1 Lawrence P. Blunck OSB No. 84178

larry@bluncklaw.com 2 Scott D. Preston OSB No. 02430

3 scott@bluncklaw.com Lawrence Blunck, P.C.

4 West Linn Law Center

2350 Willamette Falls Drive 5 West Linn, OR 97068

6

Telephone: Facsimile:

503-656-1654 503-650-0603

7 Attorneys for Plaintiffs in Intervention

8

9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

11

12 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY 13 COMMISSION,

14

Plaintiff,

15 vs.

16

UNITED STATES BAKERY, INC., an active Oregon corporation,

17

Defendant,

18

19

WENDY BAKER, DONNA EMERSON, LAURIE DAMETZ AND CHRISTINE

20 THOMPSON,

21

Plaintiffs in Intervention

No. CV 03 64-HA
COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION Unlawful Employment Practice 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2 and 2000e-3
Demand for Jury Trial

22

23

24

25

26

Page 1 - COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION

LAWRENCE P. BLUNCK, P.C. Attorneys at Law
2350 Willamette Falls Drive West Linn, Oregon 97068
(503) 656-1654

1

COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION

2

I.

3

NATURE OF THE ACTION AND RELIEF SOUGHT

4 1. Currently, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) representing the

5 public interest is pursuing an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of

6 the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to correct unlawful employment practices and provide relief to

7 Wendy Baker, Donna Emerson, Laurie DaMetz, and Christine Thompson (hereafter “plaintiffs”),

8 who were adversely affected by such practices.

9 2. After conferring with the EEOC, the EEOC has consented to plaintiffs’ Motion to

10 Intervene regarding their interests under federal law claims.

11

II.

12

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

13 3. This is an action arising under the laws of the United States of America, in particular

14 Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2 and 2000e-3.

15 4. The jurisdiction of this court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§451, 1331, 1337 and

16 1343, this action is authorized and instituted pursuant to sections 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII,

17 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-5 and section 102 of the Civil

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

19 5. The employment policies and practices alleged to be unlawful were committed within the

20 jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the District of Oregon. Venue is appropriate

21 in this District because it is the District where defendant resides and/or is authorized to conduct

22 and is conducting business, and where plaintiffs reside, and where a substantial part of the events

23 giving rise to this Complaint occurred.

24 ///

25 ///

26 ///

Page 2 - COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION

LAWRENCE P. BLUNCK, P.C. Attorneys at Law
2350 Willamette Falls Drive West Linn, Oregon 97068
(503) 656-1654

1

III.

2

PARTIES

3 6. Plaintiff Wendy Baker was at all relevant times an employee of defendant United States

4 Bakery. She resides in Portland, Oregon.

5 7. Plaintiff Laurie DaMetz was at all relevant times an employee of United States Bakery.

6 She resides in Portland, Oregon.

7 8. Plaintiff Donna Emerson was at all relevant times an employee of United States Bakery.

8 She resides in Portland, Oregon.

9 9. Plaintiff Christine Thompson was at all relevant times an employee of United States

10 Bakery. She resides in Portland, Oregon.

11 10. Defendant United States Bakery is an active Oregon corporation and has been doing

12 business in Multnomah County, Oregon. At all material times, defendant United States Bakery

13 employed plaintiffs in various positions throughout the Bakery.

14

IV.

15

ADMINISTRATIVE PREREQUISITES

16 11. Plaintiffs have complied with all of the administrative prerequisites to an action under

17 Section 706 of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. Sections 2000e-

18 5 as follows:

19

a. On or about February 6, 2001, plaintiffs timely filed a formal charge of unlawful

20 employment discrimination on the basis of sex with BOLI;

21

b. Subsequently, on or about January 14, 2002 BOLI transferred the matter to the EEOC;

22

c. Plaintiffs promptly and diligently accommodated all BOLI and EEOC requests for

23 information and fully cooperated in the agencies’ investigations of this matter; and,

24

d. Plaintiffs have exhausted all available administrative remedies in accord with the

25 aforementioned statutes prior to instituting this civil action.

26 ///

Page 3 - COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION

LAWRENCE P. BLUNCK, P.C. Attorneys at Law
2350 Willamette Falls Drive West Linn, Oregon 97068
(503) 656-1654

1

V.

2

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

3

(Plaintiff Wendy Baker)

4 12. In 1999, defendant hired plaintiff Wendy Baker to work in the production labor pool.

5 Two months after being hired she obtained the Checker position. Plaintiff has had good reviews

6 pertaining to her job performance.

7 13. Over the course of her employment, plaintiff often worked with Jeff Fahlman, a Foreman

8 in the Production area of United States Bakery. On numerous occasions Jeff Fahlman made

9 sexual comments to plaintiff Baker and to other employees at the Bakery. One such example

10 occurred on or about February 16, 2000, when Jeff Fahlman described to the plaintiff that his

11 penis was large and that he could satisfy her sexually.

12 14. On numerous occasions Jeff Fahlman told the plaintiff sexually explicit jokes and spoke 13 of how “well endowed” he was. On one occasion, when Ms. Baker flexed her bicep to show how

14 the checker position had gotten her back in shape, Fahlman reached over, touched plaintiff’s arm 15 and said, “that’s about as hard as my dick.” The plaintiff was embarrassed and left the office.

16 15. Daniel Christianson, Ms. Baker’s coworker, heard Jeff Fahlman make sexual comments 17 about plaintiff. Fahlman said, “What a great fuck she would be. She’s small, she’s tight. She 18 would be squeaky tight.” Mr. Christianson also witnessed Jeff Fahlman comment about the way

19 Ms. Baker moved, with sexual implications.

20 16. Plaintiff also worked with Tom Caudle, the Foreman on graveyard shift. Caudle has said 21 to plaintiff that she has a “nice ass.” On one occasion while plaintiff was bending over to pick 22 up a tray, Mr. Caudle walked by, stopped behind her and said, “mmm hmm!” Caudle, like 23 Fahlman, has described how “well endowed” he is. He told plaintiff that he is attracted to 24 muscular women and how he and a female co-worker have almost “gone all the way.”

25 17. On June 8, 2000, Mr. Caudle told plaintiff in a hostile voice that he felt like spanking her

26 like a child because she was not doing her job to the best of her abilities and then continued to

Page 4 - COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION

LAWRENCE P. BLUNCK, P.C. Attorneys at Law
2350 Willamette Falls Drive West Linn, Oregon 97068
(503) 656-1654

1 yell at plaintiff regarding company protocol. Plaintiff felt shocked and intimidated by the tone

2 he used with her.

3 18. On June 15, 2000, Caudle gave plaintiff an unrealistic ultimatum to change her work shift

4 so she could do his paperwork, or look for another job.

5 19. On numerous occasions Caudle told plaintiff she should look for another job and

6 threatened plaintiff that she had only a few more write-ups and she would be terminated.

7 20. On July 28, 2000, a male co-worker informed plaintiff that Mr. Fahlman and Mr. Caudle 8 referred to plaintiff as “sweetheart.”

9 21. Mr. Caudle told plaintiff that Bill McCarthy, a supervisor and Fahlman’s cousin, referred 10 to plaintiff many times as “a piece of shit.”

11 22. These occurrences and other ongoing instances constitute an unlawful employment

12 practice of discrimination.

13

VI.

14

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

15

(Plaintiff Laurie DaMetz)

16 23. In April 1995, defendant hired Laurie DaMetz to work in the production office. Her

17 tasks include managing many of the accounting tasks for the Bakery.

18 24. Since 1995, and over the course of time at the Bakery, plaintiff has been sexually

19 harassed by Jeff Fahlman, Foreman at the Bakery. When passing by, Fahlman would frequently 20 make sexual comments or advances toward plaintiff. On occasion he asked plaintiff DaMetz, “If 21 I weren’t married and you weren’t married, would you go out with me?”

22 25. In 1997, plaintiff moved to a separate office away from other office workers. The

23 harassing comments by Fahlman escalated. He would grab the back of plaintiff’s chair and do

24 pelvic thrusting motions toward the chair. On one occasion when plaintiff was leaning through a

25 window, Fahlman pulled plaintiff towards him and did a pelvic thrust.

26 26. Fahlman repeatedly talked about sex to plaintiff DaMetz, including bestiality and brought

Page 5 - COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION

LAWRENCE P. BLUNCK, P.C. Attorneys at Law
2350 Willamette Falls Drive West Linn, Oregon 97068
(503) 656-1654

1 pictures to work displaying these actions.

2 27. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Fahlman made comments in a sexual manner to plaintiff such as: “Come on, right now, in the parking lot, you’re going to suck me off.” “How much money would it take to for you suck off a dog and let me watch?” “Can’t you give me a blow job?” “Would you suck off a horse and let it run all over your body?” “Would you do a dog?” “Hold that position, I’m almost ready.” “It would be really fast, just three pumps and a dump.”

10 28. In December of 1999, Mike Dower, plaintiff’s supervisor, walked into her office

11 following a recent visit by Fahlman to plaintiff’s office where Fahlman had been very offensive.

12 Plaintiff was visibly upset and Dower informed plaintiff that he had informed Marc Albers, the

13 General Manager, about Fahlman’s behavior. Fahlman told plaintiff that he had been called in to 14 the office again for a reprimand, but his behavior did not change.

15 29. In June 2000, DaMetz reported Fahlman’s harassment directly to Marc Albers, the

16 General Manager at the Bakery.

17 30. On December 4, 2000 Marc Albers, the General Manager, personally met with plaintiff

18 and in that meeting discouraged her from making any complaints against the Bakery. Albers 19 denied that plaintiff ever complained in the past and stated to plaintiff, “you can be a good 20 witness or a bad witness.” He also told plaintiff that jobs could be “eliminated.” He further

21 explained that names can be dragged through the mud in the same way claimants are making

22 accusations. As a result of these comments plaintiff felt threatened and feared losing her job.

23 31. These occurrences and other ongoing instances constitute an unlawful employment

24 practice of discrimination and retaliation.

25 ///

26 ///

Page 6 - COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION

LAWRENCE P. BLUNCK, P.C. Attorneys at Law
2350 Willamette Falls Drive West Linn, Oregon 97068
(503) 656-1654

1

VII.

2

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

3

(Plaintiff Donna Emerson)

4 32. Defendant hired plaintiff Donna Emerson approximately 13 years ago as a “wrap helper.”

5 33. Over the last 10 years plaintiff has often worked with Jeff Fahlman.

6 34. During this period of 10 years, at least 3-4 times each week, Jeff Fahlman sexually

7 harassed plaintiff.

8 35. This harassment occurred almost on a daily basis. Fahlman constantly talked about sex

9 and told sexual jokes. This sexual harassment included sexual statements and conduct such as:

10

a. Fahlman would grab his crotch and say to plaintiff “why don’t you just suck on this for

11

a while.”

12

b. Fahlman motioned to plaintiff and said, “I just wanted to see if I could make you come

13

with my finger.”

14

c. Fahlman asked plaintiff “what color panties do you have on?”

15

d. While standing in a particular place where his face was at the height of plaintiff’s

16

breasts, Fahlman said, “You’re perfect right where you are.”

17

e. Fahlman also commented to plaintiff “I’ve gotta have sex every day.”

18 36. On one occasion, Daniel Christianson, plaintiff’s coworker, heard Jeff Fahlman ask

19 Donna Emerson about her sexual practices.

20 37. On numerous occasions, plaintiff complained to Fahlman about his behavior. On these

21 occasions, Fahlman would explain that it was his word against hers, because there were no 22 witnesses to his comments. He would often state “No one is around,” or “Who are they going to 23 believe, you, a woman, or me, the foreman?”

24 38. At one point in her employment with defendant, plaintiff was selected for a position in

25 the checking department. She decided against taking the position because it would require her to 26 work with Mr. Fahlman. In response to her declining the position Fahlman stated to plaintiff, “If

Page 7 - COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION

LAWRENCE P. BLUNCK, P.C. Attorneys at Law
2350 Willamette Falls Drive West Linn, Oregon 97068
(503) 656-1654

1 you don’t take this job, you’ll never work in this department.” He also said “You couldn’t do it 2 anyway, you’re a woman.”

3 39. These occurrences and other ongoing instances constitute an unlawful employment

4 practice of discrimination.

5

VIII.

6

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

7

(Plaintiff Christine Thompson)

8 40. On August 20, 1998, defendant hired plaintiff Christine Thompson as a general laborer

9 and in January 2000, plaintiff started working in a checking position.

10 41. On January 8, 2000, Jeff Fahlman, plaintiff’s supervisor, began to constantly threaten 11 plaintiff with termination. He stated, “You’re a woman and as you can see there are no women 12 in checking because it’s so difficult.” He told plaintiff that she could be terminated for just about

13 anything. He further explained that checking department employees did not get overtime and

14 threatened that Bill McCarthy, the Plant Supervisor, would reprimand plaintiff for not having her

15 work done by the end of her shift.

16 42. In March 2000, Fahlman began telling plaintiff sexually explicit jokes. Fahlman also

17 asked plaintiff if she would date him if she were not married.

18 43. On one occasion, Fahlman stated to plaintiff that he watched pornographic videos that 19 included women “fucking” animals. He then asked plaintiff if she watched that kind of movie or

20 if she participated in such sexual activities. Plaintiff expressed her offense to the comments and 21 question and Fahlman responded by saying “I say these things with no witnesses, so it’s my word 22 against yours.”

23 44. On one occasion, Daniel Christianson, Thompson’s co-worker, witnessed Fahlman ask 24 plaintiff, “Have you ever had sex with animals?” Christianson also witnessed Fahlman ask 25 plaintiff, “Do you have body piercing? Have you pierced anything in your vagina? Can I touch 26 it?”

Page 8 - COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION

LAWRENCE P. BLUNCK, P.C. Attorneys at Law
2350 Willamette Falls Drive West Linn, Oregon 97068
(503) 656-1654

1 45. On or about April 2000, Fahlman told plaintiff a “nigger” joke. Plaintiff was so shocked 2 by the joke she only remembers the punch line which was “hang ‘em high.” Plaintiff is black.

3 46. Plaintiff Thompson attempted to talk to Bill McCarthy, the Plant Supervisor, but later

4 learned that Fahlman was Bill McCarthy’s cousin. Because of this relationship, plaintiff felt she

5 could not speak to Bill McCarthy for fear she would lose her job.

6 47. On May 11, 2000, plaintiff requested to work overtime in a different department of the

7 Bakery. Fahlman told plaintiff she was not allowed to work overtime because it was against

8 company policy to allow a checker to work in any other departments. Upon plaintiff’s request to

9 see the policy, Fahlman replied it was an unwritten rule. Plaintiff was not satisfied with this

10 response and asked another foreman about this “rule.” The other foreman informed her there

11 was no such rule.

12 48. On May 12, 2000, plaintiff worked in the other department. Fahlman arrived at the

13 Bakery and discovered plaintiff working. After some discussion about the “rule,” Fahlman told 14 plaintiff, “I usually tell bitches to go out in the parking lot and suck my dick.”

15 49. As a result of these comments, plaintiff requested a transfer from the checker department.

16 50. These occurrences and other ongoing instances constitute an unlawful employment

17 practice of discrimination based on the plaintiff’s race/color and or sex.

18

COUNT I

19

Unlawful Employment Practices Against Plaintiffs (42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2)

20 51. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference paragraphs 1 through 50.

21 52. Defendant United States Bakery has committed unlawful employment practices by

22 discriminating against plaintiffs in their terms, conditions or privileges of employment because

23 of plaintiffs’ sex and or race. Defendant’s conduct was intentional and done with malice or with

24 reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of the plaintiffs in violation of 42 U.S.C. §

25 2000e-2.

26 ///

Page 9 - COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION

LAWRENCE P. BLUNCK, P.C. Attorneys at Law
2350 Willamette Falls Drive West Linn, Oregon 97068
(503) 656-1654

1

COUNT II

2

Discrimination Against Plaintiffs (42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3)

3 53. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 50.

4 54. Defendant has discriminated against plaintiffs because of their opposition to United

5 States Bakery’s unlawful employment practices or because they have made charges, testified,

6 assisted, or participated in an investigation or proceeding regarding the unlawful employment

7 practices. Defendant’s conduct was intentional and done with malice or with reckless

8 indifference to the federally protected rights of the plaintiffs in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3.

9

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray for judgment against defendant United States Bakery as

10 follows:

11

A) Under Count I for discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2, compensation for past and

12

future pecuniary damages for each plaintiff to be determined at trial; compensatory

13

damages of $1,000,000.00 for each plaintiff resulting from, but not limited to, emotional

14

pain, suffering, and loss of enjoyment of life as a result of defendant’s intentional,

15

malicious or reckless conduct; reasonable attorney fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-

16

5(k); and such other and further relief as the Court may deem proper.

17

///

18

///

19

///

20

///

21

///

22

///

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///

Page 10 - COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION

LAWRENCE P. BLUNCK, P.C. Attorneys at Law
2350 Willamette Falls Drive West Linn, Oregon 97068
(503) 656-1654

1

B) Under Count II for Retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3, compensation for past and

2

future pecuniary damages to be determined at trial for each plaintiff; compensatory

3

damages of $1,000,000.00 for each plaintiff resulting from, but not limited to, emotional

4

pain, suffering, and loss of enjoyment of life as a result of defendant’s intentional,

5

malicious or reckless conduct as a result of defendant’s intentional, malicious or reckless

6

conduct; reasonable attorney fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k); and such other and

7

further relief as the Court may deem proper.

8

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

9

Dated this 3rd day of October, 2003.

10

LAWRENCE P. BLUNCK, P.C.

11

12

By: s/ Lawrence P. Blunck

13

Lawrence P. Blunck, OSB #84178 Scott D. Preston OSB #02430

14

503-656-1654

Of Attorneys for Plaintiffs Wendy Baker,

15

Donna Emerson, Laurie DaMetz and

Christine Thompson 16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Page 11 - COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION

LAWRENCE P. BLUNCK, P.C. Attorneys at Law
2350 Willamette Falls Drive West Linn, Oregon 97068
(503) 656-1654

1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2

I hereby certify that on the 3rd day of October, 2003, I served the foregoing

3 COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION on the following parties at the following addresses:

4

Lynda J. Hartzell

A Luis Lucero, Jr John F. Stanley

5

Tonkon Torp LLP

1600 Pioneer Tower

6

888 SW Fifth Avenue

Portland, OR 97204

Wesley Katahira Lisa Cox Equal Employment Opportunity

7

Of Attorneys for Defendant Commission

8

909 First Ave, Suite 400

Seattle, WA 98104-1061

9

Of Attorneys for Plaintiff

10

Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission

11

12 by electronically filing via the USDC ECF website.

13

s/ Scott D. Preston

14

Scott D. Preston

15

OSB #02430 503-656-1654

16

Of Attorneys for Plaintiffs Wendy Baker, Donna

Emerson, Laurie DaMetz and Christine Thompson

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Page 1 - CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

LAWRENCE P. BLUNCK,, P.C. Attorneys at Law
2350 Willamette Falls Drive West Linn, Oregon 97068
(503) 656-1654

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,

Civil No. 03-64-HA

and
WENDY BAKER, CHRISTINE THOMPSON, LAURIE DAMETZ, and DONNA EMERSON,

OPINION AND ORDER

Intervenors,

v.

UNITED STATES BAKERY,

Defendant.

A. Luis Lucero, Jr. John F. Stanley Lisa Cox Wesley Katahira Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington 98104
Attorneys for Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Page 1 Opinion and Order

Lawrence P. Blunck Scott D. Preston West Linn Law Center 2350 Willamette Falls Drive West Linn, Oregon 97068
Attorneys for Plaintiff Intervenors
Lynda J. Hartzell Dennis E. Westlind Tonkon Torp LLP 1600 Pioneer Tower 888 S.W. Fifth Avenue Portland, Oregon 97204
Attorneys for Defendant
HAGGERTY, Chief Judge:
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed this action on January
16, 2003, alleging unlawful employment practices by defendant United States Bakery (USB) in
violation of 42 U.S.c. §§ 2000e-2(a) and 3(a) (Title VII). The EEOC asserts that an employee of
the defendant sexually harassed Wendy Baker, Donna Emerson, Laurie DaMetz, and Christine
Thompson. On June 18,2003, these four individuals filed a Motion to Intervene in the federal
claims, which this court granted on July 15, 2003. On December 17,2003, the EEOC filed a
Motion to Compel Discovery and for a Limited Discovery Extension (Doc. #48) on the grounds
that USB refuses to produce documents in response to EEOC's Second Set of Requests for
Production (Second Requests).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff and plaintiff intervenors allege that one of defendant's employees, JeffFahlman,
sexually harassed Dametz, Baker, Emerson, and Thompson via verbal comments and gestures of
a sexual nature. On October 2,2003, EEOC served its Second Requests to USB. First, USB
Page 2 Opinion and Order

requested documents relating to the employment history of certain USB officials, including their promotions, demotions, performance appraisals, and any discipline action taken against them. EEOC seeks these records for three former USB Human Resource Managers, Lynette Hansen, Lisa Kane, and Susan Ingram, and Diana Rak, the current Human Resource manager who began working after Fahlman was terminated. USB avers that it has produced all requested documents and that no disciplinary reports or records exist for Hansen, Kane, Ingram, or Rak. In light of this representation, this request is denied as moot.
EEOC also seeks limited personnel records of three management officials, Bill McCarthy, Claude Sammons, and Mike Dower. McCarthy hired Fahlman and was his direct supervisor. McCarthy was involved in prior investigations regarding allegations that Fahlman was harassing other women employees besides plaintiff intervenors. See McCarthy's Dep., at 63:17-78:9. Sammons is the supervisor to whom plaintiff intervenors complained about Fahlman sexually harassing them and Sammons was present when Fahlman allegedly made sexual comments. See Dametz's Dep., at 12:25-16:6; 75:3-82:25; Thompson Dep., at 45:25-53:18. Dower is a foreman who witnessed Fahlman allegedly making sexual comments to female employees. Dametz's Dep., at 26:4-32:22.
EEOC claims USB refused to produce the personnel records of McCarthy, Sammons, and Dower because the documents are corollary to the matters in issue and impeachment was insufficient for obtaining the documents. EEOC now seeks an order compelling the limited personnel records of McCarthy, Sammons, and Dower.
EEOC also seeks production of all documents relating to any discrimination complaints against Bob Albers, USB's Chief Executive Officer. This request is based on the testimony of
Page 3 Opinion and Order

Albers' son, Marc Albers, USB's General Manager, as well as the testimony of Human Resource Manager Hansen. Marc Albers testified that his father may have been accused of sexual harassment by a female employee in the late 1980s. Albers' Dep., at 18:6-19:22. Hansen testified that she investigated a complaint brought by Birdie Lowery, a USB office worker, who alleged that Bob Albers forced her to engage in oral sex in his office. Hansen's Dep., at 28:549:12. Hansen stated that she may have taken notes of her investigation. !d. at 37: 18-38:14. USB refused to produce any documents based on relevancy grounds. STANDARDS
The federal rules allow discovery of "any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the claim or defense of any party, including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any books, documents, or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b). This rule is interpreted to allow liberal discovery of all information reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, although the discoverable information itself need not be admissible at trial. Shoen v. Shoen, 5 F.3d 1289, 1292 (9th Cir. 1993). Requests for discovery should be considered relevant if there is any possibility that the information sought may be relevant to the subject matter of the action. See id. Courts are generous in providing broad discovery parameters and refusing to allow "procedural technicalities [to] impede the full vindication of guaranteed rights." Trevino v. Celanese Corp., 701 F.2d 397, 405 (5th Cir. 1983).
If during discovery a party refuses to permit requested discovery that is relevant and not otherwise subject to privilege, the requesting party may seek an order compelling discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34; 37(a)(2)(B). In response to such an order, the party resisting discovery has a
Page 4 Opinion and Order

heavy burden of showing why discovery should be denied. Blankenship v. Hearst Corp., 519 F.2d 418,429 (9th Cir. 1975); Cable and Computer Tech. Inc. v. Lockheed Saunders, Inc., 175 F.R.D. 646, 650 (C.D. Calif., 1997) (the party resisting discovery must clarify, explain, and support its objections). Ifthe information sought is deemed by the court to be irrelevant, the court should restrict discovery to protect a party from "annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense ...." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c); see also Herbert v. Lando, 441 U.S. 153, 177 (1979). ANALYSIS
EEOC asserts its requests properly seek relevant information regarding USB's enforcement of its sexual harassment policy. USB argues that it has already produced relevant documents, including documents showing work, pay and promotion/demotion history of the identified USB employees. USB also agreed to produce any performance evaluations for these individuals, as well as documents pertaining to Marc Albers limited to the period of time he worked as General Manager.
The documents now in dispute are: (1) disciplinary reports for supervisors Dower, Sammons, and McCarthy; and (2) documents relating to a possible allegation of sexual harassment against Bob Albers.
EEOC argues that the limited personnel records of supervisors Dower, Sammons, and McCarthy are relevant because these individuals were responsible for enforcing USB's sexual harassment policy. The personnel records are also relevant because they can yield potentially important impeachment evidence.
Page 5 Opinion and Order

The court finds documents pertaining to the managers' promotions or demotions, disciplinary actions, work performance reviews, and complaints to be relevant as to whether the managers knew of the alleged hostile work environment. See Ragge v. MCA/Universal Studios, 165 F.R.D. 601, 604 (C.D. Cal. 1995). These documents also pertain to the credibility ofthe managers ifthey are called as witnesses and provide a means to evaluate testimony given in depositions. See id. (recognizing that non-party personnel files are discoverable for impeachment purposes). Contrary to USB's assertion, such evidence is not collateral to the matters in issue, but relates specifically to the managers' job performance at USB. Therefore, the court directs USB to produce all such documents pertaining to Dower, Sammons, and McCarthy's promotions or demotions, disciplinary actions, work performance reviews, and complaints.
Second, EEOC seeks production of all documents concerning the sexual harassment allegations against Bob Albers. USB objects on relevancy grounds. EEOC argues that any such evidence is a necessary factual predicate to establish that USB could have prevented Fahlman's sexual harassment had USB taken reasonable steps to strengthen its sexual harassment policy and training after the allegations against Bob Albers arose. EEOC also claims that this evidence is relevant to USB's liability for punitive damages because it may show that USB failed to act in good faith compliance with Title VII by ignoring these allegations and making appropriate changes to its sexual harassment policy or training. In addition, EEOC contends that information about the allegations against Bob Albers is admissible background evidence because it is relevant to the present sexual harassment claims against USB.
An employer is liable under Title VII if it knows, or should know, of a hostile work environment and fails to take any actions to prevent future sexual harassment. Fuller v. City of
Page 6 Opinion and Order

Oakland, Cal., 47 F.3d 1522, 1527 (9th Cir. 1995). An award of punitive damages is allowed in a Title VII action when the plaintiffs can prove that the employer engaged in intentional discrimination with reckless indifference to the plaintiffs' protected rights. 42 U.S.C. §1981a(a)(1), (b)(1); Kolstad v. Am. Dental Ass'n, 527 U.S. 526,534 (1999). Evidence of an employer's prior discriminatory acts may constitute relevant background evidence in a case where the status of a current practice is at issue. United Air Lines, Inc. v. Evans, 431 U.S. 553, 558 (1977).
The court finds that the requested documents are relevant to the question of whether USB knew, or should have known, of a hostile work environment and failed to take any preventive actions. The documents may also be relevant as to whether USB is liable for punitive damages for failing to make good faith efforts to remedy a possible hostile work environment. In addition, the documents are relevant background evidence. For these reasons, USB is ordered to produce all such documents relating to the sexual harassment allegations against Bob Albers. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Discovery and for a Limited Discovery Extension (Doc. #48) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this ~ day of February, 2004.

Page 7 Opinion and Order

United States District Judge

 
 1 Lawrence P. Blunck OSB No. 84178

larry@bluncklaw.com 2 Scott D. Preston OSB No. 02430

3 scott@bluncklaw.com Lawrence Blunck, P.C.

4 West Linn Law Center

2350 Willamette Falls Drive 5 West Linn, OR 97068

6

Telephone: Facsimile:

503-656-1654 503-650-0603

7 Attorneys for Plaintiffs in Intervention

8

9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

11

12 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY 13 COMMISSION,

14

Plaintiff,

15 and

16

WENDY BAKER, DONNA EMERSON, LAURIE DAMETZ AND CHRISTINE

17 THOMPSON,

18

Plaintiffs in Intervention

19 v.

20

UNITED STATES BAKERY, INC., an active Oregon corporation,

21

Defendant,

22

No. CV 03 64-HA
AMENDED COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION Unlawful Employment Practice 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2 and 2000e-3
Demand for Jury Trial By Plaintiffs in Intervention

23

24

25

26

Page 1 - AMENDED COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION

LAWRENCE P. BLUNCK, P.C. Attorneys at Law
2350 Willamette Falls Drive West Linn, Oregon 97068
(503) 656-1654

1

COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION

2

I.

3

NATURE OF THE ACTION AND RELIEF SOUGHT

4 1. Currently, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) representing the

5 public interest is pursuing an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of

6 the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to correct unlawful employment practices and provide relief to

7 Wendy Baker, Donna Emerson, Laurie DaMetz, and Christine Thompson (hereafter “plaintiffs”),

8 who were adversely affected by such practices.

9 2. After conferring with the EEOC, the EEOC has consented to plaintiffs’ Motion to

10 Intervene regarding their interests under federal law claims.

11

II.

12

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

13 3. This is an action arising under the laws of the United States of America, in particular

14 Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2 and 2000e-3.

15 4. The jurisdiction of this court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§451, 1331, 1337 and

16 1343, this action is authorized and instituted pursuant to sections 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII,

17 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-5 and section 102 of the Civil

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

19 5. The employment policies and practices alleged to be unlawful were committed within the

20 jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the District of Oregon. Venue is appropriate

21 in this District because it is the District where defendant resides and/or is authorized to conduct

22 and is conducting business, and where plaintiffs reside, and where a substantial part of the events

23 giving rise to this Complaint occurred.

24 ///

25 ///

26 ///

Page 2 - AMENDED COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION

LAWRENCE P. BLUNCK, P.C. Attorneys at Law
2350 Willamette Falls Drive West Linn, Oregon 97068
(503) 656-1654

1

III.

2

PARTIES

3 6. Plaintiff Wendy Baker was at all relevant times an employee of defendant United States

4 Bakery. She resides in Portland, Oregon.

5 7. Plaintiff Laurie DaMetz was at all relevant times an employee of United States Bakery.

6 She resides in Portland, Oregon.

7 8. Plaintiff Donna Emerson was at all relevant times an employee of United States Bakery.

8 She resides in Portland, Oregon.

9 9. Plaintiff Christine Thompson was at all relevant times an employee of United States

10 Bakery. She resides in Portland, Oregon.

11 10. Defendant United States Bakery is an active Oregon corporation and has been doing

12 business in Multnomah County, Oregon. At all material times, defendant United States Bakery

13 employed plaintiffs in various positions throughout the Bakery.

14

IV.

15

ADMINISTRATIVE PREREQUISITES

16 11. Plaintiffs have complied with all of the administrative prerequisites to an action under

17 Section 706 of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. Sections 2000e-

18 5 as follows:

19

a. On or about February 6, 2001, plaintiffs timely filed a formal charge of unlawful

20 employment discrimination on the basis of sex with BOLI;

21

b. Subsequently, on or about January 14, 2002 BOLI transferred the matter to the EEOC;

22

c. Plaintiffs promptly and diligently accommodated all BOLI and EEOC requests for

23 information and fully cooperated in the agencies’ investigations of this matter; and,

24

d. Plaintiffs have exhausted all available administrative remedies in accord with the

25 aforementioned statutes prior to instituting this civil action.

26 ///

Page 3 - AMENDED COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION

LAWRENCE P. BLUNCK, P.C. Attorneys at Law
2350 Willamette Falls Drive West Linn, Oregon 97068
(503) 656-1654

1

V.

2

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

3

(Plaintiff Wendy Baker)

4 12. In 1999, defendant hired plaintiff Wendy Baker to work in the production labor pool.

5 Two months after being hired she obtained the Checker position. Plaintiff has had good reviews

6 pertaining to her job performance.

7 13. Over the course of her employment, plaintiff often worked with Jeff Fahlman, a Foreman

8 in the Production area of United States Bakery. On numerous occasions Jeff Fahlman made

9 sexual comments to plaintiff Baker and to other employees at the Bakery. One such example

10 occurred on or about February 16, 2000, when Jeff Fahlman described to the plaintiff that his

11 penis was large and that he could satisfy her sexually.

12 14. On numerous occasions Jeff Fahlman told the plaintiff sexually explicit jokes and spoke 13 of how “well endowed” he was. On one occasion, when Ms. Baker flexed her bicep to show how

14 the checker position had gotten her back in shape, Fahlman reached over, touched plaintiff’s arm 15 and said, “that’s about as hard as my dick.” The plaintiff was embarrassed and left the office.

16 15. Daniel Christianson, Ms. Baker’s coworker, heard Jeff Fahlman make sexual comments 17 about plaintiff. Fahlman said, “What a great fuck she would be. She’s small, she’s tight. She 18 would be squeaky tight.” Mr. Christianson also witnessed Jeff Fahlman comment about the way

19 Ms. Baker moved, with sexual implications.

20 16. Plaintiff also worked with Tom Caudle, the Foreman on graveyard shift. Caudle has said 21 to plaintiff that she has a “nice ass.” On one occasion while plaintiff was bending over to pick 22 up a tray, Mr. Caudle walked by, stopped behind her and said, “mmm hmm!” Caudle, like 23 Fahlman, has described how “well endowed” he is. He told plaintiff that he is attracted to 24 muscular women and how he and a female co-worker have almost “gone all the way.”

25 17. On June 8, 2000, Mr. Caudle told plaintiff in a hostile voice that he felt like spanking her

26 like a child because she was not doing her job to the best of her abilities and then continued to

Page 4 - AMENDED COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION

LAWRENCE P. BLUNCK, P.C. Attorneys at Law
2350 Willamette Falls Drive West Linn, Oregon 97068
(503) 656-1654

1 yell at plaintiff regarding company protocol. Plaintiff felt shocked and intimidated by the tone

2 he used with her.

3 18. On June 15, 2000, Caudle gave plaintiff an unrealistic ultimatum to change her work shift

4 so she could do his paperwork, or look for another job.

5 19. On numerous occasions Caudle told plaintiff she should look for another job and

6 threatened plaintiff that she had only a few more write-ups and she would be terminated.

7 20. On July 28, 2000, a male co-worker informed plaintiff that Mr. Fahlman and Mr. Caudle 8 referred to plaintiff as “sweetheart.”

9 21. Mr. Caudle told plaintiff that Bill McCarthy, a supervisor and Fahlman’s cousin, referred 10 to plaintiff many times as “a piece of shit.”

11 22. These occurrences and other ongoing instances constitute an unlawful employment

12 practice of discrimination.

13

VI.

14

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

15

(Plaintiff Laurie DaMetz)

16 23. In April 1995, defendant hired Laurie DaMetz to work in the production office. Her

17 tasks include managing many of the accounting tasks for the Bakery.

18 24. Since 1995, and over the course of time at the Bakery, plaintiff has been sexually

19 harassed by Jeff Fahlman, Foreman at the Bakery. When passing by, Fahlman would frequently 20 make sexual comments or advances toward plaintiff. On occasion he asked plaintiff DaMetz, “If 21 I weren’t married and you weren’t married, would you go out with me?”

22 25. In 1997, plaintiff moved to a separate office away from other office workers. The

23 harassing comments by Fahlman escalated. He would grab the back of plaintiff’s chair and do

24 pelvic thrusting motions toward the chair. On one occasion when plaintiff was leaning through a

25 window, Fahlman pulled plaintiff towards him and did a pelvic thrust.

26 26. Fahlman repeatedly talked about sex to plaintiff DaMetz, including bestiality and brought

Page 5 - AMENDED COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION

LAWRENCE P. BLUNCK, P.C. Attorneys at Law
2350 Willamette Falls Drive West Linn, Oregon 97068
(503) 656-1654

1 pictures to work displaying these actions.

2 27. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Fahlman made comments in a sexual manner to plaintiff such as: “Come on, right now, in the parking lot, you’re going to suck me off.” “How much money would it take to for you suck off a dog and let me watch?” “Can’t you give me a blow job?” “Would you suck off a horse and let it run all over your body?” “Would you do a dog?” “Hold that position, I’m almost ready.” “It would be really fast, just three pumps and a dump.”

10 28. In December of 1999, Mike Dower, plaintiff’s supervisor, walked into her office

11 following a recent visit by Fahlman to plaintiff’s office where Fahlman had been very offensive.

12 Plaintiff was visibly upset and Dower informed plaintiff that he had informed Marc Albers, the

13 General Manager, about Fahlman’s behavior. Fahlman told plaintiff that he had been called in to 14 the office again for a reprimand, but his behavior did not change.

15 29. In June 2000, DaMetz reported Fahlman’s harassment directly to Marc Albers, the

16 General Manager at the Bakery.

17 30. On December 4, 2000 Marc Albers, the General Manager, personally met with plaintiff

18 and in that meeting discouraged her from making any complaints against the Bakery. Albers 19 denied that plaintiff ever complained in the past and stated to plaintiff, “you can be a good 20 witness or a bad witness.” He also told plaintiff that jobs could be “eliminated.” He further

21 explained that names can be dragged through the mud in the same way claimants are making

22 accusations. As a result of these comments plaintiff felt threatened and feared losing her job.

23 31. These occurrences and other ongoing instances constitute an unlawful employment

24 practice of discrimination and retaliation.

25 ///

26 ///

Page 6 - AMENDED COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION

LAWRENCE P. BLUNCK, P.C. Attorneys at Law
2350 Willamette Falls Drive West Linn, Oregon 97068
(503) 656-1654

1

VII.

2

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

3

(Plaintiff Donna Emerson)

4 32. Defendant hired plaintiff Donna Emerson approximately 13 years ago as a “wrap helper.”

5 33. Over the last 10 years plaintiff has often worked with Jeff Fahlman.

6 34. During this period of 10 years, at least 3-4 times each week, Jeff Fahlman sexually

7 harassed plaintiff.

8 35. This harassment occurred almost on a daily basis. Fahlman constantly talked about sex

9 and told sexual jokes. This sexual harassment included sexual statements and conduct such as:

10

a. Fahlman would grab his crotch and say to plaintiff “why don’t you just suck on this for

11

a while.”

12

b. Fahlman motioned to plaintiff and said, “I just wanted to see if I could make you come

13

with my finger.”

14

c. Fahlman asked plaintiff “what color panties do you have on?”

15

d. While standing in a particular place where his face was at the height of plaintiff’s

16

breasts, Fahlman said, “You’re perfect right where you are.”

17

e. Fahlman also commented to plaintiff “I’ve gotta have sex every day.”

18 36. On one occasion, Daniel Christianson, plaintiff’s coworker, heard Jeff Fahlman ask

19 Donna Emerson about her sexual practices.

20 37. On numerous occasions, plaintiff complained to Fahlman about his behavior. On these

21 occasions, Fahlman would explain that it was his word against hers, because there were no 22 witnesses to his comments. He would often state “No one is around,” or “Who are they going to 23 believe, you, a woman, or me, the foreman?”

24 38. At one point in her employment with defendant, plaintiff was selected for a position in

25 the checking department. She decided against taking the position because it would require her to 26 work with Mr. Fahlman. In response to her declining the position Fahlman stated to plaintiff, “If

Page 7 - AMENDED COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION

LAWRENCE P. BLUNCK, P.C. Attorneys at Law
2350 Willamette Falls Drive West Linn, Oregon 97068
(503) 656-1654

1 you don’t take this job, you’ll never work in this department.” He also said “You couldn’t do it 2 anyway, you’re a woman.”

3 39. These occurrences and other ongoing instances constitute an unlawful employment

4 practice of discrimination.

5

VIII.

6

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

7

(Plaintiff Christine Thompson)

8 40. On August 20, 1998, defendant hired plaintiff Christine Thompson as a general laborer

9 and in January 2000, plaintiff started working in a checking position.

10 41. On January 8, 2000, Jeff Fahlman, plaintiff’s supervisor, began to constantly threaten 11 plaintiff with termination. He stated, “You’re a woman and as you can see there are no women 12 in checking because it’s so difficult.” He told plaintiff that she could be terminated for just about

13 anything. He further explained that checking department employees did not get overtime and

14 threatened that Bill McCarthy, the Plant Supervisor, would reprimand plaintiff for not having her

15 work done by the end of her shift.

16 42. In March 2000, Fahlman began telling plaintiff sexually explicit jokes. Fahlman also

17 asked plaintiff if she would date him if she were not married.

18 43. On one occasion, Fahlman stated to plaintiff that he watched pornographic videos that 19 included women “fucking” animals. He then asked plaintiff if she watched that kind of movie or

20 if she participated in such sexual activities. Plaintiff expressed her offense to the comments and 21 question and Fahlman responded by saying “I say these things with no witnesses, so it’s my word 22 against yours.”

23 44. On one occasion, Daniel Christianson, Thompson’s co-worker, witnessed Fahlman ask 24 plaintiff, “Have you ever had sex with animals?” Christianson also witnessed Fahlman ask 25 plaintiff, “Do you have body piercing? Have you pierced anything in your vagina? Can I touch 26 it?”

Page 8 - AMENDED COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION

LAWRENCE P. BLUNCK, P.C. Attorneys at Law
2350 Willamette Falls Drive West Linn, Oregon 97068
(503) 656-1654

1 45. On or about April 2000, Fahlman told plaintiff a “nigger” joke. Plaintiff was so shocked 2 by the joke she only remembers the punch line which was “hang ‘em high.” Plaintiff is black.

3 46. Plaintiff Thompson attempted to talk to Bill McCarthy, the Plant Supervisor, but later

4 learned that Fahlman was Bill McCarthy’s cousin. Because of this relationship, plaintiff felt she

5 could not speak to Bill McCarthy for fear she would lose her job.

6 47. On May 11, 2000, plaintiff requested to work overtime in a different department of the

7 Bakery. Fahlman told plaintiff she was not allowed to work overtime because it was against

8 company policy to allow a checker to work in any other departments. Upon plaintiff’s request to

9 see the policy, Fahlman replied it was an unwritten rule. Plaintiff was not satisfied with this

10 response and asked another foreman about this “rule.” The other foreman informed her there

11 was no such rule.

12 48. On May 12, 2000, plaintiff worked in the other department. Fahlman arrived at the

13 Bakery and discovered plaintiff working. After some discussion about the “rule,” Fahlman told 14 plaintiff, “I usually tell bitches to go out in the parking lot and suck my dick.”

15 49. As a result of these comments, plaintiff requested a transfer from the checker department.

16 50. These occurrences and other ongoing instances constitute an unlawful employment

17 practice of discrimination based on the plaintiff’s race/color and or sex.

18

COUNT I

19

Unlawful Employment Practices Against Plaintiffs (42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2)

20 51. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference paragraphs 1 through 50.

21 52. Defendant United States Bakery has committed unlawful employment practices by

22 discriminating against plaintiffs in their terms, conditions or privileges of employment because

23 of plaintiffs’ sex and or race. Defendant’s conduct was intentional and done with malice or with

24 reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of the plaintiffs in violation of 42 U.S.C. §

25 2000e-2.

26 ///

Page 9 - AMENDED COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION

LAWRENCE P. BLUNCK, P.C. Attorneys at Law
2350 Willamette Falls Drive West Linn, Oregon 97068
(503) 656-1654

1

COUNT II

2

Discrimination Against Plaintiffs (42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3)

3 53. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 50.

4 54. Defendant has discriminated against plaintiffs because of their opposition to United

5 States Bakery’s unlawful employment practices or because they have made charges, testified,

6 assisted, or participated in an investigation or proceeding regarding the unlawful employment

7 practices. Defendant’s conduct was intentional and done with malice or with reckless

8 indifference to the federally protected rights of the plaintiffs in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3.

9

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray for judgment against defendant United States Bakery as

10 follows:

11

A) Under Count I for discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2, compensation for past and

12

future pecuniary damages for each plaintiff to be determined at trial; compensatory

13

damages of $1,000,000.00 for each plaintiff resulting from, but not limited to, emotional

14

pain, suffering, and loss of enjoyment of life as a result of defendant’s intentional,

15

malicious or reckless conduct; reasonable attorney fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-

16

5(k); and such other and further relief as the Court may deem proper.

17

B) Under Count II for Retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3, compensation for past and

18

future pecuniary damages to be determined at trial for each plaintiff; compensatory

19

damages of $1,000,000.00 for each plaintiff resulting from, but not limited to, emotional

20

pain, suffering, and loss of enjoyment of life as a result of defendant’s intentional,

21

malicious or reckless conduct as a result of defendant’s intentional, malicious or reckless

22

conduct; reasonable attorney fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k); and such other and

23

further relief as the Court may deem proper.

24 ///

25 ///

26 ///

Page 10 - AMENDED COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION

LAWRENCE P. BLUNCK, P.C. Attorneys at Law
2350 Willamette Falls Drive West Linn, Oregon 97068
(503) 656-1654

1

C) Under Counts I and II for punitive damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1981a for its malicious

2

or reckless conduct as described in paragraphs 1-50 above, in amounts to be determined

3

at trial.

4

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

5

Dated this 12th day of April, 2004.

6

LAWRENCE P. BLUNCK, P.C.

7

8

By: s/ Lawrence P. Blunck

9

Lawrence P. Blunck, OSB #84178 Scott D. Preston OSB #02430

10

503-656-1654

Of Attorneys for Plaintiffs Wendy Baker,

11

Donna Emerson, Laurie DaMetz and

Christine Thompson 12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Page 11 - AMENDED COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION

LAWRENCE P. BLUNCK, P.C. Attorneys at Law
2350 Willamette Falls Drive West Linn, Oregon 97068
(503) 656-1654

1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2

I hereby certify that on the 12th day of April, 2004, I served the foregoing proposed

3 AMENDED COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION on the following parties at the following

4 addresses: 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Lynda J. Hartzell Tonkon Torp LLP 1600 Pioneer Tower 888 SW Fifth Avenue Portland, OR 97204
Of Attorneys for Defendant

A Luis Lucero, Jr John F. Stanley Wesley Katahira Lisa Cox Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 909 First Ave, Suite 400 Seattle, WA 98104-1061
Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

13 by electronically filing via the USDC ECF website.

14

s/ Scott D. Preston

15

Scott D. Preston

16

OSB #02430 503-656-1654

17

Of Attorneys for Plaintiffs Wendy Baker, Donna

Emerson, Laurie DaMetz and Christine Thompson

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Page 1 - CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

LAWRENCE P. BLUNCK,, P.C. Attorneys at Law
2350 Willamette Falls Drive West Linn, Oregon 97068
(503) 656-1654

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

KATHRYN OLSON, SUPERVISORY TRIAL ATTORNEY

f J JOHN F. STANLEY, ACTING SUPERVISORY TRIAL A~RNEY

WESLEY KATAHIRA, SENIOR TRIAL ATTORNEY

1!!Jr~ Jll1? 11:47,USDC~P

LISA COX, TRIAL ATTORNEY

L--

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

909 FIRST AVENUE, SUITE 400

SEATTLE, WA 98104

Lisa. Cox@EEOC.gov

\

\ f

Tel: (206) 220-6859

\J

Fax: (206) 220-6911

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF EEOC

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
and
WENDY BAKER, CHRISTINE THOMPSON, LAURIE DAMETZ, and DONNA EMERSON,
Intervenors,
vs.
UNITED STATES BAKERY, INC., Defendant.

Civil No. CV 03-64 HA CONSENT DECREE

EEOC, et al. v. U.s. BAKERY, INC.
CV03-64-HA Consent Decree
Page 1 of14

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Seattle Field Office

909 First Avenue, Suite 400

Seattle, Washington 98104-1061

Telephone: (206) 220-6883

r i Facsimile: (206) 220-6911 1'P roD, (206) 220....2 ~

n

1. INTRODUCTION

1. This action originated when Laurie Dametz, Donna Emerson, Wendy

Baker, and Christine Thompson (collectively referred to as "Intervenors") filed charges of

discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC" or

"Commission"). They alleged that United States Bakery, Inc. ("USB" or "the Company" or

"defendant") discriminated against them because of sex and race in violation of Title VII of the

Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended ("Title VII"), when USB subjected them to a hostile work

environment.

2. On January 12,2002, the EEOC issued letters of detennination with a

finding of reasonable cause to believe that USB violated Title VII.

3. The Commission filed its complaint on January 16,2003 in the United

States District Court for District of Oregon. As relevant here, the complaint alleges that

defendant sexually harassed Ms. Dametz, Ms. Emerson, Ms. Baker, and Ms. Thompson because

of their sex, creating a hostile environment. EEOC further alleges that defendant harassed Ms.

Thompson, an African-American female, based on her race, creating a hostile environment. Ms.

Dametz, Ms. Emerson, Ms. Baker, and Ms. Thompson moved to intervene in the EEOC's case

and subsequently filed their complaint in intervention on April 12,2004.

4. USB filed answers denying the allegations of discrimination in the

EEOC's complaint and the complaint in intervention and asserted several affinnative defenses.

5. On August 9, 2004, the Court granted the EEOC's motion for partial

summary judgment, holding USB liable for sexual harassment against Ms. Dametz,

Ms. Emerson, Ms. Baker, and Ms. Thompson and for racial harassment against Ms. Thompson.

EEOC, et al. v. u.s. BAKERY, INC.
CV03-64-HA
Consent Decree
Page 20f14

u.s. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Seattle Field Office 909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington 98104-1061
Telephone: (206) 220-6883
Facsimile: (206) 220-6911 TOO: (206) 220-6882

6. By entering into this consent decree, the EEOC and USB desire to

conclude fully and finally this litigation and to further the objectives of equal employment as set

forth in Title VII. This consent decree is the final and complete resolution of all allegations of

unlawful employment practices contained in the plaintiffs' discrimination charges, in the EEOC

administrative determination, and in the complaint filed herein, including all claims by the

parties for attorney fees and costs.

II. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

General Provisions

7. USB reaffirms its commitment to comply with Title VII. To further this

commitment, the Company shall monitor the affirmative obligations of this consent decree. The

terms ofthis consent decree shall apply to all applicants and employees who work out of the

Franz facility of USB located at 340 NE 11 th Street, Portland, Oregon, and include USB's

corporate office in Portland, Oregon. Any reference to applicants or employees in this Decree

means the applicants and employees who work at the Franz facility or the corporate office, as

noted above.

8. The Company shall not retaliate 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.

9. USB, its officers, agents, and employees, are hereby enjoined from

engaging in personnel practices which unlawfully discriminate against applicants and employees

in violation of Title VII. In recognition of its obligations under Title VII, USB shall review and

revise, as necessary, its policies and practices as set forth herein.

EEOC, et al. v. U.S. BAKERY, INC. CV03-64-HA Consent Decree
Page 3 of14

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Seattle Field Office
909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington 98104-1061
Telephone: (206) 220-6883 Facsimile: (206) 220-6911
TOO: (206) 220-6882

10. USB shall review its policies against discriminatory employment practices

(hereinafter referred to as "policies"), and revise them as necessary to comply with the objectives

in paragraph 14 below. USB shall submit its policies to the EEOC for review and approval.

Once approved by the EEOC, USB shall distribute its policies to all present and future

employees, management and non-management, temporary and permanent, beginning 45 days

after approval by the EEOC and continuing for the duration of the decree. Distribution shall be

through postings in the workplace. All new hires shall receive a copy ofthe policies upon hire.

Existing employees shall receive a copy of the policies and shall sign an acknowledgement of

receipt.

11. USB affirms the following "Statement of Zero-Tolerance Policy and

Workplace Objectives":

U.S. Bakery, Inc., is firmly committed to developing and maintaining a

zero-tolerance policy concerning sex discrimination, sexually-based

harassment, race discrimination and racially-based harassment against

individuals who report discrimination or harassment in the company's

workplace; to promptly responding to any acts of sex discrimination,

sexually-based harassment, race discrimination or racially-based

harassment of which the company becomes aware; to implementing a

disciplinary system that is designed to deter future acts of sex

discrimination, sexual harassment, race discrimination or racial

harassment; to eradicating any vestiges of a work environment that is

sexually or racially hostile to individuals; and to monitoring its workplace

EEOC, et al. v. U.s. BAKERY, INC. CV03-64-HA Consent Decree Page 40f14

U.s. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Seattle Field Office
909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington 98104-1061
Telephone: (206) 220-6883 Facsimile: (206) 220·6911
TOO: (206) 220·6882

in order to ensure tolerance, respect and dignity for all people.

Expunging Records

12. Defendant shall not disclose any infonnation or make references to any

charges of discrimination or this lawsuit in responding to employment reference requests for

infonnation about the Intervenors.

13. Defendant agrees that no infonnation about the Intervenors' claims of

discrimination against defendant and this lawsuit shall be maintained in their personnel files.

Files containing infonnation about the Intervenors that have been developed during the subject

litigation shall be maintained at the offices of defendant's counsel, Tonkon Torp, for the tenn of

this decree. Defendant shall make the Intervenors' personnel files available for inspection by

EEOC counsel at the offices of Tonkon Torp.

Specific Non-Monetary Relief

14. In order to effectuate the objectives embodied in USB's Statement of Zero-

Tolerance Policy and Workplace Objectives and this Decree, USB shall review and modify, if

necessary, its existing policies, procedures and practices to ensure that the following policies,

procedures and practices are in effect:

(a) Sex Discrimination and Harassment Policy. USB agrees that it shall

review and revise its discrimination and harassment policy, as necessary,

in order to:

(i) provide clear definitions and examples of prohibited sex and race

discrimination, and sexual and racial harassment;

(ii)
EEOC, et al. v. u.s. BAKERY, INC.
CV03-64-HA Consent Decree Page 50f14

provide for substantial and progressive discipline for incidents of
u.s. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Seattle Field Office 909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington 98104-1061
Telephone: (206) 220-6883 Facsimile: (206) 220-6911
TOO: (206) 220-6882

sex and race discrimination, sexual and racial harassment;

(iii) provide that complaints of sex and race discrimination, sexual and

racial harassment shall be accepted by USB in writing and orally

(however, USB may request oral complaints be followed up in

writing);

(iv) provide a timetable for reporting a complaint, for commencing an

investigation after a complaint is made or received, and for

remedial action to be taken upon conclusion of an investigation;

and

(v) provide that upon the conclusion of its investigation of a

complaint, USB shall inform the complaining party of the results

of the investigation and remedial actions taken or proposed, if any.

(b) Complaint Procedures.

(i) USB agrees that it shall institute a complaint procedure designed to

encourage employees to come forward with complaints about

violations of its sex and race discrimination and harassment

policies. As part of this complaint procedure, USB agrees that it

shall provide its employees with convenient, confidential and

reliable mechanisms for reporting incidents of sex and race

discrimination and harassment. USB agrees that it shall designate

at least two upper management employees to report incidents of

EEOC, et al. v. u.s. BAKERY, INC.
CV03-64-HA
Consent Decree
Page 60f14

discrimination, harassment or retaliation prohibited by their
u.s. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Seattle Field Office 909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington 98104-1061
Telephone: (206) 220-6883 Facsimile: (206) 220-6911
TOO: (206) 220-6882

policies, including their job titles, work locations and phone

numbers.

(ii) USB agrees that it shall enable complaining parties to be

interviewed by USB about their complaints in a private office or

conference room. USB agrees that its complaint procedure shall

not impose upon individuals seeking to make a complaint alleging

sex or race discrimination or harassment any requirements that are

more burdensome than are imposed upon individuals who make

other complaints of comparable gravity.

(iii) USB agrees that its policies and procedures shall provide that

complaints of sex and race discrimination or harassment shall be

investigated and addressed. Specifically, USB agrees that it shall

make best efforts to investigate complaints promptly and to

complete investigations in a timely manner, defined as three (3)

weeks to six (6) weeks from the date each complaint was received

by the HR manager. USB shall further make best efforts to

prepare its written investigative findings and its proposed remedial

actions within ten (10) days after completion of the investigation,

and shall communicate to the complaining party its findings along

with the remedial actions taken or proposed, if any.

(iv) USB agrees that it shall make best efforts to ensure that

EEOC, et al. v. u.s. BAKERY, INC.
CV03-64-HA
Consent Decree
Page 7of14

appropriate remedial action is taken to resolve complaints and that
u.s. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Seattle Field Office 909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington 98104-1061
Telephone: (206) 220-6883 Facsimile: (206) 220-6911
TOO: (206) 220-6882

the remedial measure shall deter the occurrence of further incidents

of sex or race discrimination or harassment. USB further agrees

that it shall revise its progressive discipline policy to provide for

substantial discipline short of termination -- including, but not

limited to, suspensions without pay -- as a possible consequence

for violations of its discrimination and harassment policy.

(c) Policies Designed To Promote Supervisor Accountability.

(i) USB agrees that it shall apply its progressive discipline policy to

any supervisor or manager who engages in sex or race

discrimination or harassment, or who knowingly permits any such

conduct to occur in his or her work area or among employees

under his or her supervision, or who retaliates against any person

who complains or participates in any investigation or proceeding

concerning any such conduct. USB shall communicate this policy

to all of its supervisors and managers.

(ii) USB agrees that it shall continue to advise all managers and

supervisors of their duty to report any incidents and/or complaints

of sex or race discrimination or harassment of which they become

aware to the HR manager, who is charged with handling such

complaints.

(iii) USB agrees that it shall include a commitment to equal

employment opportunity as a criterion for qualification for

EEOC, et al. v. U.s. BAKERY, INC. CV03-64-HA Consent Decree Page 8 of14

U.s. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Seattle Field Office
909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington 98104-1061
Telephone: (206) 220-6883 Facsimile: (206) 220-6911
TOO: (206) 220-6882

supervisory positions.

(iv) USB agrees to add a category to the perfonnance evaluation for

supervisors entitled "Enforces Company Policies: [including EEO

policies].

(d) Sexual Harassment Training.

(i) USB agrees that it shall provide mandatory annual discrimination

and harassment training to all employees, including supervisors; to

provide mandatory discrimination and harassment training to all

new employees during employee orientation (the nature of training

during orientation of new employees may be via videotape or other

fonnat as approved by the counsel for USB); to provide mandatory

discrimination and harassment training to all senior management

officials; and to provide training to all persons charged with the

handling of complaints of sex or race discrimination, or harassment

in the workplace, and the techniques for investigating and

preventing it.

(ii) U.S. Bakery agrees that all training required by this Decree shall

be conducted by the Human Resources Manager, except that

training of executive management shall be by the VP ofHR for

USB. USB agrees that it shall require a member of management to

introduce all discrimination and harassment training to

communicate USB's commitment to its Statement of Zero-

EEOC, et al. v. u.s. BAKERY, INC. CV03-64-HA Consent Decree Page 9 of14

U.s. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Seattle Field Office
909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington 98104-1061
Telephone: (206) 220-6883 Facsimile: (206) 220-6911
TOO: (206) 220-6882

Tolerance Policy and Workplace Objectives.

Consent Decree Review and Compliance

15. USB shall work with its legal counsel to comply with the requirements of

this consent decree. The EEOC shall agree to the appointment of Lynda Hartzell, an attorney

with the Portland firm of Tonkon Torp LLP experienced in employment law (legal counsel), to

work with the EEOC and USB to effectuate the purposes of this consent decree, to provide

assistance and training as necessary, and to assist with USB's policy and reporting requirements.

In her absence, the EEOC shall agree that USB shall work with another Tonkon Torp attorney

(legal counsel) who is experienced in employment law.

16. Within two (2) months after the entry ofthe consent decree by the court

USB shall submit to the EEOC for review and comment all current employment policies that

relate to the Statement of Zero-Tolerance Policy and Workplace Objectives. The EEOC may

make recommendations for further modifications to such policies, and the final version of the

policies shall be implemented within one (1) month after any modifications by the EEOC.

17. Within twelve (12) months after the entry of the consent decree by the

court, USB shall complete a report of all training performed as required by this consent decree,

along with a copy of the training materials. 18. Within twelve (12) months after the entry of the consent decree by the

court, USB shall submit a report to the EEOC with the following:

• Affirmation of compliance with policy distributions and postings.

• Affirmation of training compliance.

19. For the duration of the consent decree, USB shall review with its legal

EEOC, et al. v. u.s. BAKERY, INC.
CV03-64-HA Consent Decree
Page 10 of14

u.s. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Seattle Field Office 909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington 98104-1061
Telephone: (206) 220-6883 Facsimile: (206) 220-6911
TOO: (206) 220-6882

counsel the implementation of its employment policies and practices relating to USB's Statement

of Zero-Tolerance Policy and Equality Objectives.

20. USB shall be responsible for the implementation of all non-monetary

relief under the terms of this consent decree, except as otherwise provided herein. USB shall not

be precluded from developing and implementing its own programs as it may deem appropriate.

Monitoring Complaints

21. As noted above, legal counsel for USB shall work with USB and review

any reported race or sex discrimination or harassment complaints by USB employees or

applicants. The review shall include a review of the investigation, findings, and remedial

measures. USB shall make a good faith best effort to follow any recommendations, if any, made

by legal counsel concerning the complaint process, the investigations, the findings, and/or the

remedial measures.

22. Except for communications between USB, its legal counsel and the EEOC

as required by this consent decree, all communications between USB and its legal counsel are

privileged and confidential.

Reporting

23. In addition to the reporting requirements in this consent decree, USB shall

submit a final report to EEOC 30 days before the consent decree expires containing a statement

that it has complied with all the terms of this consent decree.

ENFORCEMENT

24. If the EEOC concludes that USB has breached this Agreement, it may

bring an action in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon to enforce this

EEOC, et al. v. U.s. BAKERY, INC. CV03-64-HA Consent Decree Page 11 of14

U.s. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Seattle Field Office
909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington 98104-1061
Telephone: (206) 220-6883 Facsimile: (206) 220-6911
TOO: (206) 220-6882

consent decree. Before bringing an action for breach of the decree, the EEOC shall first give the

Company 20 days' notice of the nature of the breach and the remedy to cure the breach. The

EEOC and the Company shall use that 20-day period for good faith efforts to resolve the matter.

No action may be filed after the expiration of 45 days after the term of the consent decree.

RETENTION OF JURISDICTION

25. The United States District Court for the District of Oregon shall retain

jurisdiction over this matter for the duration of the decree.

DURATION AND TERMINATION

26. This consent decree shall be in effect until for three (3) years from the date

of the entry of the decree by the court. If the EEOC petitions the court for breach of agreement,

and the court finds the Company to be in violation of the terms of the consent decree, the court

may extend this consent decree.

CONCLUSION

27. The provisions of this consent decree are not binding on the parties until

the authorized representatives of each party sign and the court enters the consent decree in the

court.

1/

1/

1/

1/

II

1/

EEOC, et al. v. U.S. BAKERY, INC. CV03-64-HA Consent Decree Page 12 of14

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Seattle Field Office
909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington 98104-1061
Telephone: (206) 220-6883 Facsimile: (206) 220-6911
TOO: (206) 220-6882

DATED this 10th day of July ,2006.

WILLIAM R. TAMAYO Regional Attorney San Francisco District 350 The Embarcadero, Suite 500 San Francisco, California 94105-1260

JAMES L. LEE Deputy General Counsel
GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel

KATHRYN OLSON Supervisory Trial Attorney

JOHN F. STANLEY Acting Supervisory Trial Attorney

WESLEY KATAHIRA Senior Trial Attorney

LISA A. COX Trial Attorney

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Seattle Field Office 909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington 98104 Telephone (206) 220-6883

Office of the General Counsel 1801 "L" Street NW Washington, D.C. 20507

Attorneys for Plaintiff EEOC

TONKON 1pRP LLP

, --Ilf.

,----

By: ;'. -

Lyndai • z 1, OSB 1600 Pioneer ower

888 S.W. Fifth Avenue Portland, OR 97204-2099 Telephone: (503) 802-2153

Attorneys for Defendant United States

EEOC, et al. v. U.s. BAKERY, INC. CV03-64-HA Consent Decree Page 13 of14

U.s. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Seattle Field Office
909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington 98104-1061
Telephone: (206) 220-6883 Facsimile: (206) 220-6911
TOO: (206) 220-6882

 
 E.E.O.C. v. U.S. Bakery, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2003)

2003 WL 23538023 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
United States District Court, D. Oregon.
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff, and
Wendy BAKER, Christine Thompson, Laurie Dametz, and Donna Emerson, Intervenors,
UNITED STATES BAKERY, Defendant.
No. CV 03–64–HA. | Nov. 20, 2003.
Attorneys and Law Firms
A. Luis Lucero, Jr., John Freeman Stanley, Lisa Ann Cox, Wesley Katahira, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff.
Lawrence P. Blunck, Scott D. Preston, Lawrence P. Blunck, PC, West Linn, OR, for Intervenor Plaintiff.
Lynda J. Hartzell, Tonkon Torp LLP, Portland, OR, for Defendant.
Opinion
OPINION AND ORDER
HAGGERTY, Chief J.
*1 The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed this action on January 16, 2003, alleging unlawful employment practices by defendant United States Bakery (USB) in violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e–2(a) and 3(a) (Title VII). The EEOC asserts that defendant sexually harassed Wendy Baker, Donna Emerson, Laurie DaMetz, and Christine Thompson. On June 18, 2003, these four individuals filed a Motion to Intervene in the federal claims, which this court granted on July 15, 2003. On September 29, 2003, the EEOC filed a Motion to Compel Responsive Answers to the EEOC’s Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents (Doc. # 24). This motion is currently before the court.
BACKGROUND The EEOC claims that USB has unreasonably refused to provide responsive answers to one interrogatory and two requests for production in the EEOC’s First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents (“First Requests”). First, the EEOC posed an

interrogatory seeking the basis for USB’s third affirmative defense that plaintiffs’ claims are barred by a statute of limitations. EEOC’s Interrog. No. 14; Def.’s Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Countercl. at 2. USB objected on the ground that Local Rule of Civil Practice 33.1(d) prohibits “contention” interrogatories that seek the factual and legal basis for affirmative defenses. Def.’s Resp. to First Requests at 8.
Second, the EEOC seeks production of all documents pertaining to any allegations of discrimination by Jeff Fahlman and Tom Caudle, employees of defendant. EEOC’s Req. for Produc. No. 4. USB objected, stating that the request was vague and ambiguous, but that it would produce any non-privileged documents of investigation and action taken by USB against Fahlman and Caudle. Def.’s Resp. to First Requests at 11. Third, the EEOC seeks production of USB’s annual report. EEOC’s Req. for Produc. No. 9. USB refuses to produce it “on the basis that the financial worth is not relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence.” Def.’s Resp. to First Requests at 13.
STANDARDS
a. Discovery Discoverable material includes “any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the claim or defense of any party, including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any books, documents, or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1). This Rule is interpreted to allow liberal discovery of all informationreasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, although the discoverable information itself need not be admissible at trial. Id.; see also Shoen v. Shoen, 5 F.3d 1289, 1292 (9th Cir.1993). Particularly in Title VII cases, courts are generous in providing broad discovery parameters and refusing to allow “procedural technicalities [to] impede the full vindication ofguaranteed rights.” United States v.. City of Torrence, 164 F.R.D. 493, 496 (C.D.Cal.1995) (quoting Trevino v. Celanese Corp., 701 F.2d 397, 405 (5th Cir.1983)).
*2 If during discovery a party refuses to answer interrogatories or produce requested discovery that is relevant and not otherwise subject to privilege, the requesting party may seek an order compelling discovery. Fed.R.Civ.P. 34; 37(a)(2)(B). In response to such an order, the party resisting discovery has a heavy burden of showing why discovery should be denied. Blankenship v. Hearst Corp., 519 F.2d 418, 429 (9th Cir.1975); Cable and Computer Tech. Inc. v. Lockheed Saunders, Inc., 175 F.R.D. 646, 650 (C.D.Calif., 1997) (the party resisting
1

E.E.O.C. v. U.S. Bakery, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2003)
discovery must clarify, explain, and support its objections).
b. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules Courts may adopt local rules under Fed.R.Civ.P. 83 if they are not inconsistent with federal law. Hamilton v. Keystone Tankship Corp., 539 F.2d 684, 686 (9th Cir.1976). A court’s local rule is invalid if it conflicts with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Mutual Fund Investors, Inc. v. Putnam Mgmt., 553 F.2d 620, 625 (9th Cir.1977); see also Hajek v. Burlington N. R.R. Co., 186 F.3d 1105, 1109 (9th Cir.1999) (invalidating local rules regarding consent to proceed before a magistrate because they were in conflict with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure).
ANALYSIS
1. EEOC’s Interrogatory No. 14 In its interrogatories, the EEOC asks USB to “[d]escribe the factual and legal basis for the third affirmative defense identified in defendant’s February 17, 2003 Answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint that ‘the claims are barred in part or fully by applicable statute of limitations.” ’ EEOC’s Interrog. No. 14. In its response, USB refuses to answer claiming that the interrogatory seeks the factual and legal basis for USB’s affirmative defense in violation of Local Rule 33.1(d). See L.R. 33.1(d) (“Broad general interrogatories such as those which ask an opposing party to ‘state all facts on which a contention is based or to ‘apply law to facts’ are not permitted.”) (emphasis in original). Def.’s Resp. to First Requests at 8. However, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure state, “An interrogatory otherwise proper is not necessarily objectionable merely because an answer to the interrogatory involves an opinion or contention that relates to fact or the application of law to fact....”). Fed.R.Civ.P. 33(c).
Local Rule 33.1(d) is not inconsistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Federal Rules provide that an interrogatory is not objectionable merely because it requests an opinion or contention relating to facts or the application of law to facts. Fed.R.Civ.P. 33(c). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(c) was adopted in recognition of the need to narrow and sharpen issues in the discovery process. See Advisory Committee Notes of the 1970 Amendments Subdivision (b). Although interrogatories may not extend to legal issues unrelated to the facts of the case, a party may appropriately pose an interrogatory that calls for a factual opinion or contention relating to the facts of the case or the application of law to the facts of the case. Id. This provision is not inconsistent with Local

Rule 33.1(d)’s prohibition against overly broad interrogatories that ask for the general application of law to fact.
*3 The EEOC’s interrogatory is in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(c) and does not violate Local Rule 33.1(d). Interrogatory No. 14 is not a “broad general interrogatory” requesting USB to “state all facts on which a contention is based.” It is also not a “broad general interrogatory” requesting USB to “apply law to facts.” The interrogatory is narrow and specific in that it requests the factual and legal basis USB relies on in its third affirmative defense set forth in its Answer that plaintiffs’ claims are barred by a statute of limitations. Accordingly, USB is ordered to respond to plaintiffs’ Interrogatory No. 14.
2. Documents Regarding Fahlman and Caudle The EEOC seeks production of documents “regarding any alleged harassing or discriminating behavior” on the part of Fahlman and Caudle. EEOC’s Request for Produc. No. 4. The EEOC asserts this request conforms to Fed.R.Civ.P. 34, which allows the discovering party to set forth the items to be inspected by category as long as each category is described with reasonable specificity. Fed.R.Civ.P. 34(b).
USB objects to this request because it is vague and not reasonably specific. USB claims it has engaged in a good faith search for all known documentation regarding investigations and actions taken by USB in response to complaints of harassment or discrimination by Fahlman and Caudle and has produced all documents responsive to the EEOC’s request. Accordingly, USB has responded to the EEOC’s Request for Production No. 4.
3. USB’s Financial Records The EEOC seeks production of USB’s financial status, stating it is relevant to the EEOC’s request for punitive damages. EEOC’s Request for Produc. No. 9. The EEOC relies on EEOC v. Klockner H & K Machines Incorporated, 168 F.R.D. 233 (E.D.Wis.1996), for the proposition that “a defendant’s financial status is relevant when a claim for punitive damages has been made.” Id. at 235. USB refuses to produce such information arguing that under Heller v. Ebb Auto Co., 1990 WL 103704, financial records are not subject to production until the requesting party has made a prima facie showing of entitlement to punitive damages.
Heller was decided pursuant to O.R.S. 41.315(2) in which evidence of the financial condition of a party was not admissible until the requesting party presented sufficient evidence to justify a prima facie claim of punitive
2

E.E.O.C. v. U.S. Bakery, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2003)
damages. See id. at *1; Lakin v. Senco Prod., Inc., 144 Or.App. 52, 925 P.2d 107, 120 fn. 18 (Or.1996). However, O.R.S. 41.315(2) was repealed in 1995. Lakin, 925 P.2d at 120; Or. Laws 1995, ch. 688, § 6. Since the repeal of O.R.S. 41.315, the Ninth Circuit has not addressed the issue of whether a party seeking punitive damages is entitled to financial documents of another party without first making a prima facie showing of entitlement to punitive damages.
However, in Hangarter v. Paul Revere Life Insurance Company, 236 F.Supp.2d 1069 (N.D.Cal.2002), the court suggests that Heller’ s reasoning still applies. (“The purpose of precluding evidence of a defendant’s financial condition is to minimize prejudice prior to the jury’s determination of a prima facie case of liability for punitive damages.”). Id. at 1095; see also Jabro v. Superior Court, 115 Cal.Rptr. 843, 845–46 (Cal.App.4th 2002) (vacating trial court’s order granting discovery of a party’s financial condition before a prima facie showing

of entitlement to punitive damages was made). Therefore, insofar as the EEOC’s Motion to Compel relates to the production of USB’s financial records, it is denied with leave to renew after a prima facie showing that punitive damages is warranted under the facts of this case.
CONCLUSION *4 For the foregoing reasons, the EEOC’s Unopposed Motion for Leave to File a Reply in Support of the EEOC’s Motion to Compel (Doc. # 34) is GRANTED, and the EEOC’s Motion to Compel (Doc. # 24) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
	  

3

 
 E.E.O.C. v. U.S. Bakery, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2004)

2004 WL 1307915 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
United States District Court, D. Oregon.
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff, and
Wendy BAKER, Christine Thompson, Laurie Dametz, and Donna Emerson, Intervenors,
v. UNITED STATES BAKERY, Defendant.
No. Civ. 03–64–HA. | Feb. 4, 2004.
Attorneys and Law Firms
A. Luis Lucero, Jr., John F. Stanley, Lisa Cox, Wesley Katahira, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Seattle, Washington, for Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Lawrence P. Blunck, Scott D. Preston, West Linn, Oregon, for Plaintiff Intervenors.
Lynda J. Hartzell, Dennis E. Westlind, Tonkon Torp LLP, Portland, Oregon, for Defendant.
Opinion
OPINION AND ORDER
HAGGERTY, Chief J.
*1 The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed this action on January 16, 2003, alleging unlawful employment practices by defendant United States Bakery (USB) in violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e–2(a) and 3(a) (Title VII). The EEOC asserts that employees of the defendant sexually harassed Wendy Baker, Donna Emerson, Laurie DaMetz, and Christine Thompson. On June 18, 2003, these four individuals filed a Motion to Intervene in the federal claims, which this court granted on July 15, 2003. On December 3, 2003, the EEOC filed a Motion to Compel Entry Upon Land for Inspection. On December 23, 2003, plaintiff intervenors also filed a Motion to Compel Entry Upon Land for Inspection. For the following reasons, plaintiffs’ motions are denied.
BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs allege that one or more of defendant’s employees sexually harassed plaintiff intervenors Dametz, Baker, Emerson, and Thompson via verbal comments and gestures of a sexual nature. The alleged harassment occurred at the workplace.
In August 2003, EEOC attorneys notified defendant that they were interested in inspecting defendant’s premises. Defendant responded that the EEOC should submit a formal request under Fed.R.Civ.P. 34. The parties dispute whether defendant advised the EEOC that it would only allow the EEOC attorneys to attend the inspection.
On October 6, 2003, the EEOC and plaintiff intervenors sent a formal inspection request to defendant. Plaintiffs’ request stated that the EEOC, plaintiff intervenors and their attorney, an expert, and a videographer would conduct an inspection of defendant’s premises. Plaintiffs intended to videotape defendant’s bakery production and shipping areas, the human resources department, break and lunch rooms, and other areas where plaintiff intervenors worked. Defendant contends that the EEOC knew from earlier conversations that defendant would refuse its request.
On November 5, 2003, defendant served its objections to plaintiffs’ request, arguing that it was “overbroad, vague, oppressive, unduly burdensome, and not relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence.” Def.’s Objections to Pls.’ Req. to Permit Entry Upon Land for Inspection, at 1. Defendant asserts that plaintiffs’ request seeks discovery that is unreasonably cumulative, available from other sources, and is an attempt to discovery legally protected trade secrets and other confidential information. Id. at 2. On November 21, 2003, defendant reiterated its objections to permitting plaintiff intervenors, an expert, and a videographer to accompany the EEOC on the inspection.
The EEOC argues that the plaintiffs’ expert and attorneys need an understanding of the layout and operations of the facilities and where the incidents of alleged harassment and discrimination took place. The EEOC claims that the plaintiff intervenors are the only witnesses with such knowledge. The EEOC further claims that a videographer is necessary for visual documentation, that will later assist the jury. Defendant informed the EEOC in its objections that it would not permit an unlimited inspection of its premises and that defendant prohibits photographs from being taken on the premises to protect its trade secrets.
STANDARDS *2 Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b) is interpreted to allow liberal discovery of all information reasonably calculated to lead
1

E.E.O.C. v. U.S. Bakery, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2004)
to the discovery of admissible evidence, although the discoverable information itself need not be admissible at trial. Shoen v. Shoen, 5 F.3d 1289, 1292 (9th Cir.1993). Courts are generous in providing broad discovery parameters and refusing to allow “procedural technicalities [to] impede the full vindication of guaranteed rights .” Trevino v. Celanese Corp., 701 F.2d 397, 405 (5th Cir.1983).
A party is permitted to enter upon designated land or property that is in the possession or control of another party “for the purpose of inspection and measuring, surveying, photographing, testing, or sampling the property or any designated object or operation thereon, within the scope of Rule 26(b).” Fed.R.Civ.P. 34. The scope of this entry is limited to discoverable material. Discoverable material includes “any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the claim or defense of any party, including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any books, documents, or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1). The court may further limit any discovery that “is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or is obtainable from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive....” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(2).
Because entry upon a party’s premises may engender greater burdens and risks than mere production of documents or deposing witnesses, at least one Circuit has recognized the need for a more searching inquiry into the necessity for inspection. See Belcher v. Bassett Furniture Indus. Inc., 588 F.2d 904, 908 (4th Cir.1978). In this respect, the degree to which the proposed inspection will assist the moving party and the search for truth must be weighed against the concordant hardships and hazards created by the inspection. Id.; see also Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 497 (1947).
If during discovery a party refuses to permit requested discovery that is relevant and not otherwise subject to privilege, the requesting party may seek an order compelling discovery. Fed.R.Civ.P. 34; 37(a)(2)(B) (emphasis added). In response to such an order, the party resisting discovery has a heavy burden of showing why discovery should be denied. Blankenship v. Hearst Corp., 519 F.2d 418, 429 (9th Cir.1975); Cable and Computer Tech. Inc. v. Lockheed Saunders, Inc., 175 F.R.D. 646, 650 (C.D.Calif., 1997) (the party resisting discovery must clarify, explain, and support its objections). If the information sought is deemed by the court to be irrelevant, the court should restrict discovery to protect a party from “annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense....” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c); see also Herbert v. Lando, 441 U.S. 153, 177 (1979).

ANALYSIS *3 Fed.R.Civ.P. 26 was amended in 2000. The Advisory Committee Notes make clear that the revisions to the Rule narrowed the scope of discovery. A district court “has the authority to confine discovery to the claims and defenses asserted in the pleadings” and define the actual scope of discovery to the reasonable needs of the action. See Notes of the Advisory Committee (2000), Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1).
Plaintiffs claim the purpose of the inspection is to assist plaintiffs’ attorneys and expert in obtaining a more complete understanding of the conditions under which plaintiff intervenors worked while employed by defendant. In addition, plaintiffs contend that the proposed inspection will allow the expert to observe the specific areas where the alleged harassment occurred, the physical proximity of the employees to each other, and the level of interaction between employees and supervisors. Plaintiffs claim these observations are important to the expert’s opinion regarding the nature and effects of the alleged harassment. Thus, plaintiffs assert that plaintiff intervenors should be allowed to accompany their attorneys and the expert on the inspection because they are the only parties that can point out where the alleged incidents of harassment occurred. Finally, plaintiffs request that a videographer be allowed to attend the inspection in order to create visual documentation.
In the context of a sexual harassment case, few courts have considered whether a request for entry upon land for inspection is permissible. Plaintiffs cite Belcher in support of their argument. However, Belcher recognizes that entries upon land for inspection are disfavored in sexual harassment cases where defendant’s premises are not at issue.
In Belcher, a class of plaintiffs alleged race and sex discrimination against their employer. 588 F.2d at 906. The issue before the court was whether the district court abused its discretion in granting a discovery motion pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 34. Id. The plaintiffs sought discovery of the five facilities that were in issue to be conducted over a period of five days by an expert, a tour guide, an unspecified number of plaintiffs’ attorneys, a paralegal, and two plaintiffs. Id. The district court granted the inspection, finding that plaintiffs’ allegations that African–American employees were being relegated to lower paying and less attractive jobs placed the defendant’s physical premises at issue and that inspection could reveal pertinent information that would not be available through an inspection of documents. Id. at 907.
The Fourth Circuit reversed this decision, holding that the district court abused its discretion by permitting the inspection. Id. at 909–10. The court reasoned that because entry upon a party’s land may impose greater burdens than a production of documents, it is necessary to conduct a more probing inquiry into the necessity for the
2

E.E.O.C. v. U.S. Bakery, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2004)
inspection. Id. at 908. In addition to noting that a request for an inspection of premises is atypical in an employment discrimination case, the court found that plaintiffs had not demonstrated why other means of discovery would not yield similar reliable results without imposing as great a burden on defendant’s operations. Id. at 909–10. Thus, the minimal utility of the proposed inspection was outweighed by the confusion and disruption to the defendant’s business. Id. at 909–10.
*4 The EEOC argues that the purpose of the inspection is to assist plaintiffs’ attorneys and expert in gaining a better understanding of plaintiff intervenors’ work conditions, allow the expert to observe the specific areas of defendant’s premises where the alleged harassment occurred, and that a videographer is necessary to create a visual record that will assist the trier of fact. The court is unpersuaded by these arguments. Plaintiffs’ needs are easily addressed by interrogatories, depositions, and production of documents regarding the nature of the facility. These options are more convenient and less burdensome than an inspection of defendant’s premises.
The only issue in this case is whether defendant subjected plaintiffs to sexual harassment and/or retaliation. The inspection of the premises is not relevant to plaintiffs’ sexual harassment claims and plaintiffs’ allegations do not assert that the physical aspects or features of defendant’s facilities contributed to the alleged harassment. Thus, neither the overall conditions under which the plaintiff intervenors worked nor the physical

layout of defendant’s premises is at issue in this case. Cf. New York State Ass’n for Retarded Children v. Carey, 706 F.2d 956 (2d Cir.1983) and Eirhart v. Libbey–Owens–Ford Co., 93 F.R.D. 370 (N.D. Ill 1981) (in both cases the courts allowed physical inspection of the premises because the defendants’ physical premises were at issue). To permit the EEOC and its entourage to inspect defendant’s premises including production, shipping, the human resources department, and break and lunch rooms would likely unnecessarily disrupt defendant’s operations and its employees. The EEOC has plenary and unrestricted access to the plaintiff intervenors who are able to describe their working conditions to the EEOC, its attorneys and the expert. They can describe the physical proximity of the floor employees to one another and the level of employee interaction without burdening the defendant. Therefore, a physical inspection of the premises in this case is unwarranted.
CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs’ Motions to Compel Entry Upon Land for Inspection (Docs.# 39, 54) are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
	  

3

 
 E.E.O.C. v. U.S. Bakery, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2004)

2004 WL 1774214 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
United States District Court, D. Oregon.
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff,
Laurie DAMETZ, Donna Emerson, Wendy Baker, and Christine Thompson, Plaintiff Intervenors, v. UNITED STATES BAKERY, INC. Defendants.
No. CV 03-64-HA. | Aug. 9, 2004.
Attorneys and Law Firms
A. Luis Lucero, Jr. John Freeman Stanley, Lisa Ann Cox, Wesley Katahira, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Seattle, Washington, for Plaintiff.
Lawrence P. Blunck, Scott D. Preston, West Linn Law Center, West Linn, Oregon, for Plaintiff Intervenors.
Dennis E. Westlind, Lynda J. Hartzell, Tonkon Torp, LLP, Portland, Oregon, for Defendant.
Opinion
OPINION AND ORDER
HAGGERTY, Chief J.
*1 Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed a complaint in January 2003, alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 for sex and race discrimination. In May 2003, Laurie DaMetz (DaMetz), Donna Emerson (Emerson), Wendy Baker (Baker), and Christine Thompson (Thompson) (collectively plaintiff intervenors) formally intervened in this action. On April 21, 2004, defendant United States Bakery filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. # 97), plaintiff intervenors filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. # 101), and plaintiff filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. # 106). The court heard oral arguments on August 2, 2004.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff intervenors allege that they were sexually harassed by Jeff Fahlman (Fahlman) and Tom Caudle (Caudle), both foremen at defendant United States

Bakery. Baker and Thompson allege that Fahlman harassed them based on their gender. Thompson alleges that Fahlman harassed her based on her race. DaMetz alleges that defendant unlawfully retaliated against her for opposing unlawful employment practices.
In 1990, Fahlman began working for defendant as a checker. A year or two later, defendant promoted Fahlman to a foreman position in the checking department and in 1998, defendant promoted Fahlman to the head foreman position. With these promotions, Fahlman received an increased salary and more responsibility. As a foreman and later as a head foreman, Fahlman had the responsibility of managing up to thirty employees, including organizing work schedules, evaluating employee work performance, counseling, and disciplining employees. Fahlman had the ability to recommend to management that certain employees be hired, fired, or disciplined. DaMetz and Emerson never worked in the same department as Fahlman. Baker and Thompson worked in the checking department with Fahlman, although they did not work the same shifts as Fahlman.
Defendant implemented a sexual harassment policy in 1993. The policy did not provide a complaint mechanism, provided no assurance that violators would be punished, or included safeguards against retaliation. The policy was in effect for five years until it was revised in 1998 to include an anti-retaliation provision and a complaint procedure. Employees were required to sign a pledge acknowledging that they read, understood, and supported the policy.
Defendant maintains that it provided annual sexual harassment and diversity training to managers, supervisors, and foremen, including Fahlman. However, aside from the sexual harassment policy that each employee was required to sign, non-supervisory employees were not provided training on sexual harassment or discrimination.
The following is a summary of the individual plaintiff intervenors’ allegations:
Laurie DaMetz: DaMetz began working for defendant as an administrative assistant in 1995. She worked in the production office from approximately September 1998 until November 2003. In November 2003, she was transferred to the HR department and reported to Diana Rak (Rak), an HR manager. DaMetz never worked in the checking department with Fahlman. DaMetz alleges, and Fahlman denies, that Fahlman regularly made comments of a sexual nature to her, including requests for oral sex.
1

E.E.O.C. v. U.S. Bakery, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2004)

*2 In June 2000, DaMetz informed Marc Albers (Albers), general manager, about Fahlman’s behavior and that she wanted it to stop. Albers asked DaMetz if she wanted to file a sexual harassment complaint against Fahlman but DaMetz declined. Shortly thereafter, Albers informed Bill McCarthy (McCarthy), a department manager, and Susan Ingram (Ingram), an HR manager, about DaMetz’s concerns. Defendant alleges that McCarthy met with Fahlman and told him to watch his language and warned Fahlman to stop telling dirty jokes and making sexual comments.
DaMetz also told Claude Sammons (Sammons), a supervisor, on several occasions that Fahlman had made sexual comments to her and regularly told sexual jokes at work. Fahlman also brought pornography to work and showed it to Sammons and DaMetz, and told them about a bestiality site he saw on the internet.
Defendant submitted an affidavit of Sammons that is inconsistent and materially contradicts his deposition testimony. In the affidavit, Sammons denied that DaMetz and the other plaintiff intervenors ever told him about Fahlman’s conduct. Conversely, in his later deposition, Sammons admitted that plaintiff intervenors did notify him on several occasions about Fahlman’s conduct. The court finds that the rule set forth in Kennedy v. Allied Mutual Insurance Company, 952 F.2d 262, 266 (9th Cir.1991) regarding “sham” affidavits to be instructive in this case. Accordingly, the court finds that Sammons’ affidavit was produced as a sham to avoid summary judgment and the court therefore strikes Sammons’ affidavit.
In December 2000, DaMetz had a conversation with Albers wherein she stated that she was considering joining the lawsuit against Fahlman. The following day, Albers sent an e-mail to Ingram about his conversation with DaMetz and stated: “Quite frankly, I did not want her in my office at all, but if I had kicked her out I felt it would have fanned the flames.” Three months later, DaMetz filed a claim against defendant with the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI) based upon Fahlman’s sexually harassing conduct.
When DaMetz began working for defendant she was assigned some managerial job functions, including payroll. Ken Sturdy (Sturdy) later became the production manager but he did not assume the managerial job duties assigned to DaMetz. In August 2000 and February 2002, DaMetz received “very good performance appraisal [s].” In February 2001, two months after DaMetz notified Albers of her intent to join the lawsuit, DaMetz claims that defendant began eliminating her job duties, including payroll and production data accounting. In June 2002, defendant reorganized its accounting and HR departments. DaMetz began reporting to McCarthy and

Rak, and was moved to an office in the HR department without a door. Defendant also changed her work hours. By October 2003, DaMetz’s only remaining job duty consisted of data entry.
On October 6, 2003, defendant deposed DaMetz. The next day, DaMetz left work to attend Baker’s deposition. On October 8, 2003, Rak sent an e-mail to DaMetz stating that she was investigating DaMetz’s absence from work the previous day. On October 17, 2003, DaMetz received a “Corrective Action Review” (CAR) from Sturdy and Rak for an “unauthorized absence from work station.” The CAR stated that similar future conduct by DaMetz would result in her termination. DaMetz testified that her understanding of company policy was that a second or third similar infraction would subject her to a final written notice and termination would not occur until a third or fourth similar infraction.
*3 Defendant has a written attendance policy that applies to all employees. The policy provides that defendant may in its discretion immediately terminate an employee for a single “unauthorized absence from company premises during work time.” Thus, according to defendant, because DaMetz had no authorization to leave work on October 7, she was subject to immediate termination. However, defendant claims it downgraded DaMetz’s punishment to “unauthorized absence from a work station,” which carries a penalty of a final written notice plus a three-day suspension without pay. Defendant issued a final written notice to DaMetz but did not suspend her.
Donna Emerson: Emerson worked for defendant from October 1988 to March 2002. In 1995 she was transferred from Franz Bakery to Pierre’s Bakery, where she remained for one and one-half years until she returned to Franz. Pierre’s, like Franz, is a subdivision of United States Bakery. Emerson never worked in the checking department with Fahlman. Emerson alleges, and Fahlman denies, that Fahlman regularly made comments of a sexual nature to her, including requests for oral sex.
Emerson never reported Fahlman’s conduct to the HR department, but did report to Sammons prior to Fahlman’s termination that Fahlman had made sexual remarks to her.
Wendy Baker: The parties agree that Fahlman made the following comments to Baker over the course of four to five months, including statements referring to his genitalia. Baker told Fahlman to stop making offensive remarks to her but he continued. In June 2000, Baker requested to be transferred out of the checking department. Two months
2

E.E.O.C. v. U.S. Bakery, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2004)

later, Baker wrote a letter to management stating that Fahlman had been making sexual comments to her during the period of time that she worked under his supervision. In that letter, Baker also described regular incidents of sexual harassment by Caudle.
Christine Thompson: Thompson began working for defendant in 1998 in its production department under the supervision of Sammons. In January 2000, Thompson transferred to the checking department for six months before returning to production. Upon return to production, her supervisor was Kevin Sturdy (Sturdy). During the period of time that Thompson worked in checking, Fahlman was the head foreman but worked a different shift than Thompson. Thompson alleges, and Fahlman denies, that Fahlman made several sexual and racial comments to her, including a joke that contained the word “nigger.” Fahlman admitted telling the joke, but claims that Thompson was not offended. Thompson also reported Fahlman’s behavior to several people prior to Fahlman’s termination, including Sammons.
Plaintiffs allege that defendant had knowledge about Fahlman’s behavior since 1993 but did almost nothing to prevent him from continuing. In 1993, Fahlman allegedly told Donna Brotherton (Brotherton), a co-worker, that her high-school daughter was good-looking and to let Fahlman know when the daughter lost her virginity. Brotherton reported Fahlman’s comments to Lynette Hansen, an HR manager, Sturdy, and McCarthy. Fahlman also allegedly made several other comments of a sexual nature that Brotherton reported to management. In April 1995, Brotherton signed a note confirming that she had complained about Fahlman’s comments and that she had spoken with Lynette Hansen and McCarthy. Defendant claims that McCarthy spoke to Fahlman regarding his comments and placed a note in his file. One month later, after some employees complained to management about Fahlman’s behavior, defendant reminded Fahlman of the company policy against harassment and notified him that if any inappropriate comments were made by him in the future, he would be disciplined.
*4 Sammons testified that DaMetz told him on at least ten occasions that Fahlman had made several inappropriate comments of a sexual nature to her. He testified that Thompson told him approximately a year before Fahlman was terminated that Fahlman had made inappropriate comments of a sexual nature to her and told a “nigger” joke that offended her. He testified that both Baker and Emerson told him at least a year prior to Fahlman’s termination that Fahlman made inappropriate comments of a sexual nature to them.
Sammons never reported the information he received

from plaintiff intervenors to other management personnel because he claims plaintiff intervenors “weren’t desperate for [him] to take it further. They didn’t suggest that [he] take it further.” Sammons also testified that his failure to report Fahlman’s conduct was the result of poor judgment on his part. Aside from the note in 1995, defendant never disciplined Fahlman for his inappropriate conduct in the workplace until defendant terminated him in December 2000. In Fahlman’s termination paperwork, Ingram stated that Fahlman’s conduct was an “egregious violation of the company’s harassment policy, and of state and federal law.”
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. Margolis v. Ryan, 140 F.3d 850, 852 (9th Cir.1998).
To prevail at summary judgment on a claim for discrimination or retaliation, the plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case. Wallis v. J.R. Simplot Co., 26 F.3d 885, 889 (9th Cir.1994). Sexual and racial harassment in the form of a hostile work environment constitute unlawful discrimination. Vasquez v. County of Los Angeles, 349 F.3d 634, 642 (9th Cir.2003). The plaintiff must show that: (1) he or “she was subjected to verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature; (2) this conduct was unwelcome; and (3) the conduct was ‘sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of [his or her] employment and create an abusive working environment.” ’ Fuller v. City of Oakland, Cal., 47 F.3d 1522, 1527 (9th Cir.1995) (quoting Ellison v. Brady, 924 F.2d 872, 875-76 (9th Cir.1991)). Furthermore, the plaintiff must prove that the employer should be liable for the harassment. Little v. Windermere Relocation, Inc., 301 F.3d 958, 966, 968-69 (9th Cir.2002) (Title VII plaintiff must also provide a basis for holding the employer liable for the harassment) (citations omitted).
*5 The plaintiff must also prove that his or her workplace was both objectively and subjectively offensive and hostile. Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 23 (1993). To determine if a work environment is sufficiently offensive or hostile the court looks at all the circumstances, including the frequency of the discriminatory conduct, its severity, and whether it
3

E.E.O.C. v. U.S. Bakery, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2004)

unreasonably interfered with the plaintiff’s work environment. Id. The requisite level of severity “varies inversely with the pervasiveness or frequency of the conduct.” Ellison, 924 F.2d at 878. In this case, the objective severity of harassment is evaluated from the perspective of a reasonable woman and in Thompson’s case, from the perspective of a reasonable African-American woman. See Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Serv.’s, Inc., 523 U.S. 75, 79 (1998); Harris, 510 U.S. at 23. Evidence that permits an inference of discrimination is sufficient to establish a prima facie case. Texas Dep’t of Comm. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981). The courts examine the totality of the circumstances to determine whether a triable issue exists concerning the defendant’s motives for its actions. Coszalter v. City of Salem, 320 F.3d 968, 978 (9th Cir.2003).
In the context of a retaliation claim, evidence presented beyond that establishing the prima facie case is evaluated in accordance with the burden-shifting framework established by the Supreme Court’s opinion in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). Snead v. Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 237 F.3d 1080, 1093 (9th Cir.2001). Only the burden of production shifts; the ultimate burden of persuasion always remains with the plaintiff. Burdine, 450 U.S. at 253. This burden merges with the plaintiff’s ultimate burden of persuading the court that he or she is the victim of unlawful retaliation. Id. Under this framework, once the plaintiff has established the prima facie case, the defendant has the burden to produce a “legitimate, non-discriminatory reason” for the adverse employment action. Id.
If the defendant shows a legitimate reason for terminating plaintiff, the burden returns to the plaintiff to show that the employer’s explanation is a pretext for discrimination and “unworthy of credence.” Arago v. Republic Silver State Disposal, Inc., 292 F.3d 654, 659 (9th Cir.2002) (citing Chuang v. Univ. of Cal. Davis, 225 F.3d 1115, 1124 (9th Cir.2000)). It is generally true “that a plaintiff at the pretext stage must produce evidence in addition to that which was sufficient for her prima facie case in order to rebut the defendant’s showing.” Godwin v. Hunt Wesson, Inc., 150 F.3d 1217, 1220 (9th Cir.1998) (emphasis added). Otherwise, the “mere existence of a prima facie case, based on the minimum evidence necessary to raise a McDonnell Douglas presumption” would preclude summary judgment. Wallis, 26 F.3d at 890. A plaintiff can survive summary judgment, however, without producing any additional evidence of discrimination beyond that constituting the prima facie case, “if that evidence raises a genuine issue of material fact regarding the truth of the employer’s proffered reasons.” Chuang, 225 F.3d at 1127 (citing Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 146 (2000)).

ANALYSIS *6 Plaintiffs move for summary judgment on defendant’s liability for Fahlman’s and Caudle’s alleged harassment and for a judgment that plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages as a matter of law. Defendant cross-moves for summary judgment on Baker’s and Emersons’ claims for sexual harassment, the gender harassment claims, and for a judgment that plaintiff is not entitled to punitive damages as a matter of law. Finally, plaintiff intervenors move for summary judgment on DaMetz’s claim for retaliation.
1. Hostile Work Environment Plaintiffs argue that defendant is liable under Title VII because Fahlman and Caudle subjected plaintiff intervenors to unwelcome verbal and/or physical conduct of a sexual and racial nature that was sufficiently severe and pervasive to alter the terms and conditions of their employment and created an abusive working environment. This conduct, plaintiffs assert, was both objectively and subjectively offensive and hostile.
Defendant concedes the absence of any disputed material facts with regard to the first prong of plaintiff’s prima facie case-that plaintiff intervenors were subjected to sexual and racial comments. Defendant also concedes that with respect to Baker and Emerson, this conduct was unwelcome. However, defendant contends that Fahlman’s isolated comments were not sufficiently severe and pervasive and do not rise to the level of an actionable hostile work environment. The court disagrees. The court finds that DaMetz and Thompson have presented sufficient evidence that Fahlman’s conduct was unwelcome. The court also finds that each plaintiff intervenor has presented sufficient evidence that Fahlman’s conduct was sufficiently severe and pervasive to alter the terms and conditions of her employment and create an abusive working environment. Accordingly, plaintiffs have established a prima facie case.
Defendant contends that a portion of Emerson’s sexual harassment claim is barred by the statute of limitations. To maintain a claim under Title VII, the plaintiff must file a charge of discrimination with the EEOC or BOLI within the statutory time period or lose the ability to recover for it. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5; Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 110 (2002). In Morgan, the Court resolved the question of when conduct falling outside the statutory time period for filing charges was actionable. The Court substantially limited the doctrine of continuing violations by holding that discrete acts of discrimination are not actionable if time-barred, even when they are related to acts alleged in timely filed charges. Morgan, 536 U.S. at 122. The Court, however, carved out an
4

E.E.O.C. v. U.S. Bakery, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2004)

exception for hostile work environment claims: such claims will not be time-barred provided that “all acts which constitute the claim are part of the same unlawful employment practice and at least one act falls within the time period.” Id. at 123. Thus, claims based on discrete discriminatory acts are only timely when such acts occurred within the limitations period, whereas claims based on a hostile work environment are only timely when at least one act occurred during the limitations period.
*7 Emerson worked for defendant for approximately fifteen years. In 1995 she left defendant’s Franz bakery to work at Pierre’s for one and one-half years. She returned to Franz in 1996 until her resignation in 2003. Defendant asserts that Emerson’s one and one-half year hiatus makes her claim for a hostile work environment between 1990 and 1995 untimely. Defendant relies on a Third Circuit case that found that a significant hiatus in the plaintiff’s employment destroys a hostile work environment claim brought under the continuing violation doctrine. See Konstantopoulos v. Wetvaco Corp., 112 F.3d 710, 716 (3d Cir.1997).
The court finds that there was not a hiatus in the harassment. Fahlman continued to subject Emerson to sexual remarks during the time she worked at Pierre’s. While at Pierre’s, Emerson regularly went to Franz to get her uniforms and pick up her time cards and paychecks. Emerson testified that when she would go over to the Franz facility, Fahlman would make sexual comments to her. Contrary to the facts in Konstantopoulos, Emerson continued to regularly see Fahlman during the time she worked at Pierre’s. Thus, because several of Fahlman’s sexual comments were made to Emerson within the 300 day time-period for filing a charge, all of Fahlman’s comments are viewed as one continuing violation.
Because the court determines that plaintiffs have presented a prima facie case of harassment, the court now turns to the question of whether defendant should be held liable for the harassment.
2. Vicarious Liability Plaintiff contends that defendant is vicariously liable for Fahlman’s and Caudle’s alleged harassment. An employer may be held vicariously liable under Title VII when a supervisor sexually harasses a subordinate over whom he has immediate or successively higher authority. Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 780 (1998). When the harasser is a supervisor, the employer is presumed to be absolutely liable. Id. However, if no tangible employment action has been taken, the employer may raise an affirmative defense. Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742, 765 (1998).

Subject to proof by a preponderance of the evidence, the employer may avoid liability or damages if it is able to show that: (1) it “exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any sexually [or racially] harassing behavior”; and (2) “the plaintiff unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer or to avoid harm otherwise.” Faragher, 524 U.S. at 807; see also Ellerth, 524 U.S. at 765. Relevant to the first element of the affirmative defense is whether the employer had an anti-harassment policy, Ellerth, 524 U.S. at 765, although such a policy is not an automatic bar to the imposition of punitive damages. Swinton v. Potomac Corp., 270 F.3d 794, 803 (9th Cir.2001) (citations omitted). Further, an employee’s failure to avail himself or herself of the policy’s complaint procedure “will normally suffice to satisfy the employer’s burden under the second element of the defense.” Ellerth, 524 U.S. at 765.
*8 An employer’s liability for harassing conduct is evaluated differently when the harasser is a supervisor as opposed to a coworker. Swinton, 270 F.3d at 803. As stated above, an employer is vicariously liable for a supervisor’s harassing conduct, subject to an affirmative defense. However, if the harasser is a coworker, the plaintiff must prove that the employer knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to take adequate steps to prevent it. Id.
In determining whether an alleged harasser is a supervisor or a coworker depends not on the harasser’s job title but whether the harasser had the authority to demand obedience from his or her employees. McGinest v. GTE Serv. Corp., 360 F.3d 1103, 1119 n. 13 (9th Cir.2004). If the harasser engaged in supervision of or had authority over the plaintiff, the harasser would qualify as the plaintiff’s supervisor regardless of whether the employer defined the harasser’s role in that way. See Swinton, 270 F.3d at 803-05.
The court finds that both Fahlman and Caudle held supervisory roles, regardless of how defendant characterized their positions. Both Fahlman and Caudle supervised plaintiff intervenors and others at the bakery and also had the authority to implement disciplinary action. As such, to avail itself of any liability, defendant must show that it “exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any sexually [or racially] harassing behavior” and that plaintiff intervenors “unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer or to avoid harm otherwise.” Faragher, 524 U.S. at 807.
Turning to the first prong of the Faragher affirmative defense, the court finds that defendant did not exercise reasonable care to prevent harassing behavior and that defendant did not promptly correct any harassing behavior that did occur. Defendant’s 1993
5

E.E.O.C. v. U.S. Bakery, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2004)

anti-harassment policy was inadequate because it failed to include a reporting procedure, a notice that offending employees would be subject to discipline, and an anti-retaliation provision. It was not until 1998 that defendant implemented a policy that included a detailed discussion of harassment, a reporting procedure, and an anti-retaliation provision. In addition, defendant did not train all of its non-supervisory employees in sexual harassment until March 2002, more than a year after Fahlman’s termination.
The court also finds that defendant has failed to establish that it promptly corrected either Fahlman’s or Caudle’s sexual harassment. The employer’s remedies for sexual harassment should be reasonably calculated to end the harassment and persuade individual harassers to refrain from unlawful conduct. Ellison, 924 F.2d at 882. Between 1993 and 2000, several complaints were made to management regarding Fahlman’s and Caudle’s behavior. For example, Fahlman showed Sammons pornographic pictures and heard Fahlman make several sexual jokes at work but never took action to stop Fahlman’s behavior. McCarthy never conducted an investigation into Fahlman’s harassment after he received complaints. It was not until December 2000 that defendant took action to stop Fahlman’s behavior when it terminated him.
*9 Turning to the second prong of the Faragher defense, the court finds that defendant has failed to establish that plaintiff intervenors unreasonably failed to complain or to otherwise avail themselves of any preventive or corrective measures. At various times throughout plaintiff intervenors’ employment they complained about Fahlman’s and Caudle’s behavior to their supervisors, foremen, and managers. Specifically, plaintiff intervenors complained to Sammons about Fahlman’s harassment but Sammons failed to report it because plaintiff intervenors “weren’t desperate for [him] to take it further.” Sammons’ subjective impression of the situation is no excuse for defendant’s inaction. This brings the court to the separate basis for imputing vicarious liability to defendant: Sammons’ failure to report plaintiffs’ complaints of sexual harassment.
A supervisor’s knowledge is properly imputed to the employer where the supervisor “has an official or strong de facto duty to act as a conduit to management for complaints about work conditions.” Swinton, 270 F.3d at 805; see also EEOC v. Hacienda Hotel, 881 F.2d 1504, 1515-16 (9th Cir.1984) (holding that “employers are liable for failing to remedy or prevent a hostile or offensive work environment of which management-level employees knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known.”). A supervisor’s knowledge will be imputed to the employer when: “the [supervisor] is at a sufficiently high level in the company’s management hierarchy to qualify as a proxy for the company; or the [supervisor] is charged with a duty to act on the

knowledge and stop the harassment; or the [supervisor] is charged with a duty to inform the company of the harassment.” Torres v. Pisano, 116 F.3d 625, 636-37 (2d Cir.1997).
Sammons was a supervisor at the bakery and had received discrimination and harassment training and was therefore charged with a duty to stop the harassment, or at the very least inform higher management of the harassment. Accordingly, defendant is vicariously liable for Fahlman’s and Caudle’s harassment.
3. Punitive damages The Supreme Court has provided a three-part inquiry to determine when punitive damages are appropriate under Title VII. To succeed on a claim for punitive damages, the plaintiff must: (1) prove that the employer engaged in a discriminatory practice with malice or a reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of an aggrieved individual; (2) prove that liability is properly imputed to the employer; and (3) defeat the employer’s affirmative defense that it made good faith efforts to comply with Title VII. Kolstad v. Am. Dental Ass’n, 527 U.S. 526, 534-35 (1999); see also 42 U.S.C. § 1981a(b)(1). The terms “malice” or “reckless indifference” pertain to the harasser’s knowledge that it may be acting in violation of federal law, not its awareness that it is engaging in unlawful discrimination. Kolstad, 527 U.S. at 535.
*10 To impute liability to the employer, “the plaintiff must show that the intentional discrimination by an employee is attributable to the employer by using traditional agency principles, e.g., that a managerial employee acted within the scope of his or her employment.” Hemmings v. Tidyman’s Inc., 285 F.3d 1174, 1198 (9th Cir.2002) (citing Kolstad, 527 U.S. at 540-41). The court finds that plaintiff has not presented sufficient evidence that, as a matter of law, defendant acted either with malice or a reckless indifference to plaintiff intervenors’ federally protected rights. There is a genuine issue of material fact on this point. Accordingly, both parties’ motions are denied with respect to the punitive damages claims.
4. Gender Discrimination To present a prima facie claim for disparate treatment in a Title VII claim, the plaintiff must show that: (1) he or she is a member of a protected class; (2) he or she was qualified for the job position; (3) he or she was subjected to an adverse employment action; and (4) similarly situated individuals outside of the plaintiff’s protected class were treated more favorably. McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802.
6

E.E.O.C. v. U.S. Bakery, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2004)

Defendant argues that Baker’s disparate treatment claim based on her gender fails because she cannot prove the third and fourth elements of a prima facie case. In support of her claim, Baker alleges that she received “bogus” performance evaluations and Fahlman told her that the checking department was targeted for young white males. Yet, Baker testified that she was generally treated the same as her male coworkers and has presented no evidence in support of her assertion that she received “bogus” performance evaluations.
The court finds that Baker has failed to meet her burden of proof. She offers no evidence that she received disparate treatment because of her gender. She fails to present evidence that she suffered an adverse employment action because of her gender or that male employees similarly situated were treated more favorably. Accordingly, defendant’s motion is granted insofar as it seeks to dismiss Baker’s claim for disparate treatment because of her gender.
Baker and Thompson also assert separate claims for gender harassment. Sexual harassment is a species of gender harassment and the elements to prove sexual harassment are virtually indistinguishable from those required to prove a gender harassment claim. See, e.g., Meritor Sav. Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 64-67 (1986); Brooks, 229 F.3d at 923; Steiner v. Showboat Operating Co., 25 F.3d 1459, 1462 (9th Cir.1994). Accordingly, because the court finds that Baker’s and Thompson’s gender harassment claims are encompassed within their hostile work environment claim based upon their sex, defendant’s motion is granted in this respect and the gender harassment claims are dismissed.

5. DaMetz’s Retaliation Claim In response to filing her BOLI claim, DaMetz claims that defendant took the following acts in retaliation: (1) defendant moved DaMetz to a different office without a door; (2) defendant decreased her job responsibilities; (3) defendant moved DaMetz’s work schedule; (4) defendant changed DaMetz’s supervisor; and (5) the issuance of the CAR was inappropriate under the circumstances.
*11 The court finds that there are genuine factual issues as to defendant’s motivations for taking these actions. Accordingly, plaintiff intervenors’ motion is denied.
CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff EEOC’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. # 106) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. It is granted insofar as it pertains to a judgment that defendant is liable as a matter of law for Fahlman’s and Caudle’s harassment. It is denied insofar as it pertains to a judgment that plaintiffs are entitled to punitive damages. Plaintiff intervenors’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. # 101) is DENIED. Finally, defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. # 97) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. It is granted insofar as it seeks to dismiss Baker’s disparate treatment claim and Baker’s and Thompson’s gender harassment claims. The remainder of the motion is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
	  

7

 
 District of Oregon - Docket Report

https://ecf.ord.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?563924285355927-L_35...

U.S. District Court District of Oregon (Portland) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:03-cv-00064-HA

TERMINATED

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission et al v. United States Bakery, Inc. Assigned to: Chief Judge Ancer L. Haggerty Cause: 28:1343 Violation of Civil Rights

Date Filed: 01/16/2003 Date Terminated: 07/19/2006 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by A. Luis Lucero, Jr. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 909 First Avenue Suite 400 Seattle, WA 98104-1061 (206) 220-6878 Fax: (206) 220-6911 Email: luis.lucero@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Freeman 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

Lisa Ann Cox Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Seattle District Office 909 First Avenue Suite 400 Seattle, WA 98104-1061 (206) 220-6890 Fax: (206) 220-6911 Email: lisa.cox@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

1 of 28

6/15/2007 4:23 PM

District of Oregon - Docket Report
Intervenor Plaintiff Christine Thompson TERMINATED: 06/14/2006
Intervenor Plaintiff Laurie DaMetz TERMINATED: 06/14/2006
2 of 28

https://ecf.ord.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?563924285355927-L_35...
Wesley Katahira Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 909 First Avenue Suite 400 Seattle, WA 98104-1061 (206) 220-6918 Fax: (206) 220-6911 Email: wesley.katahira@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lisa K. Day Lisa K. Day, LLC 2350 Willamette Falls Drive Suite 15 West Linn, OR 97068 (503) 722-9040 Fax: (503) 722-4280 Email: daylisakllc@qwest.net TERMINATED: 06/20/2006
represented by Christine Thompson PRO SE
Lawrence P. Blunck Lawrence P. Blunck, PC West Linn Law Center 2350 Willamette Falls Dr West Linn, OR 97068 (503)656-1654 Fax: (503)650-0603 Email: larry@bluncklaw.com TERMINATED: 06/20/2006
Scott D. Preston Lawrence Blunck, PC 2350 Willamette Falls Drive West Linn, OR 97068 (503) 656-1654 Fax: (503) 650-0603 Email: scott@bluncklaw.com TERMINATED: 06/20/2006
represented by Laurie DaMetz PRO SE
6/15/2007 4:23 PM

District of Oregon - Docket Report
Intervenor Plaintiff Donna Emerson TERMINATED: 06/14/2006
Intervenor Plaintiff Wendy Baker TERMINATED: 06/14/2006
Intervenor Plaintiff Christine Thompson TERMINATED: 06/14/2006
3 of 28

https://ecf.ord.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?563924285355927-L_35...
Lawrence P. Blunck (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/20/2006
Lisa K. Day (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/20/2006
Scott D. Preston (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/20/2006
represented by Donna Emerson PRO SE
Lawrence P. Blunck (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/20/2006
Lisa K. Day (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/20/2006
Scott D. Preston (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/20/2006
represented by Wendy Baker PRO SE
Lawrence P. Blunck (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/20/2006
Lisa K. Day (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/20/2006
Scott D. Preston (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/20/2006
represented by Christine Thompson (See above for address) PRO SE
Lawrence P. Blunck
6/15/2007 4:23 PM

District of Oregon - Docket Report
V. Defendant United States Bakery, Inc.
Counter Claimant United States Bakery, Inc. V.
4 of 28

https://ecf.ord.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?563924285355927-L_35...
(See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/20/2006
Lisa K. Day (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/20/2006
Scott D. Preston (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/20/2006
represented by Sonja Leneice Henning Tonkon Torp LLP 888 SW Fifth Avenue Suite 1600 Portland, OR 97204-2099 (503) 802-2182 Fax: (503) 972-3882 Email: sonja@tonkon.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dennis E. Westlind Stoel Rives, LLP 900 SW Fifth Avenue Suite 2600 Portland, OR 97204 (503) 294-9221 Fax: (503) 220-2480 Email: dewestlind@stoel.com TERMINATED: 01/09/2006
Lynda J. Hartzell Tonkon Torp LLP 888 SW Fifth Avenue Suite 1600 Portland, OR 97204-2099 (503)802-2153 Fax: (503) 972-3853 Email: lynda@tonkon.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
6/15/2007 4:23 PM

District of Oregon - Docket Report

https://ecf.ord.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?563924285355927-L_35...

Counter Defendant Wendy Baker TERMINATED: 06/14/2006
Counter Defendant Laurie DaMetz TERMINATED: 08/04/2005
Counter Defendant Donna Emerson TERMINATED: 06/14/2006
Counter Defendant Christine Thompson TERMINATED: 06/14/2006
Counter Defendant Christine Thompson TERMINATED: 06/14/2006

Date Filed 01/16/2003 01/16/2003
02/17/2003 02/17/2003 03/18/2003 03/21/2003

#

Docket Text

1 Complaint Jury Trial Demanded Summons issued as to Untied States Bakery. Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against United States Bakery, Inc.. (rtrb, ) (Entered: 01/17/2003)
2 Discovery and Pretrial Scheduling Order and Notice of Case Assignment: Case assigned to the Honorable Ancer L. Haggerty. Discovery to be completed by 5/16/2003. Joint Alternate Dispute Resolution Report due by 6/16/2003. Pretrial Order due by 6/16/2003. (rtrb, ) (Entered: 01/17/2003)
3 Answer to Complaint , Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaims (Related Doc # 1). Filed by United States Bakery, Inc.. (Hartzell, Lynda) (Entered: 02/17/2003)
4 Corporate Disclosure Statement. Filed by United States Bakery, Inc.. (Hartzell, Lynda) (Entered: 02/17/2003)
5 Joint Motion for Extension of Discovery & PTO Deadlines. Filed by all defendants. (Hartzell, Lynda) (Entered: 03/18/2003)
7 CIVIL MINUTES:Record of Order granting the joint motion for extension of discovery completion date, date to file dispositive motions, for disclosure of expert witnesses and exchange of reports to December 31,2003 and the pretrial lodging date to January 30,2004. (Counsel - Please submit the ECF filing receipt and the Judge's copy to the Clerk's office(Rm 740) - do not mail directly to the Judge's chambers.) by Judge Ancer L.Haggerty. Discovery to be completed by 12/31/2003. Pretrial Order due by 1/30/2004. (md, ) (Entered: 03/21/2003)

5 of 28

6/15/2007 4:23 PM

District of Oregon - Docket Report

https://ecf.ord.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?563924285355927-L_35...

05/19/2003 06/02/2003 06/02/2003 06/02/2003 06/13/2003 06/13/2003 06/18/2003 06/19/2003
06/20/2003 07/02/2003 07/02/2003 07/10/2003 07/10/2003

8 Motion to Intervene and Complaint in Intervention. Filed by Christine Thompson, Laurie DaMetz, Donna Emerson, Wendy Baker. (Preston, Scott) (Entered: 05/19/2003)
9 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to Intervene. Filed by United States Bakery, Inc.. (Related motion(s)8) (Hartzell, Lynda) (Entered: 06/02/2003)
10 Affidavit of Diana Rak in Support of Opposition to Motion to Intervene. Filed by United States Bakery, Inc.. (Related document(s)8) (Hartzell, Lynda) (Entered: 06/02/2003)
11 Affidavit of Lynda J. Hartzell in Support of Opposition to Motion to Intervene. Filed by United States Bakery, Inc.. (Related document(s)8) (Hartzell, Lynda) (Entered: 06/02/2003)
12 Reply to Motion Reply to Opposition to Motion to Intervene. Filed by Wendy Baker, Laurie DaMetz, Donna Emerson, Christine Thompson. (Related motion(s)8) (Preston, Scott) (Entered: 06/13/2003)
13 Affidavit of Scott D. Preston in Support of Reply to Opposition to Motion to Intervene. Filed by Wendy Baker, Laurie DaMetz, Donna Emerson, Christine Thompson. (Related document(s)8) (Preston, Scott) (Entered: 06/13/2003)
14 Motion to Intervene as Plaintiffs in Federal Law Claims. Filed by Wendy Baker, Laurie DaMetz, Donna Emerson, Christine Thompson. (Preston, Scott) (Entered: 06/18/2003)
15 Order: It is ordered that the applicants for intervention are ordered to file ? as soon as practicable and as attachments to a supplemental affidavit ? any other Right to Sue letters from the EEOC issued to Laurie DaMetz, Donna Emerson, or Wendy Baker, if any such letters exist. If there are no such letters, the affidavit shall so state that there were no other Right to Sue letters sent to the other applicants from the EEOC. Signed 6/18/03 by Judge Ancer L.Haggerty. (Related document(s)8, 14) (md, ) (Entered: 06/19/2003)
16 Affidavit of Scott Preston Regarding Other Right To Sue Letters From The EEOC. Filed by Wendy Baker, Laurie DaMetz, Donna Emerson, Christine Thompson. (Related document(s)8) (Preston, Scott) (Entered: 06/20/2003)
17 Response to Motion to Intervene. Filed by United States Bakery, Inc.. (Related motion(s)14) (Hartzell, Lynda) (Entered: 07/02/2003)
18 Affidavit of Hartzell in Support of Opposition to Motion to Intervene. Filed by United States Bakery, Inc.. (Related document(s)17) (Hartzell, Lynda) (Entered: 07/02/2003)
19 Response to Motion Response to Opposition to Motion to Intervene. Filed by Wendy Baker, Laurie DaMetz, Donna Emerson, Christine Thompson. (Related motion(s)14) (Preston, Scott) (Entered: 07/10/2003)
20 Affidavit of Lawrence P. Blunck In Support of Response to Opposition to Motion to Intervene. Filed by Wendy Baker, Laurie DaMetz, Donna Emerson, Christine Thompson. (Related document(s)19) (Preston, Scott) (Entered: 07/10/2003)

6 of 28

6/15/2007 4:23 PM

District of Oregon - Docket Report

https://ecf.ord.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?563924285355927-L_35...

07/10/2003 07/15/2003
09/26/2003 09/29/2003 09/29/2003 09/29/2003 10/02/2003 10/08/2003 10/08/2003 10/10/2003
10/17/2003 10/17/2003 10/22/2003

21 Affidavit of Scott D. Preston in Support of Response to Opposition to Motion to Intervene. Filed by Wendy Baker, Laurie DaMetz, Donna Emerson, Christine Thompson. (Related document(s)19) (Preston, Scott) (Entered: 07/10/2003)
22 ORDER: Opinion and Order Denying Wendy Baker,Donna Emerson, Laurie DaMetz,and Christine Thompson Motion to Intervene (Related Doc #8)to bring state law claim as the court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over the applicants' state law claims because they are barred by the applicable statutes of limitations. Order Granting Wendy Baker, Donna Emerson,Laurie DaMetz, and Christine Thompson motion to Intervene (Related Doc #14) on their federal law claims. Signed on 7/15/03 by Judge Ancer L.Haggerty. (md, ) (Entered: 07/16/2003)
23 Notice of Appearance by Attorney Lisa Ann Cox for Equal Employment Opportunity Commission as primary trial counsel. (md, ) (Entered: 09/26/2003)
24 Motion to Compel answers to lst set of interrogatories and requests for production of documents.Oral Argument requested. Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (md, ) (Entered: 09/29/2003)
25 Memorandum in Support of motion to compel. Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Related document(s)24) (md, ) (Entered: 09/29/2003)
26 Declaration of Lisa Cox in support of motion to compel. Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Related document(s)24) (md, ) (Entered: 09/29/2003)
27 Intervenor Complaint. Filed by Wendy Baker, Laurie DaMetz, Donna Emerson, Christine Thompson against United States Bakery, Inc.. (Preston, Scott) (Entered: 10/02/2003)
28 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File a Response/Reply to Motion # 24.. Filed by United States Bakery, Inc.. (Hartzell, Lynda) (Entered: 10/08/2003)
29 Joint Motion for Extension of Discovery & PTO Deadlines. Filed by United States Bakery, Inc.. (Hartzell, Lynda) (Entered: 10/08/2003)
30 CIVIL MINUTES:Record of Order granting unopposed motion for extension of time to file response to plaintiff's motion to compel to October 17,2003. ORDER granting unopposed motion for extension of discovery date to January 30,2004, disclosure of expert witnesses and exchange of reports to March 1,2004, filing of dispositive motions to April 16,2004 and the pretrial order lodging date to May 14,2004 by Judge Ancer L.Haggerty. (Related documents(s) 24) (md, ) (Entered: 10/10/2003)
31 Response to Discovery Motion of EEOC to Compel Discovery. Filed by United States Bakery, Inc.. (Related motion(s)24) (Hartzell, Lynda) (Entered: 10/17/2003)
32 Affidavit of Lynda J. Hartzell In Support of Response to EEOC's Motion to Compel Discovery. Filed by United States Bakery, Inc.. (Related document(s)31) (Hartzell, Lynda) (Entered: 10/17/2003)
33 Answer to Intervenor Complaint (Related Doc # 27). Filed by United States Bakery, Inc.. (Hartzell, Lynda) (Entered: 10/22/2003)

7 of 28

6/15/2007 4:23 PM

District of Oregon - Docket Report

https://ecf.ord.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?563924285355927-L_35...

10/30/2003 10/30/2003 10/30/2003 10/30/2003 11/21/2003
12/03/2003 12/03/2003 12/03/2003 12/03/2003 12/03/2003 12/08/2003 12/16/2003 12/16/2003 12/16/2003

34 Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Reply in Support of EEOC's Motion to Compel. Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (pvh, ) (Entered: 10/30/2003)
35 Reply to Motion in Support of Motion to Compel. Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Related motion(s)24) (pvh, ) (Entered: 10/30/2003)
36 Declaration of Lisa Cox in Support of Reply in Support of Motion to Compel. Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Related document(s)35) (pvh, ) (Entered: 10/30/2003)
37 Certificate of Service. Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Related document(s)34, 35, 36) (pvh, ) (Entered: 10/30/2003)
38 ORDER: Opinion and Order Granting EEOC's Motion for Leave (Related Doc #34)to file reply brief., Order Granting in part, Denying in part EEOC's Motion to Compel (Related Doc #24) Signed on 11/20/03 by Judge Ancer L.Haggerty. (md, ) (Entered: 11/21/2003)
39 Motion to Compel entry upon land for inspection pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.34. Oral Argument Requested. Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (md, ) (Entered: 12/03/2003)
40 Declaration of Wes Katahira in support of plaintiff's motion to compel entry upon land for inspection. Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Related document(s)39) (md, ) (Entered: 12/03/2003)
41 Memorandum in Support of motion to compel entry upon land. Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Related document(s)39) (md, ) (Entered: 12/03/2003)
42 Declaration of Lisa Cox in support of plaintiff's motion to compel entry upon land for inspection. Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Related document(s)39) (md, ) (Entered: 12/03/2003)
43 Certificate of Service of motion to compel entry upon land for inspection and supporting documents. Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (md, ) (Entered: 12/03/2003)
44 Amended Certificate of Service. Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Related document(s)42, 39, 40, 41) (pvh, ) (Entered: 12/09/2003)
45 Memorandum in Opposition to EEOC's Motion to Compel Entry Upon Land for Inspection. Filed by United States Bakery, Inc.. (Related motion(s)39) (Hartzell, Lynda) (Entered: 12/16/2003)
46 Affidavit of Diana Rak in Support of Opposition to EEOC's Motion to Compel Entry Upon Land for Inspection. Filed by United States Bakery, Inc.. (Related document(s)45) (Hartzell, Lynda) (Entered: 12/16/2003)
47 Affidavit of Lynda J. Hartzell in Support of Opposition to EEOC's Motion to Compel Entry Upon Land for Inspection. Filed by United States Bakery, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1)(Related document(s)45) (Hartzell, Lynda) (Entered: 12/16/2003)

8 of 28

6/15/2007 4:23 PM

District of Oregon - Docket Report

https://ecf.ord.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?563924285355927-L_35...

12/17/2003 12/17/2003 12/17/2003 12/17/2003 12/19/2003 12/22/2003 12/22/2003 12/23/2003 12/23/2003
12/30/2003 01/09/2004 01/09/2004
01/13/2004 01/23/2004

48 Motion for Order Compelling Discovery and for a Limited Discovery Extension. Oral Argument Requested. Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (pvh, ) (Entered: 12/18/2003)
49 Memorandum in Support of Motion for Order. Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Related document(s)48) (pvh, ) (Entered: 12/18/2003)
50 Declaration of Wes Katahira. Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Related document(s)48) (pvh, ) (Entered: 12/18/2003)
51 Certificate of Service. Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Related document(s)48, 49, 50) (pvh, ) (Entered: 12/18/2003)
52 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File a Response/Reply to Motion # 48.. Filed by United States Bakery, Inc.. (Hartzell, Lynda) (Entered: 12/19/2003)
53 CIVIL MINUTES:Record of Order granting unopposed motion for extension of time for defendant to file response to plaintiff's motion to compel discovery to January 9,2004 by Judge Ancer L.Haggerty. (md, ) (Entered: 12/22/2003)
56 Motion for Leave to File Reply in Support of EEOC's Motion to Compel Inspection. Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (peg, ) (Entered: 12/23/2003)
54 Motion to Compel Entry Upon Land for Inspection. Filed by Wendy Baker, Laurie DaMetz, Donna Emerson, Christine Thompson. (Preston, Scott) (Entered: 12/23/2003)
55 Affidavit of Lawrence P. Blunck in Support of Intervening Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Entry Upon Land for Inspection. Filed by Wendy Baker, Laurie DaMetz, Donna Emerson, Christine Thompson. (Related document(s)54) (Preston, Scott) (Entered: 12/23/2003)
57 Reply by Plaintiffs in Intervention to Defendant's Counterclaim. Filed by Wendy Baker, Laurie DaMetz, Donna Emerson, Christine Thompson. (Related document(s)33) (Preston, Scott) (Entered: 12/30/2003)
58 Response to Motion for an Order Compelling Discovery and for Limited Discovery Extension. Filed by United States Bakery, Inc.. (Related motion(s)48) (Hartzell, Lynda) (Entered: 01/09/2004)
59 Affidavit of Lynda J. Hartzell In Support of Opposition to EEOC's Motion for an Order Compelling Discovery. Filed by United States Bakery, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit to Hartzell Affidavit ISO Opposition to EEOC's Motion to Compel and for Limited Discovery Extension)(Related document(s)58) (Hartzell, Lynda) (Entered: 01/09/2004)
60 CIVIL MINUTES:Record of order granting plaintiff's motion for leave to file reply in support of plaintiff's motion to compel inspection by Judge Ancer L.Haggerty (md, ) (Entered: 01/13/2004)
61 Motion for Leave to File Reply in Support of EEOC's Motion for an Order to Compel Discovery and for a Limited Discovery Extension. Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (mja, ) (Entered: 01/23/2004)

9 of 28

6/15/2007 4:23 PM

District of Oregon - Docket Report

https://ecf.ord.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?563924285355927-L_35...

01/23/2004 01/23/2004
01/23/2004 01/23/2004 01/23/2004 01/30/2004 01/30/2004 02/02/2004 02/02/2004 02/02/2004 02/04/2004 02/10/2004 02/13/2004 02/13/2004 02/13/2004

62 Reply in Support of EEOC's Motion to Compel Entry Upon Land for Inspection. Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Related document(s)39) (mja, ) (Entered: 01/23/2004)
63 Declaration of Wesley Katahira in Support of EEOC's Reply in Support of Motion to Compel Entry Upon Land for Inspection Pursuant to FED.R.Civ. P.34. Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Related document(s)39) (mja, ) (Entered: 01/23/2004)
64 Certificate of Service. Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Related document(s)61) (mja, ) (Entered: 01/23/2004)
65 CIVIL MINUTES:Record of order granting plaintiff's motion for leave to file reply in support of its motion to compel and for limited discovery extension by Judge Ancer L.Haggerty. (md, ) (Entered: 01/23/2004)
66 Certificate of Service. Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Related document(s)63, 62) (pvh, ) (Entered: 01/28/2004)
67 Reply in Support of EEOC's Motion to Compel Discovery. Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Related document(s)24) (pvh, ) (Entered: 01/30/2004)
68 Declaration of Wesley Katahira. Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Related document(s)67) (pvh, ) (Entered: 01/30/2004)
69 Motion for Leave to Amend Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaim to Complaint. Filed by United States Bakery, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A - Proposed Answer)(Hartzell, Lynda) (Entered: 02/02/2004)
70 Memorandum in Support of Motion for Leave to Amend Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaim to Complaint. Filed by United States Bakery, Inc.. (Related document(s)69) (Hartzell, Lynda) (Entered: 02/02/2004)
71 Certificate of Service. Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Related document(s)67, 68) (pvh, ) (Entered: 02/02/2004)
72 ORDER: Opinion and Order Denying plaintiffs'Motions to Compel Entry upon land for inspection. (Related Doc #39) (Related Doc #54) Signed on 2/4/04 by Judge Ancer L.Haggerty. (md, ) (Entered: 02/05/2004)
73 ORDER:Order that plaintiff's motion to compel discovery and for limited discovery extension is granted in part and denied in part. (Related Doc #48) Signed on 2/10/04 by Judge Ancer L.Haggerty. (md, ) (Entered: 02/13/2004)
74 Response to Motion for leave to amend answer, affiramtive defenses and counterclaim to complaint. Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Related motion(s)69) (md, ) (Entered: 02/17/2004)
75 Declaration of Lisa Cox in support of plaintiff's response to defendant's motion to amend answer,etc.. Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (md, ) (Entered: 02/17/2004)
76 Certificate of Service of response and declaration of Lisa Cox regarding defendant's motion to amend answer,etc. Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (md, ) (Entered: 02/17/2004)

10 of 28

6/15/2007 4:23 PM

District of Oregon - Docket Report

https://ecf.ord.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?563924285355927-L_35...

02/17/2004 02/17/2004 02/25/2004 02/26/2004 03/01/2004 03/01/2004
03/01/2004
03/24/2004 03/29/2004 03/29/2004 04/02/2004 04/05/2004 04/06/2004

77 ORDER:Order Granting Defendant's Motion for Leave its answer, affirmative defenses and counterclaims. (Related Doc #69) Signed on 2/16/04 by Judge Ancer L.Haggerty. (md, ) (Entered: 02/17/2004)
78 Amended Answer , Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaim. Filed by United States Bakery, Inc.. (Hartzell, Lynda) (Entered: 02/17/2004)
79 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Make Disclosure of Expert Testimony. Filed by United States Bakery, Inc.. (Hartzell, Lynda) (Entered: 02/25/2004)
80 CIVIL MINUTES:Record of order granting unopposed motion for extension of time to make disclosure of expert testimony to and including March 31,2004 by Judge Ancer L.Haggerty. (Related documents(s) 79) (md, ) (Entered: 02/26/2004)
81 Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint/Petition in Intervention. Filed by Wendy Baker, Laurie DaMetz, Donna Emerson, Christine Thompson. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Document Amended Complaint in Intervention) (Preston, Scott) (Entered: 03/01/2004)
82 Memorandum in Support of Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint/Petition in Intervention81. Filed by Wendy Baker, Laurie DaMetz, Donna Emerson, Christine Thompson. (Related document(s): Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint/Petition in Intervention81.)(Preston, Scott) (Entered: 03/01/2004)
83 Affidavit of Lawrence P. Blunck in Support of Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint in Intervention. Filed by Wendy Baker, Laurie DaMetz, Donna Emerson, Christine Thompson. (Related document(s): Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint/Petition in Intervention81.)(Preston, Scott) (Entered: 03/01/2004)
84 Joint Motion for Extension of Time to File Dispositive Motions and Submit Pretrial Order. Filed by United States Bakery, Inc.. (Hartzell, Lynda) (Entered: 03/24/2004)
85 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Discovery & PTO Deadlines. Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Katahira, Wesley) (Entered: 03/29/2004)
86 Proposed Form of Order Submitted For Extension of Expert Disclosures. Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Katahira, Wesley) (Entered: 03/29/2004)
87 Record of Order granting stipulated motion for extension of time to file dispositive motions to April 21,2004 and to lodge the pretrial order 30 days after the court rules on the dispositive motions. (md, ) (Entered: 04/02/2004)
88 ORDER: ORDER : It is ordered interventing plaintiffs (Baker, Thompson,DaMetz and Emerson) motion for leave to file amended complaint in intevention to add punitive damages to prayer for relief is granted. Signed on 4/5/04 by Judge Ancer L. Haggerty. (md, ) (Entered: 04/05/2004)
89 ORDER: Record of order granting unopposed motion for extension of timefor disclosure of expert witnesses and exchange of reports to April 1,2040. Ordered

11 of 28

6/15/2007 4:23 PM

District of Oregon - Docket Report

https://ecf.ord.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?563924285355927-L_35...

04/12/2004 04/16/2004 04/16/2004 04/20/2004 04/20/2004 04/20/2004 04/21/2004 04/21/2004 04/21/2004 04/21/2004 04/21/2004 04/21/2004 04/21/2004
04/21/2004

by Judge Ancer L. Haggerty. (md, ) (Entered: 04/06/2004)
90 Amended Complaint in Intervention.Filed by Wendy Baker, Laurie DaMetz, Donna Emerson, Christine Thompson against United States Bakery, Inc..(Preston, Scott) (Entered: 04/12/2004)
91 Joint Motion to File Excess Pages for Concise Statement of Material Facts in Parties' Motions for Summary Judgment. Filed by United States Bakery, Inc.. (Hartzell, Lynda) (Entered: 04/16/2004)
92 Joint Motion for Extension of Time to File Responses/Replies to Dispositive Motions. Filed by United States Bakery, Inc.. (Hartzell, Lynda) Modified on 6/3/2004 (md, ). (Entered: 04/16/2004)
93 Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Motion for Summary Judgment. Filed by Laurie DaMetz. (Preston, Scott) (Entered: 04/20/2004)
94 Affidavit in Support of Motion for Leave to File Motion for Summary Judgment. Filed by Laurie DaMetz. (Related document(s): Motion for Leave93.)(Preston, Scott) (Entered: 04/20/2004)
95 Joint Motion for Extension of Time to File Responses/Replies to Dispositive Motions. Filed by Wendy Baker, Laurie DaMetz, Donna Emerson, Christine Thompson. (Preston, Scott) (Entered: 04/20/2004)
96 ORDER: Record of order granting Joint motion to extend page limit forconcise statement of facts to parties' motions for summary judgment to 20 pages. Ordered by Judge Ancer L. Haggerty. 91. (md, ) (Entered: 04/21/2004)
97 Motion for Summary Judgment (Partial). Filed by United States Bakery, Inc.. (Hartzell, Lynda) (Entered: 04/21/2004)
98 Memorandum in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Filed by United States Bakery, Inc.. (Related document(s): Motion for Summary Judgment97.)(Hartzell, Lynda) (Entered: 04/21/2004)
99 Concise Statement of Material Fact in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Filed by United States Bakery, Inc.. (Related document(s): Motion for Summary Judgment97.)(Hartzell, Lynda) (Entered: 04/21/2004)
100 Affidavit in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Filed by United States Bakery, Inc.. (Related document(s): Motion for Summary Judgment97.)(Hartzell, Lynda) (Entered: 04/21/2004)
101 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Filed by Wendy Baker, Laurie DaMetz, Donna Emerson, Christine Thompson. (Preston, Scott) (Entered: 04/21/2004)
102 Affidavit of Scott D. Preston in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Filed by Wendy Baker, Laurie DaMetz, Donna Emerson, Christine Thompson. (Related document(s): Motion for Partial Summary Judgment101.)(Preston, Scott) (Entered: 04/21/2004)
103 Concise Statement of Material Fact for Intervenors' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Filed by Wendy Baker, Laurie DaMetz, Donna Emerson, Christine Thompson. (Related document(s): Motion for Partial Summary Judgment101.)(Preston, Scott) (Entered: 04/21/2004)

12 of 28

6/15/2007 4:23 PM

District of Oregon - Docket Report

https://ecf.ord.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?563924285355927-L_35...

04/21/2004
04/21/2004 04/21/2004 04/21/2004 04/21/2004 04/21/2004 04/23/2004
04/26/2004 04/27/2004 04/27/2004 05/03/2004 05/12/2004 05/12/2004

104 Affidavit of Lynda J. Hartzell in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Filed by United States Bakery, Inc.. (Related document(s): Motion for Partial Summary Judgment101.) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Wendy Baker Deposition# 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)(Hartzell, Lynda) (Entered: 04/21/2004)
105 Memorandum in Support Intervening Plaintiffs' Summary Judgment Motions. Filed by Wendy Baker, Laurie DaMetz, Donna Emerson, Christine Thompson. (Preston, Scott) (Entered: 04/21/2004)
106 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (pvh, ) (Entered: 04/22/2004)
107 Memorandum in Support. Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Related document(s): Motion for Partial Summary Judgment106.)(pvh, ) (Entered: 04/22/2004)
108 Concise Statement of Material Fact. Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Related document(s): Motion for Partial Summary Judgment106.)(pvh, ) (Entered: 04/22/2004)
109 Declaration of Lisa Cox with exhibits. Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Related document(s): Motion for Partial Summary Judgment106.)(pvh, ) (Entered: 04/22/2004)
112 Memorandum in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. (Table of Contents & Authorities). Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Related document(s): Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 106)(pvh, ) (Entered: 04/29/2004)
110 ORDER: Record of order granting stipulated motion for extension of time to file responses to dispositive motions to May 12,2004 and to file replies toMay 28,2004. Ordered by Judge Ancer L. Haggerty. (md, ) (Entered: 04/26/2004)
111 ORDER: Record of order granting unopposed motion for leave to file motion for summary on Count II of intervening plaintiffs' amended complaint. Ordered by Judge Ancer L. Haggerty. 93. (md, ) (Entered: 04/27/2004)
113 Certificate of Service. Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Related documents: 112)(pvh, ) (Entered: 04/29/2004)
114 Answer to Amended Complaint in Intervention, Counterclaim Wendy Baker, Laurie DaMetz, Donna Emerson, Christine Thompson, Christine Thompson. Filed by United States Bakery, Inc..(Hartzell, Lynda) (Entered: 05/03/2004)
115 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment (Partial)97. Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.(Katahira, Wesley) (Entered: 05/12/2004)
116 Response in Opposition to Intervening Plaintiffs' to Motion for Partial Summary Judgment101. Filed by United States Bakery, Inc..(Hartzell, Lynda) (Entered: 05/12/2004)

13 of 28

6/15/2007 4:23 PM

District of Oregon - Docket Report

https://ecf.ord.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?563924285355927-L_35...

05/12/2004 05/12/2004 05/12/2004 05/12/2004 05/12/2004 05/12/2004 05/12/2004 05/12/2004 05/12/2004
05/12/2004

117 Response to Intervenors' Concise Statement of Material Facts AND Statement of Additional Material Facts. Filed by United States Bakery, Inc.. (Related document(s): Concise Statement of Material Fact, 103.)(Hartzell, Lynda) (Entered: 05/12/2004)
118 Affidavit of Lynda J. Hartzell in Support of Defendant's Response to Intervening Plaintiffs' Summary Judgment Motions. Filed by United States Bakery, Inc.. (Related document(s): Response in Opposition to Motion116.) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1-5 to Hartzell Affidavit ISO Response to Intervening Plaintiffs' Summary Judgment Motions)(Hartzell, Lynda) (Entered: 05/12/2004)
119 Affidavit of Diana Rak in Support of Defendant's Response to Plaintiff-Intervenors' Motions for Summary Judgment. Filed by United States Bakery, Inc.. (Related document(s): Response in Opposition to Motion116.)(Hartzell, Lynda) (Entered: 05/12/2004)
120 Declaration of Wesley Katahira in Support of EEOC's Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Related document(s): Memorandum in Opposition115.)(pvh, ) (Entered: 05/12/2004)
121 Concise Statement of Material Fact in Support of EEOC's Opposition to USB's Motion for Summary Judgment. Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Related document(s): Motion for Summary Judgment97 Memorandum in Opposition 115.)(pvh, ) (Entered: 05/12/2004)
122 Certificate of Service. (Related documents: 115, 120, 121). Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (pvh, ) (Entered: 05/12/2004)
123 Response in Opposition Defendant's Response to Plaintiff EEOC's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment - Oral Argument Requested to Motion for Partial Summary Judgment106. Filed by United States Bakery, Inc..(Hartzell, Lynda) (Entered: 05/12/2004)
124 Concise Statement of Material Fact Response to Plaintiff's Concise Statement of Material Facts AND Additional Material Facts. Filed by United States Bakery, Inc.. (Related document(s): Motion for Partial Summary Judgment106.)(Hartzell, Lynda)FILED UNDER SEAL BY 8/10/05 ORDER. Modified on 8/10/2005 (md, ). (Entered: 05/12/2004)
125 Affidavit of Lynda J. Hartzell in Support of Defendant's Response to Plaintiff EEOC's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Filed by United States Bakery, Inc.. (Related document(s): Motion for Partial Summary Judgment106.) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits 1-7# 2 Exhibit Exhibits 1 - 7# 3 Exhibit 8# 4 Exhibit 9 pages 1-40# 5 Exhibit 9 pages 41-71# 6 Exhibit 10# 7 Exhibit 11# 8 Exhibit 12 and 13# 9 Exhibit 14 - 18)(Hartzell, Lynda) Modified on 8/10/2005 (md, ). FILED under seal pursuant to Court's order 8/10/05 (Entered: 05/12/2004)
126 Affidavit of Diana Rak In Support of Defendant's Response to Plaintiff EEOC's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Filed by United States Bakery, Inc.. (Related document(s): Motion for Partial Summary Judgment106.)(Hartzell, Lynda) (Entered: 05/12/2004)

14 of 28

6/15/2007 4:23 PM

District of Oregon - Docket Report

https://ecf.ord.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?563924285355927-L_35...

05/12/2004 05/12/2004 05/12/2004 05/12/2004 05/12/2004 05/12/2004 05/12/2004 05/13/2004 05/27/2004 05/27/2004 05/28/2004 05/28/2004

127 Declaration of Lisa Kane In Support of Defendant's Response to Plaintiff EEOC's Motion for Summary Judgment. Filed by United States Bakery, Inc.. (Related document(s): Motion for Partial Summary Judgment106.)(Hartzell, Lynda) (Entered: 05/12/2004)
128 Declaration of Danny Bain. Filed by United States Bakery, Inc.. (Related document(s): Motion for Partial Summary Judgment106.)(Hartzell, Lynda) Modified on 8/10/2005 (md, ).FILED under seal pursuant to Court's order 8/10/05 (Entered: 05/12/2004)
129 Affidavit of Gene Beaudoin. Filed by United States Bakery, Inc.. (Related document(s): Motion for Partial Summary Judgment106.)(Hartzell, Lynda) (Entered: 05/12/2004)
130 Affidavit of Claude Sammons. Filed by United States Bakery, Inc.. (Related document(s): Motion for Partial Summary Judgment106.)(Hartzell, Lynda) Modified on 8/10/2005 (md, ). FILED UNDER SEAL PURSUANT TO 8/10/05 ORDER. (Entered: 05/12/2004)
131 Affidavit of Kevin Brandt. Filed by United States Bakery, Inc.. (Related document(s): Motion for Partial Summary Judgment106.)(Hartzell, Lynda) Modified on 8/10/2005 (md, ).FILED under seal pursuant to Court's order 8/10/05 (Entered: 05/12/2004)
132 Affidavit of Doug Allred. Filed by United States Bakery, Inc.. (Related document(s): Motion for Partial Summary Judgment106.)(Hartzell, Lynda) Modified on 8/10/2005 (md, ).FILED under seal pursuant to Court's order 8/10/05 (Entered: 05/12/2004)
133 Affidavit of Kevin Sturdy. Filed by United States Bakery, Inc.. (Related document(s): Motion for Partial Summary Judgment106.)(Hartzell, Lynda) Modified on 8/10/2005 (md, ). FILED under seal pursuant to Court's order 8/10/05 (Entered: 05/12/2004)
134 Notice re Memorandum in Opposition115 Notice of Filing Signature Page. Filed by Wesley Katahira appearing on behalf of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Related document(s): Memorandum in Opposition115.)(Katahira, Wesley) (Entered: 05/13/2004)
135 Reply Memorandum to Motion for Summary Judgment (Partial)97. Filed by all defendants.(Hartzell, Lynda) (Entered: 05/27/2004)
136 Affidavit of Lynda J. Hartzell in Support of Defendant's Reply Memorandum. Filed by all defendants. (Related document(s): Motion for Summary Judgment97.) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1-6)(Hartzell, Lynda) (Entered: 05/27/2004)
137 Reply to Defendant's Response to EEOC's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment106. Oral Argument Requested. Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.(pvh, ) (Entered: 05/28/2004)
138 Declaration of Wesley Katahira. Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Related document(s): Reply to Motion137.)(pvh, ) (Entered: 05/28/2004)

15 of 28

6/15/2007 4:23 PM

District of Oregon - Docket Report

https://ecf.ord.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?563924285355927-L_35...

05/28/2004 05/28/2004 05/28/2004 05/28/2004 05/28/2004 05/28/2004 06/07/2004 06/21/2004
08/02/2004
08/02/2004
08/09/2004

139 Concise Statement of Material Fact in Support of EEOC's Reply to Defendant's Opposition to the EEOC's Motion for Parial Summary Judgment. Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Related document(s): Motion for Partial Summary Judgment106.)(pvh, ) (Entered: 05/28/2004)
140 Certificate of Service. Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Related documents: 137,138,139).(pvh, ) (Entered: 05/28/2004)
141 Concise Statement of Material Fact Reply to Defendant's Statement of Additional Material Facts (Retaliation Claim). Filed by Laurie DaMetz. (Related document(s): Motion for Partial Summary Judgment101.)(Preston, Scott) (Entered: 05/28/2004)
142 Affidavit of Laurie DaMetz in Support of Intervenors' Summary Judgment Reply (Retaliation). Filed by Laurie DaMetz. (Preston, Scott) (Entered: 05/28/2004)
143 Affidavit of Scott D. Preston in Support of Intervening Plaintiff Laurie DaMetz's Reply in Support of Summary Judgment on Retaliation Claim. Filed by Laurie DaMetz. (Preston, Scott) (Entered: 05/28/2004)
144 Reply to Defendant's Response to Intervening Plaintiffs' to Motion for Partial Summary Judgment101. Filed by Laurie DaMetz.(Preston, Scott) (Entered: 05/28/2004)
145 Notice of Attorney Absence. Filed by Lisa Ann Cox appearing on behalf of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.(pvh, ) (Entered: 06/07/2004)
146 CIVIL MINUTES: Record of order setting oral argument on defendant's motion for summary judgment 97,plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment 106 and plaintiff/intervenor motion for partial summary judgment 101 for August 2,2004 at 1:30pm before Judge Ancer L.Haggerty. (md, ) (Entered: 06/21/2004)
147 CIVIL MINUTES: Record of Hearing on motions for partial summary judgment. Order taking Motions taken under advisement.. L.Cox,W Katahira,S.Preston present as counsel for plaintiff(s). L.Hartzell,D.Westlind present as counsel for defendant(s). Court Reporter or Tape No.: B.Alexander. Ancer L. Haggerty presiding. (Related document(s): 97, 101, 106.) (md, ) (Entered: 08/02/2004)
148 Record of order that EEOC shall direct the court to where in the record it can find the letter written by Jeff Fahlman with respect to disciplinary action taken against a USB employee that was referenced during oral argument on August 2,2004. EEOC may do this in letter form with copies to counsel. Signed on 8/2/04 by Judge Ancer L. Haggerty. (md, ) (Entered: 08/02/2004)
149 OPINION AND ORDER: It is ordered that plaintiff EEOC's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. #106) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. It is granted insofar as it pertains to a judgment that defendant is liable as a matter of law for Fahlman's and Caudle's harassment. It is denied insofar as it pertains to a judgment that plaintiffs are entitled to punitive damages. Plaintiff intervenors' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. #101) is DENIED. Finally, defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. #97) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. It is granted insofar as it seeks to dismiss Baker's

16 of 28

6/15/2007 4:23 PM

District of Oregon - Docket Report

https://ecf.ord.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?563924285355927-L_35...

08/27/2004 08/31/2004 09/30/2004 10/27/2004 10/28/2004 11/10/2004
11/10/2004 11/12/2004
12/16/2004 01/24/2005

disparate treatment claim and Baker's and Thompson's gender harassment claims. The remainder of the motion is denied. Signed on 8/9/04 by Judge Ancer L. Haggerty. (md, ) (Entered: 08/09/2004)
150 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time For Lodging Pretrial Order. Filed by all plaintiffs. (Katahira, Wesley) (Entered: 08/27/2004)
151 ORDER: Record of order granting plaintiff's motion for extension of time to lodge pretrial order to September 30,2004. Ordered by Judge Ancer L. Haggerty. (md, ) (Entered: 08/31/2004)
152 Joint Proposed Pretrial Order Lodged. Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Preston, Scott) (Entered: 09/30/2004)
153 CIVIL MINUTES: Record of order setting a telephone status conference to set a trial date for Thursday, November 4,2004 at 10:30AM before Judge Ancer L. Haggerty. The court will place the telephone. Please note that the court received its working copy of the pretrial order on October 25,2004. Ordered by Judge Ancer L. Haggerty. (md, ) (Entered: 10/27/2004)
154 CIVIL MINUTES: Record of order resetting the telephone status conference to set a trial date from November 4,2004 to November 10,2004 at 9:00AM before Judge Ancer L. Haggerty. The court will place the telephone call. Order by Ancer L. Haggerty. (md) (Entered: 10/28/2004)
155 CIVIL MINUTES: Record of Telephone Status Conference. ORDER setting pretrial conference for June 6,2005 at 1:30pm before Judge Ancer L. Haggerty. ORDER setting a 9 day jury trial for August 8,2005 at 9:00AM before Judge Ancer L. Haggerty (It will not be held on Monday, August 15,2005). A trial management order will be issued listing the documents that will need to be exchanged and filed for trial. W. Katahira,L.Cox present as counsel for plaintiff(s). L.Blunck,L.Hartzell,D.Westlind present as counsel for defendant(s). Court Reporter or Tape No.: D.Apodaca. Ancer L. Haggerty presiding. (md, ) (Entered: 11/10/2004)
156 Trial Management Order. Signed on 11/10/04 by Judge Ancer L. Haggerty. (md, ) (Entered: 11/10/2004)
157 Record of order correcting the trial date that is listed in the Trial Management Order to read August 8,2005. A new management order will not be issued as the correct trial date was in the minute order dated November 10,20004 and the trial management order main purpose is to deal with the dates for exchange of the trial documents and the filing dates for those documents. Ordered by Judge Ancer L. Haggerty. (md, ) (Entered: 11/12/2004)
158 CIVIL MINUTES: Record of order resetting pretrial conference from June 6,2005 to July 11,2005 at 2:30pm before Judge Ancer L. Haggerty. (Reset at request of the plaintiff with agreement of defendant) Order by Ancer L. Haggerty. (md, ) (Entered: 12/16/2004)
159 Notice of Attorney Substitution:. Filed by Scott D. Preston appearing on behalf of Laurie DaMetz, Donna Emerson, Wendy Baker, Christine Thompson.(Preston, Scott) (Entered: 01/24/2005)

17 of 28

6/15/2007 4:23 PM

District of Oregon - Docket Report

https://ecf.ord.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?563924285355927-L_35...

05/18/2005 06/09/2005 07/15/2005 07/15/2005 07/15/2005 07/15/2005 07/15/2005 07/15/2005 07/15/2005 07/15/2005 07/15/2005 07/15/2005 07/15/2005 07/15/2005
07/15/2005
07/15/2005

160 CIVIL MINUTES: Record of order resetting pretrial conference from July 11,2005 to August 1,2005 at 1:30pm before Judge Ancer L.Haggerty. Order by Ancer L. Haggerty. (md, ) (Entered: 05/18/2005)
161 Joint Stipulation for proposed pre-trial schedule by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Cox, Lisa) (Entered: 06/09/2005)
162 Proposed Jury Verdict Form Defendant's Proposed Verdict Forms. Filed by United States Bakery, Inc..(Hartzell, Lynda) (Entered: 07/15/2005)
163 Joint Trial Memorandum. Filed by all plaintiffs.(Cox, Lisa) (Entered: 07/15/2005)
164 Voir Dire Defendant's Proposed Questions on Voir Dire. Filed by United States Bakery, Inc..(Hartzell, Lynda) (Entered: 07/15/2005)
165 Proposed Jury Instructions Defendant's Proposed Jury Instructions. Filed by United States Bakery, Inc..(Hartzell, Lynda) (Entered: 07/15/2005)
166 Motion in limine. Filed by United States Bakery, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment EEOC v. Dial Corporation) (Westlind, Dennis) (Entered: 07/15/2005)
167 Declaration of Dennis E. Westlind in Support of Motions in Limine. Filed by United States Bakery, Inc.. (Related document(s): Motion in Limine166.)(Westlind, Dennis) (Entered: 07/15/2005)
168 Trial Memorandum. Filed by United States Bakery, Inc..(Westlind, Dennis) (Entered: 07/15/2005)
169 Witness Statement. Filed by United States Bakery, Inc..(Westlind, Dennis) (Entered: 07/15/2005)
170 Joint Motion for Extension of Time to File Exhibit Lists. Filed by United States Bakery, Inc.. (Westlind, Dennis) (Entered: 07/15/2005)
171 Motion in limine to exclude Kevin Brandt As Witness and Brandt's and Sammons' Affidavits At Trial. Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Katahira, Wesley) (Entered: 07/15/2005)
172 Certificate of Service by all plaintiffs re Trial memorandum163. Filed by all plaintiffs. (Cox, Lisa) (Entered: 07/15/2005)
173 Memorandum in Support of EEOC's Motion in Limine to Exclude Kevin Brandt As Witness and Brandt's and Sammons' Affidavits At Trial. Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Related document(s): Motion in Limine171.)(Katahira, Wesley) (Entered: 07/15/2005)
174 Declaration of Lisa Cox in Support of EEOC's Motion in Limine to Exclude Kevin Brandt As Witness and Brandt's and Sammons' Affidavits At Trial. Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Related document(s): Motion in Limine171.) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit 3# 4 Exhibit 4)(Katahira, Wesley) (Entered: 07/15/2005)
175 Joint Witness List. Filed by all plaintiffs.(Cox, Lisa) (Entered: 07/15/2005)

18 of 28

6/15/2007 4:23 PM

District of Oregon - Docket Report

https://ecf.ord.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?563924285355927-L_35...

07/15/2005 07/15/2005 07/15/2005 07/15/2005 07/15/2005 07/15/2005 07/15/2005 07/15/2005
07/15/2005 07/15/2005 07/15/2005 07/15/2005 07/20/2005

176 Witness List Defendant' Expert Witness List. Filed by United States Bakery, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment Expert Witness Report 1-23# 2 Attachment Expert Witness Report 24-54)(Hartzell, Lynda) (Entered: 07/15/2005)
177 Expert Witness List. Filed by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment Expert Report)(Cox, Lisa) (Entered: 07/15/2005)
178 Motion in limine to Exclude Evidence of Witness Daniel Christianson's Drug Use. Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Katahira, Wesley) (Entered: 07/15/2005)
179 Memorandum in Support of EEOC's Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Witness Daniel Christianson's Drug Use. Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Related document(s): Motion in Limine178.)(Katahira, Wesley) (Entered: 07/15/2005)
180 Declaration of Lisa Cox In Support of EEOC's Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Witness Daniel Christianson's Drug Use. Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Katahira, Wesley) (Entered: 07/15/2005)
181 Motion in limine to Exclude Evidence of Christine Thompson's Criminal Convictions. Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Katahira, Wesley) (Entered: 07/15/2005)
182 Memorandum in Support of EEOC's Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Christine Thompson's Criminal Convictions. Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Related document(s): Motion in Limine181.)(Katahira, Wesley) (Entered: 07/15/2005)
183 Declaration of Lisa Cox in Support of EEOC's Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Christine Thompson's Criminal Convictions. Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Related document(s): Motion in Limine181.) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit 3# 4 Exhibit 4# 5 Exhibit 5# 6 Exhibit 6)(Katahira, Wesley) (Entered: 07/15/2005)
184 Plaintiff EEOC and Intervening Plaintiffs' Joint Proposed Voir Dire. Filed by Laurie DaMetz, Donna Emerson, Wendy Baker, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Christine Thompson.(pvh, ) (Entered: 07/19/2005)
185 Plaintiff EEOC and Intervening Joint Requested Jury Instructions. Filed by Laurie DaMetz, Donna Emerson, Wendy Baker, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Christine Thompson.(pvh, ) (Entered: 07/19/2005)
186 Intervening Plaintiffs' Proposed Deposition Testimony. Filed by Laurie DaMetz, Donna Emerson, Wendy Baker, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Christine Thompson.(pvh, ) (Entered: 07/19/2005)
187 Plaintiff EEOC and Intervening Plaintiffs' Proposed Special Verdict Form. Filed by Laurie DaMetz, Donna Emerson, Wendy Baker, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Christine Thompson.(pvh, ) (Entered: 07/19/2005)
188 Exhibit List of Plaintiffs. Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.(Katahira, Wesley) (Entered: 07/20/2005)

19 of 28

6/15/2007 4:23 PM

District of Oregon - Docket Report

https://ecf.ord.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?563924285355927-L_35...

07/20/2005 07/20/2005 07/20/2005 07/20/2005 07/20/2005 07/22/2005 07/22/2005 07/22/2005
07/22/2005 07/22/2005 07/22/2005
07/22/2005 07/22/2005 07/22/2005 07/22/2005

189 Exhibit List Plaintiffs' Objections to Defendant's Proposed Exhibits. Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.(Katahira, Wesley) (Entered: 07/20/2005)
190 Supplemental Witness List Defendant's Supplemental Witness List. Filed by United States Bakery, Inc..(Hartzell, Lynda) (Entered: 07/20/2005)
191 Joint Exhibit List. Filed by United States Bakery, Inc..(Hartzell, Lynda) (Entered: 07/20/2005)
192 Exhibit List Defendant's Exhibit List. Filed by United States Bakery, Inc..(Hartzell, Lynda) (Entered: 07/20/2005)
193 Exhibit List Defendant's Objections to Plaintiffs' Exhibit List. Filed by United States Bakery, Inc..(Hartzell, Lynda) (Entered: 07/20/2005)
194 ORDER: Rdcord of order granting joint motion for extension of time to file exhibits lists to July 20,2005. 170 Ordered by Judge Ancer L. Haggerty. (md, ) (Entered: 07/22/2005)
195 Response in Opposition to USB's Motions in Limine to Exclude Portions of Dr. Fitzgerald's Testimony At Trial to Motion in limine166. Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.(Katahira, Wesley) (Entered: 07/22/2005)
196 Declaration of Wesley Katahira In Support of EEOC's Opposition to USB's Motions in Limine to Exclude Portions of Dr. Fitzgerald's Testimony At Trial. Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit 3# 4 Exhibit 4)(Katahira, Wesley) (Entered: 07/22/2005)
197 Supplemental Motion in limine. Filed by United States Bakery, Inc.. (Westlind, Dennis) (Entered: 07/22/2005)
198 Response to Motion in limine to Exclude Evidence of Witness Daniel Christianson's Drug Use178. Filed by United States Bakery, Inc..(Westlind, Dennis) (Entered: 07/22/2005)
199 Declaration of Dennis E. Westlind in Support of Response to EEOC's Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Christianson's Drug Use. Filed by United States Bakery, Inc.. (Related document(s): Response to Motion198.) (Attachments: # 1)(Westlind, Dennis) (Entered: 07/22/2005)
200 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion in limine to Exclude Evidence of Christine Thompson's Criminal Convictions181. Filed by United States Bakery, Inc..(Westlind, Dennis) (Entered: 07/22/2005)
201 Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion in Limine Regarding Co-worker Harrasment to Motion in limine166. Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.(Katahira, Wesley) (Entered: 07/22/2005)
202 Proposed Jury Verdict Form Defendant's Objections to Plaintiffs' Joint Proposed Special Verdict Forms. Filed by United States Bakery, Inc..(Hartzell, Lynda) (Entered: 07/22/2005)
203 Declaration of Lisa Cox In Support of Plaintiffs' Joint Opposition to Defendant's Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Intervenors' Co-Workers' Allegations of

20 of 28

6/15/2007 4:23 PM

District of Oregon - Docket Report

https://ecf.ord.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?563924285355927-L_35...

07/22/2005 07/22/2005
07/22/2005 07/22/2005 07/22/2005 07/22/2005 07/22/2005 07/22/2005 07/22/2005 07/23/2005

Harassment. Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Related document(s): Response in Opposition to Motion201.) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C# 4 # 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 # 15 Exhibit O)(Katahira, Wesley) (Entered: 07/22/2005)
204 Motion in limine Defendant's Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff EEOC's Motion In Limine to Exclude Testimony from Kevin Brandt. Filed by United States Bakery, Inc.. (Hartzell, Lynda) Modified on 7/26/2005 (pvh, ). (Entered: 07/22/2005)
205 Affidavit in Opposition Declaration of Lynda J. Hartzell in Support of Defendant's Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff EEOC's Motion In Limine to Exclude Testimony from Kevin Brandt to Motion in limine to exclude Kevin Brandt As Witness and Brandt's and Sammons' Affidavits At Trial171. Filed by United States Bakery, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1-3)(Hartzell, Lynda) (Entered: 07/22/2005)
206 Memorandum in Opposition Defendant's Objections to Plaintiff's Notice to Read Claude Sammons' Testimony Into the Record. Filed by United States Bakery, Inc..(Hartzell, Lynda) (Entered: 07/22/2005)
207 Affidavit in Opposition Declaration of Dennis E. Westlind in Support of Defendant's Objections to Plaintiffs' Notice to Read Claude Sammons' Testimony Into the Record. Filed by United States Bakery, Inc..(Hartzell, Lynda) (Entered: 07/22/2005)
208 Memorandum in Opposition Defendant's Objections to Plaintiffs' Deposition Designations. Filed by United States Bakery, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 McCarthy pp 1-25# 2 McCarthy pp 26-45# 3 # 4 # 5 # 6 # 7 # 8)(Hartzell, Lynda) (Entered: 07/22/2005)
209 Proposed Jury Instructions DEFENDANT'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS. Filed by United States Bakery, Inc..(Hartzell, Lynda) (Entered: 07/22/2005)
214 Plaintiff EEOC and Intervening Plaintiffs' Joint Response to Defendant's Motion in Limine #2. Filed by Laurie DaMetz, Donna Emerson, Wendy Baker, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Christine Thompson.(pvh, ) (Entered: 07/26/2005)
215 Plaintiff EEOC and Intervening Plaintiffs' Joint Response to Defendant's Motion in Limine #3. Filed by Laurie DaMetz, Donna Emerson, Wendy Baker, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Christine Thompson.(pvh, ) (Entered: 07/26/2005)
216 Plaintiff EEOC and Intervening Plaintiffs' Joint Objections to Defendant's Proposed Verdict Forms. Filed by Laurie DaMetz, Donna Emerson, Wendy Baker, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Christine Thompson. (Related document(s): Jury Verdict Form - Proposed 162.)(pvh, ) (Entered: 07/26/2005)
210 Witness List Defendant's Supplemental Witness List. Filed by United States Bakery, Inc..(Hartzell, Lynda) (Entered: 07/23/2005)

21 of 28

6/15/2007 4:23 PM

District of Oregon - Docket Report

https://ecf.ord.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?563924285355927-L_35...

07/25/2005 07/25/2005 07/26/2005
07/26/2005 07/26/2005
07/28/2005 07/28/2005 07/28/2005 07/29/2005 07/29/2005 07/29/2005 07/29/2005
07/29/2005

211 Plaintiffs' "Amended" Objections to Defendant's Proposed Exhibits. Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.(ntm, ) (Entered: 07/25/2005)
212 Response Plaintiffs' Non-Opposition to Motion in limine166. Filed by all plaintiffs.(Katahira, Wesley) (Entered: 07/25/2005)
213 CIVIL MINUTES: Record of order striking pretrial conference date ofAugust 1,2005 and jury trial date of August 8,2005. ORDER setting a telephone status conference for Monday, August 1,2005 at 1:30pm before Judge Ancer L.Haggerty. The court will place the telephone call. Order by Ancer L. Haggerty. (md, ) (Entered: 07/26/2005)
217 Stipulated Motion for Extension of Time to File Pretrial Pleadings and Setting Briefing Schedule for Defendant's Rule 412 Motion. Filed by all parties. (Katahira, Wesley) (Entered: 07/26/2005)
218 Stipulated Proposed Form of Order Submitted Granting Stipulated Motion to Extend Deadline for Filing Pretrial Pleadings and Setting Briefing Schedule for Defendant's Rule 412 Motion. Filed by all parties. (Katahira, Wesley) (Entered: 07/26/2005)
219 Defendant's Unopposed Motion for Leave to file FRE 412 motion under seal. Filed by all defendants. Expedited Consideration Requested. (md, ) (Entered: 07/28/2005)
220 ORDER: Record of order granting unopposed motion for leave for defendant to file FRE 312 moiton under seal.219 Ordered by Judge Ancer L. Haggerty. (md, ) (Entered: 07/28/2005)
221 Defendant's Fed.R.Evid.412 Motion. FILED UNDER SEAL. (Rec'd on 7/22/05). In Camera Hearing requested.. (md, ) (Entered: 07/28/2005)
222 Proposed Jury Instructions Plaintiffs' Objections to Defendant's Proposed Jury Instructions. Filed by all plaintiffs.(Katahira, Wesley) (Entered: 07/29/2005)
223 Joint Reply to USB's Response to Motion in limine to Exclude Evidence of Witness Daniel Christianson's Drug Use178. Filed by all plaintiffs.(Katahira, Wesley) (Entered: 07/29/2005)
224 Joint Reply to Defendant's Memorandum in Opposition to Motion in limine to exclude Kevin Brandt As Witness and Brandt's and Sammons' Affidavits At Trial171. Filed by all plaintiffs.(Cox, Lisa) (Entered: 07/29/2005)
225 Joint Response to Defendant's Objections to Plaintiffs' Notice to Read Claude Sammons' Testimony into the Record to Motion in limine to exclude Kevin Brandt As Witness and Brandt's and Sammons' Affidavits At Trial171. Filed by all plaintiffs.(Cox, Lisa) (Entered: 07/29/2005)
226 Declaration of Lisa Cox in Support of Plaintiffs' Response to Defendant's Objections to Plaintiffs' Reading Sammons' Testimony into the Record. Filed by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Deposition of Claude Sammons# 2 Exhibit Deposition of Lynette E. Hansen# 3 Exhibit Written Reprimand of Scott Burleson by Jeff Fahlman)(Cox, Lisa) (Entered: 07/29/2005)

22 of 28

6/15/2007 4:23 PM

District of Oregon - Docket Report

https://ecf.ord.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?563924285355927-L_35...

07/29/2005 07/29/2005 07/29/2005 07/29/2005
07/29/2005 07/29/2005
07/29/2005 07/29/2005
07/29/2005 07/29/2005 07/29/2005 08/01/2005

227 Joint Reply to Def's Objections to Pltfs' Exhibit List. Filed by all plaintiffs.(Blunck, Lawrence) (Entered: 07/29/2005)
228 Joint Reply to Def's Objections to Pltfs' Proposed Verdict Forms. Filed by all plaintiffs.(Blunck, Lawrence) (Entered: 07/29/2005)
229 Reply Defendant's Reply Memorandum in Support of Defendant's Motions in Limine to Motion in limine166. Filed by United States Bakery, Inc..(Hartzell, Lynda) (Entered: 07/29/2005)
230 Declaration of Westlind Declaration of Dennis E. Westlind Regarding Defendant's Reply Memorandum in Support of Defendant's Motions In Limine. Filed by United States Bakery, Inc.. (Related document(s): Motion in Limine166.) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits 1-4 to Westlind Declaration)(Hartzell, Lynda) (Entered: 07/29/2005)
231 Proposed Jury Verdict Form Defendant's Response to Plaintiff EEOC and Intervening Plaintiffs' Joint Objections to Defendant's Proposed Verdict Forms. Filed by United States Bakery, Inc..(Hartzell, Lynda) (Entered: 07/29/2005)
232 Proposed Jury Verdict Form Declaration of Dennis E. Westlind in Support of Defendant's Response to Plaintiffs' Objection sto Defendant's Proposed Verdict Forms. Filed by United States Bakery, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1 Westlind Declaration)(Hartzell, Lynda) (Entered: 07/29/2005)
233 Joint Reply of Plaintiffs to USB's Opposition to Motion in limine to Exclude Evidence of Christine Thompson's Criminal Convictions181. Filed by all parties.(Katahira, Wesley) (Entered: 07/29/2005)
234 Declaration of Wesley Katahira in Support of Plaintiffs' Reply to USB's Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Christine Thompson's Criminal Convictions. Filed by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Katahira, Wesley) (Entered: 07/29/2005)
235 Exhibit List Defendant's Reply to Plaintiffs' Objections to Defendant's Exhibit List. Filed by United States Bakery, Inc..(Hartzell, Lynda) (Entered: 07/29/2005)
236 Joint Motion to Strike USB's Untimely Additional Motions in Limine. Filed by all plaintiffs. (Katahira, Wesley) (Entered: 07/29/2005)
237 Joint Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike USB's Untimely Additional Motions in Limine. Filed by all plaintiffs. (Katahira, Wesley) (Entered: 07/29/2005)
239 CIVIL MINUTES: Record of telephone status conference held on August 1,2005: ORDER setting 8 day jury trial to start on January 10,2006 at 9:00AM beforeJudge Ancer L. Haggerty. (The 2nd week of trial it will start on January 17,2006). ORDER setting a pretrial conference on December 5,2005 at 1:30pm before Judge Ancer L. Haggerty. ORDER setting oral argument on Defendant's Rule 412 motion and the motions in limine filed by the parties for November 28,2005 at 1:30pm before Judge Ancer L. Haggerty. ORDER granting stipulated motion toextend deadline for filing pretrial documents listed in the motion to July 29,2005 and for the replies to August 3,2005. Also granted that plaintiff's response to defendant's 412 motion be filed by August 5,2005 and reply by August 19,2005. L.Blunck,L.Cox,W.Katahira present as counsel for plaintiff(s).

23 of 28

6/15/2007 4:23 PM

District of Oregon - Docket Report

https://ecf.ord.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?563924285355927-L_35...

08/03/2005 08/04/2005
08/05/2005 08/05/2005 08/10/2005
08/10/2005 08/10/2005 08/10/2005 08/19/2005

L.Hartzell,D.Westlind present as counsel for defendant(s). Court Reporter: D.Apodaca. Ancer L. Haggerty presiding. (md, ) (Entered: 08/04/2005)
238 Joint Reply to Defendant's Objections to Plaintiff's Deposition Designations. Filed by all plaintiffs.(Blunck, Lawrence) (Entered: 08/03/2005)
240 Stipulation of Dismissal of Laurie DaMetz's Retaliation Claim. Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Plaintiff-Intervenor Laurie DaMetz hereby submit a stipulation of dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1) of all liability and damages related to DaMetz's retaliation claim filed in this action by plaintiffs under 42 U.S.C. Sect. 2000e-3(a) and 42 U.S.C. Sect. 1981a. This dismissal is with prejudice. No party shall be entitled to fees or costs related to the pleading or defense of such retaliation claim. (Not original signatures). Filed by Wesley Katahira, Larry Blunck, and Lynda J. Hartzell appearing on behalf of all parties.(pvh, ) (Entered: 08/05/2005)
241 Stipulated Motion for Leave plaintiff's opposition to defendant's Rule 412 motion under seal. (W/in this motion, counsel for plaintiff EEOC and stipulated to by defendants that other documents that have been previously electronically filed shall also be placed under seal). FILED UNDER SEAL. Filed by all plaintiffs. (md, ) (Entered: 08/10/2005)
242 Certificate of Service by all plaintiffs for stipulated motion to file response to Rule 412 motion under seal, response, declaration of W. Katahira,etc.. Filed by all plaintiffs. (md, ) (Entered: 08/10/2005)
243 ORDER: Record of order granting plaintiffs' motion for leave to fileresponse to defendant's Rule 412 motion and declaration of Wes Katahira under seal.241It is further ordered that the following documents that were filed electronically filed [124,125 (exhibits 9, 6,16, 3 to 125), 130,131,133,132,128]will be placed under seal and the 'group designation for reviewing' will be changed to reflect this change by the Clerk of the Court and within the docket entry of these documents, FILED UNDER SEAL will be noted. Ordered by Judge Michael W. Mosman for Judge Ancer L. Haggerty. (md, ) (Entered: 08/10/2005)
244 Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Rule 412 Motion221.FILED UNDER SEAL. Oral Argument requested. Filed by all plaintiffs.(md, ) (Entered: 08/10/2005)
245 Declaration of Wesley Katahira in support of memorandum in opposition to defendant's Rule 412 motion. FILED UNDER SEAL. Filed by all plaintiffs. (md, ) (Entered: 08/10/2005)
246 Record of order that the court will seal the entire document 125 as it can not seal Exhibits 9,16,6 and 3 to this documents as when they were made into electronic documents for filing, these exhibits were not made into separate documents for sealing individually. Ordered by Judge Michael W. Mosman for Judge Ancer L.Haggerty. (md, ) (Entered: 08/10/2005)
247 Defendant's Reply Memorandum in Support of Defendant's Fed. R. Evid. 412 Motion 221. (FILED UNDER SEAL). In Camera Hearing Requested. Filed by all defendants.(pvh, ) (Entered: 08/22/2005)

24 of 28

6/15/2007 4:23 PM

District of Oregon - Docket Report

https://ecf.ord.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?563924285355927-L_35...

08/19/2005 09/16/2005 10/07/2005 11/21/2005
11/28/2005 11/28/2005
11/29/2005 11/30/2005 12/02/2005

248 Declaration of Dennis E. Westlind. (FILED UNDER SEAL). Filed by all defendants. (Related document(s): Reply to Motion247.)(pvh, ) (Entered: 08/22/2005)
249 Notice Plaintiffs' Withdrawal of Their Opposition to Defendant's Motion in Limine Seeking to Exclude Sexual Harassment Allegations Against Bob Albers. Filed by Wesley Katahira appearing on behalf of all plaintiffs.(Katahira, Wesley) (Entered: 09/16/2005)
250 ORDER: Record of order granting Plaintiffs' motion to strike defendant'suntimely additional motions in limine (doc. 197 - filed on July 22,2005 and the motions in limine within this pleading was labeled # 7 and #8.) as no oppositionwas filed to this motion.236 Ordered by Judge Ancer L. Haggerty. (md, ) (Entered: 10/07/2005)
251 CIVIL MINUTES: Record of In August 2005 the parties indicated they would confer regarding deposition designations and submit a new set of deposition designations and objections. The court did not receive any new submissions. In light of the excessive objections filed by defendant to plaintiff's deposition designations, the court hereby orders the parties to confer and submit a new set of deposition designations by November 28, 2005, with reasonable and valid objections due by November 30, 2005. Paper copies of any electronically filed documents must be delivered to the Clerk's Office on the day of filing. Failure to comply with this Order will result in the court considering the imposition of sanctions. Order by Ancer L. Haggerty. Response is due by 11/30/2005. Ordered by Judge Ancer L. Haggerty. (md, ) (Entered: 11/21/2005)
252 Plaintiffs EEOC and Intervenors' Revised Proposed Deposition Testimony. Filed by Donna Emerson, Wendy Baker, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Christine Thompson.(pvh, ) (Entered: 11/28/2005)
253 Record of Hearing on motions in limine and defendant's Rule 412 motion: Defendant counsel shall supplement its Rule 412 motion by Thursday, December 1,2005 andplaintiff to file a response to the supplemental memorandum on December 5,2005 as early as possible as the Pretrial Conference is at 1:30pm that day. See attached document for rulings on the pending motions in limine. L.Cox,W.Katahira(EEOC); L.BLount (Plaintiffs-Intervenors) present as counsel for plaintiff(s). L.Hartzell,S.Henning present as counsel for defendant(s). Court Reporter: B.Montero. Ancer L. Haggerty presiding. (md, ) Additional attachment(s) added on 11/29/2005 (md, ). (Entered: 11/29/2005)
254 Record of order amending the minute order dated November 28,2005 to attach the document is attached to this minute order for the rulings on the motions in limine. Ordered by Judge Ancer L. Haggerty. (md, ) (Entered: 11/29/2005)
255 Objection(s) to Notice to Read Deposition Transcript into Trial Record (Revised). Filed by United States Bakery, Inc..(Olson, Steven) (Entered: 11/30/2005)
256 Memorandum in Support of Defendant's Fed. R. Evid. 412 Motion. (FILED UNDER SEAL). Filed by all defendants. (Related document(s): Motion 221.)(pvh, ) (Entered: 12/02/2005)

25 of 28

6/15/2007 4:23 PM

District of Oregon - Docket Report

https://ecf.ord.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?563924285355927-L_35...

12/02/2005 12/05/2005 12/05/2005
12/06/2005
12/07/2005
12/30/2005 01/05/2006 01/06/2006
01/09/2006 01/09/2006 03/13/2006

257 Declaration of Sonja L. Henning (FILED UNDER SEAL). Filed by United States Bakery, Inc.. (Related document(s): Motion 221, Memorandum in Support of Motion 256.)(pvh, ) (Entered: 12/02/2005)
258 Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendant's Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Defendant's Fed.R.Evid. 412 Motion. (FILED UNDER SEAL) Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Related document(s): Memorandum in Support of Defendant's Fed. R. Evid. 412 Motion 256)(eo) (Entered: 12/05/2005)
259 Declaration of Wesley Katahira in Support of Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendant's Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Defendant's Fed.R.Evid. 412 Motion. Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Related document(s): Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendant's Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Defendant's Fed.R.Evid. 412 Motion 258)(eo) (Entered: 12/05/2005)
262 Record of Pretrial Conference held on December 5,2005.: See attached page for rulings on exhibits and deposition designations. Rule 412 motion taken under advisement. (Motion ruling filed on December 7,2005 under seal.) L.Cox,W.Katahire,L.Blounk present as counsel for plaintiff(s). L.Hartzell,S.Henning,S.Olson present as counsel for defendant(s). Court Reporter: D.Apodaca. Ancer L. Haggerty presiding. (md, ) (Entered: 12/08/2005)
260 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: The entire docket entry dated December 7,2005 has been deleted as the 'seal' event did not work properly. (md, ) (Entered: 12/07/2005)
263 Stipulated Motion for Judgment of Dismissal With Prejudice. Filed by United States Bakery, Inc.. (Hartzell, Lynda) (Entered: 12/30/2005)
264 Stipulated Motion To Strike Trial Date. Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Katahira, Wesley) (Entered: 01/05/2006)
265 ORDER: Record of order striking jury trial scheduled for January 10,2006 as the plaintiff-intervenors have settled their claims with defendant. ORDER setting a telephone status conference for Monday, March 13,2006 at 1:30pm beforeJudge Ancer L. Haggerty regarding the status of the claims between EEOC and US Bakery. The court will place the telephone call. 264 Ordered by Judge Ancer L. Haggerty. (md, ) (Entered: 01/06/2006)
266 Stipulated Motion for Judgment Stipulated Judgment of Dismissal With Prejudice Concerning Laurie DaMetz. Filed by United States Bakery, Inc.. (Hartzell, Lynda) (Entered: 01/09/2006)
267 Notice of Attorney Substitution: Notice of Substitution of Counsel. Filed by Lynda J. Hartzell appearing on behalf of United States Bakery, Inc..(Hartzell, Lynda) (Entered: 01/09/2006)
268 Record of Telephone Status Conference : Order continuing telephone status conference to Thursday, March 16,2006 at 10:00AM before Judge Ancer L.Haggerty. The court will place the telephone call. W.Katahira present as counsel for plaintiff(s). L.Hartzell present as counsel for defendant(s). Court

26 of 28

6/15/2007 4:23 PM

District of Oregon - Docket Report

https://ecf.ord.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?563924285355927-L_35...

03/16/2006
06/09/2006 06/14/2006 06/14/2006 06/15/2006 06/20/2006 07/19/2006 07/19/2006

Reporter: K.Humiston. Ancer L. Haggerty presiding. (md, ) (Entered: 03/13/2006)
269 Record of telephone Status Conference: Counsel to contact Judge Garr M. King to set up a settlement conference. ORDER setting a 3 day court trial on the injunctive issue for September 6,2006 at 9:00AM before Judge Ancer L. Haggerty. Order setting a pretrial conferencer for August 7,2006 at 1:30pm beforeJudge Ancer L. Haggerty. W. Katahira, J.Stanley present as counsel for plaintiff(s). L.Hartzell present as counsel for defendant(s). Court Reporter: B.Alexander. Ancer L. Haggerty presiding. (md, ) (Entered: 03/17/2006)
270 Record of order striking pretrial conference date of August 7,2006 and court trial date of September 6,2006 as this case has been reported settled. Order that the Clerk shall issue a 60 day order of dismissal. (The court will sign the stipulated order of dismissals that were submitted for the plaintiffs-intervenors) Ordered by Judge Ancer L. Haggerty. (md, ) (Entered: 06/09/2006)
271 Stipulated Judgment of Dismissal with prejudice as to Laurie Dametz: It is ordered that all claims by and on behalf of Laurie Dametz are dismissed withprejudice and without costs or attorney fees to any party. Signed on 6/14/06 by Judge Ancer L. Haggerty. (md, ) (Entered: 06/15/2006)
272 Stipulated Judgment of Dismissal : It is ordered that all claims by and on behalf of plaintiff/Intervenors - Wendy Baker aka Wendy Kennedy, Donna Emerson and Christine Thompson aka Christine Thompson Jackson, are dismissed with prejudice and without costs or attorneys' fees to any party. Signed on 6/14/06 by Judge Ancer L. Haggerty. (md, ) (Entered: 06/15/2006)
273 Motion to Withdraw as Attorneys of Record for Plaintiff Intervenors. Filed by Christine Thompson, Laurie DaMetz, Donna Emerson, Wendy Baker. (Blunck, Lawrence) (Entered: 06/15/2006)
274 ORDER: Record of order granting Larry Blunck, Scott D. Preston and Lisa Day and the law firm of Blunck & Walhood to withdraw as counsel for the plaintiffs-intervenors in this case. 273 Ordered by Judge Ancer L. Haggerty. (md, ) (Entered: 06/20/2006)
275 ORDER APPROVING CONSENT DECREE. Signed on 07/18/06 by Judge Ancer L. Haggerty. (pvh, ) (Entered: 07/20/2006)
276 Consent Decree. Filed by William R. Tamayo and Lynda J. Hartzell appearing on behalf of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, United States Bakery, Inc.. (Related document(s): Order Approving Consent Decree 275.)(pvh, ) Additional attachment(s) added on 7/31/2006 (pvh, ). (Entered: 07/20/2006)

27 of 28

PACER Login:

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt
06/15/2007 14:25:31

hs0328

Client Code: eeoc

6/15/2007 4:23 PM

District of Oregon - Docket Report

https://ecf.ord.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?563924285355927-L_35...

Description:

Docket Report

Billable Pages: 18

Search Criteria:
Cost:

3:03-cv-00064-HA 1.44

28 of 28

6/15/2007 4:23 PM