CHARLOTTE, N. C.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA~
CHARLOTTE DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,

.t,J. S. DISTRICT COURT .W. DIST. OF N. C.
CIVIL ACTION NO.

COMPLAINT

CROWDER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

Defendant.

NATURE OF THE ACTION This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of race and to provide appropriate relief to John A. Warren, John C. Warren, and Defendant’s current and former Black employees as a class, who were adversely affected by such practices. John A. Warren, John C. Warren and similarly situated Black employees of Defendant were subjected to racial harassment and a racially hostile work environment due to their race, Black, by Crowder Construction Company.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE I. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 451, 1331, 1337, 1343 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Section 706(f) (i) and (3) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f (i) and (3). 2. The employment practlces alleged to be unlawful were

committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the District of North Carolina, Charlotte Division.
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "Commission"), is the agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title VII and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Section 706(f) (i) and (3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f (i) and (3). 4. At all relevant times, Defendant, Crowder Constructlon Company, (the "Employer"), has continuously been a North Carolina Corporation doing business in the State of North Carolina and the City of Charlotte, and has continuously had at least 15 employees. 5. At all relevant times, Defendant Employer has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce under Sections 701(b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(b), (g) and (h).
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 6. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, John A. Warren and John C. Warren filed separate charges with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by Defendant Employer. All conditions precedent to the institution

of this lawsuit have been fulfilled. 7. From on or about September 8, 1998 to the present,
Defendant Employer engaged in unlawful employment practices at its Charlotte, North Carolina facility, in violation of Section 7D3(a) (I) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a) (I). The unlawful practices included subjecting John A. Warren, John C. Warren and Blacks, as a class, to a racially hostile work environment through the repeated use of racially derogatory language and racial epithets, including. The specific incidents which occurred included: hearing Black co-workers referred to as ~nigger" or ~boy" daily; and, seeing a supervisor approach a Black co-worker with a noose while stating: "this is what we used to do to you".
8. The effect of the practices complained of in paragraph 7 above have been to deprive John A. Warren, John C. Warren and Defendant’s current and former Black employees, as a class, of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees, because of their race.
9. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 7 above were intentional.
I0. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 7 above were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of John A. Warren, John C. Warren and Defendant’s current and former Black employees

as a class.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this

Court:

A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant

Employer, its officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in

active concert or participation with it, from subjecting

individuals to racial harassment and engaging in any other

employment practice which discriminates on the basis of race.

B. Order Defendant Employer to institute and carry out

policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment

opportunities for Blacks, and which eradicate the effects of its

past and present unlawful employment practices.

C. Order Defendant Employer to make whole John A. Warren,

John C. Warren and other current and former Black employees of

Respondent, as a class, by providing appropriate affirmative

relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful

employment practices.

D. Order Defendant Employer to make whole John A. Warren, John C. Warren and current and former Black employees of

Defendant, as a class, by providing compensation for past and

future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment

practices described in paragraph 7 above, including but not limited to medical expenses, in amounts to be determined at

4

trial. E. Order Defendant Employer to make whole John A. Warren,
John C. Warren and current and former Black employees of Defendant, as a class, by providing compensation for past and future nonpecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices complained of in paragraph 7 above, including but not limited to emotional pain, suffering, loss of enjoyment of life and humiliation, in amounts to be determined at trial.
F. Order Defendant Employer to pay John A. Warren, John C. Warren and current and former Black employees, as a class, punitive damages for its malicious and reckless conduct, as described in paragraph 7 above, in amounts to be determined at trial.
G. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public interest.
H. Award the Commission its costs of this action.
JURY TRIAL DEMAND The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of

fact raised by its complaint.

Dated this

day of April, 2000.

C. GREGORY STEWART General Counsel

GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT COMMISSION
1801 "L" Street, Washington, D.C.

OPPORTUNITY
N.W. 20507

Regional Attorney (Zcting)

Supervisory Trial Attp*h~y

(Act f~g)

<’~

/ /

EQU~ E~P~OY~ENT OPPO2T~ITY COMMISSION
129 West Trade Street Suite 400 Charlotte, NC 28202 (704) 344-6889

6

 
 FILED
CHARLOTTE, N.

TM IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ~ ~

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAR(~. i~.,~ISTRICT COURT

CHARLOTTE DMSION

W. DIST. OF N, C,

Civil Action No 3:00 CV 186-McK

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPrORTUNITY COMMISSION,

and John A. Warren
Piaintflt-lntervenor,

cOMP~ IN INTERVENTION (Jury Trial Demanded)

Crowder Construction Company, Defendant.

Plaintiff-Intervenor John A Warren alleges: NATURE OF THE ACTION
This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (as amended), to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of race and to provide appropriate relief t~ PlaintiffIntervenor John A. Warren and to Defendant’s other current and former Black employees as a class, who were adversely affected by such practices. Plaintiff-Intervenor John A. Warren and other similarly situated Black employees of Defendant were subjected to racial ~ent and a racially hostile work environment due to ~heir race, Black, by Crowder Construction Company.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1.¯ Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 451, 1331, 1337, 1343 and
1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to § 706(t)(!) and (3) of Title VII of

the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ( :’.Title VIF), es amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(l) and (3).

]a. To the extent that .claims are alleged or asserted under the law of North Carolina, thecourt has supplemental jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed within the jurisdiction of

the United States District Court for the western District of North Carolina, Charlotte

Division.

PARTIES

Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "Commission"), is an agency Of the United States of‘America charged with the administxation, interpretation and

enforccm~t of’Title VII and is authorized to bring this action by § 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title

42 u.s.¢. §

and (3).

3a. Plainfiff-lntcrvcnor is an adult Black Male citizen and resident of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. Plaintiff-Intcrv~nor is cntitlcd to intervene asa ma~tcr of‘right, pursuant to

§ 706(f~(1) of Title ~ 42 U.S.C. § 2000~-5(~1). At all relevant times, Defendant, Crowder Construction Company, has continuouslybccn a

North Carolina corporation doing business in the S~tc of ~orth Carolina and the City of"

Charlotte, and has continuously had at least 15 cmployccs.

At all rclcvant timc~, Dcf‘cndant Employer has continuously bccn an employer cngagcd in

an industry a~ccting commerce, as defined by §§ 701(b), (g) and (h) of Title ~ 42 ~.S.C.

STATEMENT OF’ CLAIMS lViorc than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Plaintiff-Intcrvcn~r filed a timely chargc of‘discrimination with the Commission, allcsing violations of‘Title ~ by Defendant

Employer. 6a. On information and belief: more than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Jol
C. Warren filed a separate timely charge ofdiscriminati0n with the Commission, allegh violations of Title VII by Defendant Employer. All conditions precedentto the institution of this action have been fulfilled. From on or about September 1998 to the end of December 1998, and on information a belief Until the present, Def~dant Employer engaged in unlawful employment practices its Charlotte, North Carolina facility, in violation of § 703(a)(1) of Title VII, 42 U.$.C 2000e-2(a)(1). The unlawful practices included subjecting Plaintiff- Intervenor Johr Warren, John C. Warren, and Blacks as a class to a racially hostile work environm through, the repeated use of racially derogatory language and racial epithets. The spec incidents which occurred included: heating Black co-workers referred to as "niggef’ "boy" dail~ and seeing a supervisor approach a black co-worker with a noose while sta "this is what we used to do to you," or words to that effect. Plaintiff-Intervenor was employed by Defendant from September through December 1! Plaintiff-Intervenor and other Black employees reported the racially discriminatory racially hostile work environment to management but no action was taken to ¢orrec~ practices complained of. Defendant had actual and constructive knowledge of the ac!
complained o.f.
The effect of the practices complained of in paragraph 7 above have been to dq Plaintiff-latervenor John A. Warren, John C. Warren, and Defendant’s current and f¢ Black employees, as a class, of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adverse fect their status as employees because of their race.

9. The unlawful employment actions complained of above were intentional. 10. The unlawful employment actions complained of above were done with malice or with
reckless indifference to the federallyprotected fights of Plaintiff-Inter~,enor John A. Warren, John C. Warren, and Defendant’s current and former Black employees, as a class. 11. Due to the actions of the Defendant and the failure to correct the conduct complained of, Plaintiff-Intervenor was forced to resign from the employ of the Defendant. A resignation under such circumstances constitutes a constructive termination of employment. 12. As a proximate result of the Defendant’s actions, Plaintiff-lntervenor has been damaged, in incurring lost wages, embarrassment, humiliation, and emotional distress. 13. Plaintiff-Intervenor is entitled to recover punitive damages from the Defendant. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff-lntervenor respectfully prays that this Court: A. Crmnt a permanent injunction enjoining the Defendant, its officers, agent and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from subjecting individuab to racial harassment and engaging in any other employment practice which discriminate on the basis of race; B. Order Defendant Employer to institute and carry out policies, practices and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for Blacks and which, eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices; C. Order Defendant to make whole Plaintiff-Intervenor and other class members by providing appropriate relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful emPloyment practices; D. Order Defendant to make whole Plaintiff-Intervenor and other class members by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described above, including but not limited to back pay, prejudgment interest, front pay, and other affirmative relief;

E. Order Defendant ~o make whole Plaintiff-lntervenor and other class members by providing Plaintiff-lntervenor and other class members compensation for all past and futur~ non-pecuniary Ioss~ r~. ring from the unlawfui employment practioes de~zibed above, including. but not limited
to emotional pain, suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, and humiliation, in amounts to b~ determined at trial; F. Order Defendant to pay to Plaintiff-lntervenor and other class members punitive damages for its malicious and reckless conduct in amounts to be determined by the jury;, G. Tax the costs of this action, including reasonable attorney fees and expenses, against the Defendant; and H. Grant such fur~er relief as the Court deems necessary and proper.
Vic’~ Brown Rowan State Bar No. 14294 1515 Mockingbird Lane Suite 400 Charlotte, NC 28209 (704) 525-4110 Attorney for Plaintiff-lntervenor PLAINrlFF-INTERVENOR DEMANDS TRIAL BY JURY OF ALL ISSUES OF FACT

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I have served the foregoing document on.all parties separately represent .ed bymailing a copy by first-class mail to their attorneys at the following ~:
Ms. Erania Ebron Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ~129 W. Trade Street, stiite 400 Charlotte, NC 28202
Mr. Phillip Van Hoy Van Hoy R, eutlinger & Taylor 737 East Boulevard Charlotte NC’2.8203 2~, 2000.~ Dated: ~une
Attorney for Plaintiff-Intervenor
State Bat No. 14294 1515 Mockingbird Lane Suite 400 Charlotte, NC 28209 (704) 525-4110 Fax 704-525-4301

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION CIVIL NO. 3:00CV 186-V

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

)

COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

and

)

)

John A. Warren

)

)

Plaintiff-Intervenor, )

)

Crowder Construction Company,

)

)

Defendant.

)

ORDER

c a
(I) ~.
;-!:: .... '::.I0
,"
\,.,"

THIS MATTER is before the Court on "Intervenor John A. Warren's Motion to Compel Full Responses From Defendant To Discovery" filed January 26, 2001 (document #14 ). "Defendant's Response In Opposition To Intervenor John A. Warren's Motion to Compel" (document # 19) was filed February 19, 2001 and "Intervenor John A. Warren's Reply to Defendant's Response In Opposition to Intervenor John A. Warren's Motion to Compel Full Responses From Defendant To Discovery" (document #20) was filed March 2,2001. Thus, the subject Motion is now ripe for disposition.
For the reasons stated in the Motion and Reply, to the extent the information has not already been provided, the undersigned will grant the Motion as to Interrogatory #1 but deny the Motion as moot as to Interrogatories #4 and #5.

NOW THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED: 1. Ifit has not already done so, the Defendant shall provide to the Plaintiff~Intervenor the infonnation requested in Interrogatory #1, to wit: ... the name and last known home address and telephone number of every person known to you or to your attorneys who has any knowledge regarding the facts and circumstances of this case, and as to each, state: (1) the substance of that knowledge; (2) the source ofthat knowledge; and (3) whether you expect to call him or her as a witness at trial. 2. The infonnation described above shall be provided, in as complete fonn as is reasonably possible, on or before Friday, April 6, 2001. 3. Plaintiffs Motion is DENIED AS MOOT in regard to Interrogatories #4 and #5. 4. For the reasons stated in Defendant's Response In Opposition, the undersigned does not regard this as an appropriate case for the imposition ofsanctions. Accordingly, the parties shall bear their own costs. 5. The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to counsel for the parties; and to the Honorable Richard 1. Voorhees.
SO ORDERED, this 7th day of March, 2001.
CARL HORN, III Chief U.S. Magistrate Judge

pab United States District Court
for the Western District of North Carolina
March 8, 2001
* * MAILING CERTIFICATE OF CLERK * *
Re: 3:00-cv 00186
True and correct copies of the attached were mailed by the clerk to the following:
Erania M. Ebron-Fubara, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 129 W. Trade St. Suite 400 Charlotte, NC 28202-2799
Philip M. Van Hoy, Esq. Van Hoy, Reutlinger, & Taylor 737 East Blvd. Charlotte, NC 28203
G. Bryan Adams III, Esq. Van Hoy, Reutlinger, & Taylor 737 East Blvd. Charlotte, NC 28203
Vicki Brown Rowan, Esq. Attorney at Law 1515 Mockingbird Lane Suite 400 Charlotte, NC 28209
M. Ann Anderson P.O. Box 93 Pilot Mountain, NC 27041

cc: Judge Magistrate Judge
u.s. Marshal
Probation
u.s. Attorney
Atty. for Deft. Defendant Warden Bureau of Prisons Court Reporter Courtroom Deputy Orig-Security Bankruptcy Clerk's Ofc.
Other-----------------

Frank G-)Z- s",-'-Clerk

( - (/' 'R

By:

(~'J.

Deputy Cle k

 
 e'i I't'. [, I"'f'I..., .' I Ir",;n,,,_ (~1 'IT\..• u I~.l'"

FOR

IN THE UNITED THE WESTERN

DSITSATTREICSTDOISFTNROICRTTCHOCUARRTOL~APR

-I

AM 9: ~3

CHARLOTTE DIVISION

CIVIL DOCKET NO.: 3:00CV186-V

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

)

f\.; {~/',
.~

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

and

)

)

JOHN A. WARREN and EDDIE

)

JOHNSON,

) MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

)

Plaintiff-Intervenors, )

)

v.

)

)

CROWDER CONSTRUCTION

)

COMPANY,

)

)

Defendant.

)

--------------------)

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendants' "Motion for Summary

Judgment" and "Memorandum of Law Supporting Defendant('s] Motion for Summary

Judgment, .. ," both filed August 31,2001.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1 )(A) and the standing order of designation, this

Court referred the case to United States Magistrate Judge Carl Horn for recommended

disposition. In a "Memorandum and Recommendation" filed October 26, 2001,

Magistrate Judge Horn recommended that the Defendant's Motion be denied.

Defendant filed "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Memorandum and Recommendation"

on November 7, 2001. Plaintiff EEOC filed its "Response to Defendant's Objections to

Magistrate Judge's Memorandum and Recommendation" on December 20, 2001. On

1

the same day, Plaintiff-Intervenors filed "Intervenors' Memorandum of Law In Opposition to Defendant's Objections to Magistrate's Memorandum and Recommendation." These filings are deemed to be timely and are considered herein.
The Federal Magistrate Act provides that "a district court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specific proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 200 (4th Cir. 1983); Keeler v. Pea, 782 F. Supp. 42, 43 (D.S.C. 1992). De novo review is not required by the statute when an objecting party makes only general or conclusory objections that do not direct the court to the specific error in the magistrate judge's recommendations. Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). Furthermore, the statute does not require any review at all of issues that are not the issue of an objection. Thomas v. Am, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); Camby, 718 F.2d at 200; Eaker v. Apfel, 152 F. Supp. 2d 863, 864 (W.D.N.C. 1998). Nonetheless, a district court judge is responsible for the final determination and outcome of the case, and, therefore, this Court has conducted a careful review of Magistrate Judge Horn's "Memorandum and Recommendation," as well as a de novo review of those issues specifically raised in Defendant's Objections.
Defendant has made several general objections to Magistrate Judge Horn's "Memorandum and Recommendation." All of the objections assert that the Magistrate Judge erred in the conclusions that he reached. As such, Defendant's objections are merely general and conclusory statements that assert disagreement with the Magistrate Judge's recommendation, and, therefore, are not entitled to de novo review. Additionally, the "objections" simply reiterate Defendant's legal arguments, which were
2

presented to, reviewed, and taken into consideration by the Magistrate Judge in making his recommendation. Therefore, applying the careful standard of review to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge's findings of fact are supported by the record and his conclusions of law are consistent with the current case law.
Defendant's Objections also requested a hearing on this matter. This Court dispenses with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court-including four (4) briefs on the motion for summary judgment and another three (3) briefs with respect to the recommendationand further argument would not aid the decisional process.

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Defendant's "Motion for Summary

Judgment" is hereby DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Defendant's request for oral argument on

the "Memorandum and Recommendation" is hereby DENIED.

- THIS the '?'l4 y of March, 2002.

/)

.. ,.' /:?J/",,/ ;7

/" ..•./.'>1" ~;/!.

/ a:;-;!e':. vz'"

RICHARD L. R ES

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

3

mgy United States District COllrt
for the Western District oE North Carolina
April 1, 2002
* * MAILING CERTIFICATE OF CLERK * *
Re: 3:00 cv-00186
True and correct copies of the attached were mailed by the clerk to the following:
Zoe G. Mahood, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 129 W. Trade St. Suite 400 Charlotte, NC 28202 2799
Kara L. Gibbon Haden, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 129 W. Trade St. Suite 400 Charlotte, NC 28202-2799
Philip M. Van Hoy, Esq. Van Hoy, Reutlinger & Adams 737 East Blvd. Charlotte, NC 28203
G. Bryan Adams III, Esq. Van Hoy, Reutlinger & Adams 737 East Blvd. Charlotte, NC 28203
Vicki Brown Rowan, Esq. Attorney at Law 1515 Mockingbird Lane Suite 400 Charlotte, NC 28209

cc:

)~ Judge

~~

Magistrate Judge ~

u.s. Marshal

Probation

( )

u.s. Attorney

( )

Atty. for Deft.

( )

Defendant

( )

warden

( )

Bureau of Prisons

( )

Court Reporter

( )

Courtroom Deputy

( )

Ori9 Security

( )

Bankruptcy Clerk's Ofc. ( )

Other----------------- ( )

Date: .1/;/02-

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
and

3:OOCV186

F I LED
IN CQUllT
CHARLOTTE, N, C.
JAN 1 ? 2003
u. S. L)!S'H~\CT COURT
W. DiSi. OF 1'1. C.

JOHN A. WARREN,

Plaintiff-Intervenor, and

VERDICT FOR ESTATE OF EDDIE JOHNSON

ESTATE OF EDDIE JOHNSON, by and through CHANDRA MOORE JOHNSON, Executrix,

Plaintiff-Intervenor,

v.

CROWDER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,

Defendant.

We the jury, empaneled to try the cause, find by a preponderance of the evidence:
1) Was Eddie Johnson subjected to a racially hostile work environment?
ANSWER: NO (yes or no)
If your answer to question 1 is "no,· this will complete your deliberations as to the Estate of Eddie Johnson and your foreperson should date and sign this verdict form. If your answer to question 1 is ·yes,· please continue to question 2.

2) If you find Eddie Johnson was subjected to a

racially hostile work environment, has Crowder Construction

Company proven that it exercised reasonable care to prevent and

promptly correct any racially harassing behavior and that

plaintiff unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive

or corrective opportunities provided by Crowder Construction

Company.

ANSWER:

(yes or no)

If your answer to question 2 is "yes,· this will

complete your deliberations as to the Estate of Eddie Johnson and

your foreperson should date and sign this verdict form. If your

answer to question 2 is "no,· then proceed to No.3.

3) If you answered "yes· to question 1 and "no· to

question 2, what damages do you award?

DAMAGES:

4) If you awarded damages above, what, if any, puniti.ve

damages do you award?

PUNITIVE DAMAGES:

DATED this \7~ day of January, 2003.

SON

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )

COMMISSION,

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

and

)

)

JOHN A. WARREN,

)

)

Plaintiff-Intervenor,

)

)

and

)

)

ESTATE OF EDDIE JOHNSON, by )

and through CHANDRA MOORE

)

JOHNSON, Executrix,

)

)

Plaintiff-Intervenor,

)

)

v.

)

)

CROWDER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, )

)

Defendant.

)

3:00CV186
JUDGMENT

03 FEB - 3 PN 2: /.1

U "......' . 11

LI t,!

,"r
,~..

• •"
,·;)U,i

\ I. [liS I. f:r tiC.

This matter came before the Court for trlal by jury. The plaintiff, Equal Employment Opportunity Commis,lion sought certain equitable relief as well as damages for employees John A. Warren, John C. Warren, and the Estate of Eddie Johnson, and John A. Warren and the Estate of Eddie Johnson intervened as plaintiffs. The jury has rendered its verdict for the defendant and against the plaintiff and plaintiff intervenors. The Court finds that, accepting the findings of the jury as reflected by its verdict, the plaintiff is not entitled to equitable relief. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that judgment is entered in favor of the defendant Crowder Construction Company and against the plaintiff, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and plaintiff intervenors, John A. Warren and Estate of Eddie Johnson, on all claims, together with the taxable costs of this action. All pending motions in this case are now termed.
~ DATED this -', day of January, 2003.
BY THE COURT: E E. STROM, Senior Judge
United States District Court
-2

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

(\'
I.' "

1~

"
<

'

" \

-

.J-

WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

I j ::'

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION, Plaintiff ,

3:00CV186

....,',' 10,.: r.. C•;•, '"
, ,,\
, .," '.

and

JOHN A. WARREN,

Plaintiff Intervenor,

ORDER

and

ESTATE OF EDDIE JOHNSON, by and through CHANDRA MOORE JOHNSON, Executrix,

Plaintiff-Intervenor,

v.

CROWDER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,

Defendant.

This matter is before the Court on plaintiff EEOC's and plaintiff-intervenors' motion to set aside the verdict and motion for a new trial and memorandum in support thereof (Filing No. 97), and defendant's response thereto (Filing No. 98). The Court has reviewed the motion and the response and finds the motion should be denied. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the motion to set aside the verdict and for a new trial is denied.
DATED this _5__~day of March, 2003.
BY THE COURT:
-2 -

clc United States District Court
for the Western District of North Carolina
March 7, 2003
* * MAILING CERTIFICATE OF CLERK * *
Re: 3:00-cv-00186
True and correct copies of the attached were mailed by the clerk to the following:
Zoe G. Mahood, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 129 W. Trade St. Suite 400 Charlotte, NC 28202-2799
Kara L. Gibbon Haden, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 129 W. Trade St. Suite 400 Charlotte, NC 28202-2799
Philip M. Van HOY, Esq. Van Hoy, Reutlinger, Adams & Dunn 737 East Blvd. Charlotte, NC 28203
G. Bryan Adams III, Esq. Van HOY, Reutlinger, Adams & Dunn 737 East Blvd. Charlotte, NC 28203
Vicki Brown Rowan, Esq. Attorney at Law 1515 Mockingbird Lane Suite 400 Charlotte, NC 28209

cc: Judge Magistrate Judge u.s. Marshal Probation u.s. Attorney Atty. for Deft. Defendant Warden Bureau of Prisons Court Courtroom Deputy Orig-Security Bankruptcy Clerk's Ofc. Other_________________

Frank G. Johns, Clerk
M~ By: Deputy Cle..r.....- - -

 
 E.E.O.C. v. Crowder Construction, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2001)

2001 WL 1750843 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina.
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff, and
John A. WARREN and Eddie Johnson, Plaintiff–Interveners, v.
CROWDER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, Defendant.
No. 3:00CV186. | Oct. 26, 2001.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
HORN, Magistrate J.
*1 THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Defendant’s “Motion for Summary Judgment” (document # 30) and “Memorandum of Law Supporting ...” (document # 31), both filed August 31, 2001; Plaintiff–Interveners’ “Memorandum of Law in Opposition ...” (document # 34) filed September 17, 2001; and “Plaintiff EEOC’s Response ...” (document # 38) filed October 1, 2001. Defendants’ “Reply ...” (document # 40) was filed October 11, 2001.
The instant motion has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), and is now ripe for disposition.
Having carefully considered the parties’ arguments, the record, and the applicable authority, the undersigned will respectfully recommend that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment be denied, as discussed below.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
This is an action, brought by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), seeking damages and equitable relief for a racially hostile work environment and constructive discharge arising under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act (“Title VII”), as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq..
The Plaintiff–Interveners, John Augusta Warren and

Eddie Johnson, along with John Carlos Warren (collectively “Plaintiffs”),1 who has not intervened in the action, but whose interest is represented by the EEOC, were formerly employed by Defendant Crowder Construction Company (“Crowder”), a North Carolina corporation headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. At the times relevant to the Complaint, Mr. Johnson was 36 years-old, John Warren was 32 years-old, and Carlos Warren was almost 19 years-old. All three men are black.

1

John Augusta Warren, who will be referred to as “John

Warren” or “J. Warren,” is uncle to John Carlos

Warren, who will be referred to as “Carlos Warren” or

“C. Warren.” The pair will collectively be referred to as

“the Warrens,” when appropriate.

Crowder handles industrial construction projects in North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, Georgia, and Tennessee. The events giving rise to the instant Complaint occurred at Crowder’s Irwin Creek Wastewater Treatment Project (“ICP”) in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina.
In April, 1998, Crowder hired Mr. Johnson as a laborer for the ICP. On September 7, 1998, Crowder hired the Warrens as laborers for ICP. Michael Louvet was Crowder’s ICP Project Superintendent—the senior Crowder official at the site—while Ray Powell was the Plaintiffs’ immediate supervisor. Crowder’s upper management, located at Crowder’s main office, included Otis Crowder, President; Bob Haltom, Vice President of Risk Management and EEO Officer; and Steve Reynolds, Senior Safety Compliance Officer.
Taken in the light most favorable to the Plaintiffs, their depositions establish that almost immediately upon beginning their employment with Crowder, they were subjected to racially derogatory comments from Mr. Powell, who subjected them to a daily barrage of racial slurs, including the words “nigger” and “boy,” combined with yelling, vulgar language, and attempted physical violence. See “Deposition of Eddie Johnson” at 10, 12, 14, 17, 18, 21, 25–28, 56, 93, 151; “Deposition of John A. Warren” at 20, 71, 73, 74, 75, 80, 81, 86, 87, 95, 123, 126–127, 133, 135, 137, 140; and “Deposition of John Carlos Warren” at 48–49, 51–52, 86–87, 94, 96–98, 102–103, 106, 107; attached as Exhibits 1–3 to “Plaintiff EEOC’s Response ...” (document # 38).2

2

Subsequent cites to depositions will reference the

deponent’s name and deposition page number.

*2 Mt. Johnson testified that on one occasion, Mr. Powell instructed him to measure the length and width of a piece
1

E.E.O.C. v. Crowder Construction, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2001)

of pipe and, when Mr. Johnson explained that he did not know how to use a ruler, Mr. Powell called him a “dumb ass nigger.” Johnson Dep. at 10. Mr. Johnson further testified that he responded by asking Mr. Powell to repeat what he had just said, to which Mr. Powell replied, “Aw, I didn’t say nothing. Just shut up and get your ass back to work, boy.” Id.
On another occasion, when Mr. Johnson testified that he was carrying a board and some tools up a hill, when Mr. Powell spoke to a passerby and remarked, “[l]ook at that damn nigger back there. He is taking his time coming up that hill.” Johnson Dep. at 25–26. When Mr. Johnson objected to the statement, Mr. Powell told him, “I will fire you ... [s]hut the hell up and get on the road and take your ass home.” Id.
John Warren testified that on September 7, 1998, when he and his nephew Carlos Warren applied for laborer positions, Mr. Louvet and Mr. Powell subjected them to racial harassment almost immediately. See J. Warren Dep. 15–16. During the joint interview between all four men, Mr. Louvet told Mr. Powell, “I’m fixing to hire two more of them,” to which Powell responded, “Well, how am I going to tell them apart?” J. Warren Dep. at 15. Later that same day, the Warrens testified that they heard Mr. Powell use the word “nigger” for the first time when he spoke of his family’s attempt to secure food stamps when he was a teenager and stated that, “[my] family couldn’t get food stamps, but they give food stamps to the niggers and let them sit on their ass and not do anything.” J. Warren Dep. at 72; C. Warren Dep. at 51. Mr. Powell then added, “but you two boys, at least you two boys are out here working.” J. Warren Dep. at 72.
On one occasion, John Warren testified that during a particularly loud outburst, Mr. Powell accused Carlos Warren of stealing his tools and exclaimed, “I ain’t been missing no goddamn tools until we hired these goddamn boys.” J. Warren Dep. at 80–81. Mr. Powell continued to accuse the Warrens and Mr. Johnson of stealing in a loud voice, that is, loud enough for others to stop and listen to him. See J. Warren Dep. at 126–127. During the disturbance, which lasted for approximately twenty minutes, Powell allegedly repeatedly yelled at the Warrens and Johnson stating, “goddam[n] boys,” “fucking boys,” and “[goddamn] boys up the road.” J. Warren Dep. at 81, 126–127. Mr. Powell allegedly later found the tools, which he had misplaced. See C. Warren Dep. at 95, 97.
Mr. Powell admitted that he called Carlos Warren “boy” at least “two or three times,” although he claimed he did so because Carlos Warren was “under the age of 21” at the time. “Deposition of James Rayford Powell, Sr.” at 32–33, attached as Exhibit 9 to “Plaintiff EEOC’s Response ...” (document # 38). Carlos Warren testified that he heard Mr. Poweil refer to his uncle and Mr.

Johnson, both of whom were 32 or older at the time, as, “fucking sorry-ass boys.” C. Warren Dep. at 48–49, 96.
*3 In addition to calling the Plaintiffs “niggers” and “boys,” Mr. Powell used other demeaning words including—“stupid,” “dumb,” and “lazy”—in a racially provocative manner. Although during his deposition Mr. Powell denied calling Mr. Johnson stupid, he admitted that he told Mr. Johnson to “use his head for something besides a place to wear a hat.” Powell Dep. at 29–30. John Warren testified that Mr. Powell referred to the Warrens as “a bunch of lazy niggers,” “stupid niggers,” and “stupid boys.” J. Warren Dep. at 20, 71, 73, 75, 80. Carlos Warren also testified that he heard Powell refer to his uncle, Johnson and himself as “fucking lazy niggers.” C. Warren Dep. at 48–49, 96.
Aside from his verbal racial harassment, on one occasion Mr. Powell acted in a way which Mr. Johnson considered an attempt to physically injure him. See Johnson Dep. at 37–38, 121–123; and J. Warren Dep. at 66–67. While Mr. Powell was operating a backhoe at the ICP worksite, he instructed Mr. Johnson to pick up a piece of paper. When Mr. Johnson bent over, Mr. Powell swung the backhoe’s loaded bucket over Mr. Johnson’s head and dumped a load of dirt on his feet, nearly covering him. John Warren testified that he witnessed the event. See J. Warren Dep. at 66. Mr. Johnson exclaimed, “[m]an, what are you trying to do, kill me?” Johnson Dep. at 38; J. Warren Dep. at 66. Powell responded saying, “Aw, there ain’t nobody trying to hurt you or nothing like that. If I wanted to hurt you, I could have dumped it on you anyway.” Johnson Dep. at 38.
Although Crowder now disputes that it had any knowledge of the alleged harassment at any time prior to receiving copies of the Plaintiffs’ EEOC charges, taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the Plaintiffs, they repeatedly complained to Mr. Louvet, who refused to take action or report Mr. Powell to higher management.
Mr. Johnson testified that on either eight or nine occasions, he complained to Mr. Louvet about Mr. Powell’s racial harassment. He also asked Mr. Louvet to transfer him to another crew, but Mr. Louvet required Mr. Johnson to remain under Mr. Powell’s supervision. See Johnson Dep. at 56–57.
John Warren testified that he complained to Mr. Louvet several times from September through November, 1998 to no avail and, indeed, Mr. Louvet’s indifferent attitude was “a big part of the problem.” J. Warren Dep. at 75.
Carlos Warren testified that he complained to Mr. Louvet about Mr. Powell’s continual harassment and, like Mr. Johnson, asked to be moved to another crew. See C. Warren Dep. at 41–42.
2

E.E.O.C. v. Crowder Construction, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2001)

The Plaintiffs further testified that rather than take action, Mr. Louvet, as well as Michael K. Bordwine, another Crowder foreman at the ICP site, simply made excuses for Powell’s behavior. During one conversation Mr. Louvet told Mr. Johnson, “Ray [Powell] has been here a long time, and he is not racist.” Johnson Dep. at 19. Mr. Louvet responded to John Warren’s complaints by stating, “that’s just the way people are down here in the south” and that “[Powell was] not racist.” J. Warren Dep. at 76–77, 137–138. Carlos Warren testified that Mr. Louvet told him to keep doing his job because, “that is just the way Ray is, it’s the way they are down here [in the south] ... what do you want me to do about it?” C. Warren Dep. at 41–42, 47. Similarly, Mr. Bordwine told Mr. Johnson, “Ray [Powell] is just set in his ways all of his life ... [h]e has always been like that.” Johnson Dep. at 13, 19.
*4 Taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the Plaintiffs, Mr. Powell even engaged in racial harassment and used racial slurs in Mr. Louvet’s presence. For example, when Mr. Powell’s crew was pouring concrete at the ICP site—with several other foremen and Mr. Louvet present to observe the operation—Mr. Johnson testified that Mr. Powell looked at him and said, “[d]amn nigger, they think they know everything.” Johnson Dep. at 27. Mr. Johnson immediately told Mr. Powell not to use the epithet when referring to him. Mr. Powell responded by, once again, threatening to fire Johnson, stating, “[t]ake your ass and put your ass to work. I don’t want to hear none of that. I will fire your ass.” Johnson Dep. at 28.
Mr. Johnson also testified that Mr. Powell racially harassed him in Mr. Louvet’s presence while he, Mr. Powell, Mr. Louvet, John Warren, and Carlos Warren were together in the ICP boiler room. Mr. Powell sent Mr. Johnson to get some nails from a nearby truck. When Mr. Johnson returned, Mr. Powell became angry because he claimed the nails were the wrong size and called Mr. Johnson a “stupid, dumb-ass, old black boy” in the presence of Mr. Louvet and the others. Johnson Dep. at 14. After Mr. Powell’s tirade ended, Mr. Johnson said to Mr. Louvet, “[d]o you see what I mean?” In response, Louvet merely “dropped his head like he didn’t see [anything].” Upon observing Mr. Louvet’s apathy, Mr. Johnson said, “Mike, do you see? I know you can put a stop to Ray.” Johnson Dep. at 15. Mr. Louvet responded merely by saying, “[w]hat do you want me to do?” Johnson Dep. at 57.
John Warren further testified that instead of stopping the harassment, Mr. Louvet participated in it. See J. Warren Dep. at 86–88. On one occasion, John Warren and a white laborer were emptying bags of a brown substance at the construction site. When Mr. Louvet passed by the men, he told the white laborer to be careful not to get the substance on his hands because it would make them turn

the color of John Warren’s skin and make him “look like do-do.” J. Warren Dep. at 86. On another occasion, when John Warren worked with a co-worker named Richard, Mr. Louvet told Richard to watch his tools because John Warren would steal them. J. Warren Dep. at 87. And, when John Warren voluntarily retrieved a piece of paper that had flown out of Louvet’s hands, Louvet allegedly said “fetch, boy, fetch.” Id.
Regarding Mr. Powell’s daily racial insults and other events that occurred prior to December 1, 2000, Mr. Johnson testified that when he realized his complaints about Mr. Powell’s behavior were to no avail, Mr. Johnson began to “hide” from Mr. Powell and avoid him. Mr. Johnson testified that Mr. Powell’s repeated use of the words “nigger” and “boy” reminded Mr. Johnson of the plight of blacks during slavery, caused him to “ache” emotionally, and to want to “jump on” Mr. Powell. Johnson Dep. at 22, 71, 83. Mr. Johnson testified that he endured the racially hostile work environment at Crowder because his family needed the money “bad[ly],” but that the experience severely damaged his self-esteem and made him “feel like a piece of shit ... like dirt ... good for nothing.” Johnson Dep. at 33, 73.
*5 John Warren testified that the constant racial harassment took an emotional toll on him as well. See J. Warren Dep. at 98–99, 134–35. Mr. Powell’s comments about “niggers” on food stamps threw John Warren “for a loop.” J. Warren Dep. at 135. During his employment with Crowder, John Warren would often keep his wife up late at night because he would “ramble” and talk often about the harassment he experienced during the day. Mr. Powell’s comments and harassment made John Warren uncomfortable and paranoid at work and he began to “pay attention” closely to and “watch” Mr. Powell in apprehension of something unpleasant. J. Warren Dep. at 136–37. Mr. Powell’s words, particularly his use of the term “boy,” were offensive and degrading to John Warren, who was no boy at approximately age 32 at the time of his employment with Crowder. See J. Warren Dep. at 147. John Warren, however, was most disturbed by the fact that Mr. Powell got “away with it.” Id. Even now, John Warren avoids discussing his tenure of employment with Crowder Construction because it generates bad memories and feelings of low self-esteem. See J. Warren Dep. at 98–99.
Carlos Warren testified that he felt Mr. Powell harassed him because he was black; that Mr. Powell’s words and actions “offended” him a great deal; and that he was afraid Mr. Powell’s behavior might make Carlos Warren “get mad” and say or do something he shouldn’t. C. Warren Dep. at 41–42, 101, 107.
The “last straw”—which Plaintiffs contend caused them to quit their jobs at Crowder and file EEOC charges—occurred on December 1, 1998, when Crowder
3

E.E.O.C. v. Crowder Construction, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2001)

management conducted a “work safe/work smart” meeting inside a trailer office at the ICP site. Mr. Louvet and Mr. Powell led the meeting, but several other foremen, including Carlos Scott Cassell and Mr. Bordwine, were in attendance. See “Deposition of Carlos Scott Cassell” at 34, 39, 43; and “Deposition of Michael K. Bordwine at 27, 29–30; attached as Exhibits 8 and 11 to “Plaintiff EEOC’s Response ...” (document # 38). The Warrens, Mr. Johnson, and Morris Miller, a laborer, were the only blacks at the safety meeting.
In short, the meeting began with a discussion of unsafe work habits but ended with the display of a noose and references to lynching by Mr. Louvet and Mr. Powell. At the start of the meeting, Mr. Johnson told Mr. Louvet that Mr. Powell had attempted to dump dirt on him with a back hoe. Mr. Louvet did not respond to his report. See Johnson Dep. at 37–38; 119–123; and J. Warren Dep. at 66–67. Mr. Johnson then asked the assembled managers why a steel plate fell at the jobsite the day before, almost striking an employee. Mr. Louvet began to explain why the plate slipped, but then picked up a piece of rope and began tying it into a noose. See J. Warren Dep. at 38; and C. Warren Dep. at 63–64. Mr. Johnson responded, “noose ... wait a minute, man. I don’t play like that ... you don’t have to go getting into tying a noose.” Johnson Dep. at 39; J. Warren Dep. at 38. Mr. Louvet then stated, “you know noose, how we used to hang you people back in the day.” J. Warren Dep. at 38.
*6 When Mr. Louvet had difficulty tying the noose, Mr. Powell approached him and took the rope, saying, “[o]h hell, he don’t even know how to tie a damn noose.” J. Warren Dep. at 39; C. Warren Dep. at 64. Mr. Louvet then replied, “yeah Ray ... show them how we used to do it ... show them how we used to hang them back in the day ... throw it across the oak tree limb, pull on it and kill people.” Johnson Dep. at 38–39, 44; J. Warren Dep. at 38–39, 44; C. Warren Dep. at 83.
At this point, Mr. Powell, who was standing behind Johnson, began to wind the rope into coils, which the men in the room, including Mr. Louvet and Mr. Cassell, recognized as a noose. See Johnson Dep. at 39–40; J. Warren Dep. at 39; C. Warren Dep. at 64; Louvet Dep. at 67–68; Cassell Dep. at 43–46; and “Deposition of Morris L. Miller” at 34–35; attached as Exhibit 6 to “Plaintiff EEOC’s Response ...” (document # 38). Mr. Powell then leaned forward while approaching Mr. Johnson and said, “this is a noose, we know what it’s for.” Louvet Dep. at 68.
In the light most favorable to the Plaintiffs, when Mr. Johnson attempted to rise from his seat to get away from Mr. Powell, Mr. Louvet pushed him and yelled, “sit down.” Johnson Dep. at 39–40; J. Warren Dep. at 39–40; C. Warren Dep. at 64. When Mr. Johnson rose from his chair again, Mr. Louvet pushed him in the chest a second

time, forced him down into his seat, and yelled, “[n]o, you asked a question, sit down. I’m going to answer it for you ... I said sit down.” Johnson Dep. at 39–40; J. Warren Dep. at 40; C. Warren Dep. at 64.
When Mr. Powell finished tying the noose, he moved closer to Mr. Johnson in a manner suggesting to the men, including Mr. Miller and Mr. Cassell, that he was about to place the noose over Mr. Johnson’s head and around his neck. See Johnson Dep. at 39–40; J. Warren Dep. at 40; C. Warren Dep. at 65; Miller Dep. at 34–35; and Cassell Dep. at 44–45.
Mr. Miller observed that the Warrens and Mr. Johnson were visibly shaken by what was happening. See Miller Dep. at 35, 37, 40. Mr. Cassell testified that he knew that the demonstration “wasn’t appropriate” so he moved closer to Mr. Johnson, Mr. Louvet, and Mr. Powell, and placed his arm through the noose, preventing Mr. Powell from placing the noose around Mr. Johnson’s neck. See Johnson Dep. at 43; J. Warren Dep. 40–41; Cassell Dep. at 43–45; C. Warren Dep. at 65; and Miller Dep. at 35. Mr. Powell then stated, “Oh, hell, I ain’t going to hurt you. If I was wanting to hurt you, I’d have been [sic] killed you.” J. Warren Dep. at 41; C. Warren Dep. at 65. The meeting abruptly ended and the men left the trailer.
Mr. Powell’s testimony corroborates the Plaintiffs’ account of the safety meeting. See Powell Dep. at 56–61. During his deposition on March 12, 2001, Mr. Powell drew a diagram of a noose and revealed his knowledge of noose-tying when he testified as follows:
*7 It’s called a noose if it was made right. A noose has 13 rings on it ... that’s the reason they call 13 unlucky. [When you make it] you bring the tail back through that end of the rope right there, and you pull it tight, and this right here (indicating) would come on down. And that would be your loop. It’d take a pretty good-pretty good long rope to make a noose.
Id. at 58–59. In an apparent reference to lynching, Powell also testified that he “had not seen [a noose] used” because he “ain’t that old.” Powell Dep. at 59.
Following the “noose incident,” the Plaintiffs were extremely upset. John Warren testified that as he walked out of the trailer, he thought “God, these guys are crazy ... no apologies, no sorry to offend you ... just [an attitude of] hey guys, that’s the way we are down here in the South.” J. Warren Dep. at 43–44.
Mr. Johnson testified, “all [Powell] needed to do was put
4

E.E.O.C. v. Crowder Construction, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2001)

it around my neck. Mike [Louvet] was supposed to be there to bound me ... they were trying to hurt me—do you know what I’m saying—trying to hurt me.” Johnson Dep. at 41, 44.
After the meeting, the Warrens and Mr. Johnson were under the impression that Mr. Powell would continue to be their foreman and Mr. Powell, in fact, continued to work at IPC for three more weeks, that is, until his vacation commenced on December 22, 1998. Indeed, taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the Plaintiffs, Mr. Powell continued to call his three black crew members “boy” and “nigger” with impunity until he went on vacation. See C. Warren Dep. at 49–51, 84–86.
On December 11, 1998, the Warrens filed charges with the EEOC alleging a racially hostile work environment.
On December 17, 1998, upon receipt of the employer’s copies of the Plaintiffs’ EEOC charges, Mr. Reynolds, Crowder’s Senior Safety Officer, and Mr. Haltom, Crowder’s Vice President of Risk Management and EEO Officer, went to the IPC site and began an investigation. Crowder maintains that except for one page, the notes of their investigation have been “misplaced.” Mr. Reynolds testified that he interviewed various Crowder supervisors on December 17, 1998, and returned on December 22, 1998, when he interviewed the Plaintiffs. See “Deposition of Steve Reynolds” at 8–11, 49–51, 58–62, 143; and “Deposition of Bobby Alan Haltom” at 64–65, attached as Exhibits 5 and 10 to “Plaintiff EEOC’s Response ...” (document # 38).
The surviving page of the notes reflects that Carlos Warren and Mr. Johnson reported being called a “boy”; that Carlos Warren reported being called a “nigger”; and that both men reported having gone to Mr. Louvet much earlier about their concerns. Although the one page note makes no mention of an interview of John Warren, Mr. Reynolds testified that John Warren reported being called a “nigger” and a “boy” and that he, too, had complained earlier to Mr. Louvet to no avail. Mr. Reynolds testified that Mr. Louvet would have been subject to discipline if he had admitted to receiving such complaints and not correcting the conduct or reporting it upwards. See Reynolds Sep. at 129. Mr. Reynolds also admitted that his investigation confirmed that the “noose incident” did occur. See Reynolds Dep. at 63, 74–79, 87–89, 97–101, 127.
*8 According to the Warrens and Mr. Johnson, Mr. Reynolds asked them virtually no questions and already was aware of at least some of the name calling and the noose incident before he talked with any of them. See C. Warren Dep. at 36–41; Johnson Dep. at 78–81; and J. Warren Dep. at 51–59. Mr. Reynolds asked John Warren to describe the noose incident, but was already aware of it. Mr. Reynolds offered the Plaintiffs no assurance that they

would no longer be assigned to Mr. Powell’s crew. See C. Warren Dep. at 56–59, 100–01; J. Warren Dep. at 51–53, 55–57, 128–32, 140–41, and Reynolds Dep. at 142–43.
It is undisputed that Mr. Powell was only disciplined for “abusive language” through a one week suspension and a written reprimand that did not mention the racial overtones of his remarks or actions during the “noose incident.” Mr. Powell testified that he first learned of the complaints when he returned to work after the Christmas and New Year holidays and was transferred after the “suspension.” He testified he was not told that he was accused of racial harassment and was never questioned about the allegations before Christmas vacation. See Defendant’s “Memorandum of Law Supporting ...” at 5 (document # 31); Reynolds Dep. at 117–18, 127–28, 171–72; Haltom Dep. at 61–63, 66–68, 82–83; and Powell Dep. at 36–40. Mr. Louvet was not disciplined in any way.
By the end of December, 2000, the Warrens quit their jobs at Crowder. John Warren stated he quit his job because “there were a lot of things happening, but that noose incident, I would have to say confirmed it. I needed to find ... somewhere else to [work].” J. Warren Dep. at 90. Mr. Johnson stayed on into early 1999, but when he was placed under Mr. Louvet’s supervision again at his next project, he too resigned. See Johnson, pp. 54–55.
During Mr. Johnson and the Warren’s employment, Crowder had a written policy prohibiting racial harassment and providing to whom reports of harassment could be made. See Exhibit A to Defendant’s “Memorandum of Law Supporting ...” (document # 31). Crowder alleges that this policy or one like it was posted on a bulletin board at the ICP site and published in its Employee Handbook, and that company practice was to review the harassment policy with every supervisor and employee every six months.3 Additionally, Crowder’s Employee Handbook contained a separate policy which in different versions of the Handbook was entitled “Complaint Procedure” and “Employee Concerns.” See Exhibits B and C to Defendant’s “Memorandum of Law Supporting ...” (document # 31).

3

Crowder alleges that it documents these bi-annual

reviews in its safety reports, but has produced only one

such report, dated January 26, 1999, after the Plaintiffs

had left their employment at Crowder. See Louvet Dep.

at 17, Reynolds Dep. at 193, and Haltom Dep. at 29,

90.

Crowder’s posted Harassment Policy provided as follows [bracketed language is from the version published in the Employee Handbook]:
It is the policy of Crowder Construction Company to 5

E.E.O.C. v. Crowder Construction, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2001)

provide, have and maintain a harmonious working environment. Furthermore, employees have a right to work in an environment free of harassment, whether racial, sexual, [verbal, physical] or otherwise. Harassment may be verbal, or physical. All supervisory personnel are, and will be reminded of their responsibilities in this area. Supervisors are instructed to take swift, [and] appropriate, remedial action in response to any report or indication of abuse, threats, intimidation or harassment (sexual [,physical] or otherwise) directed toward any employee. If any employee feels he/she is being harassed or mistreated in any way, they [he or she] should:
*9 1. Tell his/ [or] her Supervisor [Foreman.]
2. Tell his/her project manager [project superintendent, project manager or division manager].
3. Call or write:
Bob Haltom, Personnel Director and EEO Officer [EEO Officer or Personnel Director]
Crowder Construction Company
Post Office Box 30007
Charlotte, North Carolina 28230
All reports will be handled in a prompt, appropriate and confidential manner. Discrimination and harassment will result in appropriate disciplinary action which could include dismissal.
Exhibit A to Defendant’s “Memorandum of Law Supporting ...” (document # 31) (emphasis added).
The Employee Handbook policy entitled “Complaint Procedure” or “Employee Concerns” stated:
If something is bothering you, or you feel you have not been treated right, we want to know about it. In most cases, you will get satisfaction by talking with your foreman. Listed below are the steps for you to take to get your problem resolved:
STEP 1 The first step is to contact your foreman ... Your foreman has the authority to settle conflicts and he/she will treat every complaint with interest and respect.
STEP 2 If for some reason you do not get satisfaction from your foreman, then go to your superintendent or general superintendent who will try to settle your complaint.
STEP 3 If you still have not received satisfaction, write or talk to Bob Halstom, Personnel Director and EEO

Officer, [listed mailing address and telephone number of Crowder’s main office.]
STEP 4 If you continue to be dissatisfied, you may write to Otis A. Crowder, President, [listed mailing address and telephone number of Crowder’s main office.]
Crowder Construction Company wants every employee to be happy with his/her work. Remember, we cannot settle a complaint unless you let us know there is one.
Exhibits B and C to Defendant’s “Memorandum of Law Supporting ...” (document # 31).
In the light most favorable to the Plaintiffs, none of them was ever given a copy of the posted Harassment Policy, Mr. Johnson did not receive a copy of the Employee Handbook, and no member of Crowder’s management team ever discussed the policy or Employee Handbook with them. See J. Warren Dep at 17–18, 59; C. Warren Dep. at 26, 34, Johnson Dep. at 99, 100–02, Reynolds Dep. at 36–37; and Haltom Dep. at 29, 90, 115–116.
Mr. Louvet testified that Mr. Johnson and the Warrens followed company procedure when they made reports of racial harassment directly to him, the Project Superintendent who had a duty to resolve employee complaints. Specifically, Mr. Louvet testified that he was the “initial step” to resolve the complaint,” and that it was his responsibility to resolve the complaint in “one way or another” or “get somebody that would.” Louvet Dep. at 24.
Mr. Cassell summarized Crowder’s policy as follows:
If [the employee] has a complaint, they usually come and speak to the foreman and tell them that they’ve got a problem. You talk about it. If they don’t feel like they got satisfaction, they can call the superintendent. There’s a job-site superintendent. They can call the superintendent.
*10 Cassell Dep. at 16.
Mr. Reynolds testified that the Warrens and Mr. Johnson adhered to Crowder’s policy for reporting harassment. According to Mr. Reynolds, supervisors “go out, investigate [the complaint] and resolve it. And if they can’t then they contact us [at the corporate office].” Reynolds Dep. at 37. In fact, Reynolds explained that the power to investigate and respond to employee complaints rests in the hands of Crowder’s “field” management employees because “they are the first line supervisors ... they have to be on the lookout for it, period ... [t]hey see
6

E.E.O.C. v. Crowder Construction, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2001)

things going on out on the job ... [t]hey’re to handle [the complaints], period ... and its just as the policy says.” Id.
Mr. Haltom testified that a complaint was not necessary to initiate an internal investigation into an allegation of harassment under Crowder’s complaint procedure. If a manager overheard abusive language being used in reference to employees, it was that manager’s responsibility to “follow the policy and take action.” Haltom Dep. at 61. Haltom also testified that making a verbal complaint with the Project Superintendent would be in compliance with the company’s policy and, further, would be sufficient to trigger an investigation. See Haltom Dep. at 127, 129.
On April 24, 2000, and following its own investigation which substantiated charges of racial harassment, the EEOC filed the instant action on behalf of the Warrens and Mr. Johnson, alleging a racially hostile work environment in violation of Tittle VII and seeking compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive relief, and attorney’s fees.
On July 3, 2000, and January 29, 2001, the undersigned allowed John Warren and Mr. Johnson’s respective Motions to Intervene, and each filed a Complaint joining in the EEOC’s Complaint, as well as stating a claim for relief for constructive discharge.
On August 30, 2001, the Defendant filed its Motion for Summary Judgment, which has been fully briefed as set forth above. The motion is now ripe for determination.
II. DISCUSSION OF CLAIMS
A. Summary Judgment Standard Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c), summary judgment should be granted when the pleadings, responses to discovery, and the record reveal that “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and ... the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Accord Charbonnages de France v. Smith, 597 F.2d 406, 414 (4th Cir.1979). Once the movant has met its burden, the non-moving party must come forward with specific facts demonstrating a genuine issue for trial. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986).
A genuine issue for trial exists “if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-moving party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). However, the party opposing summary judgment may not rest upon mere allegations or denials and, in any event, a “mere scintilla of evidence” is insufficient to overcome summary judgment. Id. at

249–50.
*11 When considering summary judgment motions, courts must view the facts and the inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. Id. at 255; Miltier v. Beorn, 896 F.2d 848 (4th Cir.1990); Cole v. Cole, 633 F.2d 1083 (4th Cir.1980). Indeed, summary judgment is only proper “[w]here the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party, there [being] no genuine issue for trial.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986) (internal quotations omitted).
B. Plaintiffs’ Title VII Claim for Racially Hostile Work Environment Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. makes it an unlawful employment practice for an employer:
to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
In order to establish that the aggrieved individuals were subjected to racial harassment because of a hostile work environment, the EEOC must establish that: (1) the subject conduct was unwelcome; (2) it was based on the race; (3) it was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of employment and to create an abusive work environment; and (4) it was imputable on some factual basis to Crowder. Spriggs v. Diamond Auto Glass, 242 F.3d 179, 185 (4th Cir.2000), citing Causey v. Balog, 162 F .3d 795, 801 (4 th Cir.1998); see also Burlington Indus. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742, 754 (1998). The harassment is actionable only if it is so severe or pervasive to “alter the conditions of [the victim’s] employment and create an abusive working environment.” Ellerth, 524 U.S. at 754.
This analysis is greatly simplified by the Defendant, who, while contesting much of the Plaintiffs’ deposition testimony, concedes that the evidence taken in the light most favorable to the Plaintiffs “rises to the level of actionable racial harassment.” Defendants’ “Reply ...” at 2 (document # 40).
In any event, it is clear that the Plaintiffs’ deposition testimony, along with the testimony of Crowder foremen Louvet and Cassell, is more than sufficient to establish that Mr. Powell subjected Mr. Johnson and the Warrens to
7

E.E.O.C. v. Crowder Construction, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2001)

unwelcome conduct, which was based on their race and which created an abusive working environment. Accord Spriggs, 242 F.3d at 185 (“Far more than a mere offensive utterance, the word ‘nigger’ is pure anathema to African–Americans. Perhaps no single act can more quickly alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive working environment than the use of an unambiguously racial epithet such as ‘nigger’ by a supervisor in the presence of his subordinates.”)
The “noose incident” alone, which Crowder’s internal investigation confirmed and which Mr. Cassell felt was sufficiently inappropriate to put to a stop, provides an issue of material fact sufficient to survive summary judgment as to the first three elements of a racially hostile working environment. Accord Williams, et al. v. New York City Housing Authority, 154 F.Supp.2d 820, 825 (S.D.N.Y.2001) (“as for the display of a noose, there can be little doubt that such a symbol is significantly more egregious that the utterance of a racist joke ... no less than the swastika or the Klansman’s hood, the noose in this context is to arouse fear”).
*12 The Defendant’s sole remaining contention is that summary judgment is proper, notwithstanding evidence sufficient to establish a material issue of fact as to the existence of actionable harassment, because Plaintiffs have not established a factual basis sufficient to impute the harassment to Crowder; that is, Crowder contends it is entitled to the affirmative defense established by the Supreme Court in Ellerth, 524 U.S. at 762–63.

Mr. Louvet, Mr. Bordwine, and Mr. Cassell during the safety meeting, Crowder knew or should have known about the harassment. The evidence is undisputed that even following the “noose incident,” Crowder took no investigatory action for more than two weeks—that is, after EEOC charges were filed—and took no disciplinary action of even the mildest form until three weeks after the incident.
Accordingly, absent an affirmative defense, both Mr. Powell’s ongoing verbal harassment as well as the harassment and threats made during the “noose incident” is properly imputed to Crowder.

Under Ellerth, 524 U.S. at 762–63, an employer has an affirmative defense to liability for a racially hostile work environment if it can demonstrate (1) that the employee did not suffer an adverse “tangible employment action” at the hands of his supervisor or a member of the employer’s higher management;4 (2) that it exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any harassment; and, (3) that the employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer or to avoid harm otherwise.

4

If an employee suffers an adverse “tangible

employment action” at the hands of supervisor or

member of the employer’s higher management as a

result of the prohibited discrimination, the employer is

held strictly liable. Accord Spriggs, at 186, citing

Ellerth, at 762–63.

Generally, an employer is liable for the racially discriminatory conduct of its employee if it “knew or should have known of the harassment, and took no effectual action to correct the situation.” Katz v. Dole, 709 F.2d 251, 256 (4th Cir.1983). “Knowledge of work place misconduct may be imputed to an employer by circumstantial evidence if the conduct is shown to be sufficiently pervasive or repetitive so that a reasonable employer, intent on complying with Title VII, would be aware of the conduct.” Spicer v. Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Corrections, 66 F.3d 705, 710 (4th Cir.1995).
The evidence, taken in the light most favorable to the Plaintiffs, establishes that on an almost daily basis, Mr. Powell racially harassed the Warrens and Mr. Johnson, and that during a safety meeting where other management officials were present, Mr. Powell and Mr. Louvet subjected the Plaintiffs to the above described humiliation/threats with a noose.
The Plaintiffs have testified that all the incidents of harassment occurred in the open areas of the construction site, in a boiler room in the Project Superintendent’s presence, or in “public” during an office safety meeting. Due to the open layout of the jobsite and the presence of

The EEOC and the Defendant sharply disagree whether constructive discharge, as alleged in the Plaintiff–Interveners’ complaints, constitutes a “tangible employment action” for the purposes of an Ellerth defense.5 For discussion of Plaintiff–Intervener’s constructive discharge claims, see II C below. However, the parties have cited no controlling authority on this point, and the undersigned is aware of none. Moreover, even assuming arguendo that the Plaintiffs did not suffer a “tangible employment action,” Crowder has failed to satisfy the second and third prongs of the Ellerth defense.

5

For the purposes of this motion, John Warren and Mr.

Johnson stipulate that constructive discharge is not a

tangible employment action. See Plaintiff–Interveners’

“Memorandum of Law in Opposition ...” at 11

(document # 34).

*13 While a published anti-harassment policy may satisfy the second prong of the Ellerth defense, the Fourth Circuit has held that “any anti-harassment policy an employer adopts must be both reasonably designed and reasonably effectual.” Brown v. Perry, 184 F.3d 388, 396 (4th
8

E.E.O.C. v. Crowder Construction, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2001)

Cir.1999). Moreover, the employer will not prevail on this element of the affirmative defense if is has adopted a policy in “bad faith” or has a policy which is “otherwise defective or dysfunctional.” Smith v. First Union National Bank, 202 F.3d 234, 244–245 (4 th Cir.2000), citing Brown, 184 F.3d at 396, n8.
In the light most favorable to the Plaintiffs, Crowder has not established that it exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any harassment. To the contrary, the record establishes that despite Crowder’s claim that it had an anti-harassment policy which was reviewed with supervisors and employees every six months, there is no evidence that any such training or review occurred at the ICP site anytime before or during the Plaintiffs’ employment. Indeed, Crowder maintains that it documents these training/safety meetings with written reports, and the only such document it has produced is dated after the Plaintiffs quit their jobs.
Moreover, Crowder’s “Harassment Policy”—the only document which was posted at the ICP site and also published in the Employee Handbook—states the Plaintiffs had three distinct options for reporting Mr. Powell’s harassment—report to their foreman, Mr. Powell, which obviously would have been pointless; report to Mr. Louvet, the Project Superintendent, which they did repeatedly; or contact Mr. Haltom in the Crowder main office.
In other words, the Plaintiffs followed one of Crowder’s published policies—the only one entitled “Harassment Policy.” Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Cassell, Mr. Louvet, and Mr. Haltom testified that the Plaintiffs’ complaints to Mr. Louvet, as well as to Mr. Bordwine, along with Mr. Cassell and Mr. Bordwine’s presence at the “noose incident,” should have been sufficient to start an investigation. Nevertheless, Crowder still failed to address the Plaintiff’s legitimate concerns in a timely or minimally adequate manner.
Although Crowder’s other policy—“Complaint Procedure” or “Employee Concerns,” as published in different editions of Crowder’s Employee Handbook—instructed employees to continue to carry their complaint “up the chain” to Mr. Haltom or Mr. Crowder, there is no evidence that Plaintiffs were ever made aware of this separate policy. This policy was neither posted at the job-site nor published in the portion of the Employee Handbook relating to harassment. Indeed, an employee looking in the Handbook’s table of contents or index under “harassment” would not have found this policy.
Finally, regarding Crowder’s belated investigation and remedial efforts, the evidence in the light most favorable to the Plaintiffs establishes that Crowder’s upper management knew about the “noose incident” by at least

December 17, 1998, but waited until December 22, 1998 to take any action against Mr. Powell; that Crowder’s only disciplinary action against Mr. Powell was a one-week suspension without pay and a transfer; that Crowder never told Mr. Powell that his racial comments were inappropriate; and that Crowder never took action any against Mr. Louvet or the other foremen who failed to report Mr. Powell to higher management. These efforts, which lack the vigor expected of sincere efforts to correct such brazen racial harassment, support an inference that Crowder did not make reasonable efforts to prevent and correct the obvious problem. See Spriggs, 242 F.3d at 190 (Ellerth defense unavailable to defendant who made insincere attempts to correct harassment).
*14 In short, in the light most favorable to the Plaintiffs, Crowder’s anti-harassment policies were ineffective and do not satisfy the second prong of the Ellerth defense. Accord Smith, 202 F.3d at 244–245; and Brown, at 184 F.3d at 396.
Similarly, Crowder has failed to satisfy the final requirement of the Ellerth defense, that is, it has failed to show that the Plaintiffs unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer or to avoid harm otherwise. To the contrary, it appears that the Plaintiffs fully complied with Crowder’s published and posted “Harassment Policy” and were unaware of the separate “Complaint Procedure” or “Employee Concerns” directing them, following Mr. Louvet’s failure to address the problem, to contact Mr. Haltom and permitting them to write Mr. Crowder.6 Moreover, according to the testimony of Crowder’s foremen and managers, the Plaintiffs’ belief that their complaints to Mr. Louvet would result in an investigation was entirely reasonable.

6

As quoted in its entirety above, Step Four of this policy

states, “you may write to Otis Crowder.”

Accordingly, where the evidence in the light most favorable to the Plaintiffs clearly establishes actionable racial harassment, properly imputed to the employer, the undersigned must respectfully recommend that the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment be denied as to the Plaintiffs’ hostile work environment claim.

C. Constructive Discharge Claim In order to prove a claim for constructive discharge, the Plaintiffs must show that on account of their race, Crowder “deliberately made their working conditions intolerable in an effort to induce [them] to quit.” Martin v. Cavalier Hotel Corp., 48 F.3d 1343, 1353–54 (4th Cir.1995), citing Bristow v. The Daily Press, Inc., 770
9

E.E.O.C. v. Crowder Construction, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2001)

F.2d 1251, 1255 (4th Cir.1985).
As discussed above, Mr. Powell’s behavior was clearly racially related and was directed at all three Plaintiffs. In the light most favorable to the Plaintiffs, the evidence also establishes that the Plaintiffs reasonably feared for their safety at the IPC site. Mr. Powell dumped a load of dirt from a backhoe on Mr. Johnson, an assault which John Warren witnessed. When Mr. Powell attempted to put his noose around Mr. Johnson’s neck, Mr. Louvet prevented Mr. Johnson from moving away. A co-worker testified that the Warrens, as well as Mr. Johnson, appeared “shaken” by the incident.
In short, by the time they quit their jobs, it was reasonable for the Plaintiffs to believe that Mr. Louvet would not act to protect a black employee from Mr. Powell. After the investigative interview with Mr. Reynolds, the Plaintiffs were also justified in believing that they would continue to work under Mr. Powell’s supervision, once he returned from Christmas vacation and his one week suspension. Under these circumstances, it is difficult to conclude that any reasonable black employee would have continued working for Crowder, but would have instead concluded that Crowder intended for the employees to quit. Accordingly, the undersigned will also respectfully recommend that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment be denied as to the Plaintiffs’ constructive discharge claim.
D. Claims for Punitive Damages and Attorney’s Fees *15 A punitive damages award is appropriate where the employer “engaged in a discriminatory practice or discriminatory practices with malice or with reckless indifference to the [Plaintiffs’] federally protected rights.” 42 U.S.C. § 1981a(b)(1). In the light most favorable to the Plaintiffs, the Defendant ignored the Plaintiffs’ repeated complaints and did nothing to protect their rights.
Furthermore, if the Plaintiffs ultimately prevail in this

matter, they will be entitled to attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–5(k). Accordingly, the undersigned will recommend that the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment be denied as to Plaintiffs’ claims for punitive damages and attorney fees.
III. RECOMMENDATION
FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, the undersigned respectfully recommends that Defendants’ “Motion for Summary Judgment” (document # 30) be DENIED.
IV. NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS
The parties are hereby advised that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c), written objections to the proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law and the recommendation contained in this Memorandum must be filed within ten (10) days after service of same. United States v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363, 1365 (4th Cir.1989); United States v. Rice, 741 F.Supp. 101, 102 (W.D.N.C.1990). Failure to file objections to this Memorandum with the district court constitutes a waiver of the right to de novo review by the district court, Ridenour, 889 F.2d at 1365, and may preclude the parties from raising such objections on appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845–46 (4th Cir.1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1208 (1984). The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Memorandum and Recommendation to counsel for the parties; and to the Honorable Richard L. Voorhees.
	  

10

 
 CM/ECF - LIVE DATABASE - NCWD - Docket Report

https://ecf.ncwd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?370180357550363-L_...

U.S. District Court Western District of North Carolina (Charlotte) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:00-cv-00186

CLOSED, MAG

EEOC v. Crowder Const Co Assigned to: Judge Lyle E. Strom Referred to: Carl Horn, III Demand: $0 Cause: 42:2000ra Job Discrimination (Race) Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Intervenor Plaintiff

Date Filed: 04/24/2000 Date Terminated: 02/03/2003 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff
represented by Erania M. Ebron-Fubara Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Charlotte District Office 129 West Trade Street Suite 400 Charlotte, NC 28202 704-334-6885 TERMINATED: 11/20/2001 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kara Gibbon Haden Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Charlotte District Office 129 West Trade Street, Suite 400 Charlotte, NC 28202 704.344.6887 Fax: 704.344.6780 Email: kara.haden@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Zoe Gabriele Mahood Equal Employment Opportunity Comm. 1309 Annapolis Drive Raleigh, NC 27608 919-856-4080 Fax: 919-856-4156 Email: Zoe.Mahood@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

1 of 10

6/12/2007 3:38 PM

CM/ECF - LIVE DATABASE - NCWD - Docket Report
John A. Warren
Intervenor Plaintiff Estate of Eddie Johnson by and through Chandra Moore Johnson, Executrix also known as Eddie Johnson Intervenor Plaintiff John Carlos Warren
V. Defendant Crowder Construction Company
Intervenor Defendant Crowder Construction Company
2 of 10

https://ecf.ncwd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?370180357550363-L_...
represented by Vicki Brown Rowan Attorney at Law 1515 Mockingbird Lane Suite 400 Charlotte, NC 28209 704-525-4110 Fax: 704-525-4301 Email: VBRowan@bellsouth.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Vicki Brown Rowan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Vicki Brown Rowan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Philip M. VanHoy Van Hoy, Reutlinger, Adams & Dunn 737 East Boulevard Charlotte, NC 28203 704/375-6022 Fax: 704/375-6024 Email: pvanhoy-vrad@carolina.rr.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by G. Bryan Adams, III Van Hoy, Reutlinger, Adams & Dunn 737 East Blvd. Charlotte, NC 28203 704-375-6022 Fax: 704-375-6024 Email: badams-vrad@carolina.rr.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Philip M. VanHoy
6/12/2007 3:38 PM

CM/ECF - LIVE DATABASE - NCWD - Docket Report

https://ecf.ncwd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?370180357550363-L_...

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 04/24/2000 04/24/2000 06/07/2000 06/07/2000 06/08/2000 06/08/2000 06/22/2000 06/23/2000 06/28/2000
07/03/2000
07/07/2000 07/19/2000 08/09/2000
12/12/2000 01/26/2001 01/26/2001

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT (bsw) (Entered: 05/08/2000)
2 REQUEST FOR WAIVER of Service as to Crowder Const Co mailed (date of mailing not noted) (bsw) (Entered: 05/08/2000)
3 CONSENT/REFUSAL to Magistrate Jurisdiction by Crowder Const Co REFUSED (bsw) (Entered: 06/08/2000)
4 ANSWER to Complaint by Crowder Const Co (Attorney Philip M. Van Hoy), (bsw) (Entered: 06/08/2000)
CASE reassigned to Judge Richard L. Voorhees (bsw) (Entered: 06/08/2000)
CASE REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Carl Horn III (bsw) (Entered: 06/08/2000)
5 Certificate of I.A.C. by plaintiff EEOC, defendant Crowder Const Co (former emp) (Entered: 06/28/2000)
MOTION by John A. Warren to Intervene (bsw) (Entered: 08/21/2000)
6 ORDER, set for IPC at 10:00 8/9/00 before Magistrate Judge Carl Horn III ( signed by Magistrate Judge Carl Horn III ) [EOD DATE: 6/28/00] (bsw) (Entered: 06/28/2000)
7 ORDER adding John A. Warren as an intervenor pltff, set Answer deadline to 7/24/00 for Crowder Const Co ( signed by Magistrate Judge H. B. McKnight ) [EOD DATE: 7/7/00] (former emp) (Entered: 07/07/2000)
10 Intervenor's COMPLAINT by John A. Warren against Crowder Const Co (bsw) (Entered: 08/21/2000)
8 ANSWER to Complaint in intervention by Crowder Const Co (Attorney ), (former emp) (Entered: 08/02/2000)
9 INITIAL PRETRIAL ORDER IPC held 10:00 8/9/00 Discovery deadline is 6/30/01 Motion filing deadline is 8/31/01, Calendar call to be scheduled for first term in calendar year 2002 ETT: two weeks ( signed by Magistrate Judge Carl Horn III ) (bsw) (Entered: 08/15/2000)
11 ORDER referring case to ADR. M. Ann Anderson appointed. ( signed by Magistrate Judge Carl Horn III ) (former emp) (Entered: 12/12/2000)
12 MOTION by Eddie Johnson to Intervene by Eddie Johnson referred to: Magistrate Judge Carl Horn III (former emp) (Entered: 01/30/2001)
14 MOTION by John A. Warren to Compel resp to disc referred to: Magistrate Judge Carl Horn III (clc) Modified on 01/31/2001 (Entered: 01/31/2001)

3 of 10

6/12/2007 3:38 PM

CM/ECF - LIVE DATABASE - NCWD - Docket Report

https://ecf.ncwd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?370180357550363-L_...

01/26/2001 01/29/2001 01/29/2001 02/08/2001 02/12/2001
02/14/2001 02/19/2001 03/02/2001 03/08/2001 03/30/2001 04/02/2001 05/16/2001 05/17/2001 05/24/2001 06/30/2001 07/03/2001

15 NOTICE of Cert of consultation re: mot to compel by John A. Warren (clc) (Entered: 01/31/2001)
13 ORDER granting [12-1] motion to Intervene by Eddie Johnson ( signed by Magistrate Judge Carl Horn III ) [EOD DATE: 1/31/01] (former emp) (Entered: 01/31/2001)
12 Intervenor's COMPLAINT by John A. Warren, Eddie Johnson against Crowder Const Co (former emp) Modified on 02/06/2001 (Entered: 02/06/2001)
16 MOTION by Crowder Const Co to Extend Time until 2/19/01 to resp to intvp's motion to compel referred to: Magistrate Judge Carl Horn III (former emp) (Entered: 02/12/2001)
17 ORDER granting [16-1] motion to Extend Time until 2/19/01 to resp to intvp's motion to compel, Response to Motion reset to 2/20/01 for [14-1] motion to Compel resp to disc ( signed by Magistrate Judge Carl Horn III ) [EOD DATE: 2/14/01] (former emp) (Entered: 02/14/2001)
18 ANSWER to Complaint by Crowder Const Co (Attorney G. Bryan Adams III), (former emp) (Entered: 02/21/2001)
19 RESPONSE by Crowder Const Co to [14-1] motion to Compel resp to disc by John A. Warren (former emp) (Entered: 02/26/2001)
20 REPLY by John A. Warren to response to [14-1] motion to Compel resp to disc by John A. Warren (former emp) (Entered: 03/07/2001)
21 ORDER granting in part, denying in part [14-1] motion to Compel resp to disc ( signed by Magistrate Judge Carl Horn III ) [EOD DATE: 3/12/01] (former emp) (Entered: 03/12/2001)
22 MOTION by EEOC, Crowder Const Co, John A. Warren to Extend Time to conduct mediated settlement conf referred to: Magistrate Judge Carl Horn III (former emp) (Entered: 04/05/2001)
23 ORDER granting [22-1] motion to Extend Time until 5/11/01 to conduct mediated settlement conf ( signed by Magistrate Judge Carl Horn III ) [EOD DATE: 4/12/01] (former emp) (Entered: 04/12/2001)
24 MOTION by Crowder Const Co to Extend Time until 5/31/01 to respond to 3rd request for production of documents referred to: Magistrate Judge Carl Horn III (former emp) (Entered: 05/17/2001)
25 ORDER granting [24-1] motion to Extend Time until 6/05/01 to respond to 3rd request for production of documents ( signed by Magistrate Judge Carl Horn III ) [EOD DATE: 5/22/01] (former emp) (Entered: 05/22/2001)
26 Mediator's Report by mediator M. Ann Anderson - terminated mediator M. Ann Anderson (former emp) (Entered: 05/30/2001)
27 MOTION by EEOC, Crowder Const Co, John A. Warren, Eddie Johnson to Extend Time to 7/31/01 re: disc ddl cc: CH (bsw) (Entered: 07/03/2001)
28 ORDER granting [27-1] motion to Extend Time to 7/31/01 re: disc ddl, reset Discovery deadline to 7/31/01 ( signed by Magistrate Judge Carl Horn III ) [EOD

4 of 10

6/12/2007 3:38 PM

CM/ECF - LIVE DATABASE - NCWD - Docket Report

https://ecf.ncwd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?370180357550363-L_...

07/09/2001 08/31/2001 08/31/2001 09/06/2001 09/07/2001
09/17/2001 09/17/2001 09/20/2001 09/21/2001
10/01/2001 10/09/2001 10/11/2001 10/19/2001 10/26/2001
11/08/2001 11/20/2001

DATE: 7/5/01] (bsw) (Entered: 07/05/2001)
29 NOTICE by Crowder Const Co to take deposition of Tyrone Curry (former emp) (Entered: 07/11/2001)
30 MOTION by Crowder Const Co for Summary Judgment referred to: Magistrate Judge Carl Horn III (former emp) (Entered: 09/06/2001)
31 MEMORANDUM by Crowder Const Co in support of [30-1] motion for Summary Judgment by Crowder Const Co (former emp) (Entered: 09/06/2001)
32 MOTION by EEOC to Extend Time to 10/1/01 for pltf to resp to Mot/sj (bsw) (Entered: 09/12/2001)
33 ORDER granting [32-1] motion to Extend Time to 10/1/01 for pltf to resp to Mot/sj, Response to Motion reset to 10/1/01 for [30-1] motion for Summary Judgment ( signed by Judge Max O. Cogburn Jr. ) [EOD DATE: 9/12/01] (bsw) (Entered: 09/12/2001)
34 RESPONSE by John A. Warren, Eddie Johnson to [30-1] motion for Summary Judgment by Crowder Const Co (former emp) (Entered: 09/19/2001)
35 AFFIDAVIT of Greg Von Cannon filed by John A. Warren, Eddie Johnson re: [34-1] motion response (former emp) (Entered: 09/19/2001)
36 MOTION by Crowder Const Co to Extend Time for Crowder to file reply in suppt of mot/sj (bsw) (Entered: 09/25/2001)
37 ORDER granting [36-1] motion to Extend Time for Crowder to file reply in suppt of mot/sj. Reply due seven days after EEOC's resp to mot/sj ( signed by Magistrate Judge Carl Horn III ) [EOD DATE: 9/25/01] (bsw) (Entered: 09/25/2001)
38 RESPONSE by EEOC to [30-1] motion for Summary Judgment by Crowder Const Co (former emp) (Entered: 10/03/2001)
39 AFFIDAVIT of Erania Ebron-Fubara filed by EEOC re: discovery matters (former emp) (Entered: 10/10/2001)
40 REPLY by Crowder Const Co to response to [30-1] motion for Summary Judgment by Crowder Const Co (former emp) (Entered: 10/12/2001)
Deadline updated; set Jury Trial for 9:30 3/18/02 before Judge Richard L. Voorhees (bsw) (Entered: 10/19/2001)
41 MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATIONS of Magistrate Judge Carl Horn III Re: recommending [30-1] motion for Summary Judgment be denied; Motion no longer referred Objections to M and R due by 11/8/01 (former emp) (Entered: 10/29/2001)
42 OBJECTION by Crowder Const Co to [41-1] memorandum & recommendations (former emp) (Entered: 11/13/2001)
43 JOINT MOTION by EEOC, John A. Warren, Eddie Johnson to Extend Time to respond to deft's objections to mrm referred to: Judge Richard L. Voorhees (former emp) (Entered: 11/26/2001)

5 of 10

6/12/2007 3:38 PM

CM/ECF - LIVE DATABASE - NCWD - Docket Report

https://ecf.ncwd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?370180357550363-L_...

11/20/2001 11/28/2001 12/20/2001 12/20/2001 02/05/2002 02/19/2002
04/01/2002 04/05/2002 04/05/2002 04/08/2002
04/12/2002 04/22/2002 04/26/2002 08/26/2002 08/26/2002

44 Substitution of Counsel terminating attorney Erania M. Ebron-Fubara for EEOC and substituting Zoe G. Mahood, Kara L. Gibbon Haden (former emp) (Entered: 11/26/2001)
45 ORDER granting [43-1] joint motion to Extend Time to respond to deft's objections to mrm until 12/24/01 ( signed by Judge Richard L. Voorhees ) [EOD DATE: 11/30/01] (former emp) (Entered: 11/30/2001)
46 MEMORANDUM by John A. Warren, Eddie Johnson in opposition to [42-1] objection by Crowder Const Co (former emp) (Entered: 12/21/2001)
47 MEMORANDUM by EEOC in opposition to [42-1] objection by Crowder Const Co (former emp) (Entered: 12/21/2001)
48 MOTION by EEOC, John A. Warren to Continue from March Trial Calendar referred to: Judge Richard L. Voorhees (bsw) (Entered: 02/07/2002)
49 ORDER granting [48-1] motion to Continue from March Trial Calendar, reset Jury Trial for 9:30 5/20/02 before Judge Richard L. Voorhees ( signed by Judge Richard L. Voorhees ) [EOD DATE: 2/22/02] (former emp) (Entered: 02/22/2002)
50 ORDER [41-1] memorandum & recommendations denying [30-1] motion for Summary Judgment & req/for oral arg on M&R ( signed by Judge Richard L. Voorhees ) [EOD DATE: 4/1/02] (bsw) (Entered: 04/01/2002)
51 MOTION by Eddie Johnson to Substitute party Chandra Johnson, Executrix of Est of Eddie Johnson in place of Eddie Johnson as pltf-intervenor (bsw) (Entered: 04/08/2002)
Motion(s) referred [51-1] motion to Substitute party Chandra Johnson, Executrix of Est of Eddie Johnson in place of Eddie Johnson as pltf-intervenor referred to Magistrate Judge Carl Horn III (bsw) (Entered: 04/08/2002)
52 ORDER granting [51-1] motion to Substitute party Chandra Johnson, Executrix of Est of Eddie Johnson in place of Eddie Johnson as pltf-intervenor Terminating and substituting ( signed by Magistrate Judge Carl Horn III ) [EOD DATE: 4/10/02] (bsw) (Entered: 04/10/2002)
53 MOTION by Crowder Const Co to Continue tril scheduled for May 2002 term referred to: Judge Richard L. Voorhees (bsw) (Entered: 04/16/2002)
54 RESPONSE by John A. Warren, Johnson, Eddie Est to [53-1] motion to Continue tril scheduled for May 2002 term by Crowder Const Co (bsw) (Entered: 04/22/2002)
55 ORDER granting [53-1] motion to Continue tril scheduled for May 2002 term, reset Jury Trial for 9:30 9/9/02 before Judge Richard L. Voorhees ( signed by Judge Richard L. Voorhees ) [EOD DATE: 4/26/02] (bsw) (Entered: 04/26/2002)
56 Proposed issue by Crowder Const Co (former emp) (Entered: 08/27/2002)
57 STIPULATION by EEOC, Crowder Const Co, John A. Warren () (former emp) (Entered: 08/27/2002)

6 of 10

6/12/2007 3:38 PM

CM/ECF - LIVE DATABASE - NCWD - Docket Report

https://ecf.ncwd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?370180357550363-L_...

08/26/2002 08/30/2002 08/30/2002 08/30/2002 08/30/2002 09/03/2002 09/03/2002 09/03/2002 09/25/2002 09/25/2002 10/01/2002 10/02/2002
10/02/2002
10/02/2002
10/02/2002
10/02/2002
10/02/2002

58 Proposed issue by EEOC, John A. Warren, Johnson, Eddie Est (former emp) (Entered: 08/27/2002)
59 Exhibit list by EEOC, Crowder Const Co (bsw) (Entered: 08/30/2002)
60 TRIAL BRIEF by EEOC, Johnson, Eddie Est (bsw) (Entered: 08/30/2002)
61 Voir Dire Questions by EEOC, Johnson, Eddie Est (bsw) (Entered: 08/30/2002)
62 Proposed Jury instructions by EEOC, Johnson, Eddie Est (bsw) (Entered: 08/30/2002)
63 Proposed Jury instructions by Crowder Const Co (former emp) (Entered: 09/04/2002)
64 Proposed Voir Dire Questions by Crowder Const Co (former emp) (Entered: 09/04/2002)
65 TRIAL BRIEF by Crowder Const Co (former emp) (Entered: 09/04/2002)
66 AMENDED STIPULATION by John A. Warren, Johnson, Eddie Est, EEOC, Crowder Const Co () (former emp) (Entered: 09/26/2002)
67 AFFIDAVIT of Chad Crosby filed re: attempted service on Tyrone Darnel Curry (former emp) (Entered: 09/26/2002)
68 AMENDED JOINT Exhibit list by EEOC, Crowder Const Co, John A. Warren, Johnson, Eddie Est, Crowder Const Co (former emp) (Entered: 10/02/2002)
69 MOTION by EEOC, John A. Warren, Johnson, Eddie Est in Limine to exclude evidence re: Eddie Johnson's arrest and/or criminal charge(s) with included memo in support thereof referred to: Judge Lyle Strom (former emp) Modified on 12/04/2002 (Entered: 10/02/2002)
70 MOTION by EEOC, John A. Warren, Johnson, Eddie Est in Limine to exclude evidence of EEOC charges Eddie Johnson may have filed against employers other than dft with included memo in support referred to: Judge Lyle Strom (former emp) Modified on 12/04/2002 (Entered: 10/02/2002)
71 MOTION by EEOC, John A. Warren, Johnson, Eddie Est in Limine to exclude evidence of John A. Warren's wage and hour claim against an employer other than dft's with included memo in support referred to: Judge Lyle Strom (former emp) Modified on 12/04/2002 (Entered: 10/02/2002)
72 MOTION by EEOC, John A. Warren, Johnson, Eddie Est in Limine to exclude evidence of Eddie Johnson's children and marital status at the time of their births with included memo in support thereof referred to: Judge Lyle Strom (former emp) Modified on 12/04/2002 (Entered: 10/02/2002)
73 MOTION by EEOC, John A. Warren, Johnson, Eddie Est in Limine to exclude evidence of arrest of John A. Warren with included memo in support thereof referred to: Judge Lyle Strom (former emp) Modified on 12/04/2002 (Entered: 10/02/2002)
74 MOTION by EEOC, John A. Warren, Johnson, Eddie Est in Limine to exclude evidence concerningEEOC's admin investigation with included memo in support

7 of 10

6/12/2007 3:38 PM

CM/ECF - LIVE DATABASE - NCWD - Docket Report

https://ecf.ncwd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?370180357550363-L_...

10/04/2002 10/04/2002 10/04/2002 10/04/2002 10/04/2002 10/04/2002 10/08/2002 10/09/2002
10/10/2002 10/22/2002 10/25/2002

thereof referred to: Judge Lyle Strom (former emp) Modified on 12/04/2002 (Entered: 10/02/2002)
75 AMENDED Proposed Jury instructions by EEOC, John A. Warren, Johnson, Eddie Est (former emp) (Entered: 10/07/2002)
76 MOTION by EEOC, John A. Warren, Johnson, Eddie Est in Limine to bar admission of evidence re: employees of dft not a pty to this lawsuit with included memo in support thereof referred to: Judge Lyle Strom (former emp) Modified on 12/04/2002 (Entered: 10/07/2002)
77 OBJECTION by EEOC, Crowder Const Co, John A. Warren, Johnson, Eddie Est to deposition of tyrone Curry (former emp) (Entered: 10/07/2002)
78 OBJECTION by EEOC, Crowder Const Co, John A. Warren, Johnson, Eddie Est to deposition of Eddie Johnson (former emp) (Entered: 10/07/2002)
79 OBJECTION by EEOC, Crowder Const Co, John A. Warren, Johnson, Eddie Est to deposition of James Rayford Powell, Sr. (former emp) (Entered: 10/07/2002)
80 MOTION by EEOC for ruling on the parties' objections to depositions referred to: Magistrate Judge Carl Horn III (former emp) (Entered: 10/07/2002)
Motion(s) no longer referred: [80-1] motion for ruling on the parties' objections to depositions. To be heard in front of Hon. Richard L. Voorhees on 10/10/02. (former emp) (Entered: 10/08/2002)
81 RESPONSE by Crowder Const Co to [76-1] motion in Limine to bar admission of evidence re: employees of dft not a pty to this lawsuit with included memo in support thereof by Johnson, Eddie Est, John A. Warren, EEOC, [74-1] motion in Limine to exclude evidence concerningEEOC's admin investigation with included memo in support thereof by Johnson, Eddie Est, John A. Warren, EEOC, [73-1] motion in Limine to exclude evidence of arrest of John A. Warren with included memo in support thereof by Johnson, Eddie Est, John A. Warren, EEOC, [72-1] motion in Limine to exclude evidence of Eddie Johnson's children and marital status at the time of their births with included memo in support thereof by Johnson, Eddie Est, John A. Warren, EEOC, [71-1] motion in Limine to exclude evidence of John A. Warren's wage and hour claim against an employer other than dft's with included memo in support by Johnson, Eddie Est, John A. Warren, EEOC, [70-1] motion in Limine to exclude evidence of EEOC charges Eddie Johnson may have filed against employers other than dft with included memo in support by Johnson, Eddie Est, John A. Warren, EEOC, [69-1] motion in Limine to exclude evidence re: Eddie Johnson's arrest and/or criminal charge(s) with included memo in support thereof by Johnson, Eddie Est, John A. Warren, EEOC (former emp) (Entered: 10/11/2002)
Motion hearing held re: Judge: Richard L. Voorhees Court Rptr: Cheryl Nuccio (Court takes matter under advisement.) (ssh) (Entered: 10/10/2002)
82 ORDER, Transferring Case to Hon. Lyle E. Strom ( signed by Judge Richard L. Voorhees ) [EOD DATE: 10/25/02] (former emp) (Entered: 10/25/2002)
83 CASE reassigned to Judge Lyle E. Strom - notice of reassignment mailed to parties. (former emp) (Entered: 10/25/2002)

8 of 10

6/12/2007 3:38 PM

CM/ECF - LIVE DATABASE - NCWD - Docket Report

https://ecf.ncwd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?370180357550363-L_...

10/25/2002 01/07/2003 01/07/2003
01/13/2003 01/13/2003 01/13/2003 01/13/2003 01/13/2003 01/13/2003 01/14/2003 01/14/2003
01/15/2003 01/16/2003 01/16/2003

Deadline updated; reset Jury Trial for 9:30 1/13/03 before Judge Lyle E. Strom (bsw) (Entered: 10/25/2002)
84 ORDER, of Designation and Assignment of Senior United States District Judge Lyle E. Strom to perform judicial duties in another Circuit () [EOD DATE: 1/7/03] (clc) (Entered: 01/07/2003)
85 ORDER granting in part, reserve ruling in part [74-1] motion in Limine to exclude evidence concerning EEOC's admin investigation with included memo in support thereof, granting [73-1] motion in Limine to evidence of arrest of John A. Warren with included memo in support thereof, granting [72-1] motion in Limine to evidence of Eddie Johnson's children and marital status at the time of their births with included memo in support thereof, granting [71-1] motion in Limine to exclude evidence of John A. Warren's wage and hour claim against an employer other than dft's with included memo in support, granting [69-1] motion in Limine to exclude evidence re: Eddie Johnson's arrest and/or criminal charge(s) with included memo in support thereof ( signed by Judge Lyle E. Strom ) [EOD DATE: 1/8/03] (clc) (Entered: 01/08/2003)
86 Supplemental Proposed Voir Dire Questions by EEOC (clc) (Entered: 01/15/2003)
87 Witness list by EEOC, John A. Warren, Johnson, Eddie Est (clc) (Entered: 01/15/2003)
88 Witness list by Crowder Const Co (clc) (Entered: 01/15/2003)
Jury selection held Judge: Lyle Strom Court Rptr: Pamela Miller (clc) (Entered: 01/15/2003)
Jury Trial began/held Judge: Lyle Strom Court Rptr: Pamela Miller (Huseby) (clc) (Entered: 01/15/2003)
Jury impaneled (clc) (Entered: 01/21/2003)
Jury Trial continues/held Judge: Lyle Strom Court Rptr: Pamela Miller (Huseby) (clc) (Entered: 01/15/2003)
89 ORDER granting [80-1] motion for ruling on the parties' objections to depositions, granting [76-1] motion in Limine to bar admission of evidence re: employees of dft not a pty to this lawsuit with included memo in support thereof, granting [70-1] motion in Limine to exclude evidence of EEOC charges Eddie Johnson may have filed against employers other than dft with included memo in support ( signed by Judge Lyle E. Strom ) [EOD DATE: 1/16/03] (clc) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
Jury Trial continues/held Judge: Lyle Strom Court Rptr: Pamela Miller (Huseby) (clc) (Entered: 01/15/2003)
Jury Trial continues/held Judge: Lyle Strom Court Rptr: Pamela Miller (clc) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
90 Supplemental Amended Proposed Jury instructions by EEOC, John A. Warren (clc) (Entered: 01/16/2003)

9 of 10

6/12/2007 3:38 PM

CM/ECF - LIVE DATABASE - NCWD - Docket Report

https://ecf.ncwd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?370180357550363-L_...

01/16/2003 01/17/2003 01/17/2003 01/17/2003 01/17/2003
01/17/2003 01/17/2003 01/17/2003 02/03/2003
02/03/2003 02/13/2003
02/27/2003
03/06/2003

MOTION in open court by Crowder Const Co for Judgement as a Matter of Law pursuant to Rule 50 (clc) (Entered: 01/21/2003)
Jury Trial continues/held Judge: Lyle Strom Court Rptr: Pamela Miller (Huseby) (clc) (Entered: 01/17/2003)
91 ORDER, for Return of Trial exhibits ( signed by Judge Lyle E. Strom ) [EOD DATE: 1/21/03] (clc) (Entered: 01/21/2003)
92 Jury instructions (charge read to jury) (clc) (Entered: 01/21/2003)
ORAL ORDER denying [0-0] oral motion for Judgement as a Matter of Law pursuant to Rule 50 ( signed by Judge Lyle E. Strom ) (clc) (Entered: 01/21/2003)
93 JURY VERDICT for Crowder Const Co as to Pltf John A. Warren (clc) (Entered: 01/22/2003)
94 JURY VERDICT for Crowder Const Co as to Pltf John C. Warren (clc) (Entered: 01/22/2003)
95 JURY VERDICT for Crowder Const Co as to Pltf Estate of Eddie Johnson (clc) (Entered: 01/22/2003)
96 JUDGMENT for Crowder Const Co against EEOC, John A. Warren, Johnson, Eddie Est ; ( signed by Judge Lyle E. Strom ) Judgment Volume: 49B Page: 12 [EOD Date: 2/3/03] (former emp) (Entered: 02/03/2003)
Case closed (former emp) (Entered: 02/03/2003)
97 MOTION with Memorandum in Support by EEOC, John A. Warren, Johnson, Eddie Est, John Carlos Warren to Vacate [96-1] judgment order & Verdict , and for New Trial referred to: Judge Lyle E. Strom (clc) (Entered: 02/14/2003)
98 RESPONSE by Crowder Const Co to [97-1] motion to Vacate [96-1] judgment order & Verdict by John Carlos Warren, Johnson, Eddie Est, John A. Warren, EEOC, [97-2] motion for New Trial by John Carlos Warren, Johnson, Eddie Est, John A. Warren, EEOC (clc) (Entered: 03/03/2003)
99 ORDER denying [97-1] motion to Vacate [96-1] judgment order & Verdict, denying [97-2] motion for New Trial ( signed by Judge Lyle E. Strom ) [EOD DATE: 3/7/03] (clc) (Entered: 03/07/2003)

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

06/12/2007 16:39:25

PACER Login: hs0328

Client Code: eeoc

Description: Docket Report Search Criteria: 3:00-cv-00186

Billable Pages: 6

Cost:

0.48

10 of 10

6/12/2007 3:38 PM

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,

3:00CV186

F I LED
IN COUfn CHARLOTTE, N. C.
JAN 1 ? 2003

and JOHN A. WARREN,

U. S. DiSTRICT COURT W. DIST. OF N. C.

Plaintiff Intervenor, and

VERDICT FOR JOHN AUGUSTA WARREN

ESTATE OF EDDIE JOHNSON, by and through CHANDRA MOORE JOHNSON, Executrix,

Plaintiff-Intervenor,

v.

CROWDER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,

Defendant.

We the jury, empaneled to try the cause, find by a preponderance of the evidence:
1) Was John Augusta Warren subjected to a racially hostile work environment?
ANSWER: ~o (yes or no) If your answer to question 1 is "no,· this will complete your deliberations as to John Augusta Warren and your foreperson should date and sign this verdict form. If your answer to question 1 is "yes,· please continue to question 2.

2) Was John Augusta Warren constructively discharged

from his employment with Crowder Construction Company?

ANSWER:

(yes or no)

If your answer to question 2 is "yes," then proceed to

question 4. If your answer to question 2 is "no," then proceed

to question 3.

3) If you find John Augusta Warren was subjected to a

racially hostile work environment and you find that he was not

constructively discharged, has Crowder Construction Company

proven that it exercised reasonable care to prevent and promptly

correct any racially harassing behavior and that plaintiff

unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or

corrective opportunities provided by Crowder Construction

Company?

ANSWER:

(yes or no)

If your answer to question 3 is "yes," this will

complete your deliberations as to John Augusta Warren and your

foreperson should date and sign this verdict form. If your

answer to question 3 is "no," then proceed to NO.4.

4) If you answered "yes" to questions 1 and 2, or you

answered "yes" to question 1, "no" to question 2, and "no" to

question 3, what compensatory damages do you award?

DAMAGES:

5) If you awarded damages above, what, if any, punitive damages do you award?
PUNITIVE DAMAGES: DATED this L1~:: day of January, 2003.
~ ~REPERSON
)-

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,

3:00CV186

F I LED
IN COURT
CHARLOTTE, N. C.
JAN 1 / 2003

and JOHN A. WARREN,

U. S. DISTRICT COURT W. OIST. OF N. C.

Plaintiff-Intervenor, and

VERDICT FOR JOHN CARLOS WARREN

ESTATE OF EDDIE JOHNSON, by and through CHANDRA MOORE JOHNSON, Executrix,

Plaintiff-Intervenor,

v.

CROWDER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,

Defendant.

We the Jury, empaneled to try the cause, find by a

preponderance of the evidence:

1) Was John Carlos Warren subjected to a racially

hostile work environment?

ANSWER:

(yes or no)

If your answer to question 1 is "no," this will

complete your deliberations as to John Carlos Warren and your

foreperson should date and sign this verdict form. If your

answer to quest.ion 1. is "yes," please continue to quest.ion 2.

2) If you find John Carlos Warren was subjected to a

racially hostile work environment, has Crowder Construction Company proven that it exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any racially harassing behavior and that

plaintiff unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive

or corrective opportunities provided by Crowder Construction

Company?

ANSWER:

(yes or no)

If your answer to question 2 is "yes,· this will

complete your deliberations as to John Carlos Warren and your

foreperson should date and sign this verdict form. If your

answer to question 2 is "no,· then proceed to NO.3.

3) If you answered "yes" to questions 1, and "no • to question 2, what damages do you award?
DAMAGES:

4) If you awarded damages above, what, if any, punitive

damages do you award? PUNITIVE DAMAGES:
DATED this \ '{"""day of January, 2003.

'r~'PERSON