video Only, Inc.. (Belnavis, Clarence) (Entered: 05/08/2008)

05/08/2008

95 Response in Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff-Intervenor's Fair Credit Reporting Act Claim 72 . Filed by Video Only, Inc.. (Belnavis, Clarence) (Entered: 05/08/2008)

05/08/2008

96 Response in Opposition to Joint Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Defendant's Second Afﬁrmative Defenses 67 . Filed by Video Only, Inc.. (Belnavis, Clarence) (Entered: 05/08/2008)

05/14/2008

97 Trial Management Order. Signed on 05/14/08 by Judge Garr M. King. (pvh) (Entered: 05/15/2008)

05/16/2008

98 ORDER - Defendant's Motion for Leave to File Overlength Response Brief 89 is GRANTED up to and including 40 pages. Ordered by Judge Garr M. King. (mja) (Entered: 05/16/2008)

05/20/2008

99 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File a Response/Reply By One Day to Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff-Intervenor's Fair Credit Reporting Act Claim 72 , Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 79 , Joint Motion for Partial Summary

https://ecf.ord.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?102880616910114-L_1_0-1

11/14

6/6/2017

District of Oregon CM/ECF LIVE Release Version 6.1
Judgment Defendant's Second Afﬁrmative Defenses 67 , Joint Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs' Claims of Retaliation 74 . Filed by Michael Gonzales, Jayson Lewis. (Altschul, Andrew) (Entered: 05/20/2008)

05/21/2008

100 ORDER - Granting Defendants Michael Gonzales and Jayson Lewis' Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File a Response/Reply by One Day to their Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff-Intervenor's Fair Credit Reporting Act Claim, Defendant Video Only's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Plaintiffs' Joint Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Defendant's Second Afﬁrmative Defenses, and Plaintiffs' Joint Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs' Claims of Retaliation 99 . Ordered by Judge Garr M. King. (mja) (Entered: 05/21/2008)

05/23/2008 101 Notice OF UNAVAILABILITY.Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Healy, Teri) (Entered: 05/23/2008)

05/23/2008 102 Reply to Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 79 . Filed by Video Only, Inc.. (Belnavis, Clarence) (Entered: 05/23/2008)

05/23/2008

103 Declaration of Rachelle Hong Barton. Filed by Video Only, Inc.. (Related document(s): Reply to Motion 102 .) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits 1 & 2) (Belnavis, Clarence) Modiﬁed text of attachments on 5/28/2008 (Hunt, Patricia). (Entered: 05/23/2008)

05/23/2008

104 Reply to Joint Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs' Claims of Retaliation 74 Oral Argument requested. Filed by Michael Gonzales, Jayson Lewis. (Altschul, Andrew) (Entered: 05/23/2008)

05/23/2008

105 Reply to Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff-Intervenor's Fair Credit Reporting Act Claim 72 Oral Argument requested. Filed by Michael Gonzales, Jayson Lewis. (Altschul, Andrew) (Entered: 05/23/2008)

05/23/2008

106 Reply to Joint Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Defendant's Second Afﬁrmative Defenses 67 Oral Argument requested. Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Healy, Teri) (Entered: 05/23/2008)

05/23/2008

107 Declaration of Teri L. Healy in Support of Plaintiff's Reply to their Partial Motion for Summary Judgment on Defendant's Second Afﬁrmative Defense. Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Related document(s): Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 67 .) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C) (Healy, Teri) (Entered: 05/23/2008)

05/27/2008

108 Motion to Reset Hearing Date on Cross Motions for Summary Judgment. Oral ArgumentExpedited Consideration Requested requested. Filed by Video Only, Inc.. (Hosenpud, David) Modiﬁed text of ECF entry on 5/28/2008 (Hunt, Patricia). (Entered: 05/27/2008)

05/27/2008

109 Declaration of David G. Hosenpud in Support of Motion to Reset Hearing Date on Cross Motions for Summary Judgment. Filed by Video Only, Inc.. (Related document(s): Motion for Hearing 108 .) (Hosenpud, David) (Entered: 05/27/2008)

05/28/2008

110 ORDER - Defendant's Motion to Reset Hearing Date on Cross Motions for Summary Judgment 108 is GRANTED as follows: The Oral Argument Hearing set for June 3, 2008 is STRICKEN. The Court will reset oral argument if necessary. Ordered by Judge Garr M. King. (mja) (Entered: 05/28/2008)

06/04/2008

111 Motion for Leave to File Surreply to Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Their Joint Motion for Summary Judgment on Their Claim of Retaliation. Filed by Video Only, Inc.. (Driscoll, Sean) (Entered: 06/04/2008)

06/04/2008

112 Memorandum in Support of Defendant's Motion for Leave to File Surreply to Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Their Joint Motion for Summary Judgment on Their Claim of

https://ecf.ord.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?102880616910114-L_1_0-1

12/14

6/6/2017
06/05/2008 06/09/2008 06/09/2008 06/11/2008
06/30/2008 06/30/2008
07/23/2008 07/30/2008 08/12/2008 08/13/2008

District of Oregon CM/ECF LIVE Release Version 6.1
Retaliation. Filed by Video Only, Inc.. (Related document(s): Motion for Leave 111 .) (Attachments: # 1 Defendant Video Only, Inc.'s Surreply to Plaintiffs' Joint Motion for Summary Judgment on Their Claim of Retaliation) (Driscoll, Sean) (Entered: 06/04/2008)
113 Amended Motion for Leave to File Surreply to Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Their Joint Motion for Summary Judgment on Their Claim of Retaliation. Filed by Video Only, Inc.. (Driscoll, Sean) (Entered: 06/05/2008)
114 ORDER - Defendant's Amended Motion for Leave to File Surreply to Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Their Joint Motion for Summary Judgment on Their Claim of Retaliation 113 is GRANTED. Ordered by Judge Garr M. King. (mja) (Entered: 06/09/2008)
115 Sur-Reply to Plaintiffs Joint Motion for Summary Judgment on Their Claim of Retaliation. Filed by Video Only, Inc.. (Driscoll, Sean) (Entered: 06/09/2008)
116 OPINION AND ORDER. Plaintiffs' Joint Motion for Summary Judgment on Defendant's Second Afﬁrmative Defense (#67) is granted. Plaintiff-Intervenors' Motion for Summary Judgment on their Fair Credit Reporting Act Claim (#72) is granted in part. Plaintiffs' Joint Motion for Summary Judgment on their Claims of Retaliation (#74) is granted. Defendant Video Only's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (#79) is granted in part and denied in part. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed on 06/11/08 by Judge Garr M. King. (pvh) (Entered: 06/12/2008)
117 Scheduling Order by Garr M. King. Order - Setting a Telephone Conference to discuss the trial date for 6/30/2008 at 03:00AM. The Court will initiate the call to the following parties: Teri Healy (206) 220-6916, Andrew M. Altschul(503)974-5015 and David G. Hosenpud (503) 778-2100. Ordered by Judge Garr M. King. (mja) (Entered: 06/30/2008)
118 MINUTES of Telephone Conference: Order - At the request of the parties, the Court is resetting the Pretrial Conference from 7/24/2008 to 9/2/2008 at 02:30PM in Portland, Courtroom 9A, before Judge Garr M. King. Resetting the 4-day Jury Trial from 8/5/2008 to 9/9/2008 at 09:00AM in Portland, Courtroom 9A, before Judge Garr M. King. Teri Healy present as counsel for plaintiff(s). David Hosenpud,and Dana Sullivan present as counsel for defendant(s). Andrew Atschul present as counsel for Intervenor Plaintiffs. Court Reporter: Dennis Grube. Garr M. King presiding. (mja) (Entered: 06/30/2008)
119 Stipulated Motion for Entry of Consent Decree. Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Proposed Order) (Healy, Teri) (Entered: 07/23/2008)
120 Consent Decree. Signed on 07/30/08 by Judge Garr M. King. (pvh) (Entered: 07/31/2008)
121 Stipulation (Filed as Stipulated Judgment of Dismissal Between Plaintiffs-Intervenors and Defendant) by Video Only, Inc.. Filed by Video Only, Inc.. (Hosenpud, David) (Entered: 08/12/2008)
122 Stipulated Judgment of Dismissal Between Plaintiffs-Intervenors and Defendant. Signed on 8/13/08 by Judge Garr M. King. (mja) (Entered: 08/13/2008)

PACER Login:

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt

06/06/2017 13:15:21

hs0328:2563377:0

Client Code:

https://ecf.ord.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?102880616910114-L_1_0-1

13/14

6/6/2017

District of Oregon CM/ECF LIVE Release Version 6.1

Description: Docket Report

Search 3:06-cv-01362-KI Start date: Criteria: 1/1/1970 End date: 6/6/2017

Billable Pages:

12

Cost: 1.20

https://ecf.ord.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?102880616910114-L_1_0-1

14/14