IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPpi
JACKSON DIWS ON

COMMISSION, Plaintiff,
Vo
Renal Care Group, Inc.,
Defendant.

)
)
) CIVIL ACTION NO.
COMPLAINT JURY TRIAL DEMAND

NATURE OF THE ACTION This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, to correct

unlawful employment practices on the basis of race and to provide

appropriate relief to Vanessa Gray who was adversely affected by such practices. As alleged by the Commission with greater particularity in Paragraphs, 12 through 19 below, Vanessa Gray, an

African-American, was discriminated against on the basis of her

race and was terminated in retaliation for opposing racially

discriminatory employment practices.

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 ~ 706(f) (I) and (3) of Title

VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-

5(f) (i) and (3) ("Title VII") and Section 102 of the Civil Rights

Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. ~ 1981a.

2.

The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were

committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District

Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, Jackson 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 ±s 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, Renal Care Group Inc.,
(the "Employer"), has continuously been doing business in the State

of Mississippi and the City of Jackson, 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 within the mean±ng of Sections 701(b), (g) and (h) of

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

STATEMENT OF CLAIMS iio More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Vanessa Gray filed a charge with the Commission alleging

violations of Title VII by Defendant Renal Care Group, Inc. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled.
12. Since at least January 13, 2003, Defendant has engaged in unlawful employment practices at its Jackson, MS (Medical Mall) location, in violation of Section 703(a) and Section 704 (a)of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. ~§ 2000e-2(a) and 2000e-3(a). The practices include the discriminatory discharge of Vanessa Gray on the basis of her race, African-American, and in retaliation for having opposed conduct made unlawful by Title VII.
13. On or about May 14, 2001, Renal Care hired Vanessa Gray as a facility manager of its Medical Mall location in Jackson, MS.
14. On or about January 13,2003, Vanessa Gray spoke to her manager, Darla Lovelace. During this conversation, she opposed Renal Care’s racially disparate employment practices towards an African-American nurse.
15. Later in the day of January 13, 2003, after having complained of disparate employment practices based on race and opposing the same, Gray received a negative performance counseling.
16. The performance counseling described in Paragraph 15 above was the first negative performance counseling Gray had received as a facility manager.
17. On or about January 21, 2002, Renal Care terminated Vanessa Gray’s employment.

18. Renal Care terminated Gray without following its progressive discipline procedure.
19. Renal Care’s progressive discipline procedure was followed for White employees who received negative performance counseling notices.
20. The effect of the practices complained of in Paragraphs 12 through 19 above has been to deprive Vanessa Gray of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect her status as an employee because of her race and in retaliation for her opposition to unlawful employment practices.
21. The unlawful employment practices complained of in Paragraphs 12 through 19 above were intentional.
22. The unlawful employment practices complained of in Paragraphs 12 through 19 above were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Vanessa Gray.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this

Court:

A.

Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant, its

officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or

participation with it, from engaging in retaliation and race

discrimination and any other employment practice which

4

discriminates on the basis of race or retaliation.

B.

Order Defendant to institute and carry out policies,

practices,

and programs which provide

equal

employment

opportunities for African-Americans, and which eradicate the

effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices.

C.

Order Defendant to make whole Vanessa Gray, by providing

appropriate backpay 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 reinstatement, rightful-placement and

front pay.

D.

Order Defendant to make whole Vanessa Gray by providing

compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from

the unlawful employment practices described in Paragraphs 12

through 19 above, including, out of pocket losses, job search

expenses, and medical expenses in amounts to be determined at

trial.

E.

Order Defendant to make whole Vanessa Gray by providing

compensation for past and future non-pecuniary losses resulting

from the unlawful practices complained of in Paragraphs 12 through

19 above, including, but not limited to, emotional pain, suffering,

inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life, and humiliation, in

amounts to be determined at trial.

F.

Order Defendant to pay Vanessa Gray punitive damages for

its malicious and reckless conduct described in Paragraphs 12

through 19 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.

Eric Dreiband General Counsel

James L. Lee Deputy General Counsel

Gwend~olyn Young Reams A~6~ateC~gneral Counsel

¯ Guerrier Regie~al Attorney
~hi9 ~ar; # 0~0~35~ /~ ~
Mildred Byrd ~
Superyi~6.ry-Tr~al Attorney

,¢alerif.Hicks Powe Senior. Trial Attorney
Alabsma Bar # ABSII27W70V EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 1130 22nd Street South Ste. 2000 Birmingham, AL 35205 (205) 212-2046 (205) 212-2041 facsimile

6

 
 Case 3:05-cv-00052-HTW-LRA Document 35 Filed 01/17/2006 Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
JACKSON DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
VS.
RENAL CARE GROUP, INC.

PLAINTIFF CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:05cv52-HTW-JCS
DEFENDANT

ORDER This cause is before the court on Defendant’s Amended Motion to Compel. Having considered the motion, Plaintiff’s response, and Defendant’s reply, the court rules as follows. The motion is granted as to interrogatory no. 9 and requests for production nos. 4 and 5. The motion is granted as to request for production no. 6, except that documents related to treatment only since 2001 to present shall be produced. It is further ordered that Plaintiff submit to the undersigned for in camera inspection those documents identified as P 555-561 in Plaintiff’s privilege log. SO ORDERED this the 17th day of January, 2006.
/s/ James C. Sumner ______________________________________ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 
 Slip Copy Slip Copy, 2006 WL 1666243 (S.D.Miss.), 88 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 42,417 (Cite as: Slip Copy)

Page 1

E.E.O.C. v. Renal Care Group, Inc. S.D.Miss.,2006.
United States District Court,S.D. Mississippi,Jackson Division.
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff v.
RENAL CARE GROUP, INC., Defendant. Civil Action No. 3:05-CV-52WS.
June 9, 2006.
Valerie Hicks Powe, Charles E. Guerrier, Eunice H. Morrow, Mildred Byrd, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Birmingham District Office, Birmingham, AL, Eric S. Dreiband, Gwendolyn Young Reams, James L. Lee, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff. N. Victoria Holladay, David A. Prather, Patrick Daniel Riederer, Ford & Harrison, LLP, Memphis, TN, for Defendant.
ORDER HENRY T. WINGATE, Chief District Judge. *1 This action was brought by Plaintiff EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION [hereinafter EEOC] against defendant RENAL CARE GROUP, INC. [hereinafter RCG] alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991. EEOC asserts that RCG employee Vanessa Gray [hereinafter Gray] was discriminated against on the basis of her race and was terminated in retaliation for opposing racially discriminatory employment practices.
Before the court are RCG's motions for summary judgment [docket # 38] and leave to file excess pages [docket # 48], as well as motions in limine by RCG to exclude testimony by the EEOC investigator [docket # 52], testimony by a non-party former RCG employee [docket # 54], and introduction of EEOC's determination letter and investigative file [docket # 56] and a motion by EEOC to exclude references to

Gray's previous employment history [docket # 58, refiled as # 59].
JURISDICTION
Plaintiff asserts a claim under federal law; FN1 therefore, this court holds jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.FN2 The alleged unlawful employment practices were committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, Jackson Division.
FN1. EEOC charges violations of Title 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3) and Title 42 U.S.C. § 1981 a.
FN2. Title 28 U.S.C. § 1331 provides the district courts with original jurisdiction of “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”
FACTS
EEOC is the United States governmental agency charged with administration, interpretation, and enforcement of Title VII, and holds express authority to bring this action FN3. Defendant RCG is an employer with at least fifteen (15) employees doing business in Jackson, Mississippi, in an industry affecting commerce.FN4 Gray, the alleged victim of RCG's discriminatory actions, was employed by RCG as a facility manager at its Jackson Medical Mall location from May 14, 2001, until her termination on January 22, 2003. Darla Lovelace, the Director of Operations over multiple RCG facilities and the direct supervisor of those facilities' managers, was Gray's immediate supervisor.
FN3. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f) authorizes civil action by the EEOC or the person aggrieved by an unlawful employment action that discriminates on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
FN4. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b), (g), and (h) define the scope of this Act to include employers of fifteen or more employees whose

© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.

Slip Copy Slip Copy, 2006 WL 1666243 (S.D.Miss.), 88 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 42,417 (Cite as: Slip Copy)

Page 2

“activity, business, or industry” involves interstate commerce and in which a labor dispute would “hinder or obstruct commerce or the free flow of commerce.”
Gray alleges that RCG retaliated against her for voicing a complaint regarding racially disparate disciplinary actions RCG undertook towards an AfricanAmerican nurse and a White nurse. Gray reported the African-American nurse for allowing a non-licensed technician employee to manipulate a patient's fistula needle. Gray's supervisor, Lovelace, determined this to be a safety policy violation and reported the nurse to the Mississippi Board of Nursing [hereinafter MBON].
The comparator White nurse was in training and was caring for patients under Gray's supervision when the nurse complained that she had too many patients. Gray reports that this nurse “yelled” in front of patients and also in her office, and then stated she was leaving the facility. Gray told her that if she left she would be terminated for patient abandonment. The nurse left and went to RCG's main office, where she voiced complaints about the facility. Lovelace instructed her to return to work, and notified Gray that Lovelace would meet with them. Lovelace now contends that other staff nurses also had complained about Gray's management of the facility. Those complaints were not addressed with Gray, and she says she was unaware of them.
*2 Later that day, Lovelace met first with the nurse and Gray. Lovelace drafted a written warning to the nurse but did not report the incident to the MBON. Lovelace allegedly said that it was not a reportable offense. Lovelace also drafted a verbal warning to Gray for failure to conduct documented monthly staff meetings and weekly RN meetings, inconsistent patient scheduling, and failure to enforce infection control policies. Lovelace did not issue either warning that day.
Lovelace met with Gray again on January 13, 2003. At this meeting, Gray complained to Lovelace about perceived racially disparate employment practices by RCG, noting in particular that the White nurse was not reported to the MBON for what Gray perceived

as a serious safety violation. Lovelace left the office and subsequently returned with the written verbal warning, Gray's first negative performance counseling at RCG. On January 22, 2003, RCG terminated Gray's employment without first following its progressive discipline procedure. FN5 Gray was later replaced by another African-American. Three White facility managers received progressive discipline in keeping with RCG's written policy through performance correction notices.
FN5. Renal Care's four-step disciplinary policy consists of a verbal warning, written warning, final written warning, and finally termination. For severe disciplinary violations, such as compromising patient safety, initial steps may be skipped. Gray received only the first step, a verbal warning.
The written verbal warning issued to Gray only addressed staff meetings and infection control issues; however, RCG now contends that other serious job deficiencies were addressed by way of monthly reports titled “Division Manager Monthly Review” [hereinafter DMMR], and that the DMMRs gave Gray notice of performance deficiencies and form part of the basis for her termination. No evidence exists to show that any other facility manager was ever provided notice of deficiencies by way of DMMRs. RCG also relies in part on a “default letter” sent by University Medical Center [UMC] to point out problems at the Medical Mall facility. Gray contends that she was never informed of the default letter until after her termination, and that deficiencies listed were not her responsibility.
SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD
Summary Judgment is appropriate when the material facts are undisputed and the applicable law directs a verdict for the movant. Am. Home Assurance Co. v. United Space Alliance, 378 F.3d 482, 486 (5th Cir.2004); Dennett-Murray Corp. v. Bone, 622 F.2d 887, 892 (5th Cir.1980); Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). FN6 The court's first task is to determine if material facts are in dispute. Am. Home Assurance Co., 378 F.3d at 486. If there are no disputed material facts, the court next turns to the applicable law, which is applied to

© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.

Slip Copy Slip Copy, 2006 WL 1666243 (S.D.Miss.), 88 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 42,417 (Cite as: Slip Copy)

Page 3

evidence viewed in a light most favorable to the nonmovant. Lee v. Golden Triangle Planning & Dev. Dist., Inc., 797 So.2d 845, 847 (Miss.2001).
FN6. Rule 56 provides guidelines for summary judgment, declaring it appropriate only “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, ..., show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the court is not to make credibility determinations, weigh evidence, or draw from the facts legitimate inferences for the movant, Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2511, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986); rather, “it is the province of the jury to access the probative value of the evidence.” Dennett-Murray Corp. v. Bone, 622 F.2d 887, 892 (5th Cir.1980). The court must resolve all reasonable doubts about the existence of a genuine issue of material fact against the movant. Byrd v. Roadway Express, Inc., 687 F.2d 85, 87 (5th Cir.1982).
LAW AND ANALYSIS
Racial Discrimination
*3 To prevail on its Title VII racial discrimination claim, EEOC must set out a prima facie case showing that (1) Gray was a member of a protected class; (2) she was qualified for her position as facility manager; (3) she suffered a discriminatory adverse employment action; and (4) she was either replaced by a person not within her protected class or otherwise treated differently than similarly situated persons outside the protected class. See McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 801 (1973); Nieto v. L & H Packing Co., 108 F.3d 621, 624 (5th Cir.1997); Meinecke v. H & R Block of Houston, 66 F.3d 77, 83 (5th Cir.1995). As an African-American, Gray was a member of a protected class, and her termination was indisputably an adverse employment action.
The parties dispute whether she met the qualifications for her position. Of note, however, are Gray's previous employment evaluation, merit raise, and awards of semiannual bonuses for meeting and exceeding op-

erating standards. FN7 Gray was replaced by another African-American, but contends that comparator white facility managers were treated more leniently under RCG's progressive discipline policy regarding deficiencies.FN8 This evidence suffices to establish a prima facie case of discrimination.
FN7. Plaintiff's memo in opposition to summary judgment provides exhibits establishing that Gray received 95 out of a possible 100 on her only written performance evaluation, for which she received a merit raise, and that she also received semi-annual bonuses for performance. See Exhibits 2, 5.
FN8. Three other facility managers, Roberta Wilson, Susan Burnside, and Mike Green, received numerous warnings through the progressive discipline policy. Roberta Wilson also received a written correction plan.
The defendant next has the opportunity to respond with a non-discriminatory reason for Gray's termination. McDonnell Douglas Corp, 411 U.S. at 802; Meinecke, 66 F.3d at 83. RCG contends that Gray was terminated for performance deficiencies. In support of this argument, RCG relies in part on the default letter and DMMRs, alleged complaints of staff and physicians, and on the written verbal warning. Even if RCG were able to establish a nondiscriminatory basis for its action, EEOC may rebut this by showing that the proferred non-discriminatory basis for termination is pretextual. McDonnell Douglas Corp, 411 U.S. at 804; Meinecke, 66 F.3d at 83.
EEOC contends that the default letter and DMMRs did not provide Gray with notice or an opportunity to correct perceived deficiencies. The Fifth Circuit previously has held that a failure to follow company policy and procedure in providing a correction plan created a jury question as to pretext. See Russell v. McKinney Hosp. Venture, 235 F.3d 219, 224 (5th Cir.2000). Gray's previous evaluation, raise, and bonuses, along with factual disputes regarding policy, notice, and responsibility, create a jury question as to whether RCG's proffered reasons for termination are

© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.

Slip Copy Slip Copy, 2006 WL 1666243 (S.D.Miss.), 88 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 42,417 (Cite as: Slip Copy)

Page 4

pretextual.
Retaliation
To prevail on this claim EEOC must set out a prima facie case showing that (1) Gray engaged in a protected activity; (2) she suffered an adverse employment action; (3) and, a causal link existed between the protected activity and the adverse action. Banks v. East Baton Rouge Parish School Board, 320 F.3d 57-, 570-75 (5th Cir.2003).
EEOC contends that Gray's allegation of racially discriminatory treatment was protected speech. Termination is indisputably an adverse employment action. Temporal proximity may be used to infer the causal connection required for a prima facie case of retaliation. Swanson v. General Servs. Admin., 110 F.3d 1180, 1188 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 118 S.Ct. 366 (1997).
*4 In this case, only ten days passed between Gray's complaint and her termination. If RCG can offer a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason that explains both the adverse action and the timing, the plaintiff must offer some evidence of a retaliatory motive. Id. RCG is not liable for unlawful retaliation if it can show that Gray would have been terminated even in the absence of the protected conduct. Jack v. Texaco Research Ctr., 743 F.2d 1129, 1131 (5th Cir.1984). Again, the parties dispute material facts and the evidence presented raises factual issues sufficient to present a jury question.
MEDIATION
The parties now seek leave of the court to pursue mediation with an agreed-upon mediator, with defendant RCG to bear costs of mediation. As the parties are in agreement upon this course of action, the court will remove this lawsuit from the current trial docket to allow time for the mediation process. The parties are to report back to the court within ten days of the completion of mediation, so that the court may return this lawsuit to the trial docket if necessary.
HOLDING
The court finds that genuine issues of material fact

exist, and that plaintiff has presented a prima facie case which defendant has not overcome. For these reasons, defendant's motion for summary judgment is DENIED. Defendant's motion for leave to file excess pages [DOCKET # 48] is MOOT.
RCG's motion to exclude testimony of the EEOC investigator [docket # 52] is GRANTED. The court notes that EEOC is not likely to need the investigator to establish a foundation for documents contained in the investigative file, as defendant will have an opportunity to object to documents listed in the pretrial order and objections will be addressed at that time. Further, it is unlikely that defendant will object to the authenticity of documents defendant itself authored. RCG's motion to exclude testimony from a former employee [docket # 54] is conceded and thus GRANTED. RCG's motion to exclude the EEOC determination letter and investigative file [docket # 56] is DENIED with the understanding that plaintiff will only admit those portions of the file approved by the court. Parties are encouraged to stipulate to any exhibits where authenticity or other objections are not an issue.
EEOC's motion in limine to exclude reference to Gray's previous employment history [docket # 58, refiled as # 59] is DENIED with the understanding that the issue will be further addressed at trial, and defendant is instructed to notify the court prior to any attempt to introduce this matter during trial.
SO ORDERED, this the 9th day of June, 2006.
S.D.Miss.,2006. E.E.O.C. v. Renal Care Group, Inc. Slip Copy, 2006 WL 1666243 (S.D.Miss.), 88 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 42,417
END OF DOCUMENT

© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.

 
 Case 3:05-cv-00052-HTW-LRA Document 82 Filed 04/20/2007 Page 1 of 7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
JACKSON DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
vs.
RENAL CAR GROUP, INC., Defendant.

)

)

Civil Action Number:

)

3 :05CV52HTW-JCS

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CONSENT DECREE

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC" or "Commission") fied this

action against Renal Care Group, Inc. ("RCG" or "Defendant") on January 14, 2005, in this

Court, to enforce Title VII of

the Civil Rights Act of 1964,42 U.S.c. §2000e et seq. ("Title

VII") and the Civil Rights Act of 1991,42 U.S.C. §198la. In the Complaint, the Commission

alleged that RCG discriminated and retaliated against Vanessa Gray ("Gray") on the basis of her

race and for opposing race discrimination, in violation of Title VII. RCG denies all allegations

of unlawful or wrongful conduct raised in the Complaint, and nothing stated in this Decree

constitutes an admission of liability or wrongdoing on the part ofRCG.

The Parties do not object to the jurisdiction of

the Court over this action and waive their

rights to a hearing and the entry of tìndings of tàct and conclusions of law. Venue is appropriate

in the Southern District of

Mississippi (Jackson Division). The Parties agree that this Consent

Decree is tàir, reasonable, and does not violate the law or public policy. The rights of Gray,
RCG, and the Commission are protected adequately by this Decree.

Case 3:05-cv-00052-HTW-LRA Document 82 Filed 04/20/2007 Page 2 of 7

In the interest of resolving this matter and avoiding the expense of further litigation, and

as a result of having engaged in comprehensive settlement negotiations, the Commission and

RCG have agreed that this action should be finally resolved by entry of
IT IS ORDERED, ADJUGED AN DECREED:

this Consent Decree.

1. This Decree resolves all claims arising out of the issues between the Commission and Defendant RCG in this lawsuit including, without limitation, back pay, front pay, compensatory

and punitive damages, injunctive relief, costs, and attorney fees. This Decree is limited in its

scope to matters covered explicitly herein and in particular only the RCG facilities in the State of Mississippi. This Decree expires when RCG has provided the relief and taken the action

provided for herein or as provided under Paragraph 12 of

this Decree, whichever is later.

2. RCG has represented that its employment practices comply with Federal anti-

discrimination law. Defendant and its officers, agents, employees, successors, and assigns, both

at the time that this Decree becomes effective and for the duration of this Decree, agree to

continue to comply with Federal

law and acknowledge that it is unlawful to (a) discriminate

against any employee on the basis of race (b) retaliate against any employee because he or she

(i) opposes or opposed discriminatory practices made unlawful by Title VII; (ii) fies or fied a charge of discrimination or assists, assisted, participates or participated in the fiing of a charge

of discrimination; or (iii) assists, assisted, participates or participated in an investigation or

proceeding brought under the federal or state laws prohibiting discrimination or retaliation; and

(d) alter the terms and conditions of any employee's employment because of race discrimination

to the extent prohibited by Federal

law.

2

Case 3:05-cv-00052-HTW-LRA Document 82 Filed 04/20/2007 Page 3 of 7
3. Although RCG voluntarily, in good faith, agrees to the terms outlined in this Consent Decree, nothing herein is an admission of liability of any wrongful or illegal conduct. In fact, RCG expressly denies such conduct and/or liability.
RELIEF 4. RCG has entered into a separate settlement agreement with Gray. EEOC is not a party to that Agreement. However, RCG has represented that Gray received compensation for back wages and also received compensatory damages in the amount of $21,000. 5. RCG has represented that it has adopted employment practices and policies at its Jackson, Misssissippi facility that ensure a work environment free from race discrimination. Defendant represents that it will continue to carry out its policies and practices and training at its Jackson, Mississippi, facility that continue to help assure a work environment free from race-based discrimination, and retaliation for its employees; that allow employees to raise concerns or complaints without retaliation about matters, whether alleged, perceived or actual, made unlawful by Title VII; and that provide procedures for employees to report incidents of racebased discrimination and retaliation. 6. Defendant has represented that its current written policies include and will continue to
include at a minimum: a. A clear and strong commitment to a workplace free of race-based discrimination
and retaliation; b. A clear and strong message of encouragement to persons who believe they have
been discriminated against to come forward;
c. A description of the consequences, up to and including termination, that will be imposed upon violators of the policy;
3

Case 3:05-cv-00052-HTW-LRA Document 82 Filed 04/20/2007 Page 4 of 7

d. An assurance of non-retaliation for persons who believe they have been

discriminated against and for witnesses; e. That discrimination on the basis of race by anyone, including management
offcials, supervisors, vendors, suppliers, third parties, and customers is prohibited and will not

be tolerated;

f.

Assurances that Defendant will investigate allegations of race-based

discrimination and retaliation promptly, fairly, reasonably, effectively, and as confidentially as

appropriate under the circumstances, by appropriate investigators, and take appropriate

corrective action and follow-up to eradicate the discrimination; and

g. That information will be provided to each employee regarding the employee's right to fie a charge of discrimination with the EEOC, including contact telephone numbers,

TDY/TDD and addresses for the EEOC, such as that included in the EEOC "5 in 1" poster,

currently already posted in RCG' s Jackson, Mississippi, facilities.. 7. RCG shall conduct two (2) trainings pursuant to this Decree and shall require all

employees of its Jackson, Mississippi facility to attend each. The first training shall be held on

or before June 20, 2007 and the second training shall be held between June and September in 2008. Each training shall explain (1) what constitutes race-based discrimination and retaliation;

(2) that Title VII prohibits this misconduct; (3) how to prevent this misconduct; and (4) to whom

employees may complain if

they feel they have been subjected to this misconduct. This training

will also include an explanation ofRCG's policies regarding race-based discrimination and

retaliation; the importance of maintaining an environment free from race discrimination and

retaliation; and the discipline that may be taken against other employees and the managers or

supervisors who are found to have allowed the discrimination or retaliation to occur.

4

Case 3:05-cv-00052-HTW-LRA Document 82 Filed 04/20/2007 Page 5 of 7

a. Each training session shall be at least four (4) hours in length, plus an additional

thirty (30) minutes for questions and answers. Defendant's Jackson, Mississippi, managers and

all managers who may investigate employee complaints at Defendant's Mississippi facilities

shall attend the annual training session. The referenced employees who are unable to attend the

annual training session may watch a videotape of it.

b. At each training, employees shall sign a registry when they attend the annual

training session or the videotape of the annual training session. Defendant shall keep, for the

duration of the Decree, this written record of all employees who attend the annual training

session or watch it on videotape.

c. RCG will confirm in writing to the Commission through the Regional Attorney

that these two (2) training sessions have been completed in full compliance with this Consent

Decree within twenty (20) days of

the completion of

the second training session.

8. RCG represents that its EEO posters are and shall continue to be posted in a prominent

location, frequented by employees, at each of

Defendant's facilities in Mississippi. A paper copy

ofRCG's current written anti-discrimination policies shall be delivered to each RCG Jackson

employee within thirty (30) days of

the entry of this Decree and to each new employee when

hired. Additionally, RCG may also make its policies available via the RCG intranet.

9. RCG agrees, in accordance with its policies, to investigate complaints of race-based

discrimination or retaliation. The investigation wil include interviews of the complainant and

witnesses and a written report of the investigation with a conclusion as to the findings and

disciplinary action taken, if such discipline is determined to be appropriate. If disciplinary action

is taken, it will be prompt and designed to stop said conduct and preclude it in the future. RCG

5

Case 3:05-cv-00052-HTW-LRA Document 82 Filed 04/20/2007 Page 6 of 7

will follow up with complainant at appropriate intervals to ensure discrimination or retaliation

does not reoccur.

NOTICE

10.

Defendant will post the Notice attached as Attachment A at each of

Defendant's fàcilities

in Jackson, Mississippi. The Notice will be posted in an appropriate place frequented by

employees for the duration of

this Decree. The Notice shall be posted in both English and

Spanish and shall be the same type, size, and style as Attachment A.

11. The Parties shall bear their own attorneys' fees and costs incurred in this action up to the

date of entry of this Decree.

FORCE AND EFFECT

12.

The duration of

this Consent Decree shall be eighteen (18) months from entry. This

Court shall retain jurisdiction over this action for the duration of the Consent Decree during

which time the Commission may petition the Court for compliance. Should the Court determine

that RCG is not in compliance, it may order appropriate relief

that may include extension until

such time as compliance is met or take such other action as the Court deems appropriate. Absent

Court intervention, this Consent Decree shall expire of its own terms at the end of eighteen (18)

months after entry without any further action by either Party.

13. Should the Commission contend that RCG is not in full compliance with this Consent

Decree, it shall provide RCG with notice in writing of the deficiencies alleged and allow RCG

thirty (30) days in which to remedy said deficiencies and/or resolve any disputed issues.

6

Case 3:05-cv-00052-HTW-LRA Document 82 Filed 04/20/2007 Page 7 of 7

14.

The parties agree to the entry of

this Decree subject to final approval by the Court.

APPROVED AND CONSENTED TO BY:

S/ N. Victoria Holladay-
N. V1CTORlAHOLLADAY (MS 2514) David A. Prather (MS# 99389)
P. Daniel Riederer (MS#100329)
Ford & Harrison, LLP 795 Ridge Lake Blvd., Suite 300 Memphis, TN 38120 Ph.: (901) 291-1500 Fax: (901) 291-1501
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT

A TTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF EEOC:
S/ C. Emanuel Smith
C. Emanuel Smith (MS 7473)
Regional Attorney
s/ Julie Lee Julie Lee (D. C. Bar # 4332920) Supervisory Trial Attorney
- -S/ Valerie Hicks Powe
Valerie Hicks Powe (ASB 1127W70V) Senior Trial Attorney
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Birmingham District Offce
1130 22nd Street South, Suite 2000
Birmingham, AL 35205-2886 Ph.: (205) 212-2046

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
JACKSON DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

PLAINTIFF

VS.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:05CV52WA

RENAL CARE GROUP, INC.

DEFENDANT

ORDER This matter came before the court on the Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order. The court has reviewed the motion and noted the lack of a Certificate of Good Faith as an attachment to it. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) requires a party moving for a protective order to “include a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with other affected parties not making the disclosure in an effort to resolve the dispute without court action . . . .” Unif. Local R. 37.1(A) also requires counsel to confer in good faith prior to the filing of a discovery motion and goes on to state, “A Good Faith Certificate (Official Form No. 5) shall be filed with all discovery motions, with a copy to the Magistrate Judge.” Thus, the moving party’s filing of a Good Faith Certificate, in proper form, is a mandatory prerequisite to the court’s consideration of a motion for protective order. Moreover, when a party seeks a protective order with regard to preserving the confidentiality of documents, the court’s usual practice is to give the parties an opportunity to jointly prepare the order. If that cannot be done in a timely fashion, then the court directs the parties to present their individual proposed orders, and the court enters the one it deems the most reasonable. Therefore, this Motion will be denied, but the court will set a schedule for the parties to present a proposed protective order/confidentiality agreement. IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order is hereby

denied. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties present a jointly prepared protective order on
or before March 12, 2007. If the parties are unable to reach an agreement on the form of that order, then individual orders should be presented to the court by that date.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this the 23rd day of February, 2007. S/Linda R. Anderson
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
2

 
 CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court: Mississippi Southern District - Doc... https://ecf.mssd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?426145992976415-L_9...
CJRA-S, CLOSED, JURY, LRA
U.S. District Court Southern District of Mississippi (Jackson) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:05-cv-00052-HTW-LRA

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Renal Care Group, Inc. Assigned to: District Judge Henry T. Wingate Referred to: Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson Cause: 42:1981 Job Discrimination (Race)

Date Filed: 01/26/2005 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by Julie Steptoe Lee EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Birmingham Birmingham District Office Ridge Park Place, Suite 2000 1130 22nd Street South Birmingham, AL 35205-2881 205/212-2076 Fax: 205/212-2105 Email: julie.lee@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Valerie Hicks Powe EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Birmingham District Office Ridge Park Place, Suite 2000 1130 22nd Street South Birmingham, AL 35205-2881 205/212-2100 Email: valerie.powe@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles E. Guerrier EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Birmingham District Office Ridge Park Place, Suite 2000 1130 22nd Street South Birmingham, AL 35205-2881 205/212-2100 Email: charles.guerrier@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

1 of 10

5/21/2007 1:05 PM

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court: Mississippi Southern District - Doc... https://ecf.mssd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?426145992976415-L_9...

V. Defendant

Eric S. Dreiband EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 1801 L Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20507 Email: eric.dreiband@eeoc.gov
Eunice H. Morrow U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Birmingham District Office Ridge Park Place 1130 - 22nd St., South, Ste. 2000 Birmingham, AL 30205 205/731-1297 Email: eunice.morrow@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gwendolyn Young Reams EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 1801 L Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20507 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James L. Lee EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 1801 L Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20507 Email: James.Lee@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mildred Byrd U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Birmingham District Office Ridge Park Place 1130 - 22nd St., South, Ste. 2000 Birmingham, AL 30205 205/731-1297 Email: mildred.byrd@eeoc.gov TERMINATED: 01/19/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

2 of 10

5/21/2007 1:05 PM

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court: Mississippi Southern District - Doc... https://ecf.mssd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?426145992976415-L_9...

Renal Care Group, Inc.

represented by N. Victoria Holladay FORD & HARRISON, LLP 6750 Poplar Avenue, Suite 600 Memphis, TN 38138 901/291-1500 Email: vholladay@fordharrison.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David A. Prather FORD & HARRISON, LLP 6750 Poplar Ave., Suite 600 Memphis, TN 38138 901/291-1500 Email: dprather@fordharrison.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patrick Daniel Riederer FORD & HARRISON, LLP - Memphis 795 Ridge Lake Blvd., Suite 300 Memphis, TN 38120 901/291-1500 Fax: 901/291-1501 Email: driederer@fordharrison.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 01/24/2005 03/28/2005 05/02/2005
05/24/2005 05/25/2005 05/25/2005 06/17/2005 06/20/2005

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT against Renal Care Group, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(THR, ) (Entered: 01/26/2005)
2 NOTICE of Lawsuit and Request for Waiver of Service of Summons by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (THR, ) (Entered: 04/06/2005)
3 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Renal Care Group, Inc. waiver sent on 4/6/2005, answer due 6/5/2005. (THR, ) (Entered: 05/02/2005)
4 ANSWER to Complaint by Renal Care Group, Inc..(Riederer, Patrick) (Entered: 05/24/2005)
5 Rule 16.1(A) Initial Order (CSF, ) (Entered: 05/25/2005)
Set Hearings: Telephonic Case Management Conference set for 6/27/2005 09:30 AM before Magistrate Judge James C. Sumner. (CSF, ) (Entered: 05/25/2005)
6 NOTICE of Service of Disclosure by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.(Powe, Valerie) (Entered: 06/17/2005)
7 NOTICE of Appearance by N. Victoria Holladay on behalf of Renal Care Group, Inc. (Holladay, N.) (Entered: 06/20/2005)

3 of 10

5/21/2007 1:05 PM

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court: Mississippi Southern District - Doc... https://ecf.mssd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?426145992976415-L_9...

06/20/2005 06/30/2005 06/30/2005
08/02/2005 08/08/2005 08/16/2005 09/09/2005 09/15/2005 09/15/2005
09/29/2005 09/29/2005
09/30/2005 10/12/2005 10/12/2005

8 NOTICE of Service of Pre-Discovery Disclosure Information by Renal Care Group, Inc. (Riederer, Patrick) (Entered: 06/20/2005)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge James C. Sumner : Telephonic Case Management Conference held on 6/27/2005. (CSF, ) (Entered: 06/30/2005)
9 CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER: Final Pretrial Conference set for 5/30/2006 or 5/31/2006 in Courtroom 3 before District Judge Henry T. Wingate. Amended Pleadings due by 7/29/2005. Discovery due by 1/16/2006. Designate Experts Plaintiff Deadline due by 10/17/2005. Designate Experts for Defendant Deadline due by 11/14/2005. Jury Trial set during a two-week term of court beginning 6/12/2006 in Courtroom 3 before District Judge Henry T. Wingate. Joinder of Parties due by 7/29/2005. Motions due by 1/30/2006. Signed by Judge James C. Sumner on June 30, 2005. (CSF, ) (Entered: 06/30/2005)
10 NOTICE of service of 1st Set of Interrogatories, Requests for Production, 1st Requests for Admissions by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Powe, Valerie) (Entered: 08/02/2005)
11 NOTICE of Service of Interrogatories by Renal Care Group, Inc..(Riederer, Patrick) (Entered: 08/08/2005)
12 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Vanessa Gray by Renal Care Group, Inc. (Holladay, N.) (Entered: 08/16/2005)
13 NOTICE of Service of Response to Interrogatories by Renal Care Group, Inc..(Riederer, Patrick) (Entered: 09/09/2005)
14 MOTION to Compel by Renal Care Group, Inc.. (Riederer, Patrick) (Entered: 09/15/2005)
15 MEMORANDUM in Support re 14 MOTION to Compel filed by Renal Care Group, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit D# 5 Exhibit E# 6 Exhibit F# 7 Exhibit G# 8 Exhibit H)(Riederer, Patrick) (Entered: 09/15/2005)
ORE TENUS MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response to Motion to Compel, by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (dfk, ) (Entered: 09/29/2005)
16 ORDER granting [] Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 14 MOTION to Compel Responses due by 10/12/2005. Signed by Magistrate Judge James C. Sumner on 9/29/05. (dfk, ) Modified on 9/30/2005 (dfk, ). (Entered: 09/29/2005)
DOCKET ANNOTATION as to # 16. Docket entry corrected to indicate that order was signed by Judge Sumner. (dfk, ) (Entered: 09/30/2005)
17 MOTION to Compel by Renal Care Group, Inc.. (Prather, David) (Entered: 10/12/2005)
18 MEMORANDUM in Support re 17 MOTION to Compel filed by Renal Care Group, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A to I# 2 Exhibit J to M)(Prather, David) (Entered: 10/12/2005)

4 of 10

5/21/2007 1:05 PM

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court: Mississippi Southern District - Doc... https://ecf.mssd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?426145992976415-L_9...

10/12/2005 10/12/2005 10/12/2005 10/12/2005
10/12/2005
10/13/2005
10/13/2005 10/17/2005 10/17/2005 10/19/2005 10/24/2005 10/25/2005 10/25/2005 10/25/2005 10/26/2005

19 MOTION for Protective Order by Renal Care Group, Inc.. (Prather, David) (Entered: 10/12/2005)
20 MEMORANDUM in Support re 19 MOTION for Protective Order filed by Renal Care Group, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A to D# 2 Exhibit E to H)(Prather, David) (Entered: 10/12/2005)
21 RESPONSE to Motion re 17 MOTION to Compel Declaration of Dominguez filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Guerrier, Charles) (Entered: 10/12/2005)
22 RESPONSE to Motion re 17 MOTION to Compel with exhibits filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit # 2 Exhibit # 3 Exhibit # 4 # 5 Exhibit # 6 Exhibit # 7 Exhibit # 8 # 9 Exhibit)(Powe, Valerie) (Entered: 10/12/2005)
23 ATTACHMENT re 22 Response to Motion, by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit # 2 Exhibit # 3 Exhibit # 4 Exhibit # 5 Exhibit # 6 Exhibit # 7 Exhibit # 8 Exhibit)(Guerrier, Charles) (Entered: 10/12/2005)
24 ATTACHMENT re 22 Response to Motion,, 23 Attachment Response to Motion To Compel by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Part "b" of Item 24# 2 Exhibit Part "c" to Item 24)(Powe, Valerie) (Entered: 10/13/2005)
25 NOTICE of Technical Difficulties by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 21 Response to Motion, 22 Response to Motion,, 23 Attachment, 24 Attachment, (Powe, Valerie) (Entered: 10/13/2005)
26 ORDER setting response time for Defendant's Expedited Motion for Protective Order. Signed by Judge James C. Sumner on 10/17/05. (dfk, ) (Entered: 10/17/2005)
27 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Vanessa Gray by Renal Care Group, Inc..(Prather, David) (Entered: 10/17/2005)
TEXT-0NLY ORDER withdrawing 19 Motion for Protective Order . Signed by Judge James C. Sumner on 10/19/05. (No further written order will be issued.) (dfk, ) (Entered: 10/19/2005)
28 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Renal Care 30(b)(6) by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.(Powe, Valerie) (Entered: 10/24/2005)
DOCKET ANNOTATION as to #28, entered without attorney's signature, attorney to refile. (THR, ) (Entered: 10/25/2005)
29 NOTICE of Service of Response to Request for Production by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.(Powe, Valerie) (Entered: 10/25/2005)
30 NOTICE of Service of Response to Interrogatories by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.(Powe, Valerie) (Entered: 10/25/2005)
31 RESPONSE to Motion re 17 MOTION to Compel (Amended Motion To Compel) filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A- Letter from Plaintiff to Defendant# 2 Exhibit B-Amended Discovery

5 of 10

5/21/2007 1:05 PM

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court: Mississippi Southern District - Doc... https://ecf.mssd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?426145992976415-L_9...

11/03/2005 12/13/2005 12/13/2005 01/17/2006 01/17/2006 01/17/2006 01/30/2006 01/30/2006 01/30/2006
02/01/2006 02/16/2006 02/16/2006
02/16/2006
02/16/2006

Responses)(Powe, Valerie) (Entered: 10/26/2005)
32 REPLY to Response to Motion re 17 MOTION to Compel, 31 Response to Motion, filed by Renal Care Group, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A)(Prather, David) (Entered: 11/03/2005)
33 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Dawn Nelson by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.(Powe, Valerie) (Entered: 12/13/2005)
34 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Steve O'Bryan by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.(Powe, Valerie) (Entered: 12/13/2005)
35 ORDER granting 17 Amended Motion to Compel . Signed by Judge James C. Sumner on 1/17/06. (dfk, ) (Entered: 01/17/2006)
TEXT-ONLY ORDER finding as moot 14 Motion to Compel . Signed by Judge James C. Sumner on 1/17/06. (No further written order will be issued.) (dfk, ) (Entered: 01/17/2006)
36 NOTICE of Service of Disclosure by Renal Care Group, Inc..(Prather, David) (Entered: 01/17/2006)
37 MOTION for Protective Order, MOTION to Quash by a non-party Mississippi Board of Nursing. (Moore, Janet) (Entered: 01/30/2006)
38 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Renal Care Group, Inc.. (Prather, David) (Entered: 01/30/2006)
39 MEMORANDUM in Support re 38 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Renal Care Group, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit D# 5 Exhibit E# 6 Exhibit F# 7 Exhibit G# 8 Exhibit H# 9 Exhibit I# 10 Exhibit J# 11 Exhibit K# 12 Exhibit L (part 1)# 13 Exhibit L (part 2)# 14 Exhibit M)(Prather, David) (Entered: 01/30/2006)
40 RESPONSE to Motion re 37 MOTION for Protective Order MOTION to Quash filed by Renal Care Group, Inc.. (Prather, David) (Entered: 02/01/2006)
42 MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION re 38 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (THR, ) (Entered: 02/17/2006)
43 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT of its re 42 Memorandum in Opposition to Declaration of Darla Lovelace Submitted by Defendant in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (THR, ) (Entered: 02/17/2006)
44 OBJECTION TO DECLARATION OF DEFENDANT'S FRCP RULE 30(b)(6) WITNESS DARLA LOVELACE FILED re 39 MEMORANDUM in Support re 38 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (THR, ) (Entered: 02/17/2006)
45 RESPONSE in Opposition re 38 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit # 2 Exhibit # 3 Exhibit # 4 Exhibit # 5 Exhibit # 6 Exhibit # 7 Exhibit # 8 Exhibit # 9 Exhibit # 10 Exhibit # 11 Exhibit # 12 Exhibit)(THR, ) (Entered: 02/17/2006)

6 of 10

5/21/2007 1:05 PM

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court: Mississippi Southern District - Doc... https://ecf.mssd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?426145992976415-L_9...

02/17/2006 02/24/2006
02/24/2006
02/24/2006 02/24/2006 03/09/2006 03/20/2006 05/02/2006 05/08/2006 05/17/2006 05/17/2006 05/17/2006 05/17/2006 05/17/2006 05/17/2006

41 DECLARATION OF TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES by Equal Employment Opportunity (THR, ) (Entered: 02/17/2006)
46 Response in Opposition re 44 OBJECTION TO DECLARATION OF DEFENDANT'S FRCP RULE 30(b)(6) WITNESS DARLA LOVELACE FILED re 39 MEMORANDUM in Support re 38 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (THR, ) filed by Renal Care Group, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit D)(Riederer, Patrick) (Entered: 02/24/2006)
47 REPLY to Response to Motion re 45 Response in Opposition to Motion,, 38 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Renal Care Group, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit N# 2 Exhibit O# 3 Exhibit P# 4 Exhibit Q# 5 Exhibit R# 6 Exhibit S# 7 Exhibit T)(Prather, David) (Entered: 02/24/2006)
48 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages in Summary Judgment Reply Brief by Renal Care Group, Inc.. (Prather, David) (Entered: 02/24/2006)
49 MEMORANDUM in Support re 48 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages in Summary Judgment Reply Brief filed by Renal Care Group, Inc.. (Prather, David) (Entered: 02/24/2006)
50 NOTICE of Appearance by Eunice H. Morrow on behalf of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Morrow, Eunice) (Entered: 03/09/2006)
TEXT-ONLY ORDER finding as moot 37 Motion for Protective Order, finding as moot 37 Motion to Quash . Signed by Judge James C. Sumner on 3/20/06. (No further written order will be issued.) (dfk, ) (Entered: 03/20/2006)
51 ORDER following in camera inspection of documents. Signed by Judge James C. Sumner on 4/28/06. (dfk, ) (Entered: 05/02/2006)
Set Hearings: Pretrial Conference set for 5/31/2006 04:00 PM in Courtroom 3 before District Judge Henry T. Wingate. (trs, ) (Entered: 05/08/2006)
52 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Testimony By EEOC Investigator by Renal Care Group, Inc.. (Riederer, Patrick) (Entered: 05/17/2006)
53 MEMORANDUM in Support re 52 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Testimony By EEOC Investigator filed by Renal Care Group, Inc.. (Riederer, Patrick) (Entered: 05/17/2006)
54 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Testimony Regarding Non-Party Former Employee's EEOC Charge by Renal Care Group, Inc.. (Riederer, Patrick) (Entered: 05/17/2006)
55 MEMORANDUM in Support re 54 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Testimony Regarding Non-Party Former Employee's EEOC Charge filed by Renal Care Group, Inc.. (Riederer, Patrick) (Entered: 05/17/2006)
56 MOTION in Limine to Exclude EEOC Determination and Entire Investigative File by Renal Care Group, Inc.. (Riederer, Patrick) (Entered: 05/17/2006)
57 MEMORANDUM in Support re 56 MOTION in Limine to Exclude EEOC Determination and Entire Investigative File filed by Renal Care Group, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Riederer, Patrick) (Entered: 05/17/2006)

7 of 10

5/21/2007 1:05 PM

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court: Mississippi Southern District - Doc... https://ecf.mssd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?426145992976415-L_9...

05/19/2006 05/23/2006 05/24/2006 05/24/2006 05/26/2006 05/26/2006 05/26/2006 05/26/2006 05/31/2006
06/09/2006
12/08/2006

58 MOTION in Limine by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement memorandum)(Powe, Valerie) (Entered: 05/19/2006)
DOCKET ANNOTATION as to # 58 - Attorney Powe to refile signed document and to also file signed Memorandum as a separate document. (McPhail, Patsy) (Entered: 05/23/2006)
59 MOTION in Limine To Exclude Any Reference To Vanessa Gray's Previous Employment History by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Powe, Valerie) (Entered: 05/24/2006)
60 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT re 59 MOTION in Limine To Exclude Any Reference To Vanessa Gray's Previous Employment History filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Powe, Valerie) (Entered: 05/24/2006)
61 RESPONSE in Opposition re 59 MOTION in Limine To Exclude Any Reference To Vanessa Gray's Previous Employment History filed by Renal Care Group, Inc.. (Riederer, Patrick) (Entered: 05/26/2006)
62 NOTICE by Renal Care Group, Inc. re 39 Memorandum in Support of Motion, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Supplement to Exhibit F)(Prather, David) (Entered: 05/26/2006)
63 RESPONSE in Opposition re 52 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Testimony By EEOC Investigator filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Powe, Valerie) (Entered: 05/26/2006)
64 RESPONSE in Opposition re 56 MOTION in Limine to Exclude EEOC Determination and Entire Investigative File filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Powe, Valerie) (Entered: 05/26/2006)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Henry T. Wingate : Motion Hearing held on 5/31/2006. Court denied 56 MOTION in Limine to Exclude EEOC Determination and Entire Investigative File, 58 MOTION in Limine 59 MOTION in Limine To Exclude Any Reference To Vanessa Gray's Previous Employment History -both motions will be carried to trial with the understanding that plaintiff will seek only various portions of the file approved by the Court, granted52 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Testimony By EEOC Investigator, parties conceded to 54 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Testimony Regarding Non-Party Former Employee's EEOC Charge, and denied 38 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Renal Care Group, Inc. (trs, ) (Entered: 05/31/2006)
65 ORDER denying 38 Motion for Summary Judgment, finding as moot 48 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages, granting 52 Motion in Limine, granting 54 Motion in Limine, denying 56 Motion in Limine, denying 58 Motion in Limine, denying 59 Motion in Limine . Signed by Judge Henry T. Wingate on 6/9/06. (scm, ) (Entered: 06/09/2006)
66 ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to Judge Linda R. Anderson for all further proceedings. Judge James C. Sumner no longer assigned to case. Signed by Judge Henry T. Wingate on 12/7/06. (McPhail, Patsy) Additional attachment(s) added on 12/12/2006 (McPhail, Patsy). (Entered: 12/11/2006)

8 of 10

5/21/2007 1:05 PM

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court: Mississippi Southern District - Doc... https://ecf.mssd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?426145992976415-L_9...

01/18/2007 01/18/2007 01/19/2007
01/19/2007
01/20/2007 02/01/2007 02/15/2007 02/24/2007 03/08/2007
03/08/2007 03/08/2007 03/10/2007 03/16/2007 03/26/2007 03/28/2007

67 NOTICE of Case Status by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Powe, Valerie) (Entered: 01/18/2007)
68 MOTION to Substitute Attorney by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Powe, Valerie) (Entered: 01/18/2007)
TEXT ONLY ORDER granting 68 Motion to Substitute Attorney. Added attorney Julie Steptoe Lee for Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Attorney Mildred Byrd terminated . Signed by Judge Linda R. Anderson on January 18, 2007. NO FURTHER WRITTEN ORDER SHALL ISSUE. (wg, ) (Entered: 01/19/2007)
69 SCHEDULING ORDER: Final Pretrial Conference set for 5/29/2007 or 5/30/07 before District Judge Henry T. Wingate. Jury Trial set for 6/11/2007 09:00 AM before District Judge Henry T. Wingate. Signed by Judge Linda R. Anderson on January 19, 2007. (wg, ) (Entered: 01/19/2007)
70 MOTION Request for Settlement Conference with Magistrate Judge by Renal Care Group, Inc.. (Riederer, Patrick) (Entered: 01/20/2007)
71 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 70 MOTION Request for Settlement Conference with Magistrate Judge filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Lee, Julie) (Entered: 02/01/2007)
72 MOTION for Protective Order by Renal Care Group, Inc.. (Prather, David) (Entered: 02/15/2007)
73 ORDER denying 72 Motion for Protective Order . Signed by Judge Linda R. Anderson on February 23, 2007. (TKR) (Entered: 02/24/2007)
TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 70 Motion Request For Settlement Conference as plaintiff objects to the conference and the Court finds that same would not be beneficial if both parties are not willing to participate. Signed by Judge Linda R. Anderson on March 8, 2007. NO FURTHER WRITTEN ORDER SHALL BE ISSUED. (wg, ) (Entered: 03/08/2007)
74 MOTION for Protective Order by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Powe, Valerie) (Entered: 03/08/2007)
75 ATTACHMENT re 74 MOTION for Protective Order by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Powe, Valerie) (Entered: 03/08/2007)
76 NOTICE of Filing Good Faith Certificate by Renal Care Group, Inc. re 73 Order on Motion for Protective Order (Attachments: # 1 Good Faith Certificate)(Riederer, Patrick) (Entered: 03/10/2007)
77 RESPONSE in Opposition re 74 MOTION for Protective Order filed by Renal Care Group, Inc.. (Riederer, Patrick) (Entered: 03/16/2007)
78 REPLY to Response to Motion re 77 Response in Opposition to Motion For Protective Order filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Powe, Valerie) (Entered: 03/26/2007)
80 ORDER Setting Hearing on Motions for Protective Order filed by Defendant Renal Care Group, Inc., 72 and Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 74, and Status Conference, set for 4/10/2007 at 10:00 AM before

9 of 10

5/21/2007 1:05 PM

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court: Mississippi Southern District - Doc... https://ecf.mssd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?426145992976415-L_9...

03/30/2007 04/09/2007 04/20/2007

Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson. Signed by Judge Linda R. Anderson on 3/28/07. (cc, ) (Entered: 03/28/2007)
DOCKET ANNOTATION as to #79. Order entered in this case in error. Document #79 deleted. ACF (Entered: 03/30/2007)
81 ORDER DISMISSING CASE with prejudice as to all parties. Parties having settled. Signed by Judge Linda R. Anderson on 4/9/07. (THR, ) (Entered: 04/09/2007)
82 NOTICE of Filing Consent Decree by Renal Care Group, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Consent Decree)(Riederer, Patrick) (Entered: 04/20/2007)

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

PACER Login:
Description:
Billable Pages:

05/21/2007 13:07:02

hs0328

Client Code:

eeoc

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

3:05-cv-00052-HTW-LRA

6

Cost:

0.48

10 of 10

5/21/2007 1:05 PM