IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHER~ DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COM}4ISSION,
Plaintiff,

CIVIL ACTION NO.

NEWMARK & COMPANY REAL ESTATE, INC.,

and

Defendant,

KALABI REALTY COMPANY,

Defendant.

COMPLAINT JLrRy 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, national origin and retaliation, as well as breach of a settlement agreement, and to make whole Roy Lindsay and Carlos Rodriguez. The Commission alleges that the Defendants discriminated against Roy Lindsay because of his race, Black, and retaliated against him because he previously fif~d a discrimination charge, .by harassing him, denying him equal terms and conditions of employment, and discharging him. The Commission also alleges that the Defendants discriminated against Carlos Rodriguez because of his national origin, Hispanic, by harassing him and denying him equal terms and conditions of employment..

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

I.

Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28

U.S.C. §§ 451, 1331, 1337, 1343 and 1345.

This action is

authorized and instituted pursuant to Section 706(f) (3) of Title

VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended ("Title VII"), 42

U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f) (i) and (3), and Section 102 of the Civil Rights

Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981A.

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 Southern District of New York.

PARTIES

~

3.

Plaintiff, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

(hereinafter, 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 7.06(f) (3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f) (3) .

4.

At all relevant times, Defendant Newmark & Company Real

Estate, Inc. (hereinafter, "Newmark") has continuously been and is

now a New York corporation doing business in the State of New York

and the City. Qf New York City and has continuously had at least

fifteen employees.

5.

At all relevant times, Defendant Kalabi Realty Company

(hereinafter, "Kalabi") has continuously been and is now a New York

County partnership doing business in the State of New York and the

COMPLAINT

2

City of New York City and has continuously had at least fifteen

employees.

6.

At all relevant times, Defendant Newmark has continuously

been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 701(b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.Co

§§ 2000e-(b), (g) and (h).

7.

At all relevant times, Defendant Kalabi has continuously

been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within

the meaning of Section 701(b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S,C.

§§ 2000e-(b), (g) and (h).

8.

At all relevant times, Defendant Newmark has been an

agent of Defendant Kalabi within the meaning of Section 701(b) o~

Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-(b) .

9

~ -~ --~ ...... " .......... N~wmark and Defendant

Kalabi were joint employers of Roy Lindsay and Carlos Rodriguez.

STATEMENT OF CLAIMS

i0. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this

lawsuit, Roy Lindsay and Carlos Rodriguez filed charges with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by the Defendants. All

conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled.
ii. Since at least March 1995 Defendant New, ark has engaged in unlawful employment practices at its New York City facility and at a Kalabi facility in New York City, in violation of Section

703(a) (i) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a) (i) .

Defendent

COMPLAINT

3

Newmark discriminated against Roy Lindsay because of his race,

Black~ by:

a.

Harassing him,

b.

Denying him equal terms and conditions of

employment, and

-

c.

Discharging him.

12. Since at least March 1995 Defendant Newmark has engaged

in unlawful employment practices at its New York City facility and

at a Kalabi facility in New York City, in violation of Section

704(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a). Defendent Newmark

retaliated against Roy Lindsay because he previously filed a

discrimination charge, by:

:

a.

Harassing him,

b.

Denying him equal terms and conditions of

employment, and

c.

Discharging him.

13. Since .at.least .March 1995 Defendant Newmark breached a Negotiated Settlement Agreement between itself, Roy.Lindsay, and

the Commission at .its New York City facility and at a Kalabi

facility in New York City by retaliating against Roy Lindsay

because he pq~viously filed a discrimination charge, by:

a.

Harassing him,

b.

Denying him equal terms and conditions of

employment, and Discharging him.

4 COMPLAINT

14. Since at least August 1994 Defendant Newmark has engaged

in unlawful employment practices at its New York City facility and at a Kalabi facility in New York City, in violation of Section

703(a) (i) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a) (i).

Defendent

Newmark discriminated against Carlos Rodriguez because of his

national origin, Hispanic, by:

a. b. employment.

Harassing him, and Denying him equal

terms

and

conditions of -"

15. Since at least March 1995 Defendant Kalabi has engaged in

unlawful employment practices at one of its New York City

facilities in violation of Section 703(a) (I) .of Title VII, 4~

U.S.C. § 2000e-2 (a) (i) . Defendent Kalabi discriminated against Roy

Lindsay because of his ~ace, Black, by:

a. Harassing h.~m,

b.

Denying him equal terms and conditions of

employment,- and

c.

Discharging him.

16. Since at least March 1995 Defendant Kalabi has engaged in

unlawful employment practices at one of its New York City

facilities in.violation of Section 704(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C.

§ 2000e-3(a) .

Defendent Kalabi retaliated against Roy Lindsay

because he previously filed a discrimination charge, by:

a.

Harassing him,

b.

Denying him " equal terms and conditions of

employment, and

COMPLAINT

5

c.

Discharging him.

17. Since at least August 1994 Defendant Kalabi has engaged

in unlawful employment practices at one of its New York City

facilities in violation of Section 703(a) (i) of Title VII, 42

U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1).

Defendent Kalabi discriminated against

Carlos Rodriguez because of his national origin, Hispanic, by: Harassing him and
b. Denyfng him equal terms and conditions of

employment.

18. The effect of the practices complained of above has been

to deprive Roy Lindsay and Carlos Rodriguez of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affected their status a~s

employees, because of race, national origin and opposition to

unlawful .........~.-.-19.- The unlawful employment practices complained of in

paragraphs numbered ii through 17 above were intentional. .20. .The. unlawful employment practices complained of. in

paragraphs numbered ii through 17 above were done with malice or.

with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Roy

Lindsay and Carlos Rodriguez. PRAYER’FOR RELIEF

Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this

Court:

Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant Newmark

& Co. Real Estate, Inc., its officers, successors, assigns, and all

persons in active concert or participation with it from engaging in

COMPLAINT

6

any employment practice which discriminates on the basis of.race,

national origin, opposition to unlawful employment practices, or the filing of charges under Title VII.

B.

Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant Kalabi

Realty Co., its partners, officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it from engaging in

any employment practice which discriminates on the basis of race,

national origin, opposition to unlawful employment practices,-or

the filing of charges under Title VII.

/

C.

Order Defendant Newmark to change its policies,

practices, and programs to provide equal employment opportunities

for Roy Lindsay, Carlos Rodriguez and other Black and Hispani~

employees and employees who file charges under Title VII or oppose

effects of their past and present unlawful employment practices.

D.

Order Defendant Kalabi to change its policies, practices,

and programs to provide equal employment opportunities for Roy

Lindsay, Carlos Rodriguez and other Black and .Hispanic employees

and employees who file charges under Title VII or oppose practices

made unlawful under Title VII, and to eradicate the effects of

their past and present unlawful employment practices.

E.

Order Defendant Newmark to make whole Roy Lindsay by

providing appropriate backpay with prejudgment interest, in amounts

to be proved at trial, and other affirmative relief necessary to

eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices,

COMPLAINT

7

including but not limited to rightful place reinstatement of Roy

Lindsay.

F.

Order Defendant Kalabi to make whole Roy Lindsay by

providing appropriate backpay with prejudgment interest, in amounts

to be proved at trial, and other affirmative relief necessary to

eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices, including but not limited to rightful place reinstatement of Roy Lindsay.

G.

Order Defendant Newmark to make whole Carlos Rodriguez~by

providing affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of

its unlawful employment practices.

H.

Order Defendant Kalabi to make whole Carlos Rodriguez by

providing affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of

its unlawful emp!oym..ent prac~ce~.

I.

Order Defendant Newraark to make whole Roy Lindsay and

Carlos Rodriguez by providing compensation for past and future nonpecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described in paragraphs numbered II, 12, 13, and 14 above, including emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, and loss of enjoyment of life, in amounts to be determined

at trial. J.

Order Defendant Kalabi to make whole Roy Lindsay and

Carlos Rodriguez by providing compensation for past and future nonpecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment

practices described in paragraphs numbered 15, 16, and 17 above, including emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish,

COMPLAINT

8

and loss of enjoyment of life, in amounts to be determined at

trial.

K.

Order Defendant Newmark to pay Roy Lindsay and Carlos

Rodriguez punitive damages for its malicious and reckless conduct

described in paragraphs numbered Ii, 12, 13, and 14 above in

amounts to be determined at trial.

L.

Order Defendant Kalabi to pay Roy Lindsay and Carlos

Rodriguez punitive damages for its malicious and reckless conduct

described in paragraphs numbered 15, 16 and 17 above in amounts ~o

be determined at trial.

M.

Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary

and proper.

=

N.

Award the Commission its costs in this action.

JURY TRIAL DEMA/qD Plaintiff requests of jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its complaint.

COMPLAINT

9

Respectfuily, submitted,
C. GREGORY STEWART General Counsel
ROSALIND D. GRAY Acting Deputy General Counsel
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COS~ISSION 1801 L Street, N.W. Washington, D. C. 20507~

JAMES L. LEE Regional Attorney

DELNER FRANKLIN-THOMAS

~

-- D~ ~. ~N/ (~s~8)
Senior Tr~i/~ttorney ..... . Texas Stafe/~ar No. 21060000 ’

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

New York District Office

7 World Trade Center, 18th Floor New York, New York, 10048 Telephone: (212) ~48-8538

Fax:

(212) 748-8464

COMPLAINT

I0

 
 E.E.O.C. v. Newmark & Co. Real Estate, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp. (1997)

1997 WL 324066 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
United States District Court, S.D. New York.
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v.
NEWMARK & COMPANY REAL ESTATE, INC., Defendant, and
Kalabi Realty Company, Defendant.
No. 96 CIV. 9091(LMM). | June 13, 1997.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
MCKENNA, District Judge.
*1 Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the “EEOC”) commenced this action alleging, among other things, violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. Defendant Kalabi Realty Company (“Kalabi”), moves, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to dismiss the federal employment discrimination claims against it on the ground that it is not an “employer” under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b) because it employs fewer than fifteen employees.
For the reasons set forth below, Kalabi’s motion to dismiss is denied.
I. Factual Background Between 1993 and 1995, the relevant time period according to the EEOC complaint, Kalabi, a partnership that develops real estate in New York City, owned a single commercial property located at 40 Fulton Street. Kalabi contends that, during this period, it employed only a single person continuously, Ivor Jones, the building manager at 40 Fulton Street. Kalabi concedes that, in addition to Jones, it hired various individuals to perform renovations at 40 Fulton Street for periods of time ranging from five weeks to four months. (Caiola Aff. ¶ 5.) However, even including these additional employees, Kalabi contends that it never employed fifteen or more employees in any calendar week. (Id. ¶ 4.) Kalabi has provided the Court with certain payroll and tax information indicating that Kalabi had fewer than fifteen employees on its payroll during the relevant period. (Id.

Exs. A & B.)

In addition to hiring its own employees, Kalabi entered into a Management and Exclusive Agency Agreement (the “Agency Agreement”) with defendant Newmark & Company Real Estate, Inc. (“Newmark”). (Boyd Aff. Ex. 7.) The Agency Agreement provided that Newmark would “manage, subject to [Kalabi’s] approval, coordinate and supervise the proper conduct of the ordinary and usual business and affairs pertaining to the operation, maintenance and management of ...” 40 Fulton Street. (Id. Ex. 7, at 2.) Individuals hired by Newman were hired subject to Kalabi’s prior approval, and, although Newmark had the authority to discharge such employees, Kalabi retained the right to “require [Newmark] to terminate” them. (Id. Ex 7, at 5.) Under the Agency Agreement, Newmark had the responsibility to “direct and supervise all personnel hired by [Newmark] in the performance of their duties.” (Id.)

Carlos Rodriguez and Roy Lindsay, who filed the discrimination charges with the EEOC that resulted in the instant lawsuit, were apparently hired by Newmark under the Agency Agreement to work at 40 Fulton Street. According to both Rodriguez and Lindsay, they were hired to be security guards at 40 Fulton Street by Kalabi’s building manager, Jones.1 Although Newmark paid Rodriguez’ and Lindsay’s salaries, Jones was their supervisor, providing them with their “working instructions” and their “working duties.” (Rodriguez Aff. ¶¶ 2–3; Lindsay Aff. ¶¶ 2–3.) Rodriguez contends that Jones identified Sam Mohabir, a Newmark employee, as Jones’ supervisor. (Rodriguez Aff. ¶ 4.) Rodriguez and Lindsay each contend that Jones terminated their employment. (Rodriguez Aff. ¶ 10; Lindsay Aff. ¶ 9.) The EEOC charge was based on the allegedly discriminatory conduct of Jones toward Rodriguez and Lindsay.

1

Although Kalabi concedes that Jones was its employee

during the relevant time period, Jones’ name curiously

does not appear on the payroll records submitted by

Kalabi.

*2 Rodriguez and Lindsay have identified twenty-three individuals who worked at 40 Fulton Street under Jones during the relevant time period. (Rodriguez Aff. ¶¶ 3, 7–9; Lindsay Aff. ¶¶ 3, 5–7.) Moreover, Newmark, in response to an inquiry from the EEOC, identified seventeen regular and two temporary employees that were supervised by Jones during the relevant period. (Boyd Aff. Ex. 6.) Apparently, none of these individuals were on Kalabi’s payroll. (Caiola Aff. Ex. B.)

1

E.E.O.C. v. Newmark & Co. Real Estate, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp. (1997)

II. Discussion
A. Standard Of Review In deciding a motion to dismiss a complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the Court views the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Scheur v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974). The Court is not to draw argumentative inferences favorable to the party asserting jurisdiction. Norton v. Larney, 266 U.S. 511, 515, 45 S.Ct. 145, 69 L.Ed. 413 (1925). The Court may consider affidavits and other evidence outside of the pleadings in resolving a 12(b)(1) motion. Antares Aircraft, L.P. v. Federal Republic of Nigeria, 948 F.2d 90, 96 (2d Cir.1991), vacated on other grounds, 505 U.S. 1215, 112 S.Ct. 3020, 120 L.Ed.2d 892 (1992).
B. The Term “Employer” Under Title VII. Under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b) an employer is “a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce who has fifteen or more employees for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000. “[I]t is generally recognized that the term ‘employer,’ as it is used in Title VII, is sufficiently broad to encompass any party who significantly affects access of any individual to employment opportunities.” Spirt v. Teachers Ins. and Annuity Ass’n, 691 F.2d 1054, 1063 (2d Cir.1982) (quoting Vanguard Justice Society, Inc. v. Hughes, 471 F.Supp. 670, 696 (D.Md.1979)) (internal quotation omitted), vacated on other grounds, 463 U.S. 1223 (1983). “Where it appears that more than one entity is involved in controlling an individual’s employment situation, courts have recognized the concept of multiple ‘employers’.... Two or more employers may be considered a single entity with respect to an individual employee if they stand in some sort of relationship ...” Fox v. City Univ. of New York, 1996 WL 384915, *4 (S.D.N.Y.1996).
Kalabi has not supplied any information to dispute the EEOC’s contention that Kalabi’s employee, Jones, supervised fifteen or more individuals at 40 Fulton Street during the relevant period, nor has Kalabi disputed the intercompany relationship it apparently had with Newmark. Instead, relying on Walters v. Metropolitan Educational Enterprises, Inc., 519 U.S. 202, 117 S.Ct. 660, 136 L.Ed.2d 644 (1997), which approved of the “payroll method” to determine whether the fifteen-employee threshold has been met, Kalabi argues that, because fifteen or more individuals did not appear on its payroll during the relevant period, it was not an employer under Title VII. Kalabi misconstrues Walters.

In Walters, defendant Metropolitan Educational Enterprises, Inc. (“Metropolitan”) contended that employees should only be counted toward the fifteen-employee threshold on days in which they actually performed work or were being compensated despite their absence. Id. at 662–63. The Supreme Court disagreed with this narrow interpretation of “employer” and concluded that “the ultimate touchstone under § 2000e(b) is whether an employer has employment relationships with fifteen or more individuals for each working day in twenty or more weeks during the year in question.” Id. at 666. Under the interpretation adopted by the Supreme Court, “all one needs to know about a given employee for a given year is whether the employee started or ended employment during that year and, if so, when. He is counted as an employee for each working day after arrival and before departure.” Id. at 665–66.
*3 The test approved by the Supreme Court is referred to as the “payroll method” because “the employment relationship is most readily demonstrated by the individual’s appearance on the employer’s payroll.” Id. at 663. However, contrary to Kalabi’s contention, the payroll method does not restrict liability to those employers who have fifteen or more employees on their payroll. Rather, the touchstone is whether Kalabi had an employment relationship with fifteen or more employees during the relevant period. Id. at 666.
Here, it is apparently undisputed that Kalabi’s employee, Jones, supervised fifteen or more individuals at 40 Fulton Street during the relevant period. Thus, under Walters, Kalabi had an employment relationship with a sufficient number of employees to meet the fifteen-employee threshold, and its motion to dismiss is denied. See EEOC v. Sage Realty Corp., 507 F.Supp. 599, 611 (S.D.N.Y.1981) (holding that two companies would be considered individual’s employer under Title VII where one company paid employee’s salary and second company oversaw the terms and conditions of employee’s employment).
III. Conclusion For the reasons set forth above, defendant Kalabi’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is denied.
SO ORDERED
	  

2

 
 SDNY CM/ECF Version 3.0L - Docket Report

https://ecf.nysd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?940430464036449-L_3...

CLOSED
U.S. District Court United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley Square)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:96-cv-09091-BSJ

EEOC v. Newmark & Company, et al Assigned to: Judge Barbara S. Jones Demand: $0 Cause: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

Date Filed: 12/02/1996 Date Terminated: 01/08/1998 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by Dale H. Jurgens Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 7 World Trade Center New York, NY 10048 (212)748-8500 LEAD ATTORNEY

V. Defendant Newmark & Company Real Estate, Inc.
Defendant Kalabi Realty Company

represented by Frances Mary Maloney Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. 250 Park Avenue New York, NY 10177-0077 (212) 351-4500 Email: fmaloney@ebglaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Frances Mary Maloney (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Date Filed
12/02/1996 12/02/1996 02/07/1997

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT filed; Summons issued and Notice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(c); USA (ricm) (Entered: 12/03/1996)
Magistrate Judge Eaton is so Designated. (ricm) (Entered: 12/03/1996)
2 STIPULATION, extending time for the defts to respond to the complaint is extended to 2/11/97 , reset answer due for 2/11/97 for Kalabi Realty Co., for Newmark & Company ( signed by Judge Lawrence M. McKenna ). (kg)

1 of 3

6/5/2007 8:54 AM

SDNY CM/ECF Version 3.0L - Docket Report

https://ecf.nysd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?940430464036449-L_3...

02/09/1997 02/19/1997 02/19/1997 02/19/1997 02/19/1997 02/20/1997
04/07/1997 04/07/1997 04/07/1997 04/07/1997 06/13/1997 07/01/1997 07/01/1997 07/02/1997 08/15/1997

(Entered: 02/07/1997)
4 Rule 9 certificate filed by Newmark & Company, Kalabi Realty Company (ls) Modified on 02/20/1997 (Entered: 02/20/1997)
3 ANSWER to Complaint by Newmark & Company (Attorney Frances Mary Maloney), ; Firm of: Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. by attorney Frances Mary Maloney for defendant Newmark & Company (ls) (Entered: 02/20/1997)
5 NOTICE OF MOTION by Kalabi Realty Co. for an order dismissing pltff's complt. against it purs. to Rule 12(b)(1) ofthe F.R.C.P. , Return date 3/14/97 (ls) (Entered: 02/20/1997)
5 AFFIDAVIT in support of Frances M. Maloney, Esq. by Kalabi Realty Co. Re: [5-1] motion for an order dismissing pltff's complt. against it purs. to Rule 12(b)(1) ofthe F.R.C.P. (ls) (Entered: 02/20/1997)
6 MEMORANDUM by Kalabi Realty Co. in support of [5-1] motion for an order dismissing pltff's complt. against it purs. to Rule 12(b)(1) ofthe F.R.C.P. (ls) (Entered: 02/20/1997)
7 STIPULATION, extending time for defts to respond to the Complaint is extended to 2/14/97 , reset answer due for 2/14/97 for Kalabi Realty Co., for Newmark & Company ( signed by Judge Lawrence M. McKenna ). (kg) (Entered: 02/20/1997)
8 MEMORANDUM OF LAW by EEOC in opposition to [5-1] motion for an order dismissing pltff's complt. against it purs. to Rule 12(b)(1) ofthe F.R.C.P. (kg) (Entered: 04/08/1997)
9 AFFIDAVIT in support of Roy A. Lindsay by EEOC Re: [8-1] opposition memorandum (kg) (Entered: 04/08/1997)
10 AFFIDAVIT in opposition of Nancy Boyd by EEOC Re: [8-1] opposition memorandum (kg) (Entered: 04/08/1997)
11 AFFIDAVIT in support of Carlos Rodriguez by EEOC Re: [8-1] opposition memorandum (kg) (Entered: 04/08/1997)
12 MEMORANDUM and ORDER denying [5-1] motion for an order dismissing pltff's complt. against it purs. to Rule 12(b)(1) ofthe F.R.C.P. ( signed by Judge Lawrence M. McKenna ); Copies mailed (kw) (Entered: 06/16/1997)
13 ANSWER to Complaint by Kalabi Realty Co. (Attorney Frances Mary Maloney) (sac) (Entered: 07/02/1997)
14 Rule 9 certificate filed by Kalabi Realty Co. (sac) (Entered: 07/02/1997)
15 STIPULATION and ORDER, extending time for defendant Kalabi Realty Co. to answer the Complaint , reset answer due for 6/30/97 for Kalabi Realty Co. ( signed by Judge Lawrence M. McKenna ). (ae) (Entered: 07/03/1997)
16 Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order: Initial document production to be completed by 9/19/97, including responses to deft Kalabi's First Request for Production of Documents, and responses to Pltff's 1st Request for Production of Documents to deft Kalabi; Party depositions to be completed by 11/30/97; 3rd

2 of 3

6/5/2007 8:54 AM

SDNY CM/ECF Version 3.0L - Docket Report

https://ecf.nysd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?940430464036449-L_3...

12/22/1997 01/08/1998
01/08/1998

party depositions to be completed by 11/30/97; Parties and counsel to meet to discuss settlement by 11/30/97; Experts' reports to be served by 12/31/97; Experts' depositions to be completed by 2/27/98; Discovery cutoff 2/27/98; The following depositions will be taken by the defts - deposition of Hazel Stewart on 9/23/97 at 10:00 a.m., deposition of Roy Lindsay on 9/29/97 at 10:00 a.m., deposition of Carlos Rodriguez on 9/30/97 at 10:00 a.m.; The following depositions will be taken by the pltff - deposition of deft Kalabi's Rule 30(b)(6) representative on 10/7/97 at 10:00 a.m., deposition of Benny Caiola on 10/9/97 at 10:00 a.m., deposition of Abi Kalimian on 10/13/97 ( signed by Judge Lawrence M. McKenna ); Copies mailed. (emil) (Entered: 08/18/1997)
17 Notice of reasgmnt _ to Judge Barbara S. Jones Copy of notice and judge's rules mailed to Attorney(s) of record: Frances Mary Maloney, Dale H. Jurgens . (dg) (Entered: 12/22/1997)
18 CONSENT DECREE, the EEOC and the Defendants desire to settle this action, and therefore, do hereby stipulate and consent to the entry of this Decree as final and binding between the parties signatory hereto and their successors or assigns. This Decree resolves all matters related to Case No. 96 civ. 9091 filed in the USDC for the SDNY. This Decree also resolves the alleged breach of Negotiated Settlement Agreement arrived at in Charge No. 160-95-0890 filed with the EEOC. This Decree also resolves Charges No. 160-95-2426 and 160-95-2669 filed with the EEOC. The parties have agreed that this Decree may be entered without Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law having been made and entered by the Court. This Consent Decree shall become effective upon the date it is signed by the Court, and such date shall be referred to as the Effective Date ; the defendants shall pay a total of $30,000.00 to Roy Lindsay and a total of $10,000 to Carlos Rodriguez in full settlement of any and all claims for back pay, interest, compensatory and punitive damages, and attorneys' fees, costs and disbursements on behalf of Roy Lindsay and Carlos Rodriguez ( signed by Judge Lawrence M. McKenna ); (kw) (Entered: 01/09/1998)
Case closed (kw) (Entered: 01/09/1998)

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

06/05/2007 09:54:01

PACER Login:

hs0328

Client Code:

Description:

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

Billable Pages: 2

Cost:

eeoc 1:96-cv-09091-BSJ 0.16

3 of 3

6/5/2007 8:54 AM