.'

•• Case 2:01-cv-08351-WMB-RNB

Document 8

•Filed 12/12/2001

Page 1 of 5

Barrett S. Litt, State Bar No. 65717 Paul 1. Estuar, State Bar No. 167764
2 LITT & ASSOCIATES, A LAW CORPORATION
3 3435 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1100
Los Angeles, California 90010-1912
4 Telephone: (213) 386-3114 Facsimile: (213) 380-4585

FILED CLERK. U.S. DISTRICT COURT

DEC I 2 2001

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CAlIFOR"",o ; ::::

BY

'\:

DEPUTY

5 Attorneys for Plaintiff/Intervenor

6

FRED R<DBISON
>-

c

..1'1..0-
.::.r
&

",.
:;:~
.,J _,
'-' ':
" ..",,

\

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

l!.'
l'
C' (:

: I

- I. ,_ "..;
.

\

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

::z/Priori Y Send
_Clsd _ Enter
_JS-S! -6
_JS-2/J ·3

11;- U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT ( OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

Case No.: 01-0835\-WMB (RNBx)

12
Plaintiff,
\3
14 And

COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION -CIVIL RIGHTS ACTION

15 FRED ROBISON,

DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

16

Plaintiff/Intervenor

17

vs.

ENTER ON ICMS

18 TEMCOR, INC.,
19
Defendant.
20

DEC 1 3 r' "'1 , .1 fJ1*

21
I. INTRODUCTION
22

23

I. Fred Robison, pIaintifflintervenor, brings this action to enforce his

24 rights as a disabled person under the American with Disabilities Act (hereinafter

25 "ADA") and under the California Fair Housing and Employment Act (hereinafter

26 "FEHN'). Mr. Robison is deaf, and was deaf during the term of his employment

27 with defendant, Temcor, Inc. (hereinafter "TEMCOR"). Despite first-hand

28 knowledge that Mr. Robison had been deaffor a number of years, in 1997

Doc: 58110 Client: 1292

(f)

: '

• Case 2:01-cv-08351-WMB-RNB

Document 8

•Filed 12/12/2001

Page 2 of 5

TEMCOR forced Mr. Robison to undergo invasive surgery for a cochlear implant

2 in order to secure his job with TEMCOR. Infections and other physical

""."J
'.W",~.

:;:::

3 complications caused the implant to fail, and it was subsequently removed throu"g.h
4 medical necessity. Thereafter, TEMCOR refused to provide reasonable

5 accommodation in his work, refused to provide retraining for another position with

6
the company, refused to provide retraining andlor career counseling for another
7
line of work, and tenninated Mr. Robison without regard for other abilities he may
8

have been able to offer.
9

10

II. JURISDICTION

11

2. Robison invokes this court's jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 18(a) of the

12 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 42 U.S.C. §12117(a), and 28 U.S.c. §1367 to

13 hear and adjudicate claims arising out of the transactions that violate rights and
14
duties established by the law of the State of California.
15
3. The unlawful employment practices alleged here were committed
16
17 within the jurisdiction of the Central District of California.

18

III. PARTIES

19

4. Plaintiff, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, ("EEOC") is

20 the agency of the United States of America charged with the administration,
21 interpretation and enforcement ofTitle VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and is
22
expressly authorized to bring this action under the Americans with Disabilities Act
23
24 ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5(f)(I) and (3).

25

5. At all times relevant to this action, intervenor/plaintiff Fred Robison

26 was a disabled employee ofTEMCOR. Robison is a citizen of the United States

27 residing in Los Angeles County, California, and is expressly authorized to
28

Doc: 58110 Clienl: 1292

2

• Case 2:01-cv-08351-WMB-RNB

Document 8

•Filed 12/12/2001

Page 3 of 5

intervene in this action pursuant to FRCP 24(a)(I), 42 U.S.C. §12117(a), and 42

2 U.S.C. §2000e-5(f)( 1).
3

IU
.~
••:-;>::-

6. At all relevant times, TEMCOR has been doing business in the Sta:t¢

4

of California, City of Carson, County of Los Angeles, and has continuously
5

6 employed at least fifteen (15) individuals.

7

7. At all relevant times, defendant TEMCOR has been an employer

8 engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 101 (7)

9 of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §1211(7).

10
8. At all relevant times, TEMCOR has been a covered entity under 42
11
U.S.C. §12111 (2) ofthe ADA.
12

13

I. STATEMENT OF FEHA CLAIM

14

9. More than 180 days prior to the institution of this action, Robison

15 filed a charge with the EEOC alleging discrimination based on his disability. The

16 EEOC issued a Letter of Determination finding that Robison was subjected to

17 unlawful discrimination in violation of the ADA. All conditions and requirements

18 precedent to the institution of this action have been fulfilled.

19

10. Robison is an individual with a "disability" within the meaning of

20
Section 3(2) of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §12102(2). More particularly, Robison is
21
22 clinically deaf, and is regarded by TEMCOR as having such disability.

23

II. TEMCOR terminated Robison because of his disability.

24

12. TEMCOR failed to reasonably accommodate plaintiff intervenor's

25 disability. TEMCOR failed to undertake any good faith efforts to reasonably

26 accommodate Robison.
27
13. TEMCOR's actions constitute a violation of §102(b) of the ADA, 42
28
U.S.C. §12112(b).

Doc: 58110 Client: 1292

3

:-

:..

• Case 2:01-cv-08351-WMB-RNB

Document 8

•Filed 12/12/2001

Page 4 of 5

14. In committing the illegal actions stated in paragraphs 11 and 12,

2 TEMCOR acted with malice and/or reckless indifference to the statutorily
3 protected rights of Robison.
4
15. Defendant's termination of Robison's employment violated FEHA,
5
6 Cal. Gov. Code §12940(a), which prohibits employment discrimination based on

7 an employee's physical disability.

8

16. Defendant's failure to reasonably accommodate Robison and his

9 disability violated FEHA, Cal. Gov. Code §12940(m), which prohibits
10
employment discrimination based on an employee's disability.
11
17. Defendant's actions reflected a conscious disregard for Robison's
12
13 rights. Defendant's discriminatory acts have caused Robison to suffer lost wages

14 and benefits, and deprived him of equal employment opportunities.

15

18. TEMCOR's discriminatory acts have in the past, will in the future,

16 and continue on a daily basis to cause Robison to suffer substantial damages for

17
pecuniary losses, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, and other nonpecuniary

18
losses.
19

20

V. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

21

19. Robison demands a jury by trial on each and every claim to which he

22 is so entitled.

23

VI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

24
Wherefore, Robison respectfully requests that this Court grant:
25
A. Back pay, front pay, with related monetary benefits and interest
26

27

thereon, and other monetary relief according to proof;

28

B. Compensatory damages according to proof;

Doc: 58110 Client: 1292

4

.' .
. .

.
..'

• Case 2:01-cv-08351-WMB-RNB

Document 8

•Filed 12/12/2001

Page 5 of 5

C. Punitive damages in an amount appropriate to punish defendant

2

for its wrongful conduct and set an example for others;

3

,:(

D. Injunctive relief against TEMCOR to reinstate Robison to his

4
job;
5

6

D. Prejudgment interest;

7

E. Reasonable attorney's fees, including litigation expenses, and

8

the costs of this action; and

9

G. Such other and further relief as the court deems proper.

10 DATED: October 19, 2001

Respectfully Submitted,

11

LITT & ASSOCIATES

12

A LAW CORPORATION

13

14

By: <::::: .~,,~S?

15

Barrett S. Litt
Paul 1. Estuar

16

Attorneys for Plaintiff-intervenor FRED ROBISON

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Doc: 58110 Client: 1292

5

 
 • Case 2:01-cv-08351-WMB-RNB

Document 26

•Filed 06/11/2002

Page 1 of 14•

ANNA PARK, State Bar No. 164242

DANA C. JOHNSON, State Bar No. 187341

2 PETERF. LAURA, State BarNo. 116426

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT 3 OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

FILED CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT

255 East Temple Street, 4th Floor

4 Los Angeles, CA 90012

JUN I I 2002

Telephone: (213) 894-1079

5 Facsimile: (213) 894-1301

CENTRAL DIstRICT OF CAUFORNIA

6 Attom~s for Plaintiff

BY
..;;--

DEPUTY

U.S. E UAL EMPLOYMENT

7 OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

8

,
, •

.

I J

)
)

• ,
~..J

-, .....)

9 Additional Counsel set forth on page ii
10

11

..,

FO"NIA

,_

DEI'UTl

12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

_ Priority
--"'" Send -.:;tCISd
~_JnSt-eJlS-f8 _ JS-2/J -3

14 u.s. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT
15 OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

16

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. CV 01-8351 WMB (RNBx)
1 .~-CONSENT DECREE

-\-

• Case 2:01-cv-08351-WMB-RNB

Document 26

•Filed 06/11/2002

Page 2 of 14

BARRETT S. LITT, State Bar No. 65717 PAUL 1. ESTUAR, State Bar No. 167764 2 BRYAN B. MILLER, State Bar No. 178134 LITT & ASSOCIATES, A LAW CORPORAnON 3 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Ste 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90010-1912 4 Telephone: (213) 386-3114 FacsImile: (213) 380-4585 5 Attorneys for PlaintifflIntervenor 6 FRED ROBISON
7 H. LEE HORTON, State Bar No. 57350 RA YMOND E. HANE III, State Bar No. 149960
8 WALLER LANSDEN DORTCH & DAVIS, LLP 520 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 675
9 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 362-3680
10 Facsimile: (213) 362 3679
II JOHN B. GOLPER, State Bar No. 65963 BALLARD, ROSENBERGj, GOLPER & SAVITT, LLP
12 10 Universal City Plaza, 16' Floor Universal City, CA 91608-1097
13 Telephone: (818) 508-3700 Facsimile: (818) 506-4827
14 Attorneys for Defendant
15 TEMCOR, INC.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-11-

• Case 2:01-cv-08351-WMB-RNB

Document 26

•Filed 06/11/2002

Page 3 of 14

1

I.

2

INTRODUCTION

3

Fred Robison, a hearing impaired 62 year old man, filed a charge of discrimination with

4 with Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC" or "Commission") on

5 December 1,1997, against his former employer Defendant Temcor Inc., ("Temcor" or

6 "defendant") alleging that Temcor discriminated against him because of his hearing impairment.

7

The EEOC investigated the charge of discrimination and found that there was reasonable

8 cause to believe that Temcor had violated the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") by

9 discharging Robison because of his hearing impainnent and by failing to engage in the interactive

10 process of reasonable accommodation required under the ADA. The EEOC invited Temcor to

II conciliate the matter. Conciliation, however, was not successful.

12

On September 27,2001, the EEOC filed the instant lawsuit alleging two violations of the

13 ADA, i.e. discriminatory discharge and failure to engage in the interactive process of reasonable

14 accommodation. On December 4, 2001, Plaintiff Intervenor Robison filed a motion to intervene

15 and alleged that Defendant had also discriminated against Robison because of his disability in

16 violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Cal. Gov!. Code § 12940 et seq.,

17 ("FEHA"».

18

n.

19

JURISDICTION

20

The Court has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this lawsuit, pursuant

21 t028U.S.C. Sections 451, 1331, 1337, 1343, 1367 and 42 U.S.C. Section 12117(a). The Court

22 shall retain jurisdiction of this action during the duration of the Decree for the purposes of

23 entering all orders, judgments and decrees which may be necessary to implement the relief

24 provided herein.

25

III.

26

PURPOSES OF THE CONSENT DECREE AND FINDINGS

27

The parties have entered into this Decree for the following purposes:

28

A. To provide appropriate monetary and injunctive relief;

• Case 2:01-cv-08351-WMB-RNB

Document 26

•Filed 06/11/2002

Page 4 of 14

B. To ensure that defendant's employment practices comply with federal law;

2

c. To ensure training for defendant's managers and employees with respect to their

3

obligations under the ADA;

4

D. To provide an appropriate and effective mechanism for handling requests for

5

accommodation in the workplace;

6

E. To avoid the time, risk and expense of protracted litigation; and

7

F. To provide a final and binding settlement upon the parties as to all ADA and

8

FEHA claims alleged in the Complaint filed in this action.

9

Having examined the terms and provisions of this Decree and based on the pleadings,

10 record and stipulation of the parties, the Court finds the following;

11

A. The Court has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this action.

12

The Complaint asserts claims that, if proven, would authorize the Court to grant

13

the relief set forth in this Decree.

14

B. The terms and provisions of this Decree are adequate, fair, reasonable, equitable

15

andjust. The rights of the defendant, the Commission and those for whom the

16

Commission seeks relief are protected adequately by this Decree.

17

C. This Decree conforms with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the ADA

18

and is not in derogation of the rights and privileges of any person. The entry of this

19

Decree will further the objectives of the ADA and will be in the best interests of

20

the parties.

21

IV.

22

RELEASE OF CLAIMS

23

A. This Decree fully and completely resolves all issues, claims and allegations

24 concerning discrimination based upon Fred Robison's disabilities.

25

B. Nothing in this Decree shall be construed to limit or reduce defendant's

26 obligations to fully comply with the ADA.

27

C. The parties shall use their best efforts to defend this Decree from any legal

28 challenge whether by appeal, collateral attack or objection.

2

• Case 2:01-cv-08351-WMB-RNB

Document 26

•Filed 06/11/2002

Page 5 of 14

V.

2

NON-DEROGATION OF EEOC RIGHTS

3

A. This Decree in no way effects the EEOC's rights to proceed against the defendant

4 nor does it in any way effect the EEOC's rights to process charges against the defendant not

5 otherwise covered by this Decree in accordance with standard EEOC procedures and to

6 commence civil action on any such charges.

7

B. Under no circumstances shall the EEOC, by commenting or electing not to

8 comment upon proposed policies or procedures pursuant to Section IX (Injunctive Reliet), be

9 deemed to have waived its right to investigate or litigate any alleged adverse effects of said policy

10 upon equal employment opportunities. Nor shall the EEOC, by commenting or electing not to

11 comment upon said policies or procedures, be considered to have accepted the validity of, or

12 approved, the provisions adopted by defendant.

13

VI.

14

DECREE ENFORCEMENT

15

A. It is expressly agreed that if the Commission has reason to believe that the Decree has

16 been breached, the Commission may bring an action before this Court to enforce the Decree.

17 Prior to initiating such action, the Commission will notify the defendant and its legal counsel of

18 record, in writing, of the nature of the dispute. This notice shall specify the particular

19 provision(s) that the Commission believes has/have been breached, and a concise factual

20 statement of the issues in dispute. A thirty (30) day dispute resolution period will be provided

21 from the date of notice prior to the institution of any legal proceeding, absent a showing by either

22 party that the delay will cause irreparable harm.

23

B. The parties agree to cooperate with each other and use their best efforts to resolve any

24 dispute referenced in the EEOC notice.

25

C. After the expiration of the thirty (30) day dispute resolution period, the Commission

26 may initiate an enforcement action in this Court, seeking all available relief, including an

27 extension of the Decree for such time as the defendant is shown to be out of compliance.

28 II/

3

. .

• Case 2:01-cv-08351-WMB-RNB

Document 26

•Filed 06/11/2002

Page 6 of 14

1

D. The Commission may petition this Court for compliance with this Decree at any time

2 during which this Court maintains jurisdiction over this action. Should the Court determine that

3 the defendant has not complied with this Decree, in whole or in part, it may impose appropriate

4 relief, including but not limited to the imposition of costs on the defendant and extension of the

5 duration of this Decree for such a period as may be necessary to remedy the defendant's non-

6 compliance.

7

VII.

8

MODIFICATION AND SEVERABILITY

9

A. This Decree constitute the complete understanding of the parties with respect to

10 the matters contained within it. No waiver, modification or amendment of any provision of this

II Decree will be effective unless made in writing and signed by an authorized representative of

12 each of the parties.

13

B. If one or more provisions of the Decree are rendered unlawful or unenforceable,

14 the parties shall make good faith efforts to agree upon appropriate amendments to this Decree in

15 order to effectuate the purposes of the Decree. If the parties are unable to reach agreement, the

16 Court shall order appropriate alternative provisions in order to effectuate the purposes of the

17 Decree. Should one or more provisions of this Decree be deemed unlawful, all other lawful and

18 enforceable provisions will remain in full force and effect.

19

VIII.

20

EFFECTIVE DATE AND DURATION OF DECREE

21

A. This Decree shall be deemed effective as of the Date of Final Approval of this Decree

22 by the Court. The Date of Final Approval means the date upon which the Court approves the

23 Decree. This Decree shall remain in effect for three (3) years.

24

IX.

25

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

26

Non-Discrimination

27

The defendant, its officers, agents, employees, successors, assigns and all persons in

28 active concert or participation with it are enjoined for the duration of the Decree from

4

. .

• Case 2:01-cv-08351-WMB-RNB

Document 26

•Filed 06/11/2002

Page 7 of 14

1 discriminating against any individual because of his or her disability or failing to reasonably

2 accomodate an individual with a disability.

3

B. Equal Employment Opportunity Consultant

4

1. Within thirty (30) days of the Effective Date of this Decree and for a period of three

5 (3) years from the Effective Date of this Decree, defendant shall designate its President as its

6 Equal Employment Opportunity Consultant ("EED Consultant") to implement and monitor

7 defendant's compliance with the ADA and with the provisions ofthis Decree.

8

2. The EEO Consultant's responsibilities shall include:

9

a. Assisting defendant in developing an anti-discrimination policy addressing ADA

10

issues, including but not limited to a prohibition against discrimination on the

11

basis of disability, a prohibition against retaliation for engaging in activities

12

protected under the ADA, and a description of the employer's obligation to

13

reasonably accommodate persons covered under the ADA;

14

b. Assisting defendant in developing a complaint procedure whereby disability

15

discrimination complaints are received and processed, which procedure shall

16

require that all complaints be referred to the EEO Consultant for hislher direct

17

attention and resolution;

18

c. Assisting defendant in developing a reasonable accommodation procedure

19

whereby the need for reasonable accommodation is identified, potential reasonable

20

., and appropriate reasonable accommodations are

21

selected, which procedure shall require that all issues of reasonable

22

accommodation be referred to the EED Consultant for hislher direct attention and

23

resolution;

24

d. Assisting defendant in training defendant's managerial and personnel employees

25

on their responsibilities under the ADA; and

26

e. Ensuring that all reports required by this Decree are accurately compiled and

27

timely submitted, and further ensuring compliance with the terms of this Decree.

28 III

5

• Case 2:01-cv-08351-WMB-RNB

Document 26

•Filed 06/11/2002

Page 8 of 14

1

3. The EEOC shall be notified withing sixty (60) days ofthe Effective Date of this

2 Decree of all policies and procedures required under this Section. The EEOC shall have thirty

3 (30) days after notification to comment upon such policies and procedures prior to their

4 implementation.

5

4. Temcor shall bear all costs associated with the performance ofthe EEO Consultant's

6 duties.

7

Traininl:

8

1. The defendant shall submit to the EEOC proposed non-discrimination training pro-

9 grams and identify the person(s) and/or organization(s) conducting the non-discrimination

10 training programs for the instruction of all currently employed human resources and management

11 personnel. Trainings shall be conducted on an annual basis for the duration of the Decree, with

12 the first training taking place within 3 months of the Effective Date of this Decree. The

13 defendant shall notify the EEOC of the dates, times and locations at least ten (10) business days

14 prior to each of the training sessions, and the EEOC shall have the right to attend or participate in

15 any or all such training.

16

2. At a minimum, the non-discrimination training programs shall include the following:

17

a. instruction on the requirements of all applicable equal employment opportunity

18

("EEO") laws including, but not limited to the ADA including accomodation

19

responsibilities;

20

b. a review of defendant's non-discrimination, non-retaliation and reasonable

21

22

c. training of management and human resources personnel in dealing with discrimination

23

complaints and reasonable accommodation requests.

24

D. Reportinl: and Record Keepinli\

25

1 Document Preservation

26

For the duration of the Decree, defendant agrees to maintain such records as are necessary

27 to demonstrate their compliance with this Decree, including but not limited to the documents

28 specifically identified below, and to verify that the reports submitted are accurate.

6

• Case 2:01-cv-08351-WMB-RNB

Document 26

•Filed 06/11/2002

Page 9 of 14

1

2 Reports

2

Initial Reporting: Within one-hundred twenty (120) days of the Effective Date of

3 this Decree, defendant shall provide the EEOC with the following:

4

a. It's anti-disability discrimination, non-retaliation and reasonable

5

accommodation policy;

6

b. Proposed disability discrimination training programs for all human

7

resources and management employees, including the identities of the

8

persons and/or organizations proposed to conduct the trainings; and

9

c. Procedure for tracking complaints of disability discrimination, identifying

10

the need for reasonable accomodation and processes by which potential

11

accommodations are considered; and

12

Subsequent Reports: On a semi-annual basis for term of the Decree, defendant

13 shall provide the EEOC with a report of the foregoing. The closing period for the first report

14 shall be six (6) months after the Effective Date of this Decree. The report shall set forth the

15 following:

16

a. All complaints of disability discrimination tracked by date, the identity of

17

the person who handled the complaint, and resolution ofthe complaint;

18

b. All considerations regarding reasonable accommodation, whether initiated

19

by request of the employee or at the instigation of the employer, tracked by

20

date that the need "

Temcor's attention, the

21

identity of the person(s) who explored potential accommodations, all

22

accommodations suggested by the employee, all accommodations

23

considered by Temcor, reasons any potential accommodation was rejected,

24

" if any, and the dates of each interaction set

25

forth above;

26

c. Training conducted or attended by the defendant on anti-discrimination

27

laws and requirements under the ADA;

28

d. Change in designation of the EEO consultant, if any;

7

. ,

• Case 2:01-cv-08351-WMB-RNB

Document 26

•Filed 06/11/2002

Page 10 of 14

1

X

2

MONETARY RELIEF

3

In settlement of all monetary claims of the Individually Named Intervenor, other than

4 attorneys' fees and costs, defendant shall pay $135,000.00 to Plaintiff Intervenor Fred Robison,

5 14% of which constitutes backpay and 86% of which constitutes compensation for physical

6 injury. The parties agree that the Intervenor suffered physical injury within the meaning of26

7 U.S.c. Section 104(a)(2), in the form of an infection and attendant physical disabilities suffered

8 as a result of the cochlear implant surgery which Robison contends Temcor required him to

9 undergo in order to keep his employment with Temcor. Defendant shall pay to Mr. Robison fifty

10 thousand dollars ($50,000.00) within 15 days of the parties signing this Consent Decree, of which

II seven thousand dollars ($7,000.00) constitutes backpay and forty-three thousand dollars

12 ($43,000.00) constitutes damages for physical injury. Defendant shall pay the balance of eighty-

13 five thousand dollars ($85,000.00) to Mr. Robison in January of2003, of which eleven thousand

14 nine hundred dollars ($ I 1,900.00) constitutes backpay and seventy-three thousand one hundred

15 dollars ($73, I 00.00) constitutes damages for physical injury. FICA and federal and state

16 withholding taxes shall be deducted from the backpay amount only. Temcor shall issue Form

17 1099s to Mr. Robison for those amounts which constitute compensation for physical injury.

18 Defendant shall pay the employer's share of FUTA and FICA on the backpay amount and shall

19 not deduct it from the settlement amount.

20

Within ten (10) days of making each payment to Mr. Robison, a copy of the checks and

21 documentation showing FICA/FUTA deductions shall be submitted to the Regional Attorney,

22 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Los Angeles District Office, 255 East Temple

23 Street, 4th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90012.

24

XI

25

ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS

26

The Plaintiff intervenor is the prevailing party for purposes of an award of attorneys' fees

27 and costs.

28 III

8

,

I

• Case 2:01-cv-08351-WMB-RNB
•

Document 26

•Filed 06/11/2002

Page 11 of 14

1

The parties agree that under Local Rule 54-12, within 30 days of the Court's execution of

2 this Decree, plaintiff intervenor's counsel shall move this Court for an award of attorney's fees

3 and costs. The Court's decision as to the amount of attorney's fees and costs shall be binding

4 upon the parties and shall not be appealable. Defendant, Temcor, shall not raise its financial

5 condition in connection with plaintiff intervenor's counsel's motion for an award of attorney's

6 fees and costs.

7

Defendant shall pay one third (1/3) of the awarded attorney's fees and costs within 15

8 days of the Court's order awarded such fees and costs. Defendant shall pay the balance in

9 January of 2003.

10

The parties agree that fees and costs to compensate the intervenor's counsel belong solely

II to the plaintiff intervenor's counsel, Litt & Associates, as provided by California law, and shall

12 be paid separately and directly to it. A 1099 shall be issued to Lit! & Associates for the amount

13 of the fees, and none shall be issued to the Intervenor directly.

14

Defendant shall bear all costs associated with its administration and implementation of

15 this Decree.

16

XII

17

MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

18

The defendant will provide any potential successor with a copy of this Decree within a

19 reasonable time of not less than thirty (30) days prior to the execution of any document providing

20 for acquisition or assumption of control of the defendant, or any other material change in

21 eorporate structure, and shall simultaneously infonn the Commission of the same.

22

The defendant and its successors shall assure that, during the tenn of this Decree, all of

23 its officers, managers, and supervisors are aware of any of the tenns of this Decree which relate to

24 their job duties.

25 III

26 III

27 III

28 1//

9

• I

• Case 2:01-cv-08351-WMB-RNB
•

Document 26

•Filed 06/11/2002

Page 12 of 14

'.

XIII

2

FACSIMILED SIGNATURE

3

The parties agree that facsimiled signatures to this Decree have the same force and effect

4 as signatures penned in ink.

5

6

ORDER

7

The provisions of the foregoing Consent Decree are hereby approved and compliance with

,: ::::.""'" ili,re:::EBYORDERE_D_'~~~.:...~~~~~~~~~_:--__

11 12 13 14 15 16 Date: June~, 2002 17 18
19 Date: June , 2002
20 21 22 23
24 Date: June _,2002
25 26 27 28

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION ANNA Y.PARK DANA C. JOHNSON
B. A' NNm~~ Attorneys for Plaintiff
TEMCOR, INC.
By: CA Tourville President, TEMCOR, INC.
PLAINTIFFIINTERVENOR
Fred Robison

10

':;en~ By,:

t:'

-

1C,•1tabtsl.je.DD2:01-cv-08351-WM•B-RN:2B133612D32o6173c9u3m8,0e\n4t52865•;

FiledJu06n/.11~/&20101 2:57AMPjage 13 of P1a4ge 2(3
Jun 5 . . . 13:22 P.02 . '

.....,- Milt 11/' I It'l '..wN.II"

I lid ... ,,_,

,1,m,.,i.· ".'",""'.j

..... IIi!

M.. lI,tllIIll Hn

,

2

I N ,. . . .. , . . " .

J

".,..... .1-. 1II.11dM 'it 7 ...... O-'IirIft.._ _. .1dIir:r

...Iit .... I.....

5
•
,

. ....,r" ·D..... 'tIIIpro....orllle......." .I~

IAh ....

,• III .....'8,•• Plllfil'lIIIlY • •- .

.0 ,,_••'
n
II
Q,
Jf:
15
'I .DrIll: __ 21102
,.11·
If .JMt: "~2_
•
aa
21
2J
24 D. JUDI i . •
,2.S

'n'
•

ID

:len~ By: 1..1Cttajse 2:01-cv-08351-WMB-RNB 1 2D13oc3u8m0 e4n5t852;6 Filed 06/11/2002 Page 14 oPf a1g4e ala

- 'I t, .. bl..J)l)

:2133623679 \ , •
•

P.03 . • • •
P.,. 313·

, 21:1 310 '1811 i

;1lI! II(! un i

. *.."... II'.'"

""...·11111

,.... P.hlJlll MU

1
2
3 Dam: JUGe "L 2002
4
!
6
C 1 J)Mt: 1__ 2OU2
, •

10
n

12

13

14: 15; :

" ..

17
··1·: .

""n, .

....,

····.1·.~.::

...
'

: ..

22· .ij
.... ~ ...
..as: :
···.u·.·· ···21···· ,u..

It
I ••

 
 CM/ECF - California Central District - Docket Report

https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?756228976816678-L_9...

(RNBx), CLOSED
U.S. District Court CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (Western Division - Los Angeles)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:01-cv-08351-WMB-RNB

US EEOC v. Temcor Inc Assigned to: Judge Wm. Matthew Byrne Referred to: Discovery Robert N. Block Demand: $0 Case in other court: Cause: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

Date Filed: 09/27/2001 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff
U S Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by Anna Y Park US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Los Angeles District Office 255 E Temple St, 4th Fl Los Angeles, CA 90012 213-894-1000 Email: thomas.profit@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dana C Johnson US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Los Angeles District Office 255 E Temple St, 4th Fl Los Angeles, CA 90012 213-894-1000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Temcor Inc

represented by E Lee Horton Waller Lansden Dortch & Davis 520 S Grand Ave, Ste 800 Los Angeles, CA 90071-1479 213-362-3680 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John B Golper Ballard Rosenberg Golper & Savitt

1 of 6

5/22/2007 12:31 PM

CM/ECF - California Central District - Docket Report

https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?756228976816678-L_9...

Intervenor Fred Robison

10 Universal City Plz, 16th Fl Universal City, CA 91608-1097 818-508-3700 Fax: 818-506-4827 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Raymond E Hane, III Waller Lansden Dortch and Davis 520 South Grand Avenue, Suite 800 Los Angeles, CA 90071-1479 213-362-3680 Email: ray.hane@wallerlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas H Lee Waller Lansden Dortch & Davis Nashville City Center 511 Union St, Ste 2100 Nashville, TN 37219 615-244-6380 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Barrett S Litt Litt Estuar Harrison Miller and Kitson 1055 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1880 Los Angeles, CA 90017 213-386-3114 Fax: 213-380-4585 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul J Estuar Litt Estuar Harrison and Kitson 1055 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1880 Los Angeles, CA 90017 213-386-3114 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 09/27/2001

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT filed Summons(es) issued referred to Discovery Robert N. Block (jag) (Entered: 10/01/2001)

2 of 6

5/22/2007 12:31 PM

CM/ECF - California Central District - Docket Report

https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?756228976816678-L_9...

09/27/2001 10/24/2001 10/29/2001 12/04/2001 12/04/2001 12/12/2001
12/12/2001 01/10/2002 01/11/2002 01/11/2002 02/08/2002 02/12/2002 02/15/2002 02/19/2002
02/21/2002 02/21/2002

2 CERTIFICATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES filed by plaintiff US EEOC (jag) (Entered: 10/01/2001)
3 WAIVER OF SERVICE of SUMMONS by defendant Temcor Inc sent by plf on 10/3/01 signed by dfts atty John B. Golper on 10/23/01 (twdb) (Entered: 10/25/2001)
4 WAIVER OF SERVICE of SUMMONS by defendant Temcor Inc sent by plf on 10/3/01 signed by atty for Temcor Inc John B. Golper on 10/23/01. (twdb) (Entered: 10/31/2001)
5 CERTIFICATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES filed by defendant Temcor Inc (yc) (Entered: 12/06/2001)
6 ANSWER filed by defendant Temcor Inc to complaint [1-1] (yc) (Entered: 12/06/2001)
7 STIPULATION TO FILE complaint as plf/intervenor & order by Judge Wm. M. Byrne It is hereby stipulate & agree that the intervening plf Fred Robison may file a complaint in intervention by Judge Mathew Byrne (SEND) (nhac) (Entered: 12/13/2001)
8 COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION by intervenor Fred Robison; Demand for trial by jury (SEND) (nhac) (Entered: 12/13/2001)
11 JOINT REPORT AND PROP DISCOVERY PLAN filed; est length of trial 10 days (yc) (Entered: 01/16/2002)
9 ORDER by Judge Wm. M. Byrne ; Final Pretrial Conference set for 10:00 6/3/02 ;trial set on 9:00 6/11/02 (yc) (Entered: 01/16/2002)
10 MINUTES: by Judge Wm M Byrne ; telephone conference set on 12:00 2/13/02 CR: NOt Present (yc) (Entered: 01/16/2002)
12 MINUTES: The crt on its own mot rescheds telephone conf call ; telephone conference reset on 2:00 2/12/02 by Judge Wm. M. Byrne CR: n/a (twdb) (Entered: 02/11/2002)
13 MINUTES: The crt of its own mot resched the conf call ; Telephone conference set on 11:30 2/15/02 by Judge Wm. M. Byrne CR: n/a (twdb) (Entered: 02/13/2002)
14 MINUTES: (IN CHAMBERS)by Wm M. Byrne ; telephone conference set on 11:00 2/21/02 CR: Not Present (yc) (Entered: 02/19/2002)
15 APPLICATION AND ORDER of Non-Resident Attorney to Appear in a Specific Case filed for defendant Temcor Inc by Thomas H Lee. Designating E Lee Horton as local counsel. Approved by Judge Wm. M. Byrne . (Fee pd) (twdb) (Entered: 02/20/2002)
17 MINUTES: Crt & cnsl discuss status of the case & sched a further conf call. Telephone conference set on 11:45 3/5/02 by Judge Wm. M. Byrne CR: n/a (twdb) (Entered: 03/04/2002)
19 STIPULATION and ORDER to cont trial & pretrial conf by 90 days by Judge Wm. M. Byrne. Discov is sched to close on 5/1/02, per the ptys joint rpt & discov

3 of 6

5/22/2007 12:31 PM

CM/ECF - California Central District - Docket Report

https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?756228976816678-L_9...

02/25/2002 03/05/2002 03/19/2002 03/25/2002
03/26/2002 05/01/2002 05/06/2002
05/10/2002 06/11/2002

plan, which plan was approved by the crt. The pretrial conf is set for 6/3/02 and the trial is set to begin on 6/11/02. (twdb) (Entered: 03/11/2002)
16 NOTICE AND REQUEST Of Settlement Procedure Selection fld Parties request to apr before Discovery Robert N. Block for sttlmnt procdgs Order by Judge Wm. M. Byrne granting settlement procedure selection request [16-1] (twdb) (Entered: 02/26/2002)
18 MINUTES: In chambers: conf call off record; status of case discussed; fur telephone conference set on 12:00 3/26/02 ; crt will initiate conf call by Judge Wm. M. Byrne CR: none (lc) (Entered: 03/08/2002)
20 ORDER RE Sttlmnt Conf by Discovery Robert N. Block. This case has been referred to Mag Judge Robert N. Block for sttlmnt proceedings. Within 30 days of the date of this ord, the ptys shall confer with each other and advise Mag Judge Block's courtroom deputy clerk, Marsha Eugene Domingue, (213) 894-6512, of the date they are requesting for the sttlmnt conf. (twdb) (Entered: 03/20/2002)
21 MINUTES: In accordance with req of cnsl, the sttlmnt conf herein is calendared for 5/1/02 at 2:00 p.m., in courtroom 540. Cnsl are advised that the crt expects strict compliance with all the terms of its ord re sttlmnt conf, including the requirements that (a) cnsl who will try the case be personally present; (b) good faith sttlmnt offers be exchanged in accordance with 10 of the ord, and (c) the ptys sttlmnt conf stmts and confidential addenda comply with 11 and 12 of the ord by Discovery Robert N. Block CR: n/a (twdb) (Entered: 03/28/2002)
22 MINUTES: Crt & cnsl discuss the status of the case and vac the pretrial & trial dates ; Telephone conference held; Final Pretrial Conference set for 3:30 7/1/02; Trial set on 9:00 7/9/02 by Judge Wm. M. Byrne CR: n/a (twdb) (Entered: 04/09/2002)
23 MINUTES: On 5/1/02, the ptys and their cnsl appeared before the crt for a sttlmnt conf. During the ensuing 2-1/2 hours of sttlmnt discussions, substantial progress was made and agreement in principle was reached on certain terms. The crt ord the ptys to return on 5/6/02 for a further sttlmnt conf ; Settlement conference 2:00 5/6/02 by Judge Robert N. Block Tape: 556 (twdb) (Entered: 05/02/2002)
24 MINUTES: Further sttlmnt conf. On 5/6/02, the ptys and their cnsl appeared before the crt for a further sttlmnt conf. After approximately 2 more hours of sttlmnt discussions, a complete sttlmnt of case was reached & recited on the record. The sttlmnt agreement further contemplates that Judge Byrne will determine the amt of attys fees to be awarded to plf Robison's cnsl. The ptys also agreed to an immediate stay of all further discov pending finalization of the sttlmnt. Settlement conference held by Judge Wm. M. Byrne CR: n/a (twdb) (Entered: 05/09/2002)
25 NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT filed by plaintiff US EEOC (yc) (Entered: 05/16/2002)
26 CONSENT DECREE by Judge Wm. M. Byrne. In sttlmnt of all monetary claims of the individually named intervenor, other than attys fees & costs, dft shall pay $135,000.00 to plf Intervenor Fred Robison, 14% of which constitutes backpay & 86% of which constitutes compensation of physical injury. Dft shall pay to Mr.

4 of 6

5/22/2007 12:31 PM

CM/ECF - California Central District - Docket Report

https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?756228976816678-L_9...

07/09/2002
07/09/2002 07/09/2002
07/09/2002 07/09/2002
07/09/2002
07/09/2002 07/09/2002 07/09/2002
07/22/2002 07/29/2002 07/29/2002
07/29/2002

Robison $50,000 within 15 days of the ptys signing this consent decree, of which $7,000 constitutes backpay & $43,000.00 constitutes damages for physical injury. Dft shall pay the balance $85,000.00 to Mr. Robison in Jan of 2003, of which $11,900.00 constitutes backpay & $73,100.00 constitutes damages for physical injury. The plf intervenor is the prevailing pty for the purpose of an award of attys fees and costs. Dft shall pay 1/3 of the awarded attys fees & costs within 15 days of the crt's ord awarded such fees & costs. Dft shall pay the balance in Jan of 2003. The provisions of the foregoing consent decree are hereby approved and compliance with all provisions thereof is HEREBY ORD. terminating case (MD JS-6) (ENT 6/13/02), mld ntcs. (twdb) Modified on 06/13/2002 (Entered: 06/13/2002)
27 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION by plaintiff US EEOC for order establishing amt of atty's fees & costs ; Motion hearing set for 10:00 8/5/02. Lodged Propsd ord (twdb) (Entered: 07/10/2002)
28 PROOF OF SERVICE on 7/9/02 of ntc of mot, etc (twdb) (Entered: 07/10/2002)
29 DECLARATION of Richard Rothschild by plaintiff US EEOC in suppt of motion for order establishing amt of atty's fees & costs [27-1] (twdb) (Entered: 07/10/2002)
30 DECLARATION of Dana Johnson by plaintiff US EEOC in suppt of motion for order establishing amt of atty's fees & costs [27-1] (twdb) (Entered: 07/10/2002)
31 DECLARATION of Walter Cochran-Bond by plaintiff US EEOC in suppt of motion for order establishing amt of atty's fees & costs [27-1] (twdb) (Entered: 07/10/2002)
32 DECLARATION of Richard M. Pearl by plaintiff US EEOC in suppt of motion for order establishing amt of atty's fees & costs [27-1] (twdb) (Entered: 07/10/2002)
33 DECLARATION of Carol A. Sobel by plaintiff US EEOC in suppt of motion for order establishing amt of atty's fees & costs [27-1] (twdb) (Entered: 07/10/2002)
34 DECLARATION of Barrett S. Litt by plaintiff US EEOC in suppt of motion for order establishing amt of atty's fees & costs [27-1] (twdb) (Entered: 07/10/2002)
35 DECLARATION of Bryan Barnet Miller by plaintiff US EEOC in suppt of motion for order establishing amt of atty's fees & costs [27-1] (twdb) (Entered: 07/10/2002)
36 RESPONSE by defendant Temcor Inc in opp to plf's motion for order establishing amt of atty's fees & costs [27-1] (twdb) (Entered: 07/23/2002)
37 REPLY brief by plaintiff US EEOC to Temcor's opp to motion for order establishing amt of atty's fees & costs [27-1] (twdb) (Entered: 07/30/2002)
38 OBJECTIONS by plaintiff US EEOC, Req to strike & Req for sancs to Temcor's opp to motion for order establishing amt of atty's fees & costs [27-1] (twdb) (Entered: 07/30/2002)
LODGED/PROPOSED ORDER submitted by plaintiff US EEOC for opposition [38-1] .(FWD TO CRD) (twdb) (Entered: 07/30/2002)

5 of 6

5/22/2007 12:31 PM

CM/ECF - California Central District - Docket Report

https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?756228976816678-L_9...

08/05/2002
09/19/2002 09/19/2002 11/21/2002 11/21/2002 03/07/2003 03/07/2003

39 MINUTES: by Judge Wm M Byrne; re motion for order establishing amt of atty's fees & costs [27-1] Crt orders cnsl to further conf out of crt to negotiate agreement as to est of atty fees. If parties do not come to an agreement, Cnsl shall inform the crtroom deputy to Judge Byrne and req an official ruling and order from the crt. CR: Adrian Camelo (yc) (Entered: 08/06/2002)
PLACED IN FILE - NOT USED - prop ord gr pla Robison's mot for award of reasonable atty fees. (sv) (Entered: 09/20/2002)
40 ORDER by Judge Wm. M. Byrne granting motion for order establishing amt of atty's fees & costs [27-1]. (ENT 9/23/02), mld ntcs. (twdb) (Entered: 09/23/2002)
ABSTRACT OF JUDGMENT issued for LITT & Associates against Temcor, Inc in the amount of attorney fees of $ 231,000 and costs of $ 7,725.45 (twdb) (Entered: 11/22/2002)
ABSTRACT OF JUDGMENT issued for Fred Robison against Temcor, Inc in the amount of $ 135,000 principal (twdb) (Entered: 11/22/2002)
41 SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENT re [26-2] as to plaintiff US EEOC (yc) (Entered: 03/10/2003)
42 SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENT re [26-2] as to plaintiff US EEOC (yc) (Entered: 03/10/2003)

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

05/22/2007 10:33:56

PACER Login:

hs0328

Client Code:

eeoc

Description:

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

2:01-cv-08351-WMB-RNB

Billable Pages:

4

Cost:

0.32

6 of 6

5/22/2007 12:31 PM

 
 FY 2002 Office of General Counsel Annual Report

http://www.eeoc.gov/litigation/02annrpt.html

In EEOC v. Temcor, Inc., the Commission contended that a company which makes aluminum geodesic domes discriminated against a deaf employee. When the employee, who worked as a fabricator/helper, attempted to discuss reasonable accommodations to assist him in performing his job, the company failed to follow through and fired him instead. The Commission obtained $135,000 in back pay and damages on his behalf.

1 of 1

5/22/2007 12:44 PM