EAST~~~~~Q~~SAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
~",wa~Yl~ PINE BLUFF DIVISION

APR 2 6 2002
W.\r/,j~

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

)

COMMISSION,

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

CIVILACTIONNO 5:0aeIlOI535U)~

)

v.
FRED'S, INC.

:ddn~ )

COMPLAINT

)

~ ) This case assigned to District
) and to Magistrate Judge

II JM~J: yJ

Defendant.

)

JURY TRIAL DEMA

)

NATURE OF THE ACTION This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended ("Title VII"), and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to correct unlawful employment practices and to provide appropriate relief on behalf of Lasonia Beathea and other former female employees. Ms. Beathea and other females were discriminated against by Defendant by being subjected to sexual harassment caused by the inappropriate sexual actions, overtures, and behavior of the store manager. Ms. Beathea was subsequently discharged when she attempted to return to work following a leave of absence. Females employees were constructively discharged when they were forced to resign rather than endure the harassment.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.c. §§451, 1331, 1337, 1343, and 1345. This is an action authorized and instituted pursuant to §706(f)(1) and (3) and §706 and §707 of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.c. §2000e, et seq. ("Title VII").

2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were and are now being

committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of

Arkansas, Pine Bluff Division.

PARTIES

3. Plaintiff, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "Commission") is an

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 §706(f)(1) and (3)

and §707 of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000-5(f).

4. At all relevant times, Defendant Fred's, Inc. ("Defendant Employer"), was a

Tennessee corporation doing business in the State of Arkansas and the City of Lake Village and

has continuously had at least fifteen (15) employees.

5. At all relevant times, Defendant Employer has continuously been and is now an

employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of §701(b), (g), and (h)

of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§2000e(b), (g), and (h).

STATEMENT OF CLAIMS

6. More than thirty (30) days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Lasonia Beathea

filed a charge of discrimination with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by

Defendant Employer. During the course of the investigation, allegations of sexual harassment

towards other former female employees were discovered. All conditions precedent to the

institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled.

7.

From on or around July, 2000 and continuing, Defendant Employer has engaged

in unlawful employment practices at its facility in Lake Village, Arkansas, in violation of

2

§703(a) of Title VIT, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-2(a). The unlawful practices include, but are not limited to, the sexual harassment and discharge of Ms. Lasonia Beathea.
8. The effect of the practices complained of above has been to deprive Lasonia Beathea of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect her status as an employee.
9. Beginning in October of 2000, Ms. Beathea made a complaint to the company's hotline number that she was being subjected to sexual harassment by the store manager. The company failed to take corrective measures to protect Ms. Beathea. The harassment included, but was not limited to, sexual touching, sexual comments, requests for sexual favors, and other unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature..
10. Ms. Beathea was discharged in October of 2001 when she attempted to return to work following a medical leave of absence and was told there were no openings.
11. The unlawful employment practices complained of above were and are intentional.
12. Defendant Employer at all relevant times acted with malice or reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Ms. Beathea.
13. From on or around July of 2000 and continuing, Defendant Employer has engaged in unlawful employment practices at its facility in Lake Village, Arkansas, in violation of §703(a) of Title VIT, as amended, 42 U.S.c. §2000e-2(a). The unlawful practices include, but are not limited to, sexually harassing previous female employees because of their sex. The conduct consisted of sexual comments, requests for sexual favors, and other unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature. The harassment was pervasive and continuous, and as a result, these females
3

have been forced to resign rather than endure the sexual harassment. 14. The effect of the practices complained of above has been to deprive female
employees of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees.
15. The unlawful employment practices complained of above were and are intentional.
16. Defendant Employer at all relevant times acted with malice or reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of female employees.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, the Commission respectfully prays that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining the Defendant Employer, its officers, successors, assigns and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in any employment practice which discriminates on the basis sex. B. Order Defendant Employer to institute and carry out policies, practices and programs which provide equal employment opportunities which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment patterns and practices. C. Order Defendant Employer to make whole Lasonia Beathea and other females who were subjected to Defendant's discriminatory practices by providing appropriate back pay with prejudgment interest, in amounts to be determined at trial, and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices, including but not limited to, placement in a position. D. Order Defendant Employer to make whole Lasonia Beathea and other females
4

who were subjected to Defendant's discriminatory practices by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described above, including relocation expenses, job search expenses, and medical expenses, in amounts to be determined at trial.
E. Order Defendant Employer to make whole Lasonia Beathea and other females who were subjected to Defendant's discriminatory practices by providing compensation for past and future non pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices complained of above, including emotional pain, suffering, embarrassment, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life and humiliation, in amounts to be determined at trial.
F. Order Defendant Employer to pay Lasonia Beathea and other females who were subjected to Defendant's discriminatory practices punitive damages for its malicious and/or reckless conduct, in an amount to be determined at trial.
G. Order Defendant Employer to pay Lasonia Beathea all the relief to which she is entitled for Defendant's illegal act of discharging her and to pay other females all the relief to which they are entitled for Defendant's illegal acts of constructively discharging them.
H. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper. 1. Award the Commission its costs in this action.
JURY TRIAL DEMAND The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its Complaint.
NICHOLAS INZEO Acting Deputy General Counsel GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel
5

<~w~K~Vj
KATHARINE W. KORES Regional Attorney
ASH,JR. Senior Trial Attorney AR#88081
PAMELA B. DIXON Senior Trial Attorney AR # 95085 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION Little Rock Area Office 820 Louisiana, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Telephone: (501) 324-5539
(501) 324-5065
6

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION

MAY 21 2002

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
v.
FRED'S, INC. Defendant.

)

.JByA: MEv~r\ ~At1~ = MECP-L&EEI

)

)

)

CIVIL ACTION NO

)

)

5:02CV0153SWW

)

)

)

)

)

ORDER

For good cause shown, Plaintiff's Motion to Amend its Complaint is hereby granted.

'* Ordered this .:?t . day of ~c

, 2002.

~#A'~ SUSAN WEl3B R WRIGHT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WI H RULE 58 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP ON ~CldV By_VC"-_ >- __

F I L E COP Y vjt
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Eastern District of Arkansas
U.S. Court House 600 West Capitol, Suite 402 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3325
May 22, 2002
* * MAILING CERTIFICATE OF CLERK * *
Re: 5:02-cv-00153.
True and co:erect copies of the attached were mailed by the clerk to the following:
Katharine W. Kores, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 1407 Union Avenue Suite 621 Memphis, TN 38104
Terry Beck, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity commission 1407 Union Avenue Suite 621 Memphis, TN 38104
William A. Cash Jr., Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 820 South Louisiana Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201
Pamela B. Dixon, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 820 South Louisiana Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201
Christopher J. Heller, Esq. Friday, Eldredge & Clark Regions Center 400 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493
cc: press

 
 5tJJ

EASTgi~I\~~9uRT

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

KANSAS
JUN a4 2002

PINE BLUFF DIVISION

JAMES W

By:

. MCCORMACK, CLERK

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff, v. FRED'S STORES OF TENNESSEE, INC.
Defendant.

)

)

)

)

CIVIL ACTION NO

)

)

5:02CVOI53SWW

)

)

)

)

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

)

DlP CLERR

AMENDED COMPLAINT

NATURE OF THE ACTION This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended ("Title VII"), and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to correct unlawful employment practices and to provide appropriate relief on behalf of Lasonia Beathea and other former female employees. Ms. Beathea and other females were discriminated against by Defendant by being subjected to sexual harassment caused by the inappropriate sexual actions, overtures, and behavior of the store manager. Ms. Beathea was subsequently discharged when she attempted to return to work following a leave of absence. Females employees were constructively discharged when they were forced to resign rather than endure the harassment.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE I. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.c. §§451, 1331, 1337, 1343, and 1345. This is an action authorized and instituted pursuant to §706(f)(l) and (3) and §706 and §707 of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.c. §2000e, et

seq. ("Title VII"). 2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were and are now being
committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Pine Bluff Division.
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "Commission") is an 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 §706(f)(l) and (3) and §707 ofTitie VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000-5(f). 4. At all relevant times, Defendant Fred's Stores of Tennessee, Inc. ("Defendant Employer"), owned and operated Fred's Dollar Store in Lake Village, Arkansas. Fred's Stores of Tennessee, Inc. is a Tennessee corporation doing business in the State of Arkansas and the City of Lake Village and has continuously had at least fifteen (is) employees. 5. At all relevant times, Defendant Employer has continuously been and is now an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of §701(b), (g), and (h) ofTitie VII, 42 U.S.c. §§2000e(b), (g), and (h).
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 6. More than thirty (30) days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Lasonia Beathea filed a charge of discrimination with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by Defendant Employer. During the course of the investigation, allegations of sexual harassment towards other fonner female employees were discovered. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled.
2

7.

From on or around July, 2000 and continuing, Defendant Employer has engaged

in unlawful employment practices at its facility in Lake Village, Arkansas, in violation of

§703(a) of Title VII, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-2(a). The unlawful practices include, but

are not limited to, the sexual harassment and discharge of Ms. Lasonia Beathea.

8. The effect of the practices complained of above has been to deprive Lasonia

Beathea of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect her status as an

employee.

9. Beginning in October of2000, Ms. Beathea made a complaint to the company's

hotline number that she was being subjected to sexual harassment by the store manager. The

company failed to take corrective measures to protect Ms. Beathea. The harassment included,

but was not limited to, sexual touching, sexual comments, requests for sexual favors, and other

unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature..

10. Ms. Beathea was discharged in October of 200 I when she attempted to return to

work following a medical leave of absence and was told there were no openings.

II. The unlawful employment practices complained of above were and are

intentional.

12. Defendant Employer at all relevant times acted with malice or reckless

indifference to the federally protected rights of Ms. Beathea.

13. From on or around July of2000 and continuing, Defendant Employer has engiged

in unlawful employment practices at its facility in Lake Village, Arkansas, in violation of

§703(a) of Title VII, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-2(a). The unlawful practices include, but

are not limited to, sexually harassing previous female employees because of their sex. The

3

..--_._. -_ ... _ - - -
conduct consisted of sexual comments, requests for sexual favors, and other unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature. The harassment was pervasive and continuous, and as a result, these females have been forced to resign rather than endure the sexual harassment.
14. The effect of the practices complained of above has been to deprive female employees of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees.
15. The unlawful employment practices complained of above were and are intentional.
16. Defendant Employer at all relevant times acted with malice or reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of female employees.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, the Commission respectfully prays that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining the Defendant Employer, its officers, successors, assigns and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in any employment practice which discriminates on the basis sex. B. Order Defendant Employer to institute and carry out policies, practices and programs which provide equal employment opportunities which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment patterns and practices. C. Order Defendant Employer to make whole Lasonia Beathea and other females who were subjected to Defendant's discriminatory practices by providing appropriate back pay with prejudgment interest, in amounts to be determined at trial, and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices, including but not limited
4

to, placement in a position.

D. Order Defendant Employer to make whole Lasonia Beathea arid other females

who were subjected to Defendant's discriminatory practices by providing compensation for past

and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described above,

including relocation expenses, job search expenses, and medical expenses, in amounts to be

determined at trial.

E. Order Defendant Employer to make whole Lasonia Beathea and other females

who were subjected to Defendant's discriminatory practices by providing compensation for past

and future non pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices complained of above,

including emotional pain, suffering, embarrassment, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life and

humiliation, in amounts to be determined at trial.

F. Order Defendant Employer to pay Lasonia Beathea and other females who were

subjected to Defendant's discriminatory practices punitive damages for its malicious andlor

reckless conduct, in an amount to be determined at trial.

G. Order Defendant Employer to pay Lasonia Beathea all the relief to which she is

entitled for Defendant's illegal act of discharging her and to pay other females all the relief to

which they are entitled for Defendant's illegal acts of constructively discharging them.

H. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper.

I.

Award the Commission its costs in this action.

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its Complaint.

5

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

NICHOLAS INZEO Acting Deputy General Counsel

GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS
ASg;wGeneral Counsel
KATHARI~JJt· a\ I\l~

Regional Attorney

--c.~[ 0~Wk /

TERRY BECK I

0

H,JR. Senior Trial Attorney AR#88081
!l~t/J~
PAMELA B. DIXON Senior Trial Attorney AR# 95085
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Little Rock Area Office 820 Louisiana, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 7220 I Telephone: (501) 324-5539
(501) 324-5065

6

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

MAR 17 2003

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

WESTERN DIVISION
•

c::: JAMES W. MCCO~MACK, C~RK

By: \'IIi

\j"l5'IEAPC_EA RK

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

*

Plaintiff

• *

VS.

• *

FRED'S STORES OF TENNESSEE,

•

INC.,

•

Defendant

•

NO. 5:02CV00153 SWW

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Now before the Court is the motion to intervene of LaSonia Bethea ("Bethea"), Alkwlor Smith ("Smith"), Amanda Tolliver (,Tolliver"), and Cassandra Burke ("B,urke"). In this C.ISl', the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") filed this sexual discrimination ,dlei harassment suit against Fred's Stores of Tennessee, Inc. ("Fred's"), on behalf of Bethea an,[ other unnamed female employees. The EEOC notified Fred's that the unnamed employees inclll,kd Smith, Tolliver, and other women. Def.'s Resp. to Mot. to Interv. at I. The movants seek leo intervene pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(l). After careful consideration, and for the rCClS<'nS stated below, their motion is granted in part (as to Bethea, Smith, and Tolliver) and denied III part (as to Burke).
I. Discussion A. Timeliness of Application Federal law recognizes two types of intervention: (I) intervention as of right and (: ) permissive intervention. Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(a), (b). Regardless of which type of intervention J. movant seeks, the threshold issue is whether the application is timely. Id.; NAACP v. Ne.. l/Or),

413 U.S. 345,365,93 S.C!. 2591, 37 L.Ed.2d 648 (1973); Arkansas Elec. Energy Consumers v. Middle South Energy, Inc., 772 F.2d 40 I, 403 (8th Cir. 1985). The determination as to timeliness should be infonned by evaluating all the circumstances, NAACP, 413 U.S. at 366, 93 S.Ct. 2591, including how far the proceedings have gone at the time of the application, prejudice to other parties, and the reason for the delay in intervening. Winbush v. Iowa, 66 F.3d 1471, 1479 (8th Cir. 1995). A district court's determination as to timeliness is reviewed for abuse of discretion. NAACP, 413 U.S. at 366, 93 S.C!. 2591; United States v. Union Elec. Co., 64 F.3d 1152, 1159 n.2 (8th Cir. 1995).
The Court first turns to the progress of the proceedings in this case. The EEOC filed a complaint on April 26, 2002, and an amended complaint on June 4, 2002, on behalf of Bethea "and other fomler female employees." The motion to intervene at issue here was filed on February 12,2003, over nine months after the EEOC filed its complaint. The discovery and motions deadline is March 19,2003, and trial is scheduled for May 19,2003.
This application to intervene undoubtedly comes late in the game, but time itself does not always tell the whole story when it comes to discovery. In particular, the EEOC originally notified Fred's that it was pursuing claims on behalf of Bethea, Tolliver, and Smith, and their depositions had been scheduled when Fred's filed its response to the motion to intervene, but those depositions had not yet taken place. Def.'s Resp. to Mot. to Interv. at I. Therefore, as it relates to these' three movants, Fred's has had an opportunity to conduct discovery regarding the allegations and depose the movants regarding the arguments raised in their complaint in intervention.
2

The situation is different as it pertains to Burke. Because she was not one of the individuals on whose behalf the EEOC was suing, Fred's has not had an opportunity to conduct discovery regarding her claims and had not yet scheduled her deposition at the time of Fred's response.
The Court next considers the prejudice that would result to the existing parties by allowing the movants to intervene. The EEOC does not object to the intervention [docket no.14]. As for Fred's, the EEOC originally notified Fred's that it was pursuing claims on behalf of five women, including Bethea, Tolliver, and Smith. Defs Resp. to Mot. to Interv. at I. Consequently, as noted above, discovery could be conducted as to the alleged discrimination and harassment against them, and their depositions were already scheduled when Fred's responded to the motion to intervene. Id. Consequently, the prejudice to Fred's is minimal. As explained above, such is not the case as it relates to Burke.
The final factor the Court must consider is the reason for delay. The movants have not provided the Court any rationale for waiting nine months before applying to intervene. Nevertheless, even in the absence of an adequate reason for delay, the Court finds that the totality of the circumstances, especially the lack of any significant prejudice to Fred's, dictates a finding that the application of Bethea, Tolliver, and Smith was timely. As for Burke, the failure to provide justification for her delay only solidifies the conclusion that her application was untimely. Therefore, the motion will be denied in part (as it relates to Burke) as untimely.
B. Intervention Once a court determines that an application to intervene is timely, it must next consider whether intervention is otherwise appropriate. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a) provides
3

that an individual has a right to intervene in a case (I) when a statute grants an unconditional right or (2) "when an applicant claims an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action and the applicant is so situated that the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the applicant's ability to protect that interest, unless the applicant's interest is adequately represented by existing parties." Rule 24(b) provides for permissive intervention when (I) a federal statute grants a conditional right to intervene or (2) when the movant's claim or defense and the main action have a question oflaw or fact in common.
Under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(t)(l), an aggrieved employee has an absolute right to intervene in a civil suit brought by the EEOC. EEOC v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 675 F.2d 164, 165 (Sth Cir. 19S2); Nevilles v. EEOC, 511 F.2d 303, 305 (Sth Cir. 1975). As the individual who filed the EEOC complaint, Bethea has an unconditional right to intervene, a fact which Fred's concedes. Br. in Supp. ofDef.'s Resp. at 2. Because her motion to intervene was timely, the motion to intervene will be granted as it pertains to Bethea.
Whether Tolliver and Smith have an absolute right to intervene under § 2000e-5(t)(l) is a more difficult question. The Court, however, finds it unnecessary to address that issue because the intervention of Tolliver and Smith is acceptable under the permissive intervention provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(b) in that their claims include questions oflaw and fact in common with the original plaintiff's complaint.' The EEOC's complaint alleges that
From on or around July of2000 and continuing, Defendant Employer has engaged in unlawful employment practices at its facility in Lake Village, Arkansas, in
, Fred's, while denying that Tolliver and Smith can intervene as of right, agree with the Court's analyzing the motion under Rule 24(b). Def.'s Resp. to Mot. to Interv. at 2.
4

violation of § 703(a) ofTitle VII, as amended, 42 U.S.c. § 2000e-2(a). The unlawful practices include, but are not limited to, sexually harassing previous female employees because oftheir sex. The conduct consisted ofsexual comments, requests for sexual favors, and other unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature. The harassment was pervasive and continuous, and as a result, these females have been forced to resign rather than endure the sexual harassment.
Am. Compl. ~ 13. Smith and Tolliver's allegations are virtually identical to those contained in
the original complaint. Mot. to Interv. Ex. A at ~~ 12, 13. Therefore, the questions oflaw and
fact are the sanle in the intervention complaint as in the EEOC's amended complaint.
Additionally, the intervention of Smith and Tolliver will not unduly delay or prejUdice the
adjudication of the rights of the original parties. Fed.R.Civ.P.24(b). Therefore, intervention is
appropriate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(b)(2)2
Although there is an absence of published court decisions regarding this specific
situation, decisions in similar circumstances support granting Tolliver and Smith's motion to
intervene. In a comparable situation, except for the fact that the complaint in federal court was
filed by an individual rather than the EEOC, the Eighth Circuit explained:
We do not find cases under Rule 24 that clearly govern this issue [of whether a party who did not file an EEOC complaint can intervene]. However, in cases construing Rule 23 with respect to class actions in Title VII cases, it has been held that the purpose of 42 U.S.c. § 2000e-5[(f)] is to provide notice to the charged party so as to bring to bear the voluntary compliance and conciliation functions of the EEOC. When any charge is filed, these purposes are served as there is no claim of surprise in such a situation. The [employer], having been apprised of the sex discrimination claims by the other individuals, cannot now claim it was improper to allow [a party who had not filed an EEOC complaint] to intervene so as to assert charges of the same nature.
2 A district court's grant of permissive intervention is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Winbush, 66 F.3d at 1478.
5

Behlar v. Smith, 719 F.2d 950,953 (8th Cir. 1983) (citations omitted); see also Wheeler v. American Home Prods. Corp., 582 F.2d 891, 897 (5th Cir. 1977). In another case where only two of fifteen plaintiffs had filed EEOC charges, the court concluded that the thirteen non-filing plaintiffs were proper plaintiffs because they had alleged facts demonstrating that they were similarly situated and had received the same discriminatory treatment as the filing plaintiffs. Allen v. Amalgamated Transit Union, 554 F.2d 876, 882-83 (8th Cir. 1977). Although the original plaintiff here is not an individual, but is instead the EEOC, the conclusions in Behlar and Allen suggest that the same rationale-that the purpose of 42 U.S.c. § 2000e-5(f) of preventing surprise to the employer has been met-applies here as well. That is especially the case where the EEOC notified Fred's early on that it was suing on behalf of Smith and Tolliver, the very individuals who seek to intervene.
IV. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that movants' motion to intervene [docket no. 12] is GRANTED IN PART (as to LaSonia Bethea, Alleanor M. Smith, and Amanda Tolliver) and DENIED IN PART (as to Cassandra Burke). LaSonia Bethea, Alleanor Smith, and Amanda Tolliver are hereby directed to file their complaint in intervention within five (5) days of the date of entry of this order.

!7 IT IS SO ORDERED THIS

-1ZL
DAY OF MARCH, 2003

2 UZw. CHIEF JU

jiri
Of

}~W

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON

6

DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE

Wll,~RULE~ AND/OR 7,WRCP
ON:? 11-0..5 BY_.-J.~-'---

F I L E COP Y vjt
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Eastern District of Arkansas
U.S. Court House 600 West Capitol, Suite 402 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3325
March 17, 2003
* * MAILING CERTIFICATE OF CLERK * *
Re: 5:02-cv-00153.
True and correct copies of the attached were mailed by the clerk to the following:
Terry F. Wynne, Esq. Bridges, Young, Matthews & Drake 315 East Eighth Avenue Post Office Box 7808 Pine Bluff, AR 71611-7808
Christopher J. Heller, Esq. Friday, Eldredge & Clark Regions Center 400 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493
Pamela B. Dixon, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 820 South Louisiana Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201
William A. Cash Jr., Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 820 South Louisiana Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201
Terry Beck, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 1407 Union Avenue Suite 621 Memphis, TN 38104
Katharine W. Kores, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 1407 Union Avenue Suite 621

Memphis, TN 38104 cc: press
3/17/03 Date:

James W. McCormack, Clerk
V. Turner BY:

 
 EAST~~~~~9~~SA~cJ

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MAR 2 1 2003

EASTEPRINNEDIBSLTURFICF TDOM F ASRKIAONsN MB;yM·:-ES

W.

McCORMACK, CLERK DEP CLERK

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

PLAINTIFF

Y.

NO.: 5:02CY0153 SWW

FRED'S STORES OF TENNESSEE, INC.

DEFENDANT

LASONIA BETHEA, ALLEANOR M. SMITH AND AMANDA TOLLIVER

INTERVENORS

COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION

Come now the Intervenors, LaSonia Bethea, Alleanor M. Smith and Amanda Tolliver,

by and through their attorneys, Bridges, Young, Matthews & Drake PLC, and for their

Complaint in Intervention, state:

PARTIES

1. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, ("the Commission")

is an agency ofthe United States ofAmerica charged with the administration, interpretation,

and enforcement of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of the Civil Rights

Act of 1991.

2. At all relevant times, Defendant, Fred's Stores of Tennessee, Inc. ("Defendant

Employer"), was a corporation doing business in the State of Arkansas and the City ofLake

Village and has continuously had at least fifteen (15) employees.

3. At all relevant times, Defendant Employer has continuously been and is now an

employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 701(b),

(g), and (h) ofTitle VII, 42 USC §§ 2000e-(b), (g), and (h).

1 9

4. At all relevant times, Intervenors, La Sonia Bethea, Alleanor M. Smith and Amanda Tolliver, were employees of Fred's Stores of Tennessee, Inc.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 5. Jurisdiction ofthis Court is invoked pursuantt028 USC §§ 451,1331,1337,1343, and 1345. This is an action which seeks relief under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VIr'), 42 USC §§ 2000e, and the Civil Rights Act of 1991. 6. The unlawful employment practices alleged below were and are now being conunitted in the Eastern District of Arkansas, Pine Bluff Division.
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 7. More than thirty (30) days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, LaSonia Bethea filed a charge with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by Defendant Employer. During the course ofinvestigation of Intervenor Bethea's charge, acts of sexual harassment and discrimination were discovered which were directed toward other female employees including Intervenors Smith and Tolliver. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled. 8. Since at least July, 2000, Defendant Employer has engaged in unlawful employment practices at its facility in Lake Village, Arkansas, in violation of § 703(a) of Title VII, as amended, 42 USC §§ 2000e(a). These unlawful practices include, but are not limited to, the sexual harassment and termination ofIntervenors Bethea, Smith and Tolliver.
9. The effects of the practices complained of in Paragraph 8 above have been to
deprive Intervenors of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their 2

status employees, and to cause them emotional and psychological harm, lost wages in the past, present and will continue to have a loss ofwages in the past, present and loss ofwages in the future.
10. Beginning in October of 2000, Intervenor Bethea made a complaint to the company's hotline number that she was being subjected to sexual harassment by the store manager. The company failed to take corrective measures to protect Ms. Bethea. The harassment continued and the harassment included, but was not limited to, sexual touching, sexual comments, requests for sexual favors, and other unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature. Ms. Bethea was discharged in October of2001 when she attempted to return to work following a medical leave of absence and was told there were no openings.
11. Intervenor Smith was employed by Defendant Employer at its Lake Village, Arkansas location from September, 2000 to March 200 1. The store manager ofthat location subjected Intervenor Smith to sexual harassment, including, but not limited to, sexual touching, sexual comments, requests for sexual favors, and other unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature. When Intervenor Smith refused the advances of the store manager, he took retaliatory employment action and ultimately made Intervenor Smith's working conditions so intolerable at the Lake Village location that Intervenor Smith terminated her employment.
12. Intervenor Tolliver was subjected to sexual harassment by the store manager at the Defendant Employer's location in Lake Village, Arkansas. The harassment included, but was not limited to, sexual touching, sexual comments, requests for sexual favors, and unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature. As a result of this sexual harassment, Intervenor
3

Tolliver condition of employment became intolerable and she was forced to terminate her employment with Defendant Employer.
13. The unlawful employment practices complained of above were and are intentional.
14. Defendant Employer at all relevant times acted with malicious or reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of the Intervenors.
15. Since at least on or about July, 1999" Defendant Employer has engaged in unlawful employment practices at its facility in Lake Village, Arkansas, in violation of § 703(a) ofTitle VII, as amended, 42 USC § 2000e(a). The unlawful practices included, but are not limited to, sexual harassing female employees because of their sex. The conduct consisted of sexual comments, requests for sexual favors, and other unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature. The harassment was pervasive and continuous, and as a result, female employees including several of the Intervenors, have been terminated or forced to resign rather than endure the sexual harassment.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Intervnors respectfully request that this Court: 16. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining the Defendant Employer, its officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in an employment practice which discriminates on the basis of sex. 17. Order Defendant employer to institute and carry out policies, practices, and
4

programs which would provide equal employment opportunities which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment patterns and practices.
18. Order Defendant Employer to make whole all Intervenors by providing appropriate back pay with prejudgment interest, in amounts to be determined at trial, and other affmnative reliefnecessary to eradicate the effects ofits unlawful complaint practices.
19. Order Defendant Employer to make whole all Intervenors by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described above, including, but not limited to, present and future lost wages, relocation expenses, job search expenses, and medical expenses incurred by Intervenors, in amounts to be determined at trial.
20. Order Defendant Employer to make whole Intervenors by providing compensation for past and future nonpecuninary losses resulting from the unlawful practices complained of above, including emotional pain, suffering, embarrassment, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life, depression, and humiliation, in amounts to be determined at trial.
21. Order Defendant Employer to pay Intervenors punitive damages for its malicious and/or reckless conduct in an amount to be determined at trial.
22. Order Defendant Employer to pay Intervenors all the relief to which they are entitled because of Defendant's illegal acts in discharging them.
23. Awarding Intervenors their costs and attorney's fees of this action. 24. Grant such further relief as the Court may deem necessary.
5

JURy TRIAL DEMAND
25. Intervenors request a trial by jury on all questions and facts raised by their
Complaint.
Respectfully submitted,
LaSonia Bethea Alleanor M. Smith Amanda Tolliver
BRIDGES, YOUNG, MATTHEWS & DRAKE PLC P. O. Box 7808 Pine Bluff, AR 71611-7808 Telephone (870) 534-5532
By~~~~~~~~~~_ __ _ _ .. #77148

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Terry F. Wynne, do hereby certify that I have served a copy of the foregoing

pleading upon Mr. Christopher Hiler, Friday, Eldredge & Clark, 2000 Regions Center,

400 West Capitol, Little Rock, AR 72201 and Ms. Pamela B. Dixon, Senor Trial

Attorney, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Little Rock Area Office, 820

Louisiana, Suite 200, Little Rock, AR 72201, by placing same in the United States mail

k with first class postage affixed thereto on this

day of March, 2003.

6

 
 FILED
US. DISTRICT COURT [ASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

AUG 15 2003

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAIIAMES W.

PINE BLUFF DIVISION

8y:-----l.....~~.J.4I~~~

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff, v. FRED'S STORES OF TENNESSEE, INC.
Defendant.

CIVIL ACTION NO 5:02CV0153SWW

CONSENT DECREE
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (hereinafter referred to as the "EEOC") initiated the above-referenced Cause on April 26, 2002, against Fred's Stores of Tennessee, Inc. (the "Defendant") to enforce the provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (Title VII), and the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. §19B1a. The EEOC alleged that the Defendant engaged in unlawful employment practices by subjecting Lasonia Beathea and other female employees, as a class, to sexual harassment caused by the inappropriate sexual actions, overtures, and behavior of Elroy Compton, one of Defendant's store managers, and that Ms. Beathea and other female employees, as a class, were either discharged or constructively discharged.
28
,

This Consent Decree does not constitute an admission by the Defendant of the allegations of the Complaint. Defendant specifically denies the allegations contained in the Complaint. However, all parties to this action desire to avoid the additional expense and delay in the litigation of this case.
In the event this proposed Consent Decree is not approved or does not become final, then it shall not be admissible in evidence in any subsequent proceeding in this action.
The Court has reviewed the terms of the proposed Consent Decree in light of the applicable laws and regulations, the statements and representations of counsel for all parties, and hereby approves the Consent Decree.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Court being fully advised in the premises, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED:
I. JURISDICTION The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Pine Bluff Division, has jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter of this litigation.
II. SCOPE AND DURATION OF DECREE A. This Consent Decree resolves all issues and claims arising out of Plaintiff's Complaint in this cause alleging unlawful employment policies and practices maintained by the Defendant and arising out of Charge No. 251-Al-0413 filed by Lasonia Beathea with the EEOC. This Consent Decree resolves the
2

claims of Lasonia Beathea, as well as the class of females who allege they were adversely affected by sexual harassment in Defendant's workplace as alleged in Charge No. 251-A1-0413 and in Plaintiff's Complaint. Notwithstanding any provisions contained in this Decree, this agreement shall not be considered in any manner to be dispositive of any charge now pending before any office of the EEOC other than Charge No. 251-A1-0413.
B. The provisions of this Consent Decree shall continue to be effective and binding upon the parties to this action for a period of two years from the date of the entry of this Decree except for Section VI.C. (neutral reference) which will be in effect permanently.
III. NON-DISCRIMINATION PROVISIONS A. Defendant, its officers, agents, employees, and all persons acting in concert with the Defendant are hereby enjoined from engaging in any employment practice which has the purpose or effect of discriminating against any employee because of sex. Defendant is enjoined from permitting its employees to be subjected to a sexually hostile work environment. B. Defendant, its officers, agents, employees, and all persons acting in concert with the Defendant are hereby enjoined from retaliating against any employee for opposing discriminatory employment practices made unlawful under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.
3
,

C. Defendant agrees to train its supervisors and managers

in its Lake Village Store in the requirements of Title VII of the

Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, regarding the prevention of

sexual harassment and retaliation.

D. Defendant will provide a copy of its sexual harassment

policy to all of its employees at the Lake Village facility

within ninety (90) days of the entry of this Decree to all

employees who have not already been provided a copy.

E. Defendant agrees to conduct a training session on the

prevention of sexual harassment for all the employees at its Lake

Village facility.

This training session will be conducted

within ninety (90) days of the entry of this Decree.

A list of

the employees that attend the training session, a copy of the

syllabus, and a copy of the training materials will be provided

to EEOC within thirty (30) days of the training session.

F. Defendant agrees that all reports of sexual harassment

in its Lake Village Store will immediately be conveyed to its

Human Resources office in Memphis, Tennessee.

G. Defendant agrees that Mr. Elroy Compton is not eligible

for rehire by Defendant.

IV. NON-RETALIATION PROVISION

Defendant, its officers, agents, employees, and all persons

acting in concert with Defendant shall not take any retaliatory

measure against any employee for opposing practices made unlawful

4

,

under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, or

for making a charge or complaint to the EEOC, testifying,

assisting, or participating in any manner in any investigation,

proceeding, or hearing under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of

1964, as amended.

v. NOTICE

Defendant shall continue to conspicuously post at its Lake

Village facility the notice (poster) required to be posted

pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as

amended. Furthermore, Defendant shall conspicuously post the

notice at Appendix A of this Decree at its Lake Village facility

for a one year period commencing within ten (10) days after entry

of this Decree by the Court.

The notice will be signed by

Charles Vail, General Counsel.

VI. INDIVIDUAL RELIEF

A. Defendant shall not include any reference to the charge

of discrimination filed by Lasonia Beathea or this litigation in

the personnel files of Lasonia Beathea, Latoya Bowman, Cassandra

Burke, April Garcia, Amanda Tolliver, or Kendria Palmer.

B. Defendant shall deliver to Lasonia Beathea, a business

check made payable to "Lasonia Beathea and Terry Wynne" in the

amount of $25,000 at the following address within fourteen (14)

days after entry of this Decree by the Court and upon execution

by Lasonia Beathea and Mr. Wynne of an appropriate release:

5

,

Bridges, Young, Matthews & Drake, PLC P.O. Box 7808 Pine Bluff, Arkansas 71611 C. Defendant shall deliver to Latoya Bowman, a business check made payable to "Latoya Bowman" in the amount of $6,250 at the following address within fourteen (14) days after entry of this Decree by the Court and upon execution by Latoya Bowman of an appropriate release: 919 Cheryl Lane Lake Village, Arkansas 71653 D. Defendant shall deliver to Cassandra Burke, a business check made payable to "Cassandra Burke and Terry Wynne" in the amount of $8,000 at the following address within fourteen (14) days after entry of this Decree by the Court and upon execution by Cassandra Burke and Mr. Wynne of an appropriate release: Bridges, Young, Matthews & Drake, PLC P.O. Box 7808 Pine Bluff, Arkansas 71611 E. Defendant shall deliver to April Garcia, a business check made payable to "April Garcia" in the amount of $6,250 at the following address within fourteen (14) days after entry of this Decree by the Court and upon execution by April Garcia of an appropriate release: 8701 1-30, Apt. 77 Little Rock, AR 72209 F. Defendant shall deliver to Amanda Tolliver, a business check made payable to "Amanda Tolliver and Terry Wynne" in the
6
,

amount of $9,000 at the following address within fourteen (14) days after entry of this Decree by the Court and upon execution by Amanda Tolliver and Mr. Wynne of an appropriate release:
Bridges, Young, Matthews & Drake, PLC P.O. Box 7808 Pine Bluff, Arkansas 71611 G. Defendant shall deliver to Kendria Palmer, a business check made payable to "Kendria Palmer" in the amount of $8,000 at the following address within fourteen (14) days after entry of this Decree by the Court and upon execution by Kendria Palmer of an appropriate release: 150 Highway 144 West Lake Village, Arkansas 71653 H. Defendant agrees to provide a neutral reference to any potential employers who request a job reference for Lasonia Beathea, Latoya Bowman, Cassandra Burke, April Garcia, Amanda Tolliver, and Kendria Palmer. Any such neutral reference shall be identical to the form demonstrated in Appendix B. No mention of Lasonia Beathea's charge of discrimination or this action will be made as part of the neutral reference.
VII. COSTS Each of the parties shall bear its own costs, including attorneys' fees.
7
,

VIII . ENFORCEMENT A. If at any time during the duration of this Consent Decree it is alleged that a violation of its terms has occurred, or a dispute arises over its interpretation, either party may seek by motion to enforce compliance with its terms: provided, however, that prior to seeking judicial relief to enforce or resolve any dispute over compliance with the terms of this Consent Decree, the party claiming any alleged failure to comply will notify the other party in writing of the alleged failure, will afford at least thirty (30) days within which to respond to and/or cure any alleged non-compliance, and will attempt in good faith to informally resolve those concerns.
SO ORDERED THIS 15~AY OF _~""'-'-=¥"I.",r,,--_______ , 2003.
~&~ S SAN WEBBER WRIGHT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
c .
8
,

FOR DEFENDANT:
CHRISTOPHER H Friday, Eldredge & Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 501-370-1506
& f FRED'S STORES OF TENNESSEE, INC.
Charles Vail 4i
FOR PLAINTIFF INTERVENORS

FOR THE COMMISSION:
JAMES LEE Deputy General Counsel
GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel
TE~,kL0
~1:?::iAf?J ~
Senior Trial Attorney EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 820 Louisiana, Ste. 200 Little Rock, AR 72201
50u3/D~

Bridges, Young, Matthews, & Drake PLC 315 East Eighth Ave. Pine Bluff, Arkansas 71611 (870) 534-5532

PAMELA B. DIXON Senior Trial Attorney (501) 324-5065

9
,

APPENDIX A NOTICE
10
,

NOTICE
1. Federal law prohibits an employer from taking retaliatory action against any employee for opposing practices made unlawful under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.
2. Federal law prohibits sexual harassment in the workplace. Sexual harassment includes unwelcome sexual comments, sexual jokes and touching of a sexual nature. If you believe that you have been subjected to sexual harassment, you should immediately contact the Human Resources Department of Fred's in Memphis, Tennessee. The telephone number is
3. FRED'S supports and will comply with such Federal law in all respects and will not take any action against employees because they have exercised their rights under the law by filing charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and/or testifying, assisting, or participating in any manner in any investigation, proceeding, or hearing under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.
CHARLES VAIL GENERAL COUNSEL
DATE
11
,

APPENDIX B NEUTRAL REFERENCE
12
,

Dear

This letter is in response to your inquiry regarding the

employment of

while employed at FRED'S.

Ms.

worked at FRED'S from

through

I am sure Ms.

can provide you with the details concerning

her tenure at FRED'S. I hope this information is helpful and that

it satisfactorily answers your inquiry.

Very truly yours,

FRED'S STORES OF TENNESSEE, INC.

13
,

F I L E COP Y loj
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Eastern District of Arkansas
U.S. Court House 600 West Capitol, Suite 402 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3325
August 18, 2003

* * MAILING CERTIFICATE OF CLERK * *
Re: 5:02-cv-00153.

True and correct copies of the attached were mailed by the clerk to the

following:

press, file, post

Terry F, Wynne, Esq. Bridges" Young, Matthews & Drake 315 East Eighth Avenue Post Office Box 7808 Pine Bluff, AR 71611-7808
Christopher J. Heller, Esq. Friday, Eldredge & Clark Regions Center 400 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493
Pamela B. Dixon, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 820 South Louisiana Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201
William A. Cash Jr., Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 820 South Louisiana Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201
Terry Beck, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 1407 Union Avenue Suite 621 Memphis, TN 38104
Katharine W. Kores, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 1407 Union Avenue Suite 621

Memphis, TN 38104
8/18/03 Date:

James W. McCormack, Clerk
Lorna Jones BY:

 
 CM/ECF - ARED - LIVE - Docket Report

https://ecf.ared.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?221415246726358-L_3...

DISC, HLJ, TERMED
U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas (Pine Bluff) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 5:02-cv-00153-SWW

EEOC v. Fred's Stores Assigned to: Judge Susan Webber Wright Demand: $0 Cause: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

Date Filed: 04/26/2002 Date Terminated: 08/15/2003 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by Katharine W. Kores Equal Employment Opportunity Commission - Memphis 1407 Union Avenue Suite 621 Memphis, TN 38104 (901) 544-0135 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Pamela B. Dixon Equal Employment Opportunity Commission - Little Rock 820 Louisiana Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 324-5065 Email: pamela.dixon@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Terry Beck Equal Employment Opportunity Commission - Memphis 1407 Union Avenue Suite 621 Memphis, TN 38104 (901) 544-0138 Email: terry.beck@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William A. Cash, Jr. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission - Little Rock 820 Louisiana Street

1 of 5

4/13/2007 12:39 PM

CM/ECF - ARED - LIVE - Docket Report
Intervenor Plaintiff LaSonia Bethea
Intervenor Plaintiff Alleanor M Smith
Intervenor Plaintiff Amanda Tolliver
V. Defendant Fred's Stores of Tennessee, Inc. originally sued as Fred's Inc

Date Filed

#

2 of 5

https://ecf.ared.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?221415246726358-L_3...
Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 324-5539 Email: william.cash@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Terry F. Wynne Bridges, Young, Matthews & Drake 315 East Eighth Avenue Post Office Box 7808 Pine Bluff, AR 71611-7808 (870) 534-5532 Email: terrywynne@bridgesplc.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Terry F. Wynne (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Terry F. Wynne (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Christopher J. Heller Friday, Eldredge & Clark, LLP - Little Rock Regions Center 400 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 370-1506 Email: heller@fec.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Docket Text
4/13/2007 12:39 PM

CM/ECF - ARED - LIVE - Docket Report

https://ecf.ared.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?221415246726358-L_3...

04/26/2002 05/13/2002 05/14/2002 05/15/2002
05/21/2002 05/23/2002 06/04/2002 07/31/2002 08/02/2002
08/02/2002
02/10/2003 02/12/2003 02/12/2003 03/03/2003 03/04/2003 03/04/2003 03/17/2003
03/19/2003

1 COMPLAINT with jury demand, no summons issued (bkj) Modified on 05/09/2002 (Entered: 04/29/2002)
2 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT by defendant (bkj) (Entered: 05/13/2002)
3 MOTION by plaintiff to amend complaint (bkj) (Entered: 05/15/2002)
4 INITIAL SCHEDULING ORDER (DOC); Rule 26(f) conference to be held on 7/18/02; Rule 26(f) report due 7/31/02; Rule 16(b) conference (if needed) will be held on 8/2/02 @ 1:00 p.m.; proposed trial date set for 5/19/03; Final Scheduling Order will be issued on or before 8/9/02 (cc: all counsel) (vjt) (Entered: 05/16/2002)
5 ORDER by Chief Judge Susan W. Wright granting pltf's motion to amend complaint [3-1] (cc: all counsel) (vjt) (Entered: 05/22/2002)
6 ANSWER by defendant to amended complaint (bkj) (Entered: 05/23/2002)
7 AMENDED complaint [1-1] by plaintiff; with jury demand (bkj) (Entered: 06/05/2002)
8 REPORT OF RULE 26(f) planning meeting by plaintiff and defendant (bkj) (Entered: 07/31/2002)
9 FINAL SCHEDULING ORDER by Chief Judge Susan W. Wright; jury trial set for 9:30 5/19/03 in Pine Bluff; discovery due 3/19/03; pretrial info sheet due 4/18/03 (cc: all counsel) (vjt) (Entered: 08/05/2002)
10 ORDER by Chief Judge Susan W. Wright directing the Clerk to correct name of deft Fred's Stores of Tennessee Inc (originally sued as Fred's Inc) (cc: all counsel) (vjt) (Entered: 08/05/2002)
11 RETURN OF SERVICE executed upon defendant Fred's Stores by serving Elroy Compton on 1/23/03 (bkj) (Entered: 02/12/2003)
12 MOTION by movants to intervene (bkj) (Entered: 02/13/2003)
13 BRIEF by movants in support of motion to intervene [12-1] (bkj) (Entered: 02/13/2003)
14 RESPONSE by plaintiff to motion to intervene [12-1] (bkj) (Entered: 03/04/2003)
15 RESPONSE by defendant to motion to intervene [12-1] (bkj) (Entered: 03/04/2003)
16 BRIEF by defendant in support of motion response [15-1] (bkj) (Entered: 03/04/2003)
17 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Chief Judge Susan W. Wright that the movants' motion to intervene [12-1] is GRANTED IN PART (as to LaSonia Bethea, Alleanor M. Smith, and Amanda Tolliver) and DENIED IN PART (as to Cassandra Burke); intervenors Bethea, Smith, and Tolliver are hereby directed to file their complt in intervention w/in 5 days of the date of entry of this Order (cc: all counsel) (vjt) (Entered: 03/17/2003)
18 MOTION by defendant to continue (bkj) (Entered: 03/20/2003)

3 of 5

4/13/2007 12:39 PM

CM/ECF - ARED - LIVE - Docket Report

https://ecf.ared.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?221415246726358-L_3...

03/21/2003 03/27/2003 04/14/2003 04/17/2003 04/22/2003
04/24/2003
05/07/2003
06/12/2003
07/22/2003
08/15/2003

19 INTERVENOR'S complaint with jury demand by LaSonia Bethea, Alleanor M Smith and Amanda Tolliver (bkj) Modified on 04/04/2003 (Entered: 03/24/2003)
20 RESPONSE by plaintiff to motion to continue [18-1] (bkj) (Entered: 03/27/2003)
21 JOINT SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION by defendant, plaintiff and intervenor plaintiffs to continue (bkj) (Entered: 04/14/2003)
22 ANSWER by defendant to complaint in intervention (bkj) (Entered: 04/17/2003)
23 ORDER by Chief Judge Susan W. Wright, in the joint supplemental motion to continue filed by the parties [21-1], a request was made for a settlement conference; therefore, the matter of a settlement conference is hereby referred to Mag. Judge Henry L. Jones for further proceedings (cc: all counsel) (vjt) (Entered: 04/23/2003)
24 AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER by Chief Judge Susan W. Wright granting motions for continuance [18-1] [21-1]; jury trial is reset for 9:30 12/8/03 in Pine Bluff; discovery due 8/1/03; motions due 8/15/03; pretrial info sheet due 11/7/03; all other deadlines remain in effect (cc: all counsel) (vjt) (Entered: 04/25/2003)
25 ORDER (DOC); settlement conference is scheduled for 10:00 7/24/03 before Mag. Judge Henry L. Jones, Jr., in Little Rock; each party shall furnish the Court with a statement of the issues that, at this point, prevent a settlement of this case no later than 7/21/03 (cc: all counsel) (vjt) (Entered: 05/08/2003)
26 AMENDED ORDER (DOC); settlement conference is reset for 10:00 7/22/03 before Mag. Judge Henry L. Jones, Jr. in Little Rock; each party shall furnish the Court with a statement of the issues that, at this point, prevent a settlement of this case no later than 7/17/03 (cc: all counsel) (vjt) (Entered: 06/12/2003)
27 CLERK'S MINUTE: Settlement conference held with Magistrate Judge Henry L. Jones, Jr., with William Cash, Jr., and Pamela Dixon present for pltfs; Terry F. Wynne present for intervenors; Christopher J. Heller and Charles Vail present for defendants. Terms of settlement placed on record. ERO Ruthie Wrather. (rmw) Modified on 07/22/2003 (Entered: 07/22/2003)
28 CONSENT DECREE by Chief Judge Susan W. Wright resolving all issues and claims arising out of pltf's complt in this cause alleging unlawful employment policies and practices maintained by the deft (cc: all counsel) (lej) (Entered: 08/18/2003)

4 of 5

PACER Login:
Description:

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt
04/13/2007 12:40:20

hs0328

Client Code:

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

5:02-cv-00153-SWW

4/13/2007 12:39 PM

CM/ECF - ARED - LIVE - Docket Report

Billable Pages:

2

https://ecf.ared.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?221415246726358-L_3...

Cost:

0.16

5 of 5

4/13/2007 12:39 PM