F I LED

DEC 0 7 2005 NF

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLlNavf:!'CHAEL W. DOBBINS

EASTERN DIVISION

If. u.a. OlOr",gr oQUltT

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )

COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

)

FUN IN MOTION, INC.

)

)

Defendant.

)

)

6 8 8 9 CIVI1f5CO.
COMPLAINT
JURY TRIAL DEMAND
JUDGE FILIP

NATURE OF THE ACTION

MAGfS'I'Ii'!M'rt ~
GERAWtr-tESbAT~N

This is an action under Tilk VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §

2000e et seq. ("Title VII"), and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991,42 U.S.C. § 1981 a, to

correct unlawful employment practices on (he basis of sex and to provide appropriate reliefto

Danielle 0' Ambrosio ("0' Ambrosio") and a class offemale employees who were adverscly

affected by such practices. Plainlil'f'U-S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the

"EEOC" or "Commission") alleges that Defendant Fun in Motion, Inc. ("Defendant")

discriminaled againSl D'Ambrosio and a class of female employees by subjecting them to

harassment because of their sex and discriminated against D'Ambrosio by tem1inating her

employment in retalialion for her opposing sexual harassment.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

I. Jurisdiction of this court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.c. §§ 451,1331,1337,

1343 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Section 706(f)( I) and (3) of

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

'.
Section 102 ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. §1981 a. 2. The employment practices alleged to he unlawful were and are now being
committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Northern District of lllinois, Eastern Division.
PARTIES 3. Plaintift: the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, is the agency orthe United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title Vll, and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Sections 706(f)(I) and (3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.c. §§ 2000e-5(f)(l) and (3). 4. At all relevant times, Defendant has continuously heen and is now doing business in the State of Illinois, including the counties of Cook, Will, Lake, DuPage, and McHenry, and has continuously had at least fi fteen (15) employees. 5. At all relevant times, Defendant has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701 (h), (g) and (h) of Title Vll, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-(b), (g) and (h).
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 6. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, D'Ambrosio filed a charge with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by Defendant. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled. 7. Since at least 2001, Defendant has engaged in unlawful employment practices in violation of Section 703(a)( 1),42 U.S.c. § 2000e-2(a)(I), and Section 704(a), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a) of Tille VII. Such unlawful employment practices include:
2

"
(a) subjecting D'Ambrosio and a class of female employees to harassment because of their sex, in continuing violation of Section 703(a)(l), 42 U.S.c. § 2000e-2(a)(l); and
(b) krminating D'Ambrosio in retaliation for her opposing sexual harassment, in violation of Section 704(a), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a).
8. The effed or the practices complained of in paragraph seven (7) above has been to deprive D' Ambrosio and a class offemale employees of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely arfect their status as employees because of their sex. The further effect of the practices complained of in paragraph seven (7) above has been to deprive D' Ambrosio of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect her status as an employee because she opposed sexual harassment.
9. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph seven (7) were and are intentional.
10. The unlawrul employmcnt practices complained o/,in paragraph seven (7) above were and arc done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of D'Ambrosio and a class of female employees.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injlffiction enjoining Defendant, 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 of sex; B. Grant a permanent lnj unction enjoining Defendant, its officers, successors,
3

assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from retaliating against any employee for participating in protected activity;
C. Order Defendant to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs whieh provide equal employment opportunities for women, and which eradicatc the effects of its past and present unlawful employment pracliees;
D. Order Defendant to make whole D'Ambrosio and a class of female employees by providing appropriate back pay with pre-judgment interest, in anlOunts to be delemlined at trial, and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices;
E. Order Defendant to make whole D' Amhrosio and a class offemale employees hy providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulling from the unlawful employment practices described above, in amounts to he determined at trial;
F. Order Defendant to make whole D' Ambrosio and a class of female employees by providing compensation for past and future non-pecuniary losses, including emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life and humiliation, in amounts to be determined at trial;
G. Order Defendant to pay D'Ambrosio and a class or female employees punitive damages for its malicious and/or reckless conduct described above, in amounts to be detemlined at trial;
H_ Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public interest; and
I. Award the Commission its costs in this action.
4

. "
JURY TRIAL DEMAND The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its Complaint.
Respectfully submitted, JAMES LEE Deputy General Counsel GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION 1
J~J~~._
Diane 1. Smason Supervisory Trial Attorney
Ckmd~=t
Ann M. Henry Trial Attorney EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION 500 West Madison Street Suite 2800 Chicago, Illinois 60661 (312) 353-8558
5

 
 Case 1:05-cv-06889 Document 19 Filed 02/15/2006 Page 1 of 9

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )

COMMISSION

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

and

)

)

DANIELLE D’AMBROSIO

)

)

Plaintiff-Intervenor

)

)

v.

)

)

FUN IN MOTION, Inc.,

)

)

Defendant.

)

NO: 05 C 6889 Judge Filip

PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR’S COMPLAINT

Plaintiff-Intervenor Danielle D’Ambrosio by through her attorney, John S. Bishof, Jr.

complains against Defendant, Fun In Motion, Inc., as follows:

JURISDICTION and VENUE

1. This action is brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.

§2000e, et. seq., as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991 (“Title VII”).

2. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and 1343, and 42

U.S.C. §2000e-5(f)(3).

3. Venue of this action properly lies in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division,

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §2000e5(f)(3) and 28 U.S.C. §1391(b) insofar as Defendant has its principal

place of business in this district. A substantial part of the alleged events giving rise to the claims

1

Case 1:05-cv-06889 Document 19 Filed 02/15/2006 Page 2 of 9
occurred in this District. PARTIES
4. Defendant, Fun In Motion, Inc., were at all relevant times incorporated in Illinois and does business in the counties within this Court’s jurisdiction including, Cook, Will, Lake, DuPage, and McHenry and has continuously had at least (15) employees.
5. Danielle D’Ambrosio is a female citizen of the United States and is domiciled and resides in the Northern District of Illinois.
6. Ms. D’Ambrosio was hired by Defendant, Fun in Motion, Inc. in April, 2004. She worked as a cashier at the Defendant’s store located in Crystal Lake, Illinois until she was discharged by Defendant on May 23, 2004.
EEOC ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE 7. Ms. D’Ambrosio has fulfilled all conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit under Title VII. She filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) on July 11, 2004, Charge No. 210-2004-05910, alleging that she had been subjected to sex discrimination, sex harassment, discriminatory conditions of employment and retaliation. 8. On December 7, 2005, the EEOC filed a Complaint against the defendant, Fun in Motion, Inc., in Case No. 05 CV 06889 based, in part, on the Charges of Discrimination D’Ambrosio had previously filed with the EEOC.
BACKGROUND 9. Danielle D’Ambrosio was hired by Defendant, Fun in Motion, Inc. on April 14, 2004 as a cashier.
2

Case 1:05-cv-06889 Document 19 Filed 02/15/2006 Page 3 of 9
10. Rob Cloney was Ms. D’Ambrosio’s direct manager at Defendant’s Crystal Lake, Illinois store. Heather Jensen was also a manager at said store.
11. During the course of the work day, and specifically within her first week of hire, and continuously thereafter, Cloney would come up from behind Plaintiff and squeeze and tickle the sides of her body. Cloney did this unwanted physical grabbing without prior notice and without the consent of the plaintiff.
12. After plaintiff applied for a position at Defendant’s Crystal Lake store, Cloney graphically told a co-worker that he would have the plaintiff perform oral sex and then decide whether she would get the job. The co-worker told Plaintiff about Cloney’s statement after she was hired.
13. Plaintiff complained to Defendant’s Managers and co-workers about Cloney’s conduct, specifically his unwanted physical conduct.
14. Upon information and belief past employees complained of Cloney’s behavior. 15. During the end of April and/or early May 2004, Heather Jensen told plaintiff that Cloney was ordered to end his sexual harassment and inappropriate behavior toward female employees. 16. Defendant through its managers made inquiries to its female employees including plaintiff about Cloney’s inappropriate behavior. 17. Plaintiff was assured by Heather Jensen that if Cloney ever touched Plaintiff again, Jensen would do something about it. 18. In the early part of May, 2004, plaintiff and Cloney were setting up a pool in the back of the Crystal Lake store, and Cloney told Plaintiff to go into the pool in her underwear because it was the same as a swimsuit. Plaintiff refused.
3

Case 1:05-cv-06889 Document 19 Filed 02/15/2006 Page 4 of 9
19. Cloney would tell Plaintiff graphic stories about his sexual encounters with his wife while using the hot tubs of different stores.
20. Cloney would refer to his employees as “bitches.” 21. In front of other co-workers, while trying to assemble a ladder, Cloney picked up the Plaintiff over his shoulder and threatened to throw her in a hot tub. 22. Cloney would often make graphic comments to Plaintiff’s co-workers speculating what sexual acts he would perform on other female employees including plaintiff. The co-workers would tell the Plaintiff what Cloney said. 23. Cloney asked her what parts of her body she shaved. 24. Although, Plaintiff told Cloney not to touch her, Cloney would laugh or ignore her requests and continue to grab or touch her. 25. About a week before Plaintiff’s termination, Plaintiff was sitting up on a counter in between cashing out customers. Cloney asked plaintiff how flexible she was, and then proceeded to lift her left leg almost above her head. Plaintiff told Cloney to stop. This unwanted physical contact caused plaintiff great pain. 26. A few days later, Plaintiff reported the last few incidents to Manager Heather Jensen. 27. Jensen told Plaintiff that she was happy she reported this incident to her. 28. The next time plaintiff reported for work, Cloney told her she was fired because she did not have enough experience.
COUNT I (Violation of Title VII-Sexual Harassment) 1-28. Plaintiff adopts and realleges by reference paragraphs 1 through 28 above as though
4

Case 1:05-cv-06889 Document 19 Filed 02/15/2006 Page 5 of 9
fully set forth herein. 29. Between April 14, 2004 until Plaintiff’s discharge on May 23, 2004, Defendant engaged
in an ongoing campaign of sexually harassing behavior through its employees and managers against Plaintiff.
30. The actions of the Defendant, through its agents and as described and complained herein above, were unlawful employment practices, in that, they did have the effect of discriminating against, depriving and tending to deprive equal employment to, and otherwise adversely affecting the Plaintiff because of her sex, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq.
31. The Defendant had direct knowledge of the sexually harassing conduct described herein. The Defendant knew that the incidents of said conduct were unwelcome to the Plaintiff. The Defendant knew or should have known that these incidents were so pervasive that they affected and altered the Plaintiff’s conditions of employment and created an offensive, intimidating, hostile work environment.
32. Plaintiff told Cloney to quit harassing her. Plaintiff also made complaints about Cloney’s inappropriate behavior to management personnel.
33. The Defendant failed to take any appropriate remedial action to stop the sexually harassing conduct.
34. The Defendant’s conduct as alleged was intentionally discriminatory towards the Plaintiff.
35. The Defendant acted with callous disregard to the Plaintiff’s federally protected rights by failing to take corrective actions with regard to the discriminatory acts committed against the
5

Case 1:05-cv-06889 Document 19 Filed 02/15/2006 Page 6 of 9
Plaintiff, by tolerating, permitting, and condoning the openly hostile work environment at the Defendant’s Crystal Lake Store.
36. Punitive damages are necessary to punish the Defendant and to serve as a deterrent to such conduct.
37. The actions of the Defendant in intentionally engaging in and condoning sexual harassment against the Plaintiff has caused great mental anguish, humiliation, degradation, physical and emotional pain and suffering, inconvenience, lost wages and benefits, future pecuniary losses, and other consequential damages.
Wherefore, Plaintiff, Daniel D’Ambrosio requests Judgment against the Defendant in excess of Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000), in actual damages, exemplary damages plus costs, interests and attorney’s fees, together with whatever amount this Court and/or jury deems fair and equitable.
COUNT II (Violation of Title VII Retaliation) 1-37. The Plaintiff adopts and realleges by reference paragraphs 1 through 37 above as through fully set forth herein. 38. The actions of the Defendant, as perpetrated by its agents and as described and complained hereinabove, are unlawful employment practices, in that, they likely have the effect and did have the effect of discriminating against, depriving and tending to deprive equal employment to, and otherwise adversely affecting the Plaintiff, and by engaging and condoning retaliatory conduct, Defendant discriminated against the Plaintiff in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq.
6

Case 1:05-cv-06889 Document 19 Filed 02/15/2006 Page 7 of 9
39. The Defendant intentionally subjected the Plaintiff to unequal and discriminatory treatment by retaliating against her for complaining about sexual harassment and discrimination and by refusing and failing to protect the Plaintiff from retaliation by other Fun In Motion employees. Specifically:
a. Plaintiff’s supervisors failed or refused to conduct a meaningful and reasonable investigation into the Plaintiff’s complaints.
b. Defendant encouraged the Plaintiff to report sexual harassment and discrimination, and then terminated her employment when she complied.
c. Defendant refused and failed to take prompt and appropriate action to prevent retaliatory conduct against the Plaintiff after she complained about sexual harassment and discrimination.
d. Initially, Defendant’s supervisors and managers falsely claim that Plaintiff was terminated because she lacked experience.
e. After plaintiff complained of Defendant’s actions, Defendant’s supervisors and managers falsely claim that Plaintiff was incompetent and that was the reason for her termination
40. The Defendant has engaged in a policy, pattern, and practice of retaliating and condoning retaliation against employees who complain of sexual harassment and discrimination.
41. The actions of the Defendant in intentionally engaging in and condoning discrimination and retaliation against the Plaintiff has caused her great mental anguish, humiliation, degradation, physical and emotional pain and suffering, inconvenience, lost wages and benefits, future pecuniary losses, and other consequential damages.
7

Case 1:05-cv-06889 Document 19 Filed 02/15/2006 Page 8 of 9

Wherefore, Plaintiff, Danielle D’Ambrosio requests Judgment against the Defendant in excess of Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000), in actual damages, exemplary damages plus costs, interests and attorney’s fees, together with whatever amount this Court and/or jury deems fair and equitable.

Respectfully Submitted,

By:

/s John S. Bishof, Jr.

John S. Bishof, Jr.

Attorney No. 213926

77 W. Washington St.

Suite 1910

Phone: 312/630-2048

Fax: 312/630-2085

Attorney for Plaintiff

8

Case 1:05-cv-06889 Document 19 Filed 02/15/2006 Page 9 of 9

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document, Notice of Filing and Plaintiff-

Intervenor’s Complaint, were served upon:

Ann M. Henry Diane I. Smason John C. Hendrickson U.S. EEOC 500 West Madison Suite 2800 Chicago, IL 60661

Mark J. Unterberger Lurie & Unterberger, Ltd. 30 North Lasalle St. Suite 2040 Chicago, IL 60602

Carol A. Poplawski Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. Two First National Plaza, 25th Floor Chicago, IL 60603

by using the CM/ECF system which sent notification of such filing to Ann M. Henry, Diane J. Smason, John C. Hendrickson, Mark J. Unterberger and Carol A. Poplawski on this 15th day of February, 2006.

By:

/s John S. Bishof, Jr.

John S. Bishof, Jr.

Attorney No. 213926

77 W. Washington St.

Suite 1910

Phone: 312/630-2048

Fax: 312/630-2085

Attorney for Plaintiff

9

 
 Case 1:05-cv-06889 Document 56 Filed 07/31/2006 Page 4 of 13

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff,
v.
FUN IN MOTION, INC., Defendant.

)

)

)

Case No. 05 C 6889

)

) Judge Filip

)

) Magistmte Judge

) SoatBrown

)

)

)

)

CONSENT DECREE THE LITIGATION
I. Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") filed this action alleging that Defendant Fun In Motion, Inc. ("FIM" or "D(lfendant") violated Title VII ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.c. § 2000e ~ mi. ("Title VII"), and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991,42 U.S.C. § 1981a, by subjecting Charging Party Danielle D'Ambrosio ("D'Ambrosio") and a class of female employees to harassment because of their sex. The Complaint further alleges that Defendant violated Title VII by discriminating against D'Ambrosio by tenninating her employment in retaliation for her opposing sexual harassment. On or about February 13, 2006, D'Ambrosio intervened in this action and is represented by private counsel.
2. In the interest of resolving this matter, and as a result of having engaged in comprehensive settlement negotiations, the parties have agreed that this action should be finally resolved by entry of this Consent Decree (hereafter "Decree"). This Decree fully and finally

Case 1:05-cv-06889 Document 56 Filed 07/31/2006 Page 5 of 13
resolves any and all issues and claims arising out of the Complaints filed by EEOC and D'Ambrosio. Nothing in this Consent Decree shall be deemed to constitute an admission by either party with respect to the claims or defenses of the other.
FINDINGS 3. Having carefully examined the terms and provisions of this Decree, and based on the pleadings, record, and stipulations ofthe parties, the Court finds the following:
a. This Court has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this action and of the parties.
b. The terms ofthis Decree arc adequate, fair, reasonable, equitable, and just. The rights of EEOC, FIM, D'Ambrosio and the public interest are adequately protected by this Decree.
c. This Decree conforms with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Title VII, and is not in derogation of the rights or privileges of any person. The entry of this Decree will further the objectives of Title VII and will be in the best intercsts of the parties and the public.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED THAT: NON-DISCRIMINATION
4. FIM, its officers, agents, employees, successors, assigns and all persons acting in concert with it are permanently enjoined from: (a) engaging in any employment practice that discriminates on the basis of sex; (b) engaging in or being a party to any action, policy or practice that is intended to or is known to them to have the effect of sexually harassing any female employee; and (c) creating, facilitating or tolerating the existence of a work environment that is sexually hostile to female employees.
2

Case 1:05-cv-06889 Document 56 Filed 07/31/2006 Page 6 of 13
5. FIM, its officers, agents, employees, successors, assigns and all persons acting in concert with it shall not engage in any form of retaliation against any person because such person has opposed any practice made unlawful under Title VII, filed a Charge of Discrimination under Title VII, testified or participated in any manner ill any investigation, proceeding, or hearing under Title VII, or asserted any rights under this Decree.
MONETARY RELIEF
6. FIM shall pay $21,500.00 to D'Ambrosio, inclusive of attorneys' fees, costs and expenses.
7. Payment to D'Ambrosio shall be in a manner and on terms separately agreed to by Defendant and D'Ambrosio and by her counsel, John S. Bishof, Jr. ("Bishot") of the Law Office of John Bishof, P.C. EEOC has had no role in negotiating, is not a party to, and has not approved the terms of the agreement entered into by D' Ambrosio, who has been counseled by Bishofwith respect thereto.
POSTING OF NOTICE 8. Within five (5) business days following entry ofthis Decree, FIM shall post copies of the Notice (attached hereto as Exhibit A) to this Decree at FIM's Crystal Lake, Illinois facility. FIM shall post this Notice on the bulletin board(s) usually used by FIM for conununicating with its employees. The Notice shall remain posted for two (2) years from the date of entry of this Decree. FIM shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that the posting is not altered, defaced or covered by any other material. FIM shall certify to EEOC in writing within ten (i 0) business days after entry of the Decree that the Notice has been properly posted. FIM shall permit a representative of EEOC to enter FIM's premises for purposes of verifying compliance with this Paragraph at any time during normal business hours without prior notice.
3

Case 1:05-cv-06889 Document 56 Filed 07/31/2006 Page 7 of 13

RECORD KEEPING

9.

FIM shall maintain and make available for inspection and copying by EEOC

records (including names, social security numbers, addresses, and telephone numbers) of each

employee or applicant who complains of sexual harassment and/or retaliation. FIM shall

maintain such records whether or not any such report or complaint is made formally or

informally. Such records shall include the name of the complainant, the date of the report or

complaint, what was alleged, the name(s) of any witnesses, what actions, if any, FIM took to

resolve the complaint, and the resolution of the report or complaint.

10. FIM shall make all documents or records referred to in Paragraph 9 above

available for inspection and copying within ten (10) business days after EEOC so requests. In

addition, FIM shall require personnel within its employ whom EEOC reasonably requests for

purposes of verifying compliance with this Decree to cooperate with EEOC and to be

interviewed.

REPORTING

II. FIM shall furnish to EEOC the following written reports semi-annually for a

period of two (2) years following entry of this Decree. The first report shall be due six (6)

months after entry of the Decree. The final report shall be due twenty-three (23) months after

entry of the Decree. Each such report shall contain:

(a) A summary of the information recorded by FIM pursuant to Paragraph 9;

(b) A certification by FIM that the Notice required to be posted in Paragraph 8,

above, remained posted during the entire six (6) month period preceding the report.

TRAINING

12. During each of the two (2) years covered by this Decree, all ofFIM's store
4

Case 1:05-cv-06889 Document 56 Filed 07/31/2006 Page 8 of 13
managers, supervisors and human resources personnel shall participate in an annual training session by a trainer paid for by FIM and approved by EEOC regarding sexual harassment and retaliation and FIM's policies regarding such discrimination. Any new human resources employee shall receive such training prior to starting work. The training session shaIl take place within ninety (90) days of entry of this Decree.
13. FLM shaIl obtain EEOC's approval ofits proposed trainer prior to the training session. FLM shaIl submit the name, address, telephone munber, resume and training proposal of the proposed trainer, including all proposed training materials, to EEOC at least fifteen (15) days prior to the proposed date(s) of the training. EEOC shall have five (5) business days from the date ofreceipt of the information described above to accept or reject the proposed trainer. In the event that EEOC fails to respond within such five (5) business days, then the trainer proposed by FLM shall be deemed accepted by EEOC. In the event EEOC does not approve FIM's designated trainer, FIM shall have five (5) business days to identifY an alternate trainer. In the event that EEOC fails to respond within such five (5) business days, then the alternate trainer proposed by FLM shaH be deemed accepted by EEOC. EEOC shaIl have five (5) business days from the date of receipt of the information described above to accept or reject the alternate trainer. If the parties cannot through this process agree on a trainer, then they shall seek the Court's assistance.
14. FIM shall certify to EEOC in writing within five (5) business days after the training has occurred that the training has taken place and that the required personnel have attended. Such certification shall include: (i) the date, location and duration of the training; and (ii) a copy of the registry of attendance, which shall include the name and position of each person in attendance.
5

Case 1:05-cv-06889 Document 56 Filed 07/3112006 Page 9 of 13
15. FIM shall also provide EEOC with any and all copies of pamphlets, brochures, outlines or other written material(s) provided to the participants of the training scssion(s).
DISPUTE RESOLUTION 16. In the event that any party to this Decree believes that another party has failed to comply with any provision(s) of the Decree, the complaining party shall notify the other party of the alleged non-compliance and shall afford the alleged non-complying party ten (10) business days to remedy the non-compliance or to satisfy the complaining party that the alleged noncomplying party has complied. If the alleged non-complying party has not remedied the alleged non-compliance or satisfied the complaining party that it has complied within ten (10) business days, the complaining party may apply to the Court for appropriate relief.
DURATION OF THE DECREE AND RETENTION OF JURISDICTION 17. All provisions ofthi" Decree shall be in effect (and the Court will retain jurisdiction of this matter to enforce this Decree) for a period of two (2) years immediately following entry of the Decree, provided, however, that if, at the end of the two (2) year period, any disputes under '1116, above, remain unresolved, the term of the Decree shall be automatically extended (and the Court will retain jurisdiction of this matter to enforce the Decree) until such time as all such disputes have been resolved.
MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 18. Each party to this Decree shall bear its own expenses, attorney's fees and costs. 19. The terms of this Decree are and shall be binding upon the present and future representatives, agents, directors, officers, assigns, and successors of FIM. 20. If any provision(s) of the Decree are found to be unlawful, only such provision(s) shall be severed, and the remainder ofthe Decree shall remain in full force and effect.
6

Case 1:05-cv-06889 Document 56 Filed 07/31/2006 Page 10 of 13 21. When this Decree requires the submission by FIM of reports, certifications, notices, or other materials to EEOC, they shall be mailed to: FIM Title VII Settlement, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 500 West Madison Street, Suite 2800, Chicago, Illinois, 60661. When this Decree requires submission by EEOC of materials to FIM, they shall be mailed to: Fun In Motion, Inc., 490 Windy Point Lane,Glendale Heights, Illinois 60139, attention Alan Arden, with a copy to Mark J. Unterberger, Lurie & Unterberger, Ltd., 30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2040, Chicago, Illinois 60602.
7

Case 1:05-cv-06889 Document 56 Filed 07/31/2006 Page 11 of 13

ENTERED AND APPROVED FOR:
For the EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
1801 L Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20507
JAMES LEE
Deputy General Counsel
GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS
Associate General Counsel
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
500 West Madison Street Suite 280

For FUN IN MOTION, INC.

DlANEI. SMA
Supervisory Trial Attorney
~.~~
Trial Attorney
DATE: f-I/!(

The Honorable

Filip

United States District Judge

8

Case 1:05-cv-06889 Document 56 Filed 07/31/2006 Page 12 of 13
EXHIBIT A

Case 1:05-cv-06889 Document 56 Filed 07/31/2006 Page 13 of 13
NOTICE TO ALL FUN IN MOTION. INC. EMPLOYEES
This Notice is being posted pursuant to n Consent Decree entered by the federal court in EEOC v. Fun In Motion. Inc., No. 05 C 6889, resolving a lawsuit filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") against Fun In Motion, Inc. ("FIM'').
In its suit, EEOC alleged that FIM discriminated against female employees by subjecting them to a sexually hoslile work envirorunent and retaliating against a female former employee by terminating her for opposing sexual harassment. FIM filed an Answer in which it denied the allegations.
To settle the case, FIM and EEOC have entered into a Consent Decree, which provides, among other things, that:
1) FIM will make a settlement payment to the female former employee;
2) FIM is enjoined from discriminating against women on the basis of sex and from subjecting women to sexual harassment;
3) FIM is enjoined from retaliating against any person because (s)he opposed any practice made unlawful by Title VII, filed a Title VII charge of discrimination, participated in any Title VII proceeding, or asserted any rights under the Consent Decree; and
4) FIM will provide mandatory training to its store managers, supervisors and human resources personnel regarding sexual harassment, retaliation, and FIM's policies regarding such discrimination.
EEOC enforces the federal laws against discrimination in employment on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age or disability. If you believe you have been discriminated against, you may contact EEOC at (312) 353-8195. EEOC charges no fees and has a TID number.
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND MUST NOT BE DEFACED BY ANYONE
This Notice must remain posted for two years from the date below and must not be altered, defaced or covered by any other material. Any questions about this Notice or compliance with Its terms may be directed to: FIM Title VII Settlement, EEOC, 500 West Madison Street, Suite 2800, Chicago, IL 60661.
f-,/-tN'
Date

 
 CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.0 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket... https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?314671785937937-L_35...
BROWN, CLOSED, PROTO
United States District Court Northern District of Illinois - CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.0 (Chicago)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:05-cv-06889

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Fun In Motion Inc Assigned to: Honorable Mark Filip Cause: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

Date Filed: 12/07/2005 Date Terminated: 08/04/2006 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant

Plaintiff
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by Ann M Henry Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 500 W. Madison Street 2800 Chicago, IL 60661 (312)353-8558 Email: ann.henry@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Diane Ilene Smason United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 500 West Madison Street Suite 2800 Chicago, IL 60661 (312) 353-7568 Email: diane.smason@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John C. Hendrickson United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 500 West Madison Street Suite 2800 Chicago, IL 60661 (312) 353-8551 Fax: (312) 353-8555 Email: john.hendrickson@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant

1 of 7

7/30/2007 10:36 AM

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.0 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket... https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?314671785937937-L_35...

Fun In Motion Inc
Intervenor Plaintiff Danielle D'Ambrosio

represented by Mark J. Unterberger Lurie & Unterberger, Ltd. 30 North LaSalle Street Suite 2040 Chicago, IL 60602 (312) 236-3380 Email: unterbergermark@hotmail.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carol A. Poplawski Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart Two First National Plaza 20 South Clark Street 25th Floor Chicago, IL 60603 (312)558-1244 Email: carol.poplawski@odnss.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer L Colvin Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. Two First National Plaza 20 S. Clark Street 25th Floor Chicago, IL 60603 (312) 558-1220 Email: jennifer.colvin@ogletreedeakins.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by John S. Bishof, Jr. Law Office of John S. Bishof, P.C. 77 West Washington Street Suite 1910 Chicago, IL 60602 (312)630-2048 Email: jsbishof@yahoo.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 12/07/2005 12/07/2005

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission; Jury Demand.(gcy, ) (Entered: 12/08/2005)
2 CIVIL Cover Sheet. (gcy, ) (Entered: 12/08/2005)

2 of 7

7/30/2007 10:36 AM

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.0 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket... https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?314671785937937-L_35...

12/07/2005 12/07/2005 12/07/2005 12/13/2005
12/29/2005 01/04/2006 01/05/2006 01/10/2006 01/11/2006 01/13/2006 01/13/2006 01/13/2006 01/19/2006
02/09/2006 02/09/2006

3 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission by Ann M Henry. (gcy, ) (Entered: 12/08/2005)
4 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission by Diane Ilene Smason. (gcy, ) (Entered: 12/08/2005)
5 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission by John C. Hendrickson. (gcy, ) (Entered: 12/08/2005)
6 MINUTE entry before Judge Mark Filip : Status hearing set for 1/19/2006 at 09:30 AM. and parties are to report the following: (1) Possibility of settlement in the case; (2) If no possibility of settlement exists, the nature and length of discovery necessary to get the case ready for trial. Plaintiff is to advise all other parties of the courts action herein. Lead counsel is directed to appear at this status hearing. Parties to prepare and submit a joint status report within two days prior to status. (See Judges web page for status report) Mailed notice (tbk, ) (Entered: 12/13/2005)
7 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Fun In Motion Inc by Mark J. Unterberger. (gcy, ) (Entered: 01/03/2006)
8 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Fun In Motion Inc by Carol A. Poplawski (Poplawski, Carol) (Entered: 01/04/2006)
9 WAIVER OF SERVICE returned executed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Fun In Motion Inc waiver sent on 12/8/2005, answer due 2/6/2006. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Henry, Ann) (Entered: 01/05/2006)
10 ANSWER to Complaint by Fun In Motion Inc(Poplawski, Carol) (Entered: 01/10/2006)
11 STATUS Report by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Fun In Motion Inc (Poplawski, Carol) (Entered: 01/11/2006)
12 ATTORNEY Appearance Plaintiff-Intervenor Danielle D'Ambrosio (Bishof, John) (Entered: 01/13/2006)
13 MOTION by proposed Danielle D'Ambrosio to intervene as Plaintiff-Intervenor (Bishof, John) (Entered: 01/13/2006)
14 NOTICE of Motion by John S. Bishof, Jr for presentment of motion to intervene13 before Honorable Mark Filip on 1/19/2006 at 09:30 AM. (Bishof, John) (Entered: 01/13/2006)
15 MINUTE entry before Judge Mark Filip : Status hearing held and continued to 3/20/06 at 9:30 a.m. Motion by proposed Danielle D'Ambrosio to intervene as Plaintiff-Intervenor 13 is granted without opposition. Rule 26 disclosures to be exchanged on or before 2/2/06. Initial written discovery request to be issued on or before 2/9/06. Mailed notices (gcy, ) (Entered: 01/20/2006)
16 MOTION by proposed Danielle D'Ambrosio for leave to file her Complaint as Plaintiff-Intervenor (Bishof, John) (Entered: 02/09/2006)
17 NOTICE of Motion by John S. Bishof, Jr for presentment of motion for leave to file16 before Honorable Mark Filip on 2/15/2006 at 09:30 AM. (Bishof, John) (Entered: 02/09/2006)

3 of 7

7/30/2007 10:36 AM

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.0 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket... https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?314671785937937-L_35...

02/13/2006 02/15/2006 02/15/2006 03/20/2006 03/21/2006 03/21/2006 03/21/2006 03/21/2006 03/22/2006 03/22/2006 03/24/2006 03/24/2006 03/27/2006
03/28/2006
03/29/2006

18 MINUTE entry before Judge Mark Filip : Plaintiff-Intervenor Danielle D' Ambrosio's unopposed motion for leave to file her complaint is granted. Notified counsel by telephone. (gcy, ) (Entered: 02/15/2006)
19 INTERVENOR complaint filed by Danielle D'Ambrosio against Fun In Motion Inc(Bishof, John) (Entered: 02/15/2006)
20 NOTICE by Danielle D'Ambrosio of Filing Plaintiff-Intervenor's Complaint (Bishof, John) (Entered: 02/15/2006)
21 MINUTE entry before Judge Mark Filip : Status hearing held on 3/20/2006. Response to interveror complaint is extended to 3/28/06. Status hearing set for 5/2/2006 at 09:30 AM. No notice (tbk, ) (Entered: 03/20/2006)
22 NOTICE of Affiliates pursuant to Local Rule 3.2 by Fun In Motion Inc (Unterberger, Mark) (Entered: 03/21/2006)
23 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Fun In Motion Inc by Jennifer L Colvin (Colvin, Jennifer) (Entered: 03/21/2006)
24 ANSWER to Intervenor Complaint and Affirmative Defenses by Fun In Motion Inc(Colvin, Jennifer) (Entered: 03/21/2006)
25 NOTICE by Fun In Motion Inc re answer to intervenor complaint24 (Colvin, Jennifer) (Entered: 03/21/2006)
26 MOTION by Defendant Fun In Motion Inc for protective order (Colvin, Jennifer) (Entered: 03/22/2006)
27 NOTICE of Motion by Jennifer L Colvin for presentment of motion for protective order26 before Honorable Mark Filip on 3/28/2006 at 09:30 AM. (Colvin, Jennifer) (Entered: 03/22/2006)
28 Re- NOTICE of Motion by Jennifer L Colvin for presentment of motion for protective order26 before Honorable Geraldine Soat Brown on 3/29/2006 at 09:45 AM. (Colvin, Jennifer) (Entered: 03/24/2006)
29 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ORDER:Case referred to Magistrate Judge Geraldine Soat Brown. Signed by Judge Charles P. Kocoras on 3/24/06. (gcy, ) (Entered: 03/28/2006)
30 MINUTE entry before Judge Geraldine Soat Brown : This matter having been referred to Magistrate Judge Geraldine Soat Brown for proceedings with respect to defendant's motion for protective order 26, a motion hearing set before Magistrate Judge Brown on 3/29/06 at a.m. in Courtroom 1812. Mailed notices (gcy, ) (Entered: 03/28/2006)
31 RESPONSE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in Opposition to MOTION by Defendant Fun In Motion Inc for protective order26 (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Barnes v. Julien J. Studley# 2 Appendix EEOC v. Custom Companies, Inc.# 3 Appendix EEOC v. Midwestern Distrib., Inc.)(Henry, Ann) (Entered: 03/28/2006)
32 MINUTE entry before Judge Geraldine Soat Brown : Motion Hearing held. Defendant's motion for protective order 26 is denied without prejudice. The defendant may renew the motion in event that there are specific facts supporting

4 of 7

7/30/2007 10:36 AM

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.0 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket... https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?314671785937937-L_35...

05/02/2006 05/30/2006 05/30/2006 05/30/2006 05/30/2006 05/31/2006 06/01/2006 06/02/2006 06/05/2006 06/06/2006
06/23/2006 06/23/2006

the defendant's assetion of a need for a protective order. All matters relating to the referral of this action having been concluded, the referral is closed and the case is returned to the assigned judge. Mailed notices (gcy, ) (Entered: 03/30/2006)
33 MINUTE entry before Judge Mark Filip : Status hearing held on 5/2/2006. Discovery cutoff set for 7/21/06. Status hearing set for 6/28/2006 at 09:30 AM. Mailed notice (tbk, ) (Entered: 05/02/2006)
34 MOTION by Defendant Fun In Motion Inc for protective order entry (Attachments: # 1 Agreed Protective Order)(Colvin, Jennifer) (Entered: 05/30/2006)
35 NOTICE of Motion by Jennifer L Colvin for presentment of motion for protective order34 before Honorable Mark Filip on 6/5/2006 at 09:30 AM. (Colvin, Jennifer) (Entered: 05/30/2006)
36 MOTION by Defendant Fun In Motion Inc to certify class MOTION TO CLOSE CLASS (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A)(Colvin, Jennifer) (Entered: 05/30/2006)
37 Notice of Motion to Close Class NOTICE of Motion by Jennifer L Colvin for presentment of motion to certify class36 before Honorable Mark Filip on 6/5/2006 at 09:30 AM. (Colvin, Jennifer) (Entered: 05/30/2006)
41 AGREED PROTECTIVE Order Signed by Judge Mark Filip on 6/2/2006:(gcy, ) Modified on 9/26/2006 (td, ). (Entered: 06/05/2006)
40 MINUTE entry before Judge Mark Filip : Motion for entry of agreed protective order 34 is granted. Enter Agreed Protective Order. mailed notices (gcy, ) (Entered: 06/05/2006)
38 RESPONSE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in Opposition to MOTION by Defendant Fun In Motion Inc to certify class MOTION TO CLOSE CLASS36 (Henry, Ann) (Entered: 06/02/2006)
39 MINUTE entry before Judge Mark Filip : MOTION by Defendant Fun In Motion Inc MOTION TO CLOSE CLASS36 is granted in part for reasons stated on the record. Sua sponte, the court extends the discovery period to and including 7/28/06. Mailed notice (tbk, ) (Entered: 06/05/2006)
42 MINUTE entry before Judge Mark Filip : This Court's Minute Order of June 5, 200639 is amended to read as follows: MOTION by Defendant Fun In Motion Inc MOTION TO CLOSE CLASS36 is granted in part for reasons stated on the record. The EEOC to identify their class by 6/28/06. Sua sponte, the court extends the discovery period to and including 7/28/06. Mailed notice (tbk, ) (Entered: 06/06/2006)
43 MOTION by Defendant Fun In Motion Inc to compel Production of Danielle D'Ambrosio's Diaries (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C)(Colvin, Jennifer) (Entered: 06/23/2006)
44 NOTICE of Motion by Jennifer L Colvin for presentment of motion to compel43 before Honorable Mark Filip on 6/28/2006 at 09:30 AM. (Colvin, Jennifer) (Entered: 06/23/2006)

5 of 7

7/30/2007 10:36 AM

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.0 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket... https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?314671785937937-L_35...

06/26/2006 06/26/2006 06/27/2006 06/30/2006 06/30/2006 07/05/2006 07/05/2006
07/17/2006 07/24/2006 07/24/2006 07/26/2006
07/31/2006 07/31/2006

45 Re- NOTICE of Motion by Jennifer L Colvin for presentment of motion to compel43 before Honorable Geraldine Soat Brown on 7/5/2006 at 09:45 AM. (Colvin, Jennifer) (Entered: 06/26/2006)
47 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ORDER: Case referred to Magistrate Judge Geraldine Soat Brown. Signed by Judge Charles P. Kocoras on 6/26/06. (gcy, ) (Entered: 06/27/2006)
46 MINUTE entry before Judge Mark Filip : Status hearing date of 6/28/06 is stricken. Status hearing reset for 7/5/2006 at 09:30 AM. Telephoned notice (tbk, ) (Entered: 06/27/2006)
48 NOTICE by Danielle D'Ambrosio of Filing her Response to Defendant's Motion to Compel (Bishof, John) (Entered: 06/30/2006)
49 RESPONSE to Defendant's Motion to Compel (Bishof, John) (Entered: 06/30/2006)
50 MINUTE entry before Judge Mark Filip : Status hearing held on 7/5/2006. Status hearing set for 8/4/2006 at 09:30 AM. No notice (tbk, ) (Entered: 07/05/2006)
51 MINUTE entry before Judge Geraldine Soat Brown : Motion hearing held. Defendant's motion to compel production of Danielle D'Ambrosio's diaries 43 is granted in part as follows: Ms. D'Ambrosio's counsel or staff, working under the supervision of counsel, shall review Ms. D'Ambrosio's diaries for the period of April 2004 to the present and shall produce any entries that discuss or refer to her employment by the defendant or any of the defendant's employees or any damages alleged by Ms. D'Ambrosio. All matters relating to the referral of this action having been concluded, the referral is closed and the case is returned to the assigned judge. Notice mailed by judge's staff (ntf, ) (Entered: 07/05/2006)
52 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings before Judge Geraldine Soat Brown held on 3/29/06 (Volumes 1). (gcy, ) (Entered: 07/18/2006)
53 STIPULATION of Dismissal of Plaintiff-Intervenor's Complaint (Bishof, John) (Entered: 07/24/2006)
54 NOTICE by Danielle D'Ambrosio re stipulation of dismissal53 of filing Stipulation to Dismiss Plaintiff-Intervenor's Complaint (Bishof, John) (Entered: 07/24/2006)
55 MINUTE entry before Judge Mark Filip : The Court has received the stipulation of dismissal from Defendant and Plaintiff-Intervenor, Danielle D'Ambrosio. The Court incorporates the terms of the parties' settlement into this order by reference; dismisses all claims of Ms. D'Ambrosio consistent with the terms, conditions, and parameters of the parties' settlement; and retains jurisdiction to enforce compliance with this judicial order. Mailed notices (gcy, ) Modified on 7/27/2006 (gcy, ). (Entered: 07/27/2006)
56 MOTION by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to approve consent judgment (Henry, Ann) (Entered: 07/31/2006)
57 NOTICE of Motion by Ann M Henry for presentment of motion to approve consent judgment56 before Honorable Mark Filip on 8/4/2006 at 09:30 AM. (Henry, Ann) (Entered: 07/31/2006)

6 of 7

7/30/2007 10:36 AM

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.0 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket... https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?314671785937937-L_35...

08/04/2006 08/04/2006

58 MINUTE entry before Judge Mark Filip : Motion hearing held. Plaintiff's motion to approve consent judgment is granted without objection. The Court to retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the consent decree. All pending dates and motions are hereby stricken. Civil case terminated. Mailed notices (gcy, ) (Entered: 08/09/2006)
59 CONSENT DECREE Signed by Judge Mark Filip on 8/4/2006:(gcy, ) (Entered: 08/09/2006)

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

07/30/2007 10:36:00

PACER Login: hs0328

Client Code: eeoc

Description: Docket Report Search Criteria: 1:05-cv-06889

Billable Pages: 4

Cost:

0.32

7 of 7

7/30/2007 10:36 AM

 
 Two Federal Courts: EEOC Can Correspond with Class Members in La...

http://www.eeoc.gov/press/3-31-06.html

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE March 31, 2006

CONTACT: John C. Hendrickson EEOC Regional Attorney (312) 353-8551

Diane Smason EEOC Supervisory Trial Attorney (312) 353-7526

TTY:

Ann Henry EEOC Trial Attorney (312) 353-8558 (312) 353-2421

TWO FEDERAL COURTS: EEOC CAN CORRESPOND WITH CLASS MEMBERS IN LAWSUITS WITHOUT INTERFERENCE
Judges in Supercuts 'English Only' and FIM Sexual Harassment Cases Reject Employers' Efforts to Review Letters in Advance
CHICAGO - The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced this afternoon that it has secured two rulings assuring that the EEOC can continue to correspond with victims of employment discrimination in lawsuits without submitting such letters in advance to either the courts or attorneys for employers.
John Hendrickson, the EEOC regional attorney in Chicago, said, "When the EEOC has brought a lawsuit challenging an employer's discrimination against multiple applicants or employees, we often want to reach potential victims through mass mailings. That's a big part of the process of identifying actual victims, gathering evidence, and measuring damages."
However, Hendrickson said employers often attempt to interfere in the process by insisting on advance review of such letters by the courts and by employers' attorneys. "So to get two rulings on the same day, as we have this week, that we can reach out to potential class members in our cases and reach out without interference is very significant to us. It means our prospects for identifying real victims of discrimination and gathering genuinely reliable evidence in these cases are excellent."
The March 29 rulings came in two separate class action lawsuits being litigated by the EEOC. One was made by U.S. District Judge John W. Darrah in EEOC v. Primps L.L.C. d/b/a Supercuts, N.D. Illinois No. 05 C 4592, a case in which the agency is challenging a "speak-English-only" rule in the defendant's hair salons.
Judge Darrah wrote: "[Supercuts'] Motion . . . seeks to require [EEOC] to submit to the Court and [Supercuts'] counsel certain proposed written communications with members of the Plaintiff class. The Court may not exercise its power to prohibit communications with Plaintiff class 'without a specific record showing by the moving party of the particular abuses by which it is threatened.' Gulf Oil Co. v. Bernard, 452 U.S. 89, 102 (1981), citing Coles v. Marsh, 560 F.2d 186 (3d Cir. 1977). The Defendant fails to meet this burden. Thus, the Defendant's Motion for a Protective Order is denied."
The other ruling was by U.S. Magistrate Judge Geraldine Soat Brown in EEOC v. Fun in Motion, Inc., N.D. Illinois No. 05 C 6889, a sexual harassment case brought by the EEOC against a retail distributor of swimming pools, spas, patio furniture, and other recreational supplies under the name "FIM." In that case also, the employer sought defense counsel and court review of EEOC letters to class members. Judge Soat Brown, having found there were no specific facts supporting the employer's assertion of a need for a protective order, denied FIM's motion.
EEOC Trial Attorney Ann Henry, who, along with Hendrickson and Supervisory Trial Attorney Diane Smason, is litigating the Supercuts and FIM cases, said, "These are the kinds of rulings that may, at first, seem highly technical and not particularly important. But our experience is exactly the reverse. They make a substantive difference and a big one because they enable us to reach workers who really have suffered discrimination and who are, under our statutes, entitled to be made whole."
The Supercuts case was filed in federal district court in Chicago on August 11, 2005. The FIM case was filed in the same Court on December 7, 2005.
The EEOC is responsible for enforcing the nation's laws prohibiting discrimination in employment based on race, color, sex (including sexual harassment and pregnancy), religion, national origin, age, disability, and retaliation. Further information about the Commission is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.
This page was last modified on March 31, 2006.

1 of 2

7/30/2007 10:52 AM

Two Federal Courts: EEOC Can Correspond with Class Members in La...
Return to Home Page

http://www.eeoc.gov/press/3-31-06.html

2 of 2

7/30/2007 10:52 AM