Case 2:06-cv-05302-ERK-WDW Document 1 Filed 09/28/2006 Page 1 of 6

~ 06 5 3 0 2 UNITED STATES DISTIIICT COURT
_E_A_S_T_E_R_N__D_I_S_T_I_I_IC_T__O_F__N_E_W__Y__O_R_K_______ x.....

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

ECFC1{OE RMAN. CH. J.

Plaintiff,

Civil Action No. 06-cv-

- against-

GRACE EPISCOPAL CHURCH OF WHITESTONE, INC. and THE EPISCOPAL DIOCESE OF LONG ISLAND,
Defendants.
------------------------------------x

COMPLAINT I[Ce' '~ILl,,~:;':;:::
JURYT
U.S. DISTRICT COURT E.D.N.
"* * SEP 28 2006

NATURE OF THE ACTIOllllROOKLYN OFFICE

This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of the Civil

Rights Act of 1991 to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of sex and to provide

appropriate relief to Mildred Spencer and a class of similarly situated female employees affected

by such unlawful practices. As alleged with greater specificity below, the Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission charges that Spencer and other similarly situated female employees

were sexually harassed by Defendants at Grace Episcopal Church during the time period from

approximately July 2001 through approximately February 2004, and that Defendants unlawfully

retaliated against Spencer and terminated her employment when she objected to the sexual

harassment.

JUIIISDICTION AND VENUE

1. 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(£)(1) and (3) of

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

Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.8.C § 1981a.

1

•

Case 2:06-cv-05302-ERK-WDW Document 1 Filed 09/28/2006 Page 2 of 6

2. The alleged unlawful employment practices were committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the Commission), is the agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation mld enforcement of Title VII, and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Section 706(£)(1) and (3) ofTitle VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-5(f)(I) and (3). 4. At all relevant times, Defendant Grace Episcopal Church of Whitestone, Inc. is and has been a domestic religious corporation under the laws ofthe State of New York, has continuously been doing business in the State ofNew York, City ofNew York, County of Queens, located at 151-17 14th Road, Whitestone, Queens, New York, and is a parish of Defendant The Episcopal Diocese of Long Island, and has continuously had at least 15 employees. 5. At all relevant times, Defendant The Episcopal Diocese of Long Island is and has been a voluntary association of churches, including Defendant Grace Episcopal Church of Whitestone, Inc., which abide by the Canons and Constitution of the Episcopal Church, has continuously been doing business in the State of New Yark, in the City of New York in the County of Queens, and in the Counties of Kings, Nassau and Suffolk, with its headquarters located in Garden City, Nassau County, Queens, and has continuously had at least 15 employees. 6. At all relevant times, Defendant Grace Episcopal Church of Whitestone, Inc. has been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701(b), (g) and (h) ofTitle VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(b), (g) and (h).

2

• •

Case 2:06-cv-05302-ERK-WDW Document 1 Filed 09/28/2006 Page 3 of 6

7. At all relevant times, Defendant The Episcopal Diocese of Long Island has been
an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701(b), (g) and (h) ofTitle VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(b), (g) and (h).
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 8. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Mildred Spencer filed a charge with the Commission alleging violations ofTitle VII by Defendants Grace Episcopal Church of Whitestone, Inc. and The Episcopal Diocese of Long Island. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled, 9. During the time period from approximately July 2001 through approximately February 2004, Defendants engaged in unlawful employment practices in violation of Section 703,704 and 706 ofTitle VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2, -3 and -5. These practices have included, but are not limited to, the following:
a. Defendants subjected Mildred Spencer to sexual harassment by her supervisor, Defendants' Rector at Grace Episcopal Church of Whitestone, who grabbed Mildred Spencer, touched her breast and tried to kiss her, and then took a tangible employment action and terminated Mildred Spencer's employment after she rebuffed his sexual harassment;
b. Defendants created and maintained a sexually hostile work environment for Mildred Spencer and subjected her to severe or pervasive sexual harassment by her supervisor, Defendants' Rector at Grace Episcopal Church of Whitestone, including but not limited to making numerous unwelcome, off-color, sexual remarks to Mildred Spencer, telling her that she looked sexy when she changed her hairstyle, commenting on her

3

•

Case 2:06-cv-05302-ERK-WDW Document 1 Filed 09/28/2006 Page 4 of 6

shape, and making other inappropriate sexual remarks to her, and on one occasion, grabbing her, touching her breast and trying to kiss her; c. Defendants created and maintained a sexually hostile work environment for female employees other than Mildred Spencer at Grace Episcopal Church of Whitestone and subjected such female employees to severe or pervasive sexual harassment by their supervisor, Defendants' Rector at Grace Episcopal Church of Whitestone, including but not limited to making numerous unwelcome, dirty, crude and sexual jokes and comments to them or in their presence and inappropriately touching, kissing, or attempting to touch or kiss such female employees; d. Defendants failed to prevent or remedy the hostile work environment. 10. The effect of the practices complained of above has been to deprive Mildred Spencer and other similarly situated female employees of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees because of their sex. 11. The unlawful employment practices complained of above were intentional. 12. The unlawful employment practices complained of above were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Mildred Spencer and other similarly situated female employees.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF Therefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a pem1anent injunction enjoining Defendants, their officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with them, from engaging in employment practices which discriminate on the basis of sex.

4

•

Case 2:06-cv-05302-ERK-WDW Document 1 Filed 09/28/2006 Page 5 of 6

B. Order Defendants to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportlU1ities for women and which eradicate the effects of their past and present unlawful employment practices.
C. Order Defendants to make whole Mildred Spencer by providing appropriate backpay with prejudgment interest, in amounts to be detetmined at trial, and other affinnative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of their unlawful employment practices, including, but not limited to, front pay and reinstatement.
D. Order Defendants to make whole Mildred Spencer and other similarly situated female employees by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described above, in amounts to be determined at trial.
E. Order Defendants to make whole Mildred Spencer and other similarly situated female employees by providing compensation for past and future non-pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices complained of above, including pain, suffering and hmniliation, in amounts to be detennined at trial.
F. Order Defendants to pay Mildred Spencer and other similarly situated female employees punitive damages for Defendants' malicious and reckless conduct described above, in amounts to be detennined at trial.
G. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public interest.
H. Award the Commission its costs of this action. JURY TRIAL DEMAND
The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its complaint.

5

•

Case 2:06-cv-05302-ERK-WDW Document 1 Filed 09/28/2006 Page 6 of 6

Dated: New York, New York September 28, 2006

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Ronald S. Cooper General Counsel
James L. Lee Deputy General Counsel
Gwendolyn Y. Reams Associate General Counsel
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
1801 L Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20507

Elizab th Grossman Regional Attorney

rvisory Trial Attorney
Robert D. Rose (RDR-9174) Senior Trial Attorney
New York District Office 33 Wbitehall Street, 5th Floor New York, N.Y. 10004 (212) 336-3708
robert.rose@eeoc.gov

6

 
 E.E.O.C. v. Grace Episcopal Church of Whitestone, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d...

2007 WL 6831007 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION United States District Court,
E.D. New York.
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v.
GRACE EPISCOPAL CHURCH OF WHITESTONE, INC. and the Episcopal Diocese of
Long Island, Defendants.
No. 06–CV–5302 (ERK)(WDW). | July 3, 2007.
Attorneys and Law Firms
Judy A. Keenan, Raechel Adams, Margaret Ann Malloy, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission New York District Office, New York, NY, for Plaintiff.
James W. Weller, Joseph John Ortego, Nixon Peabody LLP, Jericho, NY, Charlene Lund, Claire & McDonnell, Garden City, NY, James D. Lynch, Lynch & Lynch, Brian M. Hussey, Mineola, NY, for Defendants.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
KORMAN, District Judge.
*1 The plaintiff in this case, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), has filed a complaint under Title 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. § 1981a, against the defendants, Grace Episcopal Church of Whitestone, Inc. (“Grace Church”) and the Episcopal Diocese of Long Island (“Episcopal Diocese” or “Diocese”), on behalf of “Mildred Spencer and a class of similarly situated female employees” who were affected by alleged unlawful employment practices. According to the complaint, Grace Church is registered as a domestic religious corporation under New York law and is located in Whitestone, Queens, New York. Compl. ¶ 4. It is a parish of the Episcopal Diocese and has at least 15

employees. Id. The Episcopal Diocese is a voluntary association of churches, of which Grace Church is a member, and is headquartered in Garden City, Nassau County, New York. Compl. ¶ 5. The Diocese employs at least 15 people. Id. Both defendants are alleged to be ‘employers’ as defined in 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b). Compl. ¶¶ 6–7.
The EEOC alleges that from approximately July 2001, through around February 2004, Mildred Spencer and other female employees were sexually harassed while working at Grace Episcopal Church. Compl. ¶ 9. The EEOC claims that the defendants “created and maintained a sexually hostile work environment for Mildred Spencer and subjected her to severe or pervasive sexual harassment by her supervisor, [the] Rector at Grace Episcopal Church ....” Compl. ¶ 9(b). This harassment included making unwelcome sexual remarks to Spencer, commentating on her physical appearance, and on one occasion, grabbing Spencer, touching her breast and attempting to kiss her. Compl. ¶¶ 9(a)-(b). The EEOC charges that when Spencer rebuffed the Rector, she was fired. Compl. ¶ 9(a).
The EEOC also claims other female employees were subject to a sexually hostile work environment and the Rector made sexual jokes and comments to them and inappropriately touched, kissed, or attempted to touch and kiss them. Compl. ¶ 9(c). The EEOC charges the defendants “failed to prevent or remedy [this] hostile work environment,” Compl. ¶ 9(d), and in fact acted intentionally and maliciously or recklessly by creating and allowing such unlawful employment practices. Compl. ¶¶ 11–12. As a result of the alleged unlawful employment practices, Spencer and the other female employees were deprived of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affected as a result of their sex. Compl. ¶ 10. The EEOC asks for (1) a permanent injunction enjoining the defendants from engaging in employment practices that discriminate on the basis of sex, Compl. ¶ A; (2) an order that requires the defendants to provide equal employment opportunities to women and “eradicate the effects of [ ] past and present unlawful employment practices,” id. at ¶ B; (3) front pay, reinstatement, and the award of back pay with prejudgment interest, for Spencer, id. at ¶ C; (4) compensation for past and pecuniary losses that resulted from the unlawful employment practices, for Spencer and all the female employees, id. at ¶ D; (5) compensation for non-pecuniary losses including pain, suffering and
1

E.E.O.C. v. Grace Episcopal Church of Whitestone, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d...

humiliation, for Spencer and all the female employees, id. at ¶ E; (6) punitive damages, for Spencer and all the female employees, id. at F; and (7) an award of costs to the EEOC, id. at H.
*2 The Episcopal Diocese has moved to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, or, in the alternative, either to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(7) or for the plaintiff to provide a more definitive statement of the case. In response, the EEOC has moved for partial summary judgment on the issue of whether the Diocese and Grace Church constitute a single employer for the purposes of Title VII liability.
DISCUSSION
Title VII prohibits discriminatory employment practices by “employers” as defined in 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b). The Episcopal Diocese argues that the EEOC’s complaint is insufficient because it fails to allege that the Diocese was ever “an employer of the plaintiff” or had ever employed the Rector, and it fails to give fair notice of the claim and the legal grounds upon which it rests. Mem. of Law filed by The Episcopal Diocese of Long Island (“Def.Mem.”) at 2. The Diocese puts forward the same insufficiency argument with regard to the claim for punitive damages. Id. at 4. In response, the EEOC argues that paragraphs 5 and 7 of the complaint adequately allege that the Diocese is the employer of Spencer and the Rector. See EEOC’s Opp’n to Def. Diocese’s Mot. to Dismiss at 4. In fact, neither of these paragraphs include any such allegations. Instead, these paragraphs merely allege that the Diocese is a voluntary association of churches that has at least 15 employees and has been engaged in an industry affecting commerce. See Compl. ¶¶ 5, 7. While the latter allegations may be sufficient to bring the Diocese within the definition of an employer subject to Title VII, the complaint does not allege that the Diocese employed Mildred Spencer or the Rector, nor does it allege any facts from which such a relationship may be inferred.
Rather than amending the complaint to address this problem, the EEOC instead filed a motion for partial summary judgment seeking “a ruling that Defendants constitute an integrated enterprise as a matter of law and therefore, they together employed those working at Grace Church.” EEOC’s Mem. of Law in Supp. of Its Mot. for Partial Summ. J. (“EEOC Summ. J. Mem.”) at 1. The

EEOC argues that the defendants are so interrelated that they should be treated as a single employer for the purposes of Title VII liability. Id. at 3. As a general matter, “the law only treats the employees of a corporate entity as the employees of a related entity under extraordinary circumstances.” Murray v. Miner, 74 F.3d 402, 404 (2d Cir.1996) (citing Frank v. U.S. West, Inc., 3 F.3d 1357, 1362 (10th Cir.1993)). However, separate entities may be “considered a single employer if they are part of a single integrated enterprise.” Lihli Fashions Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 80 F.3d 743, 747 (2d Cir.1996) (citation and quotation marks omitted). Under this single employer doctrine, also referred to as the integrated enterprise doctrine, two ostensibly separate entities are treated as a single integrated enterprise. See Laurin v. Pokoik, No. 02 Civ.1938, 2004 WL 513999, at * 4 (S.D.N.Y. March 15, 2004). Although this doctrine originally arose in the collective bargaining context, see Murray, 74 F.3d at 404 & n. 1, it has since been applied to Title VII cases. See Cook v. Arrowsmith Shelburne, Inc., 69 F.3d 1235, 1240 (2d Cir.1995) (applying the doctrine in a Title VII case to determine whether a corporate parent and subsidiary were an integrated enterprise).
*3 The determination of single employer status is a question of fact. Lihli, 80 F.3d at 747. To determine whether two entities are so interrelated that they constitute an integrated enterprise, courts will consider whether there is any evidence of (1) interrelation of operations, (2) centralized control of labor relations, (3) common management, and (4) common ownership or financial control. Cook, 69 F.3d at 1240. “Although no one factor is determinative and, indeed, all four factors are not required, control of labor relations is the central concern.” Murray, 74 F.3d at 404 (internal citations omitted); see also Cook, 69 F.3d at 1241 (focusing its inquiry on the second factor—centralized control of labor relations); Parker v. Columbia Pictures Indus., 204 F.3d 326, 341 (2d Cir.2000) (“a crucial element of the inquiry focuses on whether the two enterprises exhibit centralized control of labor relations”); Lusk v. Foxmeyer Health Corp., 129 F.3d 773, 777 (5th Cir.1997) (“This analysis ultimately focuses on the question whether the parent corporation was a final decision-maker in connection with the employment matters underlying the litigation.”) (citations omitted).
Briefly considering the four factors set forth above, with particular focus on the second factor—centralized control over labor relations—the EEOC has failed to demonstrate that the defendants constitute an integrated enterprise.
2

E.E.O.C. v. Grace Episcopal Church of Whitestone, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d...

First, the EEOC has not shown an interrelation of operations between the Diocese and Grace Church that would “justify the belief on the part of an aggrieved employee that the affiliated corporation is jointly responsible for the acts of the immediate employer.” Herman v. Blockbuster Entm’t Group, 18 F.Supp.2d 304, 308 (S.D.N.Y.1998) (quoting Armbruster v. Quinn, 711 F.2d 1332, 1337 (6th Cir.1983)). As the EEOC correctly notes, Grace Church is a member of the Diocese, which means that the Diocese has ecclesiastical jurisdiction over Grace Church and the church has agreed to comply with the Diocese’s Canons and share in paying the association’s operational costs. EEOC Summ J. Mem. at 5–6, 8. In addition, the EEOC also notes that Grace Church must prepare reports of its activities and finances for the Diocese, and the Rector for Grace Church works with the Diocese to make sure this is done. Id. at 6. However, these assertions offer little weight to this inquiry, see Woodell v. United Way of Dutchess County, 357 F.Supp.2d 761, 768 (S.D.N.Y.2005) (declining to lend any weight to the fact that the United Way of Duchess County was a member of the United Way of America, paid membership dues, and had to comply with certain membership guidelines.); Webb v. American Red Cross, 652 F.Supp. 917, 920 (D.Neb.1986) (“The requirement that the [American Red Cross] Chapter send reports of activities and finances to the American National Red Cross ... is not sufficient to establish any real interrelationship between the [two] operations ....”), and they certainly do not show the Diocese had “overall control over the operations” of Grace Church, EEOC Summ. J. Mem. at 5. Similarly, the fact that the church’s property was “held in trust for the Church [the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America] and [the] Diocese,” Constitution and Canons at 27, is also not pertinent to the issue of interrelation of operations. See, e.g., Webb, 652 F.Supp. at 920 (“[O]wnership of the building and property by the American National Red Cross does not show that [it] was involved in the ‘actual functioning’ of the [American Red Cross] Chapter.”). More persuasive, rather, is the fact that the defendants did not share office space or other facilities, and maintained separate human resources departments, payroll systems, bank accounts, and accounting records. See Lusk, 129 F.3d at 778 (identifying several factors that suggest the interrelation of operations including (1) sharing employees, human resource departments, payroll and other services, (2) sharing office space and equipment, and (3) commingling of bank accounts and other finances); Herman, 18 F.Supp.2d at 309–10 (noting the two entities did not share common office space, maintained separate bank accounts, payroll accounts, and

accounting records, and prepared their own financial statements and budgets); cf. Regan v. In the Heat of the Nite, Inc., No. 93 Civ. 862, 1995 WL 413249, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. July 12, 1995) (finding significance in the fact that the two entities shared employees and kept all employee records, payroll records and bank deposits together).
*4 The EEOC has also failed to demonstrate that the Diocese had control over the labor relations at Grace Church. To establish centralized control over labor relations, the EEOC does not have to show the Diocese had total control or ultimate authority over Grace Church’s employment decisions. Cook, 69 F.3d at 1241. Rather, control may be established “by a showing that there is an amount of participation that is sufficient and necessary to the total employment process.” Id. (quoting Armbruster, 711 F.2d at 1338. In its argument on this issue, the EEOC relies a great deal on language found in the Canons. Specifically, the EEOC cites Section I, Canon 3 of Title VII, which informs churches seeking to join the Diocese that they must promise to “obey and conform with the doctrine, discipline, and worship of the National Constitution, the National Canons, and these Canons,” Constitution and Canons at 36, and Section II, Canon 4 of Title IX, which mandates that “all employees of [the] Diocese or of parishes, missions, chapels or other Diocesan Units” must attend training on sexual harassment in the workplace. Id. at 62. Although it may be true that the Canons “constitute policies to which all its Parishes are subject,” EEOC Summ. J. Mem. at 8, they are not evidence that the Diocese controlled the labor relations of Grace Church. The Canons are not a set of rules created by the Diocese to dictate or control the employment policies or decisions made by member churches. Rather, they are a set of policies that the members of the voluntary association created to govern themselves in their efforts to maintain and practice “sound doctrine and true religion.” Constitution and Canons at 1. Indeed, although a member’s failure to adhere to all of the Canons could result in its being declared extinct by the other members of the association, see Constitution and Canons at 36–37, a church’s decision to “obey and conform with” these canons is purely voluntary, and generally the failure to obey the Canons only results in the possible forfeiture of the right to vote in the association. See, e.g., id. at 26, 27.
The EEOC also relies on evidence that the Diocese maintained a set of policies and procedures for preventing and responding to allegations of sexual misconduct by ministers. The EEOC argues that these policies, along
3

E.E.O.C. v. Grace Episcopal Church of Whitestone, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d...

with the provision in the Canons dealing with sexual harassment training,1 indicate the Diocese had total control over the area of sexual harassment by ministers and therefore, “the terms of Spencer’s employment were ultimately controlled by the Diocese.” See EEOC Summ. J. Mem. at 8. However, as discussed above, the Canons are not evidence of the Diocese’s control over Grace Church’s labor relations. Moreover, although perhaps relevant to this issue, that the Diocese played a role in developing and maintaining a sexual harassment policy for ministers within the Diocese does not mean the Diocese controlled employment matters at Grace Church, let alone the terms of Spencer’s employment. See Woodell, 357 F.Supp.2d at 769 (noting a parent entity offering “general policy statements or guidelines on employment matters” to a subsidiary or related entity is not sufficient evidence of centralized control); cf. Cook, 69 F.3d at 1241 (citing the fact that applications for employment went to the parent entity and the subsidiary “cleared all major employment decisions with [the parent]” as evidence the parent controlled the labor relations); Parker v. Columbia Pictures Indus., 204 F.3 d 326, 341 (2d Cir.2000) (“A crucial element of the inquiry focuses on whether the two enterprises exhibit centralized control of labor relations including tasks such as handling job applications, approving personnel status reports, and exercising veto power over major employment decisions.”). Indeed, the reason the Diocese formulated the sexual harassment policies was because it wanted “to maintain the integrity of the ministerial relationship.” Polices and Procedures for Preventing and Responding to Allegations of Sexual Harassment or Abuse in the Ministerial Relationship Within the Diocese of Long Island at 1, attached to EEOC Summ. J. Mem. as Ex. 7. Moreover, the underlying purpose of the sexual harassment policies was not to control labor relations, but to “provide the Diocese of Long Island with a way to gather the information necessary to make recommendations that will facilitate a just and compassionate outcome to incidents of sexual harassment or abuse in the ministerial relationship.” Id.

1

Interestingly, the provision in the Canons cited by the

EEOC distinguishes between employees of the Diocese

and employees of member churches. See Constitution

and Canons at 62 (“[A]ll employees of this Diocese or

of parishes, missions, chapels or other Diocesan units

....”) (emphasis added). Also noteworthy is the fact that

it contains nearly identical language to that found in a

generic draft insurance policy covering sexual

misconduct issued by The Church Insurance Company,

an independent organization that is not controlled by

the Diocese. Compare Constitution and Canons at 62 with New Warranty for Sexual Misconduct at 366, attached to EEOC Summ. J. Mem. as Ex. 8.

*5 Perhaps the EEOC’s best argument in support of its claim that the Diocese controlled the Church’s labor relations is that the Diocese controlled many of the terms of Interim Rector Powell’s employment, including issuing him a license to officiate, defining his responsibilities, setting his salary, and processing his life and medical insurance applications. See EEOC Summ. J. Mem. at 9. However, the fact that the Diocese was responsible for issuing Powell a license to officiate does not signify that it had control over the employment process.2 For one thing, being duly licensed to officiate in the Diocese is not the same as being employed by the Diocese. On the contrary, all clergymen intent on practicing in the Diocese were required to have a license to officiate. In this regard, the Diocese’s control over the licencing of clergy is analogous to the National Association of Securities Dealers’ (“NASD”) control over the licensing of securities professionals seeking to work in the securities industry. No one would argue that the NASD has centralized control of the labor relations of the firms in the securities industry. Similarly, that the Diocese issued and renewed Powell’s license does not signify it had control over the labor relations of the member churches.

2

The authority to grant such a license is actually

bestowed upon the Bishop of the Diocese by the

Canons of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the

United States of America a/k/a The Episcopal Church.

Nor for that matter, does the fact that the Diocese directed a third party to conduct a background check on Powell, set the minimum salary to be paid to Rectors in the Diocese, and processed their insurance forms, mean Grace Church did not “make[ ] its own decisions as to the hiring, discipline, and termination of its employees.” Laurin, 2004 WL 513999, at *6. First, the record shows that the Diocese only set the minimum salary for Rectors, and that Grace Church’s Vestry determined the actual amount Powell would be paid (provided it was not lower than the minimum) and determined whether Powell would get a raise. See Draft Letter of Agreement Between the Wardens and Vestry of Grace Church Whitestone, New York and the Reverend John Charles Powell (“Draft Employment Agreement”) at 414, attached to EEOC Summ. J. Mem. as Ex. 22. Second, with regard to the
4

E.E.O.C. v. Grace Episcopal Church of Whitestone, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d...

background check and the processing of insurance forms, “[t]hat an entity does tasks for another does not automatically make the two part of an integrated enterprise.” Laurin, 2004 WL 513999, at *5. Moreover, although the Diocese may have directed a background check be conducted on Powell, the record shows that Grace Church paid for the service. See Check from Grace Church to the Diocese attached to EEOC Summ. J. Mem. as Ex. 18. Third, and perhaps most instructive and relevant to this issue, on the insurance enrollment form that was allegedly processed by the Diocese, Powell listed Grace Church, not the Diocese, as his “employer.” See Church Life Insurance Corporation/The Medical Trust Enrollment Form attached to EEOC Summ. J. Mem. as Ex. 20.
Despite the EEOC’s contention that the Diocese had the final say in the decision to hire Powell and had ultimate authority over him, see EEOC Summ. J. Mem. at 9, it is evident the Diocese’s influence over Grace Church’s employment relations was rather limited. In fact, the record shows that the Wardens and Vestry managed Grace Church and its business affairs. See Draft Employment Agreement at 412 (The Vestry is responsible for “[a]ll ministries other than those reserved to ordained leadership (such as the administration of sacraments) ....”). Indeed, the draft employment agreement between the Reverend John Charles Powell and Grace Church clearly states that the Vestry is the “legal agent for the parish ... in its relationship with the Interim Rector. The Vestry will see that the Interim Rector is properly supported, personally, and organizationally as well as in the Vestry’s financial obligations to the Interim Rector.” Id. at 412–13. The fact of the matter is, although the Diocese’s Bishop had to approve the employment agreement, it is clear the agreement was between Powell and “The Wardens and Vestry” of Grace Church, it was the Vestry that made the decision to hire Powell, and Grace Church was responsible for paying Powell. Id. at 411–12, 414–16.
*6 Moreover, the EEOC has not set forth any facts that show the Diocese’s alleged participation in Powell’s “total employment process” extended to any of Grace Church’s other employees. Cook, 69 F.3d at 1241. Indeed, even assuming the EEOC has shown that the Diocese had the final say in the decision to hire Powell, there is nothing that indicates it had the same control over Spencer. See id. at 1240 (When analyzing evidence of centralized control of labor relations, a court must focus on the parent entity’s actual involvement in the circumstances that gave rise to the litigation, and

determine exactly “[w]hat entity made the final decisions regarding employment matters related to the person claiming discrimination.” quoting Trevino v. Celanese Corp., 701 F.2d 397, 404 (5th Cir.1983)) (emphasis added). The EEOC has not set forth any facts that show Spencer “was directed to perform duties by the Diocese, that she attended training offered by the Diocese, that she participated in the Diocese group health insurance; and that the Diocese controlled aspects of her compensation, hours, and job duties.” Krasner v. Episcopal Diocese of Long Island et al., 431 F.Supp.2d 320, 325 (E.D.N.Y.2006); see also Laurin, 2004 WL 513999, at *6 (citing several factors as indicators of centralized control of labor relations including control over hiring and firing of employees and other major employment decisions, control of the employment application process, and the shifting of employees back and forth between the entities). Moreover, the record shows that Grace Church, not the Diocese, made the decision to terminate Spencer from her position as parish secretary. See Memorandum from Robert Fardella to the Rt. Rev. Orris G. Walker, Jr. (Nov. 6, 2003) attached to EEOC Summ. J. Mem. as Ex. 10; cf. Cook, 69 F.3d at 1241 (noting that the plaintiff was fired at the direction of an employee of the parent company); EEOC v. Everdry Mktg. & Mgmt. Inc., No. 01–CV–6329, 2005 WL 231056, at *5 (W.D.N.Y. Jan. 31, 2005) (citing evidence of the fact that employees of one entity hired and fired employees at the other entity as proof of centralized control of labor relations).
The EEOC has also failed to introduce sufficient evidence that shows the Diocese and Grace Church shared a common management structure. In reviewing this factor, “the existence of interlocking officers and directors is particularly relevant.” Webb, 652 F.Supp. at 920. Here, there is no dispute that Grace Church and the Diocese have separate management committees. However, the EEOC argues that, because the Bishop must approve the decision to hire the Rector, the Diocese manages Grace Church. There are three main problems with this argument. One, there is the lack of evidence indicating this approval is anything but a mere formality. Two, and perhaps most important, the EEOC did not demonstrate that this approval resulted in control of Grace Church management. See Herman, 18 F.Supp.2d at 312 (“The fact that two of Blockbuster’s upper management served similar roles at Discovery Zone does not establish that Blockbuster exercised control over the operations and employment practices at Discovery Zone.”); cf. Lihli, 80 F.3d at 747 (noting that the same individual served as president for both companies, split time between the companies’ offices, and “exercise[d] ultimate business
5

E.E.O.C. v. Grace Episcopal Church of Whitestone, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d...

and artistic control over both entities.”). Three, the EEOC failed to show how this approval meant “the Diocese also managed Spencer and others working at Grace Church.” EEOC Summ. J. Mem. at 10. On the contrary, as discussed above, the record shows that the Wardens and Vestry of Grace Church managed the day-to-day operations and they were responsible for both the hiring of Powell and firing of Spencer.
*7 The fourth and final factor to consider in the integrated enterprise analysis is whether the entities shared common ownership or financial control. However, this factor is accorded less weight than the others, see Laurin, 2004 WL 513999, at * 8, and is not really applicable in this case because neither Grace Church or the Diocese are owned in the traditional sense—Grace Church is a domestic religious corporation and the Diocese is a voluntary association. See, e.g., Woodell, 357 F.Supp.2d at 769 (“The UWA [United Way of America] and its member organizations are nonprofit, charitable organizations and not owned in the traditional commercial sense.”). In any event, this factor does not weigh in the EEOC’s favor considering Grace Church was a voting member of the Diocese and the Diocese depended on Grace Church and other members of the association to pay its budget. See Constitution and Canons at 28.
In light of the foregoing factors, applying the relevant principles of law to the facts of this case, viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, the EEOC has not shown that the Diocese and Grace Church constituted an integrated enterprise and its motion for partial summary judgment is denied. I also grant the motion of the Diocese to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim, because the complaint fails to allege that the Diocese employed either Spencer or the Rector, nor does it allege any facts from which such a relationship may be inferred. However, on the condition that the EEOC is able to back up the allegations based on something more than the evidence that it provided in support of its partial motion for summary judgment, I grant it leave to amend the complaint to cure this deficiency.
If the complaint is so amended, it would otherwise be sufficient to state a claim against the Diocese under Title VII. See Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 8(a)(2) (requiring only that a pleading contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief”); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) ( “Factual allegations [in the complaint] must be enough to raise a right to relief

above the speculative level, on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact).”); see also Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 512, 122 S.Ct. 992, 152 L.Ed.2d 1 (2002) (recognizing the “simplified notice pleading standard” reflected in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) is met if it gives respondent a fair notice of the basis for the plaintiff’s claims); Ricciuti v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth., 941 F.2d 119, 123 (2d Cir.1991) (pleading standards are “designed to permit the defendant to have a fair understanding of what the plaintiff is complaining about and to know whether there is a legal basis for recovery”). The complaint alleges Mildred Spencer was sexually harassed by her supervisor and fired from her j ob when she rebuffed his sexual harassment, in violation of Title VII. See Compl. ¶ 9(a). The complaint also alleges that the defendants created and maintained a sexually hostile work environment for female employees and the defendants’ Rector at Grace Church subjected female employees to sexual harassment. See id. at ¶ 9(c). The complaint provides the time frame when the alleged harassment occurred and details specific incidents of harassment. Moreover, the complaint provides an extensive list of the type of relief it seeks, including requesting both compensatory and punitive damages. See Compl. ¶¶ A–H.
*8 Nevertheless, the Diocese argues that the complaint fails to provide the grounds for which the EEOC may seek punitive damages. Under 42 U.S.C. § 1981a, a complaining party may recover punitive damages “if the complaining party demonstrates that the respondent engaged in a discriminatory practice or discriminatory practices with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of an aggrieved individual.” 42 U.S.C. § 1981a(b)(1). Here, the EEOC alleges that the defendants failed to prevent or remedy the hostile work environment and acted with malice or with reckless indifference. See Compl. ¶¶ 9(d), 12. The EEOC need not prove its allegations at this stage, it merely must provide a short and plain statement of its claims and the relief it seeks, which it has done. Thus, the Commission has provided sufficient notice of the grounds for which it is seeking punitive damages.
The Diocese also argues that the EEOC improperly filed a class action complaint and is required to join plaintiffs under Rule 19. This argument is without merit. See Gen. Tel. Co. of the N.W., Inc. v. EEOC, 446 U.S. 318, 323, 100 S.Ct. 1698, 64 L.Ed.2d 319 (1980) (“We agree with the Court of Appeals that Rule 23 [of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure] is not applicable to an enforcement
6

E.E.O.C. v. Grace Episcopal Church of Whitestone, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d...

action brought by the EEOC in its own name and pursuant to its authority under § 706 to prevent unlawful employment practices.”). The Supreme Court has recognized that Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “was not designed to apply to EEOC actions brought in its own name for the enforcement of federal law.” Id. at 330. The reason for this is Title VII specifically authorizes the EEOC to bring an action against an employer in order to stop unlawful employment practices and to secure appropriate relief. See id. at 324. In fact, Congress amended Title VII in 1972 to expand the EEOC’s enforcement powers and in doing so “sought to implement the public interest as well as to bring about more effective enforcement of private rights.” Id. at 325–26. Therefore, “[w]hen the EEOC acts, albeit at the behest of and for the benefit of specific individuals, it acts also to vindicate the public interest in preventing employment discrimination.” Gen Tel. Co., 446 U.S. at 326. Requiring the EEOC to meet Rule 23 standards before instituting an action on behalf of a class of employees not only would be contrary to Congress’s intent, but it also would “foreclose enforcement actions not satisfying prevailing Rule 23 standards but seemingly authorized by § 706(f)(1).” Id. at 330. Indeed, the EEOC is entitled to use its investigative function to seek proof at the discovery stage of other possible victims of harassment, along with other relevant information. See EEOC v. St. Louis–San Francisco Ry. Co., 743 F.2d 739, 744 (10th Cir.1984). Moreover, although the EEOC is

seeking relief on behalf of a certain group of claimants, this is not a true class action. Rather, the EEOC is asserting a claim of continuing sexual discrimination in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–2(a)(1), as authorized by section 706(f)(1) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–5(f)(1).
CONCLUSION
*9 The EEOC has failed to demonstrate that Grace Church and the Episcopal Diocese constitute an integrated enterprise for Title VII liability purposes, therefore, its motion for partial summary judgment is denied. Because the complaint does not allege that the Diocese was an employer of Mildred Spencer or the Interim Rector of Grace Church, or include any facts from which such a relationship may be inferred, it fails to state a valid cause of action against the Diocese. Consequently, the Episcopal Diocese’s motion to dismiss is granted with leave to the EEOC to amend its complaint to cure this deficiency, subject to the condition stated above.
SO ORDERED.
	  

7

 
 Case 2:06-cv-05302-ERK-WDW Document 22 Filed 07/09/2007 Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------.----------------------------X EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
GRACE EPISCOPAL CHURCH OF WHITESTONE, INC. and THE EPISCOPAL DIOCESE OF LONG ISLAND,
Defendants.
--------------------------------------.----------------------------X

JUDGMENT 06-CV- 5302 (ERK)

FILED
IN CI.rnK'S OFFICE
U.s. DIS'l1RK:T COU'RT. E.D.N.Y.
,*1, JUt. q -, 2007 ~

.BRooKlYN

OFFICE .

- '~-.

~

A Memorandum and Order of Honorable Edward R. Korman, United States District Judge, having been file:d on July 5, 2007, denying the EEOC's partial motion for summary judgment; and granting the Episcopal Diocese's motion to dismiss; it is
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the EEOC's partial motion for summary judgment is denied; and that the Episcopal Diocese's motion to dismiss is granted.

Dated: Brooklyn, New York July 05, 2007

Robert C. Heinemann ~fCo~
By: s/Douglas Palmer
Douglas Palmer Chief Deputy of Automated Services

 
 Case 2:06-cv-05302-ERK-WDW Document 27 Filed 12/18/07 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 502

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------x
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION,

ECFCASE

Plaintiff,

06-CV-05302(ERKIWDW)

-against-

GRACE EPISCOPAL CHURCH OF WHITESTONE, INC. and THE EPISCOPAL DIOCESE OF LONG ISLAND,
Defendants.
------------------------------------x

AMENDED COMPLAINT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

NATURE OF THE ACTION

This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of the Civil

Rights Act of 1991 to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of sex and to provide

appropriate relief to Mildred Spencer and a class of similarly situated female employees affected

by such unlawful practices. As alleged with greater specificity below, the Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission charges that Spencer and other similarly situated female employees

were sexually harassed by Defendants at Grace Episcopal Church during the time period from

approximately July 2001 through approximately February 2004, and that Defendants unlawfully

retaliated against Spencer and terminated her employment when she objected to the sexual

harassment.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

!. 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(1)(1) and (3) of

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

Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of1991, 42 U.S.C. § 198\a.

1

Case 2:06-cv-05302-ERK-WDW Document 27 Filed 12/18/07 Page 2 of 11 PageID #: 503
2. The alleged unlawful employment practices were committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the Commission), is the agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title VII, and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Section 706(1)(1) and (3) ofTitle VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-5(1)(1) and (3). 4. At all relevant times, Defendant Grace Episcopal Church of Whitestone, Inc. (Grace Church) is and has been a domestic religious corporation under the laws ofthe State of New York, has continuously been doing business in the State of New York, City of New York, County of Queens, has been located at 151-17 14'h Road, Whitestone, Queens, New York, is a parish of Defendant The Episcopal Diocese of Long Island, and has continuously had at least 15 employees. 5. At all relevant times, Defendant The Episcopal Diocese of Long Island (Diocese) is and has been a voluntary association of churches, including Defendant Grace Episcopal Church of Whitestone, Inc., which abide by the Canons and Constitution of the Episcopal Church, has continuously been doing business in the State of New York, in the City of New York in the County of Queens, and in the Counties of Kings, Nassau and Suffolk, with its headquarters located in Garden City, Nassau County, and has continuously had at least 15 employees. 6. At all relevant times, Defendant Grace Episcopal Church of Whitestone, Inc. has been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 70l(b), (g) and (h) ofTitle VII, 42 U.S.C.§§ 2000e(b), (g) and (h).
2

Case 2:06-cv-05302-ERK-WDW Document 27 Filed 12/18/07 Page 3 of 11 PageID #: 504
7. At all relevant times, Defendant The Episcopal Diocese of Long Island has been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 70 I (b), (g) and (h) ofTitle VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(b), (g) and (h).
8. At least between July 2001 and February 2004, Grace Church and the Diocese have constituted an integrated enterprise.
9. From approximately June 1998 until August 2003, Defendants employed Mildred Spencer as Parish Secretary of Grace Church.
J0. Throughout her employment as Parish Secretary at Grace Church, the Diocese offered Mildred Spencer various training and seminars, and the Parish Administrators' Network of the Diocese of Long Island invited her to various conferences, seminars and receptions.
11. As a lay employee of the Diocese, Mildred Spencer was eligible for health insurance and pension benefits provided by the Diocese.
12. In the course of her duties as Parish Secretary of Grace Church, Mildred Spencer was required to communicate frequently with the assistant to the Bishop of the Diocese regarding the activities of the Parish.
13. While working at Grace Church, Mildred Spencer attended a mandatory sexual harassment workshop given by the Diocese at the Diocese building in Garden City, Long Island.
14. Claimant Mildred Spencer reported directly to Interim Rector PowelL 15. From approximately July 2001 until February 2004, Defendants employed Reverend John Powell as Interim Rector of Gmce Church. 16. To be hired as Interim Rector of Grace Church, Reverend John Powell had to be presented to and approved by the Bishop of the Diocese.
3

Case 2:06-cv-05302-ERK-WDW Document 27 Filed 12/18/07 Page 4 of 11 PageID #: 505
17. Before Reverend Powell's hire, to comply v.~th diocesan policies, the Diocese directed a third party to conduct a background check on him.
18. Reverend Powell's license to officiate was issued and renewed by the Diocese. 19. When Reverend Powell was hired to work at Grace Church, his Church life insurance and health insurance were sponsored by the Diocese. 20. During his employment with Grace Church, Reverend Powell's salary was set pursuant to a Diocese-mandated schedule, and the maximum reimbursement for Reverend Powell's professional expenses was subject to the maximum set forth by the Diocese. 21. During his employment with Grace Church, Reverend Powell's continuing education was administered in accordance with the Diocese's Canons. 22. Rev. Powell's Position Description provides that he would be responsible for "[working] with the vestry, treasurer, and others to provide and maintain accurate and complete records, including the annual report to the parish, the annual Parochial Report to the diocese, an annual audit and other reports as needed." As Interim Rector of Grace Church, Rev. Powell also agreed to participate in Diocese committees. 23. The Letter of Agreement governing Rev. Powell's employment with Grace Church was required to be approved by the Bishop, as well as reviewed by two Diocese employees. 24. As Interim Rector of Grace Church, Rev. Powell remained "subject to the authority of the Bishop of Long Island and the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church and the Diocese of Long Island." 25. The Canons promulgated by the Diocese constitute policies to which all its Parishes are subject.
4

Case 2:06-cv-05302-ERK-WDW Document 27 Filed 12/18/07 Page 5 of 11 PageID #: 506
26. The Diocese's Canons provide that it is the duty of the Bishop of the Diocese to appoint someone to fill in as Rector if a Parish does not have one.
27. The Diocese's Canons Provide that each Parish must prepare for the Diocese an annual report containing certain particular information: the number of baptisms, confirmations marriages and burials during the year, a summary of all receipts and expenditures, a statement of all property held by the Parish and its value, a surmnary of all Church School activities, and a summary of the racial and ethnic composition of the Parish. The Parishes are subject to a penalty if they fail to comply with this Canon.
28. The Diocese's Canons provide that each Parish must use the Manual of Standard Business Methods in Church Affairs.
29. The Diocese's Canons provide that each Parish must keep a Parish Register, in which it reeords all Baptisms, Confirmations, Marriages, Burials, and the names of all Communicants within the Minister's Cure.
30. The Diocese's Canons provide that the fiscal year for all Parishes shall be set by the Diocese.
31. The Diocese's Canons provide that Parishes must obtain permission of the Bishop of the Diocese to hold, manage, and administer the real property of the Parishes.
32. "Ecclesiastical Authority" is defined in the Canons as, in the absence of a Bishop, a Standing Committee, the duties of which are provided by the Diocese's Canons. The Diocese's Canons provide that the Diocese has ecclesiastic jurisdiction over its Parishes.
33. The Diocese maintains a policy and procedures applicable to all its Parishes governing sex harassment and abuse by ministers.
34. The Diocese requires four hours of training regarding sex harassment and abuse
5

Case 2:06-cv-05302-ERK-WDW Document 27 Filed 12/18/07 Page 6 of 11 PageID #: 507

by ministers for all employees of all Parishes.

35. The Diocese must approve all employees' training regarding sex harassment and

abuse by ministers. 36. Employees must attend training regarding sex harassment and abuse by ministers

at intervals set by the Diocese.

37. Should someone have a complaint of sex harassment or abuse by a minister, the

Dicoese's Policy and Procedures provide that (s)he "shall initially eontact either the

Archdeacons, the Deputy for Pastoral Care, or other Diocesan Ministers specifically designated

by the Bishop."

38. The training regarding sex harassment and abuse by ministers that the Diocese

requires of all Parish employees is offered by Mercer School, a Diocese-affiliated school.

39. The Diocese sets up court for trials of Priests/Deacons of its Parishes.

40. The Diocese appoints an attorney for trials of Priests/Deacons of its Parishes.

41. Should the need arise, the Bishop mediates all disputes between the Vestry of a

Parish and the Rector ofthat Parish.

42. Parish employees are offered health insurance through the Diocese.

43. Should a Parish employee have a question regarding his/her health insurance,

(s)he may contact the Plan Administrator, who is an employee of the Diocese.

44. The Diocese's website provides overviews of the health insurance plans offered to

Parish employees.

45. property.

The Diocese's Constitution provides for the Diocese's management of Church

46. All real and personal property held by or for the benefit of any parish is held in

6

Case 2:06-cv-05302-ERK-WDW Document 27 Filed 12/18/07 Page 7 of 11 PageID #: 508
trust for the Church and the Diocese. 47. Parishes must seek permission ofthe Bishop ofthe Diocese to hold, manage, or
administer real property for the Parish. 48. If a Parish fails to operate in a certain way for a certain period of time, it may be
declared extinct by the Ecclesiastical Authority and the Trustees (Diocese) shall take possession of and administer its property.
49. The Diocese's Canons provide that Parishes must pay a portion ofthe Diocesan budget.
50. Chancellor Fardella of the Diocese investigated Mildred Spencer's sex harassment allegations against Reverend Powell, and he reported the results to the Bishop of the Diocese.
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 51. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Mildred Spencer filed a charge with the Commission alleging violations ofTitle VII by Defendants Grace Episcopal Church of Whitestone, Inc. and The Episcopal Diocese of Long Island. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled. 52. During the time period from approximately July 2001 through approximately February 2004, Defendants engaged in unlawful employment practices in violation of Section 703, 704 and 706 of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2, -3 and -5. These practices have included, but are not limited to, the following:
a. Defendants subjected Mildred Spencer to sexual harassment by her supervisor, Defendants' Rector at Grace Episcopal Church of Whitestone, who grabbed Mildred Spencer, touched her breast and tried to kiss her,
7

Case 2:06-cv-05302-ERK-WDW Document 27 Filed 12/18/07 Page 8 of 11 PageID #: 509
and then took a tangible employment action and terminated Mildred Spencer's employment after she rebuffed his sexual harassment; b. Defendants created and maintained a sexually hostile work environment for Mildred Spencer and subjected her to severe or pervasive sexual harassment by her supervisor, Defendants' Rector at Grace Episcopal Church of Whitestone, including but not limited to making numerous unwelcome, off-color, sexual remarks to Mildred Spencer, telling her that she looked sexy when she changed her hairstyle, commenting on her shape, and making other inappropriate sexual remarks to her, and on one occasion, grabbing her, touching her breast and trying to kiss her; c. Defendants created and maintained a sexually hostile work environment for female employees other than Mildred Spencer at Grace Episcopal Church of Whitestone and subjected such female employees to severe or pervasive sexual harassment by their supervisor, Defendants' Rector at Grace Episcopal Church of Whitestone, including but not limited to making numerous unwelcome, dirty, crude and sexual jokes and comments to them or in their presence and inappropriately touching, kissing, or attempting to touch or kiss such female employees; d. Defendants failed to prevent or remedy the hostile work environment. 53. The effect of the practices complained of above has been to deprive Mildred Spencer and other similarly situated female employees of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees because of their sex. 54. The unlawful employment practices complained of above were intentional.
8

Case 2:06-cv-05302-ERK-WDW Document 27 Filed 12/18/07 Page 9 of 11 PageID #: 510
55. The unlawful employment practices complained of above were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Mildred Spencer and other similarly situated female employees.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF Therefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendants, their officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with them, from engaging in employment practices which discriminate on the basis of sex. B. Order Defendants to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for women and which eradicate the effects of their past and present unlawful employment practices. C. Order Defendants to make whole Mildred Spencer by providing appropriate backpay with prejudgment interest, in amounts to be determined at trial, and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of their unlawful employment practices, including, but not limited to, front pay and reinstatement. D. Order Defendants to make whole Mildred Spencer and other similarly situated female employees by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described above, in amounts to be determined at trial. E. Order Defendants to make whole Mildred Spencer and other similarly situated female employees by providing compensation for past and future non-pecuniary losses resulting from the unlavvful practices complained of above, including pain, suffering and humiliation, in amounts to be determined at trial.
9

Case 2:06-cv-05302-ERK-WDW Document 27 Filed 12/18/07 Page 10 of 11 PageID #: 511 F. Order Defendants to pay Mildred Spencer and other similarly situated female
employees punitive damages for Defendants' malicious and reckless conduct described above, in amounts to be determined at trial.
G. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public interest.
H. Award the Commission its costs ofthis action. JURY TRIAL DEMAND
The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its complaint.
10

Case 2:06-cv-05302-ERK-WDW Document 27 Filed 12/18/07 Page 11 of 11 PageID #: 512

Dated: New York, New York December 18,2007

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Ronald S. Cooper General Counsel
James L. Lee Deputy General Counsel
Gwendolyn Y. Reams Associate General Counsel
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
1801 L Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20507
~b~~
Elizabeth Grossman Regional Attorney
V-ole,{ b \L~£.~ ~ ~~
Robert D. Rose Supervisory Trial Attorney
JiruMOL__
Raechel L. Adams (RA-0460) Senior Trial Attorney
1\ew York District Office 33 Whitehall Street, 5th Floor 1\ew York, N.Y. 10004 (212) 336-3707 Raechel.adams@eeoc.gov

11

 
 Case 2:06-cv-05302-ERK-WDW Document 38 Filed 07/15/08 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 615

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

------------------------------------------------------------------------X

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

:

COMMISSION,

:

:

Plaintiff,

: MEMORANDUM & ORDER

:

- against -

: No. 06-CV-5302 (ERK) (WDW)

:

GRACE EPISCOPAL CHURCH OF

:

WHITESTONE, INC and THE EPISCOPAL DIOCESE :

OF LONG ISLAND,

:

:

Defendants.

:

------------------------------------------------------------------------X

KORMAN, J.:

I assume familiarity with the background of this case. In an order dated July 3, 2007, I

denied the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (“EEOC”) partial motion for summary

judgment and granted the Episcopal Diocese of Long Island’s (“Diocese”) motion to dismiss,

with leave to the EEOC to amend its complaint. The EEOC moved for reconsideration of the

order granting the motion to dismiss. I denied the EEOC’s motion for reconsideration on

December 11, 2007. On December 18, 2007, the EEOC filed an Amended Complaint with forty-

three paragraphs of additional assertions. The Diocese now moves to dismiss the EEOC’s

Amended Complaint on the ground that the EEOC did not sufficiently plead that Diocese

constitutes an employer, as defined by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended 42

U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (“Title VII”).

With all inferences drawn in favor of plaintiff as the non-moving party, the EEOC’s

Amended Complaint meets the flexible plausibility standard set out in Bell Atlantic Corp. v.

Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955 (2007), and clarified in Iqbal v. Hasty, 490 F.3d 143 (2d Cir. 2007),

cert. granted, Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 76 U.S.L.W. 3417 (U.S. June 16, 2008) (No. 07-1015). The

Case 2:06-cv-05302-ERK-WDW Document 38 Filed 07/15/08 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 616
parties should proceed with bifurcated discovery, in which the EEOC should first focus exclusively on determining the precise ties between the Diocese and Grace Church in an effort to determine whether there are genuine issues of material fact regarding whether these two entities can properly be categorized as joint-employers. After discovery is complete with respect to the question of whether the Diocese is a joint-employer, the Diocese is free to move for summary judgment.

Brooklyn, New York July 10, 2008

SO ORDERED.
XwãtÜw eA ^ÉÜÅtÇ
Edward R. Korman Senior United States District Judge

 
 Case 2:06-cv-05302-ERK-WDW Document 211 Filed 05/20/13 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 4873

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------------X EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

06 CV 5302 (ERK)(WDW)

-Against-

Plaintiff,

INTERVENING COMPLAINT WITH JURY DEMAND

GRACE EPISCOPAL CHURCH OF WHITESTONE, INC AND THE EPISCOPAL DIOCESE OF LONG ISLAND,

Defendants.
-----------------------------------------------------X
MILDRED SPENCER,

Plaintiff-Intervener,

-Against-

GRACE EPISCOPAL CHURCH OF WHITESTONE, INC AND THE EPISCOPAL DIOCESE OF LONG ISLAND,

Defendants.
------------------------------------------------------)(

NATURE OF THE ACTION This is an action under Title VII ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964 and New York State Human Rights Law to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of sex and to provide appropriate relief to Mildred Spencer affected by such unlawful practices. As alleged with greater specificity below, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission charges that Spencer and other similarly situated female employees were sexually harassed by Defendants at Grace Episcopal Church during the time period from approximately July 2001 through approximately February 2004, and that Defendants unlawfully retaliated against Spencer and terminated her employment when she objected to the sexual harassment.

Case 2:06-cv-05302-ERK-WDW Document 211 Filed 05/20/13 Page 2 of 10 PageID #: 4874
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Jurisdiction ofthis 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)(l) and (3) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3) and Section 102 ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1991,42 U.S.C. § 1981a.
The alleged unlawful employment practices were committed within thejurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Eastem District ofNew York.
PARTIES
2. Plaintiff-Intervener, Mildred Spencer, was employed by defendants during the relevant time period and seeks monetary, compensatory and punitive damages together with costs and attorneys fees.
3. At all relevant times, Defendant Grace Episcopal Church ofWhitestone, Inc. (Grace Church) is and has been a domestic religious corporation under the laws ofthe State ofNew Yark, has continuously been doing business in the State ofNew York, City ofNew York, County of Queens, has been located at 151-17 14u1 Road, Whitestone, Queens, New York, is a parish ofDefendant The Episcopal Diocese ofLong Island, and has continuously had at least 15 employees.
4. At all relevant times, Defendant The Episcopal Diocese ofLong Island (Diocese) is and has been a voluntary association of churches, including Defendant Grace Episcopal Church of Whitestone, Inc., which abide by the Canons and Constitution of the Episcopal Church, has continuously been doing business in the State ofNew York, in the City ofNew York in the County of Queens, and in the Counties ofKings, Nassau and Suffoll<:, with its headquarters located in Garden City, Nassau County, and has continuously had at least 15 employees.
5. At all relevant times, Defendant Grace Episcopal Church ofWhitestone, Inc. has been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning ofSections

Case 2:06-cv-05302-ERK-WDW Document 211 Filed 05/20/13 Page 3 of 10 PageID #: 4875 701(b), (g) and (h) ofTitle VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(b), (g) and (h) and New York State Human Rights Law.
6. At all relevant times, Defendant The Episcopal Diocese of Long Island has been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701 (b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(b), (g) and (h) and New York State Human Rights Law.

7.

At least between July 2001 and Febmary 2004, Grace Church and the Diocese

have constituted an integrated enterprise.

8. From approximately June 1998 until August 2003, Defendants employed Mildred Spencer as Parish Secretary of Grace Church.

9. Throughout her employment as Parish Secretary at Grace Church, the Diocese offered Mildred Spencer various training and seminars, and the Parish Administrators' Network of the Diocese of Long Island invited her to various conferences, seminars and receptions.

10. As a lay employee ofthe Diocese, Mildred Spencer was eligible for health insurance and pension benefits provided by the Diocese.

11. In the course ofher duties as Parish Secretary of Grace Church, Mildred Spencer was required to communicate frequently with the assistant to the Bishop ofthe Diocese regarding the activities of the Parish.

12. While working at Grace Church, Mildred Spencer attended a mandatory sexual harassment workshop given by the Diocese at the Diocese building in Garden City, Long Island.
13. Claimant Mildred Spencer reported directly to Interim Rector Powell.
14. From approximately July 2001 until February 2004, Defendants employed Reverend Jolm Powell as Interim Rector of Grace Church.

15. To be hired as Interim Rector ofGrace Church, Reverend John Powell had to be

presented to and approved by the Bishop of the Diocese.

Case 2:06-cv-05302-ERK-WDW Document 211 Filed 05/20/13 Page 4 of 10 PageID #: 4876
17. Before Reverend Powell's hire, to comply with diocesan policies, the Diocese directed a third party to conduct a background check on him.
18. Reverend Powell's license to officiate was issued and renewed by the Diocese.
19. When Reverend Powell was hired to work at Grace Church, his Church life insurance and health insurance were sponsored by the Diocese.
20. During his employment with Grace Church, Reverend Powell's salary was set pursuant to a Diocese-mandated schedule, and the maximum reimbursement for Reverend Powell's professional expenses was subject to the maximum set forth by the Diocese.
21. During his employment with Grace Church, Reverend Powell's continuing education was administered in accordance with the Diocese's Canons.
22. Rev. Powell's Position Description provides that he would be responsible for "[working] with the vestry, treasurer, and others to provide and maintain accurate and complete records, including the annual report to the parish, the annual Parochial Report to the diocese, an ammal audit and other reports as needed." As Interim Rector of Grace Church, Rev. Powell also agreed to participate in Diocese committees.
23. The Letter of Agreement governing Rev. Powell's employment with Grace Church was required to be approved by the Bishop, as well as reviewed by two Diocese employees.
24. As Interim Rector of Grace Church, Rev. Powell remained "subject to the authority of the Bishop of Long Island and the Constitution and Canons ofthe Episcopal Church and the Diocese of Long Island."
25. The Canons promulgated by the Diocese constitute policies to which all its Parishes are subject.

Case 2:06-cv-05302-ERK-WDW Document 211 Filed 05/20/13 Page 5 of 10 PageID #: 4877
26. The Diocese's Canons provide that it is the duty ofthe Bishop ofthe Diocese to appoint someone to fill in as Rector if a Parish does not have one.
27. The Diocese's Canons Provide that each Parish must prepare for the Diocese an a.Imual report containing certain particular information: the number ofbaptisms, confirmations marriages and burials during the year, a summary of all receipts and expenditures, a statement of all property held by the Parish and its value, a summary of all Church School activities, and a summary of the racial and etlmic composition of the Parish. The Parishes are subject to a penalty if they fail to comply with this Canon.
28. The Diocese's Canons provide that each Parish must use the Manual ofStandard Business Methods in Church Mfairs.
29. The Diocese's Canons provide that each Parish must keep a Parish Register, in which it records all Baptisms, Confirmations, Maniages, Burials, and the names of all Communicants within the Minister's Cure.
30. The Diocese's Canons provide that the fiscal year for all Parishes shall be set by the
Diocese. 31. The Diocese's Canons provide that Parishes must obtain permission of the Bishop of the
Diocese to hold, manage, and administer the real property of the Parishes. 32. "Ecclesiastical Authority" is defined in the Canons as, in the absence of a Bishop, a
Standing Committee, the duties of which are provided by the Diocese's Canons. The Diocese's Canons provide that the Diocese has ecclesiastic jurisdiction over its Parishes.
33. The Diocese maintains a policy and procedures applicable to all its Parishes governing sex harassment and abuse by ministers.
34. The Diocese requires four hours of training regarding sex harassment and abuse

Case 2:06-cv-05302-ERK-WDW Document 211 Filed 05/20/13 Page 6 of 10 PageID #: 4878
by ministers for all employees of all Parishes. 35. The Diocese must approve all employees' training regarding sex harassment
and abuse by ministers. 36. Employees must attend training regarding sex harassment and abuse by
ministers at intervals set by the Diocese.
37. Should someone have a complaint of sex harassment or abuse by a minister, the Dicoese's Policy and Procedures provide that (s)he "shall initially contact either the Archdeacons, the Deputy for Pastoral Care, or other Diocesan Ministers specifically designated by the Bishop."
38. The training regarding sex harassment and abuse by ministers that the Diocese requires of all Parish employees is offered by Mercer School, a Diocese-affiliated school.
39, The Diocese sets up court for trials of Priests/Deacons of its Parishes. 40. The Diocese appoints an attorney for trials of Priests/Deacons of its Parishes. 41. Should the need arise, the Bishop mediates all disputes between the Vestry of a Parish and the Rector of that Parish. 42. Parish employees are offered health insurance through the Diocese. 43. Should a Parish employee have a question regarding his/her health insurance, (s)he may contact the Plan Administrator, who is an employee of the Diocese. 44. The Diocese's website provides overviews of the health insurance plans offered to Parish employees. 45. The Diocese's Constitution provides for the Diocese's management of Church property. 46. All real and personal property held by or for the benefit of any parish is held in

Case 2:06-cv-05302-ERK-WDW Document 211 Filed 05/20/13 Page 7 of 10 PageID #: 4879
trust for the Church and the Diocese. 47. Parishes must seek permission of the Bishop of the Diocese to hold, manage, or
administer real property for the Parish. 48. If a Parish fails to operate in a certain way for a certain period of time, it may be
declared extinct by the Ecclesiastical Authority and the Trustees (Diocese) shall take possession of and administer its property.
49. The Diocese's Canons provide that Parishes must pay a portion of the Diocesan budget.
50. Chancellor Fardella of the Diocese investigated Mildred Spencer's sex harassment allegations against Reverend Powell, and he reported the results to the Bishop of the Diocese.
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 51. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Mildred Spencer filed
a dual charge with the EEOC Commission alleging violations of Title VII by Defendants Grace Episcopal Church of Whitestone, Inc. and The Episcopal Diocese of Long Island and with the New York State Division ofHuman Rights alleging violations ofNew York State Human rights Law. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled. On September 28, 2006 the EEOC commenced the instant action.
52. During the time period from approximately July 2001 through approximately February 2004, Defendants engaged in unlawful employment practices in violation of Section 703, 704 and 706 ofTitle VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2, -3 and -5 and violations ofNew York State Human Rights Law §296 et seq. These practices have included, but are not limited to, the following:
a Defendants subjected Mildred Spencer to sexual harassment by her supervisor, Defendants' Rector at Grace Episcopal Church of Whitestone, who grabbed Mildred Spencer, touched her breast and tried to kiss her,

Case 2:06-cv-05302-ERK-WDW Document 211 Filed 05/20/13 Page 8 of 10 PageID #: 4880 and then took a tangible employment action and terminated Mildred Spencer's employment after she rebuffed his sexual harassment;
b. Defendants created and maintained a sexually hostile work environment for Mildred Spencer and subjected her to severe or pervasive sexual harassment by her supervisor, Defendants' Rector at Grace Episcopal Church of Whitestone, including but not limited to making numerous unwelcome, off-color, sexual remarks to Mildred Spencer, telling her that she looked sexy when she changed her hairstyle, commenting on her shape, and making other inappropriate sexual remarks to her, and on one occasion, grabbing her, touching her breast and trying to kiss her;
c. Defendants created and maintained a sexually hostile work environment for Mildred Spencer and her fellow female employees at Grace Episcopal Church ofWhitestone and subjected them to severe or pervasive sexual harassment by their supervisor, Defendants' Rector at Grace Episcopal Church of Whitestone, including but not limited to making numerous unwelcome, dirty, crude and sexual jokes and comments to them or in their presence and inappropriately touching, kissing, or attempting to touch or kiss such female employees;
d. Defendants failed to prevent or remedy the hostile work environment. 53. The effect of the practices complained of above has been to deprive Mildred
Spencer of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect her status as an employee because of her sex.
54. The unlawful employment practices complained of above were intentional.

Case 2:06-cv-05302-ERK-WDW Document 211 Filed 05/20/13 Page 9 of 10 PageID #: 4881 55. The unlawful employment practices complained of above were done with malice
or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Mildred Spencer.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF Therefore, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court: A. Order Defendants to make whole Mildred Spencer by providing appropriate backpay with prejudgment interest, in amounts to be determined at trial, and other affinnative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of their unlawful employment practices, including, but not limited to, front monetary, compensatory and punitive damages, together with costs and attorneys fees.

B. Order Defendants to make whole Mildred Spencer by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described above, in amounts to be determined at trial.

C. Order Defendants to make whole Mildred Spencer by providing compensation for past and future non-pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices complained of above, including pain, suffering and humiliation, in amounts to be determined at trial.
F. Order Defendants to pay Mildred Spencer punitive damages for Defendants' malicious and reckless conduct described above, in amounts to be determined at trial.

G. interest.

Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public

H. Award the reasonable costs and attorneys fees.

Case 2:06-cv-05302-ERK-WDW Document 211 Filed 05/20/13 Page 10 of 10 PageID #: 4882 JURY TRIAL DEMAND
Plaintiff requests a jury trial on all questions of fact.

Dated: Lake Success, New York September 13, 2011

Yours etc, Cronin & Byczek, LLP
. rorun (L 0766) "ttomeys for Plaintiff 1983 Marcus Ave, Suite C-120 Lake Success, New York 11042 (516) 358-1700

 
 Case 2:06-cv-05302-ERK-WDW Document 213 Filed 05/21/13 Page 1 of 20 PageID #: 4884

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------------------------------------x EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

ECF CASE

and MILDRED SPENCER,

Plaintiff,

No. 06-CV-S302 (ERKlWDW)

Plaintiff-Intervenor,

-against-

GRACE EPISCOPAL CHURCH OF WHITESTONE, INC. and THE EPISCOPAL DIOCESE OF LONG ISLAND,

Defendants.

x

CONSENT DECREE

1. Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") and Defendants

Grace Episcopal Church of Whitestone, Inc. ("Grace Church") and the Episcopal Diocese of

Long Island (the "Diocese") have agreed to resolve this action by the terms of this Consent

Decree ("Decree") as set forth below.

2. EEOC filed this action on September 28, 2006 against Grace Church and the

Diocese under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and Title I of the Civil

Rights Act of 1991 to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of sex. EEOC's

complaint alleges that Defendants sexually harassed female employees and unlawfully retaliated

against an employee by firing her when she objected to the sexual harassment. Defendants deny

these allegations and nothing in this Decree is to be construed as an admission by Defendants to

any of EEOC's allegations, including EEOC's allegations that Defendants constitute an

integrated enterprise or that the Diocese was the employer of the claimants.

I

Case 2:06-cv-05302-ERK-WDW Document 213 Filed 05/21/13 Page 2 of 20 PageID #: 4885
GENERAL PROVISIONS 3. The parties, defined as EEOC, Grace Church, and the Diocese, desire to fully and completely settle this action, and therefore stipulate and consent to the entry of this Decree as final and binding. 4. This Decree resolves all allegations against Grace Church and the Diocese raised in EEOC Charge Number 160-2004-00657, which served as the jurisdictional prerequisite in this case, and all allegations against Grace Church and the Diocese raised in the Complaint filed by EEOC. This Decree does not resolve any charge of discrimination currently pending before EEOC, or any charge that may be filed in the future, other than the charge listed above. 5. The terms of this Decree represent the full and complete agreement of the parties. The parties agree that this Decree may be entered into without Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law being made and entered by the Court. 6. Nothing in this Decree may be construed to limit or reduce Defendants' obligations to comply with the statutes enforced by EEOC: Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq.; Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.c. § 12101, et seq.; the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621, et seq.; and the Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. § 206(d). 7. The parties agree that this Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this litigation and the parties for the duration of this Decree, venue is proper, and all administrative prerequisites have been met. Defendants will not contest the validity of this Decree or the jurisdiction of the federal district court to enforce this Decree and its terms.
2

Case 2:06-cv-05302-ERK-WDW Document 213 Filed 05/21/13 Page 3 of 20 PageID #: 4886
8. The Court will retain jurisdiction over this action for all purposes including, but
not limited to, the entering of all orders, judgments, and decrees as necessary to implement the
relief provided herein.
9. The effective date of the Decree will be the date it is signed by and receives final
approval from the Court ("date of entry"). The Decree will not expire while any enforcement
action is pending.
10. Except as otherwise provided for in this Decree, all notifications, reports and
communications to the parties required under this Decree must be made in writing and will be
sufficient as hand-delivered, faxed, or sent by certified, registered or overnight mail to the
following persons (or their designated successors):
For EEOC: Konrad Batog Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 33 Whitehall Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10004 Tel: (212) 336-3700 Fax: (212) 336-3623 konrad.batog@eeoc.gov decreemonitor.nydo@eeoc.gov
For Grace Church: James Weller Nixon Peabody LLP 50 Jericho Quadrangle, Suite 300 Jericho, NY 11753-2728 Tel: (516) 832-7543 Fax: (866) 947-2089 jweller@nixonpeabody.com
For the Diocese: James D. Lynch Lynch & Lynch 250 Old Country Road, Suite 102 Mineola, NY 11501 Tel: (516) 873-0100 Fax: (516) 873-0108
3

Case 2:06-cv-05302-ERK-WDW Document 213 Filed 05/21/13 Page 4 of 20 PageID #: 4887
jlynch@nylynchlaw.com Any party may change such address by written notice to the other parties that sets forth a new address for this purpose. The parties may, under a separate agreement memorialized in writing, send each other such notifications, reports and communications by email.
11. Defendants deny that they engaged in sexual harassment or retaliation. SYSTEMIC RELIEF
Prohibition of Discrimination and Requirement to Comply with Title VII 12. Grace Church and the Diocese, their clergy, officers, and agents will not sexually
harass or retaliate against any individual because that individual is a beneficiary of this Decree, has filed a complaint, or has provided information, assistance, or participated in any other manner in the investigation or litigation of this matter, and will not retaliate against any individual because that individual has engaged in protected activity under Title VII. Posting and Distribution of Notices
Posting of Notice of Resolution 13. Within ten days of the date of entry of this Decree, Grace Church will conspicuously post and maintain a "Notice of Resolution" regarding this lawsuit (attached as Exhibit A) in prominent places where employee notices are posted. Grace Church will notifY EEOC that it has complied with this provision within ten days after posting the Notice of Resolution. The Notice of Resolution will remain posted during the term of the Decree.
4

Case 2:06-cv-05302-ERK-WDW Document 213 Filed 05/21/13 Page 5 of 20 PageID #: 4888
Posting of EEO Posters 14. Within ten days of the date of entry of this Decree, Grace Church and the Diocese will post and maintain EEO posters in prominent places where employee notices are posted as required by federal regulations. Nondiscrimination Policy and Complaint Procedures Issuance of Policies and Procedures 15. Grace Church will provide each of its employees, clergy, vestry members, or volunteers with a copy of Grace Church's Nondiscrimination Policies and Procedures (Exhibit B) along with a memo stating that the Defendant is committed to complying with Title VII within ten days of the date of entry of this Decree. Grace Church will include its updated Policies and Procedures in any Employee Handbook. Grace Church will provide all new employees, clergy, vestry members, and volunteers with copies of the Policies and Procedures within five days of the commencement of their employment or service. 16. The Diocese will provide each of its employees, clergy, and volunteers with a copy of the Diocese's Nondiscrimination Policies and Procedures (Exhibit C) along with a memo stating that the Diocese is committed to complying with Title VII within 30 days of the date of entry of this Decree. Within ten days of the date of entry of this Decree, the Diocese will also provide each church and parish within the Diocese with a copy of the Nondiscrimination Policies and Procedures (Exhibit C) and a memo stating that the Diocese is committed to complying with Title VII. The memo also will instruct the churches and parishes to provide the Nondiscrimination Policies and Procedures to all of their officers, employees, clergy, vestry members, and volunteers. The Diocese will include its updated Policies and Procedures in any
5

Case 2:06-cv-05302-ERK-WDW Document 213 Filed 05/21/13 Page 6 of 20 PageID #: 4889
Employee Handbook and will make the Policies and Procedures available in a prominent location on its website.
17. The Diocese will make all efforts to have the Diocesan Council adopt the Nondiscrimination Policies and Procedures (Exhibit C) within 30 days of approval of the Decree. If adoption has not been achieved within 60 days of the approval of the Decree, the Diocese will notify EEOC in writing and the parties will confer regarding how to resolve the issue. If the parties cannot resolve the issue, the parties will inform the Court and the Court will set a date and time for the parties to appear before the Court to attempt to resolve the issue. Training
Initial Training 18. Grace Church will provide training for all of its (a) nonsupervisory lay employees, including, but not limited to, parish administrators, treasurers, sextons, housekeepers, nursery school employees, (b) supervisory and management lay employees, (c) vestry members, and (d) rectors, assistant rectors, or other clergy. The training must be no fewer than three hours in duration and cover the rights and responsibilities of employees under federal antidiscrimination laws and how such laws define unlawful discrimination with a focus on sexual harassment and sex discrimination. The training will include examples of unlawful conduct. The training also will cover antidiscrimination policies and procedures with particular emphasis on the internal complaint, investigation and remediation process and an employee's right to file with EEOC and state or local agencies. The training will be conducted by the Mercer School of Theology. 19. The Diocese will provide training for all employees within the Diocese, including supervisory and non-supervisory employees. The training must be no fewer than three hours in
6

Case 2:06-cv-05302-ERK-WDW Document 213 Filed 05/21/13 Page 7 of 20 PageID #: 4890
duration and cover the rights and responsibilities of employees under federal antidiscrimination laws and how such laws define unlawful discrimination with a focus on sexual harassment and sex discrimination. The training will include examples of unlawful conduct. The training also will cover antidiscrimination policies and procedures with particular emphasis on the internal complaint, investigation and remediation process and an employee's right to file with EEOC and state or local agencies. The training will be conducted by the Mercer School of Theology.
Scheduling and Confirmation of Initial Training 20. Within thirty days of the date of entry of this Decree, Grace Church and the Diocese will complete all initial training programs, if not previously trained. All nonsupervisory lay employees, vestry, clergy, and supervisory or management employees are required to attend the appropriate initial training session. Within ten days of any training session, Grace Church and the Diocese will provide EEOC with written confirmation that the training was conducted and will maintain an attendance sheet that includes the date and the names of those in attendance. Continuing and New Employee Training 21. On an annual basis, Grace Church and the Diocese will provide at least three hours of training covering the topics described above for all new employees, vestry, and clergy. The training will be conducted by the Mercer School of Theology. Continuing employees will be provided with training every three years. 22. At least thirty days before any training session, Grace Church and the Diocese will provide EEOC notice of the date, time and location of the scheduled training. EEOC, with the consent of the Bishop of the Diocese, may attend and observe one or more of the training sessions.
7

Case 2:06-cv-05302-ERK-WDW Document 213 Filed 05/21/13 Page 8 of 20 PageID #: 4891
Reporting Requirements for Discrimination Complaints 23. On an annual basis beginning one year after the date of entry of this Decree, each
Defendant will provide a written report to the Legal Unit of the EEOC, New York District Office, with information regarding any verbal or written complaints of sexual harassment that were received from or regarding employees during the preceding year except for those complaints protected by the confessional privilege. The report must include the name of the complainant, the name of the alleged harasser, a list of each step taken during the investigation, a summary of the complaint, the location of the aJleged harassment, the results of any investigation ofthe complaint, and whether any remedial action was taken. Compliance with Record-keeping Requirements
24. Defendants agree to maintain such records as are necessary to demonstrate its compliance with this Decree and 29 C.F.R. § 1602.
MONETARY AND OTHER RELIEF Monetary Payment to Claimants
25. Within thirty days of entry of this Decree, Grace Church will pay the total gross sum of one hundred ninety two thousand five hundred doJlars ($192,500) to Charging Party Mildred Spencer and claimant Robin Mooney on the terms provided for below.
26. Defendant Grace Church will pay Mildred Spencer the total sum of one hundred eighty thousand dollars ($180,000) as nonpecuniary compensatory damages within thirty days of entry of this Decree. Grace Church will send the check to Linda Cronin, Ms. Spencer's attorney, via certified mail, made payable to Cronin and Byczek, LLP as attorneys for Mildred Spencer to be deposited in the firm's lOLA account, via certified mail, return receipt requested, and will forward a copy of the check to EEOC immediately upon issuance of the check.
8

Case 2:06-cv-05302-ERK-WDW Document 213 Filed 05/21/13 Page 9 of 20 PageID #: 4892 27. Defendant Grace Church will pay Robin Mooney the total sum of twelve
thousand five hundred dollars ($12,500) as nonpecuniary compensatory damages within thirty days of entry of this Decree. Grace Church will send the check via certified mail, return receipt requested, to Ms. Mooney and will forward a copy of the check to EEOC immediately upon issuance of the check.
DURATION OF DECREE 28. The Decree will remain in effect for three years from the date of entry. The Decree will not expire while any enforcement action is pending. 29. Upon the entry of this Decree, the matter will be immediately closed, but the Court will retain jurisdiction to enforce this Decree. 30. In any action to enforce the terms of this Decree, the Court will have full authority to order any remedy the Court deems appropriate.
SIGNATURES 31. Each signatory to this Decree represents that each is fully authorized to execute
9

Case 2:06-cv-05302-ERK-WDW Document 213 Filed 05/21/13 Page 10 of 20 PageID #: 4893

this Decree and to bind the parties on whose behalf each signs.

APPROVED IN FORM AND CONTENT: By Plaintiff EEOC:
By Plaintiff-Intervenor Mildred Spencer:

~ ~~ ~

Regional Attorney EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION New York District Office 33 Whitehall Street, 5th Floor New York, New York, 10004

/7

.

P<
.-,-V'Z/ (/

j/
(:.1

///V / /£.,~

Linda Cronin

/'Cronin & Byczek, LLP

1983 Marcus Avenue, Suite CI20

Lake

ew York 11042

By Defendant Grace Episcopal Church of Whitestone, Inc.

By Defendant the Episcopal Diocese of Long Island

eller Ni Peabody LLP
Jericho Quadrangle, Suite 300 Jericho, NY 11753-2728 Tel: (516) 832-7543 Fax: (866) 947-2089 jweller!iV,nixonpeabody.com
~ri3IlH4USSe2Y .~/
Lynch & Lynch 250 Old Country Road, Suite 102 Mineola, NY 11501 Tel: (516) 873-0100 Fax: (516) 873-0108 jlynch@nylynchlaw.com

/s/ Judge Edward R. Korman
-~-~------~-----------------------
United States District Judge

10

Case 2:06-cv-05302-ERK-WDW Document 213 Filed 05/21/13 Page 11 of 20 PageID #: 4894

EXHIBIT A

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

New York District Office

33 Whitehall Street, 5th Floor

New York, NY 10004·2112

For Generallnfonnation: (800) 669·4000

TTY: (800) 669,6820

NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF GRACE CHURCH

This Notice has been posted pursuant to a Consent Decree entered in resolution of a lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") against Grace Church and the Episcopal Diocese of Long Island in federal court in the Eastern District of New York. In its lawsuit, EEOC alleged that Grace Church and the Diocese, through their interim rector, sexually harassed female employees, and unlawfully retaliated against one of the employees when she objected to the sexual harassment. Grace Church and the Diocese denied these allegations.

Federal law prohibits discrimination or harassment based on an employee's sex, race, color, national origin, religion, age, or disability status. Federal law also prohibits retaliation against any employee who files a charge of discrimination, who opposes unlawful activity, or who cooperates in the investigation of a charge or otherwise exercises her or his rights under the law.

Under the terms of the Consent Decree, Grace Church and the Diocese agree that:

1. They will not engage in any sex discrimination, sexual harassment, or retaliation against any person who exercises his or her rights under federal anti-discrimination laws;

2. They will provide training on federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination to all current and future employees;

3. They will maintain and distribute written policies and procedures prohibiting discrimination and enabling employees to file discrimination complaints;

4. They will permit EEOC to monitor Grace Church's and the Diocese's compliance with the Consent Decree;

5. They will provide periodic reports to EEOC regarding any harassment or discrimination complaints made by employees; and

Should you have a complaint of discrimination or harassment you may contact:

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 33 Whitehall Street

11

Case 2:06-cv-05302-ERK-WDW Document 213 Filed 05/21/13 Page 12 of 20 PageID #: 4895 New York, NY 10004 Phone: 800-699-4000 TTY: 800-669-6820 Website: http://www.eeoc.gov
Dated:_ _ _ _ __ THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND MUST NOT BE ALTERED OR DEFACED BY ANYONE OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER MATERIAL
This Notice must remain posted for three years from the date shown above and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Any questions concerning this Notice or compliance with its provisions may be directed to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission at the number listed above.
12

Case 2:06-cv-05302-ERK-WDW Document 213 Filed 05/21/13 Page 13 of 20 PageID #: 4896
EXHIBITB
Policy on Sexual Harassment
Grace Episcopal Church of Whitestone, Inc. ("Grace Church") prohibits sexual harassment of any applicants or employees by anyone (including clergy, supervisors or decision-makers, co-workers, consultants, vendors, and other non-employees). Such sexual harassment is prohibited. The behavior of individuals engaging in such conduct or supervisors or decision-makers who knowingly allow such behavior to continue, will not be tolerated.
All clergy, vendors, contractors, volunteers, interns, vestry members, and employees, whether supervisory or no-supervisory, are prohibited from engaging in the conduct prohibited by this policy.
A. PROHIBITED BEHAVIOR
As noted above, Grace Church prohibits all forms of sexual harassment. Specific definitions and examples of sexual harassment are set forth below.
1. Sexual Harassment
Sexual harassment is prohibited by this policy. Sexual harassment includes unwelcome sexual advances and requests for sexual favors. Other unwelcome conduct which may constitute sexual harassment includes, but is not limited to, the following:
a. Verbal:
• repeated sexual innuendos, sexual epithets, derogatory slurs, off-color jokes (for example, jokes that include sexual language, innuendo, references, scenarios, etc.);
• propositions, threats, or suggestive or insulting sounds (for example, comments about body, sexuality, etc., including insults and innuendo) even if the comment is about someone else;
• inappropriate e-mail (for example, e-mail that includes sexual jokes or other references of a sexual nature about any person, gossip or speculation about a person's sexuality, sexual practices, sexual health, pregnancy, virility, etc.). This includes e-mail that was sent accidentally, for example by hitting the "forward" button instead of "reply," or forgetting that a particular individual or worker is on one of your group lists.
b. Visual/Non-Verbal:
• derogatory posters, cartoons or drawings (for example, cartoons and
13

Case 2:06-cv-05302-ERK-WDW Document 213 Filed 05/21/13 Page 14 of 20 PageID #: 4897
calendars that include nudity, sex acts, provocative poses, innuendo, sexual language, etc.);
• suggestive objects or pictures (for example, photographs that include nudity, sex acts, provocative poses; wallpaper, screensavers, or other electronic displays of a sexual nature);
• graphic commentaries; leering; or obscene gestures (for example, vulgar gestures, gestures simulating sexual acts, "shooting the finger," kissing the air toward someone or licking the lips in a sexually suggestive or provocative manner).
c. Physical:
Unwanted physical contacts (including touching, interference with an individual's normal work movement, unwelcome displays of romantic or sexual affection; aggressive physical contact or assault); and
d. Other:
Making or threatening reprisals to an individual who opposes, objects to or complains about sexual harassment; possession of inappropriate material of a sexual nature in Grace Church or its display, duplication, or transmission.
The verbal and physical conduct specified in sUb-sections a-d above may constitute harassment when:
i. Submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual's employment or other Grace Church work;
ii. Submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as a basis for employment or other Grace Church work decisions affecting such individual; or
iii. Such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive working environment.
2. Retaliation
Grace Church will not take any action in retaliation against anyone who brings or voices a complaint pursuant to this policy or who participates in an investigation of a complaint or otherwise opposes sexual harassment. In addition, Grace Chuch will not tolerate any retaliatory acts by other individuals.
Retaliation is a serious violation of Grace Church policy and violation of the law. If you
14

Case 2:06-cv-05302-ERK-WDW Document 213 Filed 05/21/13 Page 15 of 20 PageID #: 4898
believe you have been subjected to retaliation in .violation of this policy, you should report your complaint immediately in the manner specified in Section B below. Individuals will be subject to discipline, up to and including termination if they are found to have retaliated against an individual.
B. PROCEDURE FOR REPORTING SUSPECTED SEXUAL HARASSMENT ANDIOR RETALIATION
If you believe that the actions or words of a supervisor/manager, clergy member, vestry member, co-worker, consultant, vendor, volunteer, or any other individual in Grace Church constitute prohibited sexual harassment, you should promptly report that behavior. Prompt behavior enables Grace Church to stop the sexual harassment before it becomes severe or pervasive.
If you believe that you have been the victim of any form of sexual harassment or retaliation by clergy, you should promptly give notice of your concern to one or more of the following:
a. Your supervisor;
b. A warden of the congregation
c. The bishop; and/or
d. The Canon to the Ordinary.
If you believe that you have been the victim of any form of sexual harassment or retaliation by non-clergy, you should promptly give notice of your concern to one or more of the following:
a. Your supervisor;
b. The rector or clergy person in charge of the congregation; and/or
c. A warden of the congregation.
You are not required to complain to your supervisor or within your chain of command.
You may formally or informally complain to any of the above personnel via any of the following:
a. A telephone call
b. A letter
c. An e-mail
15

Case 2:06-cv-05302-ERK-WDW Document 213 Filed 05/21/13 Page 16 of 20 PageID #: 4899
d. An in-person meeting In addition to the procedures set forth above, you also have the option of consulting with an attorney and/or you may also be able to file a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and/or any state or local agency(ies) responsible for processing employment discrimination matters, as well as pursuing any other remedies permitted by law. All supervisors and decision-makers are expected to act promptly and appropriately to prevent sexual harassment and retaliation against those who complain of sexual harassment or those who participate in an investigation of a complaint or otherwise oppose sexual harassment. All complaints of sexual harassment will be reviewed and investigated promptly and impartially. Complaints may be made orally or in writing. If it is determined that a factfinding investigation is necessary, it will be promptly initiated. If necessary, intermediate measures may be taken before completing the investigation to ensure that further sexual harassment does not occur. Moreover, the confidentiality of the allegations will be protected to the extent possible; however, no individual can be promised or guaranteed strict or absolute confidentiality. For example, information may have to be disclosed to those individuals with a need to know in order to carry out the purpose and intent of this Policy. Corrective remedial or disciplinary action will be taken against any individual found to have engaged in sexual harassment. Such action may include counseling and/or appropriate disciplinary measures, up to and including immediate termination from employment or removal from volunteer position, as applicable. The complaining party will be given notice, in a timely fashion, of the outcome of the investigation of any formal or informal complaint.
16

Case 2:06-cv-05302-ERK-WDW Document 213 Filed 05/21/13 Page 17 of 20 PageID #: 4900
EXHlBITC
Policy on Sexual Harassment
The Diocese of Long Island (the "Diocese") prohibits sexual harassment of any applicants or employees by anyone (including clergy, supervisors or decision-makers, co-workers, consultants, vendors, and other non-employees). Such sexual harassment is prohibited. The behavior of individuals engaging in such conduct or supervisors or decision-makers who knowingly allow such behavior to continue, will not be tolerated.
All clergy, vendors, contractors, volunteers, interns, vestry members, and employees, whether supervisory or no-supervisory, are prohibited from engaging in the conduct prohibited by this policy.
A. PROHIBITED BEHAVIOR
As noted above, the Diocese prohibits all forms of sexual harassment in the Diocese. Specific definitions and examples of sexual harassment are set forth below.
1. Sexual Harassment
Sexual harassment is prohibited by this policy. Sexual harassment includes unwelcome sexual advances and requests for sexual favors. Other unwelcome conduct which may constitute sexual harassment includes, but is not limited to, the following:
a. Verbal:
• repeated sexual innuendos, sexual epithets, derogatory slurs, off-color jokes (for example, jokes that include sexual language, innuendo, references, scenarios, etc.);
• propositions, threats, or suggestive or insulting sounds (for example, comments about body, sexuality, etc., including insults and innuendo) even if the comment is about someone else;
• inappropriate e-mail (for example, e-mail that includes sexual jokes or other references of a sexual nature about any person, gossip or speculation about a person's sexuality, sexual practices, sexual health, pregnancy, virility, etc.). This includes e-mail that was sent accidentally, for example by hitting the "forward" button instead of "reply," or forgetting that a particular individual or worker is on one of your group lists.
b. Visual/Non-Verbal:
• derogatory posters, cartoons or drawings (for example, cartoons and calendars that include nudity, sex acts, provocative poses, innuendo, sexual
17

Case 2:06-cv-05302-ERK-WDW Document 213 Filed 05/21/13 Page 18 of 20 PageID #: 4901
language, etc.);
• suggestive objects or pictures (for example, photographs that include nudity, sex acts, provocative poses; wallpaper, screensavers, or other electronic displays of a sexual nature);
• graphic commentaries; leering; or obscene gestures (for example, vulgar gestures, gestures simulating sexual acts, "shooting the finger," kissing the air toward someone or licking the lips in a sexually suggestive or provocative manner).
c. Physical:
Unwanted physical contacts (including touching, interference with an individual's normal work movement, unwelcome displays of romantic or sexual affection; aggressive physical contact or assault); and
d. Other:
Making or threatening reprisals to an individual who opposes, objects to or complains about sexual harassment; possession of inappropriate material of a sexual nature in the Diocese or its display, duplication, or transmission.
The verbal and physical conduct specified in sub-sections a-d above may constitute harassment when:
i. Submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual's employment or other Diocesan work;
ii. Submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as a basis for employment or other Diocesan work decisions affecting such individual; or
iii. Such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive working environment.
2. Retaliation
The Diocese will not take any action in retaliation against anyone who brings or voices a complaint pursuant to this policy or who participates in an investigation of a complaint or otherwise opposes sexual harassment. In addition, the Diocese will not tolerate any retaliatory acts by other individuals.
Retaliation is a serious violation of Diocesan policy and violation of the law. If you believe you have been subjected to retaliation in violation of this policy, you should report your complaint immediately in the manner specified in Section B below.
18

Case 2:06-cv-05302-ERK-WDW Document 213 Filed 05/21/13 Page 19 of 20 PageID #: 4902
Individuals will be subject to discipline, up to and including termination if they are found to have retaliated against an individual. B. PROCEDURE FOR REPORTING SUSPECTED SEXUAL HARASSMENT
ANDIOR RETALIATION
If you believe that the actions or words of a supervisor/manager, clergy member, vestry member, co-worker, consultant, vendor, volunteer, or any other individual in the Diocese constitute prohibited sexual harassment, you should promptly report that behavior. Prompt behavior enables the Diocese to stop the sexual harassment before it becomes severe or pervasive.
If you believe that you have been the victim of any form of sexual harassment or retaliation by clergy, you should promptly give notice of your concern to one or more of the following:
a. Your supervisor;
b. A warden of the congregation
c. The bishop; and/or
d. The Canon to the Ordinary. If you believe that you have been the victim of any form of sexual harassment or retaliation by non-clergy, you should promptly give notice of your concern to one or more of the following:
a. Your supervisor;
b. The rector or clergy person in charge of the congregation; and/or
c. A warden of the congregation. You are not required to complain to your supervisor or within your chain of command.
You may formally or informally complain to any of the above personnel via any of the following:
a. A telephone call b. A letter
c. An e-mail d. An in-person meeting
19

Case 2:06-cv-05302-ERK-WDW Document 213 Filed 05/21/13 Page 20 of 20 PageID #: 4903
In addition to the procedures set forth above, you also have the option of consulting with an attorney and/or you may also be able to file a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and/or any state or local agency(ies) responsible for processing employment discrimination matters, as well as pursuing any other remedies permitted by law. All supervisors and decision-makers are expected to act promptly and appropriately to prevent sexual harassment and retaliation against those who complain of sexual harassment or those who participate in an investigation of a complaint or otherwise oppose sexual harassment. All complaints of sexual harassment will be reviewed and investigated promptly and impartially. Complaints may be made orally or in writing. If it is determined that a factfinding investigation is necessary, it will be promptly initiated. If necessary, intermediate measures may be taken before completing the investigation to ensure that further sexual harassment does not occur. Moreover, the confidentiality of the allegations will be protected to the extent possible; however, no individual can be promised or guaranteed strict or absolute confidentiality. For example, information may have to be disclosed to those individuals with a need to know in order to carry out the purpose and intent of this Policy. Corrective remedial or disciplinary action will be taken against any individual found to have engaged in sexual harassment. Such action may include counseling and/or appropriate disciplinary measures, up to and including immediate termination from employment or removal from volunteer position, as applicable. The complaining party will be given notice, in a timely fashion, of the outcome of the investigation of any formal or informal complaint.
20

 
 Case: 2:06-cv-5302 As of: 06/05/2017 05:15 PM EDT 1 of 23
CLOSED,MAGAPP,MEDIATION
U.S. District Court Eastern District of New York (Central Islip) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:06−cv−05302−ERK−WDW

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Grace Episcopal Date Filed: 09/28/2006

Church of Whitestone, Inc. et al

Date Terminated: 05/21/2013

Assigned to: Judge Edward R. Korman

Jury Demand: Defendant

Referred to: Magistrate Judge William D. Wall

Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs

Cause: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Mediator

Ruth D. Raisfeld

represented by Ruth Debra Raisfeld Attorney at Law 47 Sector Road Scardale, NY 10583 914−722−6006 Fax: 914−722−0678 Email: rdradr@optonline.net ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by Elizabeth Anne Grossman Equal Employment Opportunity Commission New York District Office 33 Whitehall Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10004 212−336−3696 Fax: 212−336−3623 Email: elizabeth.grossman@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Judy A. Keenan U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission New York District Office 33 Whitehall Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10004−2112 212−336−3705 Fax: 212−336−3623 Email: judy.keenan@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Konrad Batog United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 33 Whitehall Street 5th Floor New York, NY 10004 (212)336−3700 Fax: (212)336−3623 Email: konrad.batog@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Raechel Adams US EEOC 33 Whitehall Street 5th Floor New York, NY 10004

Case: 2:06-cv-5302 As of: 06/05/2017 05:15 PM EDT 2 of 23

212−336−3707 Fax: 212−336−3623 Email: raechel.adams@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Margaret Ann Malloy U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 33 Whitehall Street 5th Floor New York, NY 10004−2112 212−336−3690 Fax: 212−336−3623 Email: margaret.malloy@eeoc.gov TERMINATED: 08/29/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Mildred Spencer

represented by Linda Cronin Cronin & Byczek LLP 1983 Marcus Avenue Suite C−120 New Hyde Park, NY 11042 516−358−1700 Fax: 516−358−1730 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
Grace Episcopal Church of Whitestone, Inc.

represented by Bonnie S. Peters Law Office of Bonnie S. Peters 33 Walt Whitman Road Suite 201 Huntington Station, NY 11746 631−425−7299 Fax: 631−425−7288 Email: bspesq@juno.com TERMINATED: 01/20/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James W. Weller Nixon Peabody LLP 50 Jericho Quadrangle, Suite 300 Jericho, NY 11753−2728 516−832−7500 Fax: 516−832−7555 Email: jweller@nixonpeabody.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph John Ortego Nixon Peabody 50 Jericho Quadrangle Suite 300 Jericho, NY 11753 (516)832−7500 Fax: (866)947−2079 Email: jortego@nixonpeabody.com LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:06-cv-5302 As of: 06/05/2017 05:15 PM EDT 3 of 23

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas M Mealiffe Nixon Peabody LLP 50 Jericho Quandrangle Suite 300 Jericho, NY 11753 516−832−7500 Fax: 516−832−7555 Email: tmealiffe@nixonpeabody.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Episcopal Diocese of Long Island

represented by Charlene Lund Claire & McDonnell 1325 Franklin Avenue Garden City, NY 11530−1668 516−873−0100 Fax: 516−873−0108 Email: lynchjayd@aol.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James D. Lynch Lynch & Lynch 250 Old Country Road Mineola, NY 11501 516−873−0100 Fax: 516−873−0108 Email: lynchjayd@aol.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Brian M. Hussey Gorton & Gorton, LLP 1539 Franklin Avenue Garden City, NY 11501 516−742−8466 Fax: 516−248−8907 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cross Claimant
Grace Episcopal Church of Whitestone, Inc.

represented by Bonnie S. Peters (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/20/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James W. Weller (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas M Mealiffe (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Cross Defendant
Episcopal Diocese of Long Island TERMINATED: 08/07/2008

represented by James D. Lynch (See above for address)

Case: 2:06-cv-5302 As of: 06/05/2017 05:15 PM EDT 4 of 23
LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brian M. Hussey (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 09/28/2006 09/28/2006 10/05/2006 10/05/2006 12/07/2006 01/18/2007 01/18/2007 01/19/2007 01/29/2007 01/30/2007 02/05/2007 02/09/2007 02/20/2007
02/20/2007 02/27/2007 02/27/2007

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against Grace Episcopal Church of Whitestone, Inc., Episcopal Diocese of Long Island, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Bowens, Priscilla) (Entered: 10/03/2006)
Summons Issued as to Grace Episcopal Church of Whitestone, Inc., Episcopal Diocese of Long Island. (Bowens, Priscilla) (Entered: 10/03/2006)
2 REQUEST FOR WAIVER of Service sent to Def. Grace Episcopal Church on 09/28/2006 by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Waiver of Service due by 10/30/2006. (Keenan, Judy) (Entered: 10/05/2006)
3 REQUEST FOR WAIVER of Service sent to Def. The Episcopal Diocese of Long Island on 09/28/2006 by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Waiver of Service due by 10/30/2006. (Keenan, Judy) (Entered: 10/05/2006)
4 NOTICE of Appearance by James D. Lynch on behalf of Episcopal Diocese of Long Island (Lynch, James) (Entered: 12/07/2006)
5 NOTICE of Appearance by Raechel Adams on behalf of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Adams, Raechel) (Entered: 01/18/2007)
6 MOTION to Dismiss by Episcopal Diocese of Long Island.Responses due by 2/9/2007 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (Lynch, James) (Entered: 01/18/2007)
7 NOTICE of Appearance by Bonnie S. Peters on behalf of Grace Episcopal Church of Whitestone, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 certificate of service) (Peters, Bonnie) (Entered: 01/19/2007)
8 Letter dated 1/23/07 from Raechel Adams to PaulaMarie Susi, advising that the EEOC intends to file opposition papers to dft Dioce's Motion to Dismiss by 2/9/07. (Piper, Francine) (Entered: 01/29/2007)
9 Letter MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 6 MOTION to Dismiss by Episcopal Diocese of Long Island. (Hussey, Brian) (Entered: 01/30/2007)
10 MEMORANDUM in Support re 6 MOTION to Dismiss MEMORANDUM OF LAW by Episcopal Diocese of Long Island. (Hussey, Brian) (Entered: 02/05/2007)
11 ANSWER to Complaint by Grace Episcopal Church of Whitestone, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service) (Peters, Bonnie) (Entered: 02/09/2007)
12 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.Responses due by 3/6/2007 (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Law# 2 Statement of Undisputed Facts# 3 Affidavit # 4 Exhibit # 5 Exhibit # 6 Exhibit # 7 Exhibit # 8 Exhibit # 9 Exhibit # 10 Exhibit # 11 Exhibit # 12 Exhibit # 13 Exhibit # 14 Exhibit # 15 Exhibit # 16 Exhibit # 17 Exhibit # 18 Exhibit # 19 Exhibit # 20 Exhibit # 21 Exhibit # 22 Exhibit # 23 Exhibit # 24 Exhibit # 25 Exhibit # 26 Exhibit # 27 Exhibit # 28 Exhibit # 29 # 30 Exhibit) (Adams, Raechel) (Entered: 02/20/2007)
13 RESPONSE in Opposition re 6 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit # 2 Exhibit # 3 Exhibit # 4 Exhibit # 5 Exhibit) (Adams, Raechel) (Entered: 02/20/2007)
Email Notification Test − DO NOT REPLY (Mahon, Cinthia) (Entered: 02/27/2007)
14 Letter MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 6 MOTION to Dismiss by Episcopal Diocese of Long Island. (Lynch, James) (Entered: 02/27/2007)

Case: 2:06-cv-5302 As of: 06/05/2017 05:15 PM EDT 5 of 23

02/27/2007 03/05/2007 03/06/2007 03/26/2007 04/03/2007 04/25/2007 07/05/2007
07/09/2007 07/23/2007
08/06/2007
08/13/2007
12/11/2007 12/18/2007 12/31/2007 01/02/2008

15 Letter MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 6 MOTION to Dismiss Complaint by Episcopal Diocese of Long Island. (Lynch, James) (Entered: 02/27/2007)
16 Letter MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 12 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Episcopal Diocese of Long Island. (Lynch, James) (Entered: 03/05/2007)
17 REPLY to Response to Motion re 6 MOTION to Dismiss Reply Memorandum of Law filed by Episcopal Diocese of Long Island. (Lynch, James) (Entered: 03/06/2007)
18 RESPONSE in Opposition re 12 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Episcopal Diocese of Long Island. (Attachments: # 1 MEMORANDUM OF LAW# 2 Exhibit # 3 Exhibit # 4 Exhibit) (Lynch, James) (Entered: 03/26/2007)
19 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 12 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Adams, Raechel) (Entered: 04/03/2007)
20 REPLY to Response to Motion re 12 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Adams, Raechel) (Entered: 04/25/2007)
21 ORDER The EEOC has failed to demonstrate that Grace Church and the Episcopal Diocese constitute an integrated enterprise for Title VII liability purposes, therefore, its motion for partial summary judgment is denied. Because the complaint does not allege that the Diocese was an employer of Mildred Spencer or the Interim Rector of Grace Church, or include any facts from which such a relationship may be inferred, it fails to state a valid cause of action against the Diocese. Consequently, the Episcopal Dioceses motion to dismiss is granted with leave to the EEOC to amend its complaint to cure this deficiency, subject to the condition stated above.. Ordered by JudgeEdward R. Korman on July 3, 2007. (Susi, PaulaMarie) (Entered: 07/05/2007)
22 JUDGMENT that the EEOC's partial motion for summary judgment is denied; and that the Episcopal Diocese's motion to dismiss is granted. Ordered by Judge Clerk of Court on 7/5/07. (Greene, Donna) (Entered: 07/09/2007)
23 MOTION for Reconsideration re 21 Order on Motion to Dismiss,,, Order on Motion for Partial Summary Judgment,, by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Memorandum of Law# 2 Exhibit Exhibit A# 3 Affidavit Exhibit B# 4 Exhibit Exhibit 1# 5 Exhibit Exhibit 2# 6 Exhibit Exhibit 3# 7 Exhibit Exhibit 4) (Adams, Raechel) (Entered: 07/23/2007)
24 AFFIDAVIT in Opposition re 23 MOTION for Reconsideration re 21 Order on Motion to Dismiss,,, Order on Motion for Partial Summary Judgment,, MOTION for Reconsideration re 21 Order on Motion to Dismiss,,, Order on Motion for Partial Summary Judgment,, Declaration in Opposition filed by Episcopal Diocese of Long Island. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits A through E# 2 Memorandum of Law# 3 Caselaw) (Hussey, Brian) (Entered: 08/06/2007)
25 REPLY to Response to Motion re 23 MOTION for Reconsideration re 21 Order on Motion to Dismiss,,, Order on Motion for Partial Summary Judgment,, MOTION for Reconsideration re 21 Order on Motion to Dismiss,,, Order on Motion for Partial Summary Judgment,, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Entry of Court Order# 2 Exhibit Proposed Amended Complaint) (Adams, Raechel) (Entered: 08/13/2007)
26 ORDER denying 23 Motion for Reconsideration. Ordered by Senior Judge Edward R. Korman on Dec. 11, 2007. (Susi, PaulaMarie) (Entered: 12/11/2007)
27 AMENDED COMPLAINT against all defendants, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Adams, Raechel) (Entered: 12/18/2007)
28 STIPULATION re 27 Amended Complaint Extending Time to Answer by Episcopal Diocese of Long Island (Hussey, Brian) (Entered: 12/31/2007)
Case Reopened per filing of amended complaint (Susi, PaulaMarie) (Entered: 01/02/2008)

Case: 2:06-cv-5302 As of: 06/05/2017 05:15 PM EDT 6 of 23

01/02/2008 01/16/2008 01/17/2008
01/22/2008 01/22/2008
01/25/2008 01/31/2008 01/31/2008 02/12/2008 02/19/2008 02/28/2008 03/03/2008 07/15/2008 07/23/2008 07/25/2008
08/04/2008 08/06/2008 08/07/2008

ORDER TO ANSWER re 28 Stipulation filed by Episcopal Diocese of Long Island. The Stipulation is So Ordered. Answer due 1/18/2008. Ordered by Magistrate Judge William D. Wall on 1/2/08. (Hepworth, F.) (Entered: 01/02/2008)
29 STIPULATION re 27 Amended Complaint Extending Time to Answer by Episcopal Diocese of Long Island (Lynch, James) (Entered: 01/16/2008)
ORDER TO ANSWER re 29 Stipulation filed by Episcopal Diocese of Long Island. The Stipulation is So Ordered. Episcopal Diocese of Long Island answer due 1/25/2008. Ordered by Magistrate Judge William D. Wall on 1/17/08. (Hepworth, F.) (Entered: 01/17/2008)
30 STIPULATION extending time to answer amended complaint by Grace Episcopal Church of Whitestone, Inc. (Peters, Bonnie) (Entered: 01/22/2008)
ORDER TO ANSWER re 30 Stipulation filed by Grace Episcopal Church of Whitestone, Inc. The Stipulation is So Ordered. Grace Episcopal Church of Whitestone, Inc. answer due 2/1/2008. Ordered by Magistrate Judge William D. Wall on 1/22/08. (Hepworth, F.) (Entered: 01/22/2008)
31 MOTION to Dismiss Amended Complaint by Episcopal Diocese of Long Island. Responses due by 2/20/2008 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (Lynch, James) (Entered: 01/25/2008)
32 STIPULATION by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Adams, Raechel) (Entered: 01/31/2008)
33 ANSWER to 27 Amended Complaint, CROSSCLAIM against Episcopal Diocese of Long Island by Grace Episcopal Church of Whitestone, Inc.. (Peters, Bonnie) (Entered: 01/31/2008)
34 AMENDED ANSWER to Amended Complaint by Grace Episcopal Church of Whitestone, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Certificate of mailing) (Peters, Bonnie) (Entered: 02/12/2008)
35 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 31 MOTION to Dismiss Amended Complaint filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Adams, Raechel) (Entered: 02/19/2008)
36 STIPULATION to Extend Time by Episcopal Diocese of Long Island (Lynch, James) (Entered: 02/28/2008)
37 REPLY to Response to Motion re 31 MOTION to Dismiss Amended Complaint filed by Episcopal Diocese of Long Island. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit) (Hussey, Brian) (Entered: 03/03/2008)
38 ORDER. Ordered by Senior Judge Edward R. Korman on July 10, 2008. (Susi, PaulaMarie) (Entered: 07/15/2008)
39 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Grace Episcopal Church of Whitestone, Inc. of Cross Claims (Peters, Bonnie) (Entered: 07/23/2008)
40 ORDER An Initial Conference will be held on 8/15/08 to plan the discovery ordered by Judge Korman in his order of 7/10/08 38 . See attached order. Any request to adjourn this conference must be filed as a letter motion and must contain alternative dates acceptable to all parties. Before making the motion,the party requesting the adjournment should call chambers to determine dates available to the court. Ordered by Magistrate Judge William D. Wall on 7/25/08. (Attachments: # 1 WDW Individual Rules) (Hepworth, F.) (Entered: 07/25/2008)
41 ANSWER to 27 Amended Complaint by Episcopal Diocese of Long Island. (Hussey, Brian) (Entered: 08/04/2008)
42 MOTION to Adjourn Conference by Episcopal Diocese of Long Island. (Hussey, Brian) (Entered: 08/06/2008)
ORDER granting 42 Motion to Adjourn Conference from 8/15/08 to 9/4/08 at 11:30 a.m. Counsel shall confirm the new date and time with one another. Ordered by Magistrate Judge William D. Wall on 8/7/08. (Hepworth, F.) (Entered: 08/07/2008)

Case: 2:06-cv-5302 As of: 06/05/2017 05:15 PM EDT 7 of 23

08/07/2008
08/18/2008 08/19/2008 08/25/2008 09/02/2008
09/03/2008 09/03/2008 09/05/2008 09/05/2008
09/09/2008 09/10/2008 09/15/2008 09/15/2008 09/16/2008 09/22/2008 11/13/2008
11/24/2008 11/26/2008

43 Order Dismissing Parties: Deft and Cross−Claimant, sued herein as Grace Episcopal Church of Whitestone, Inc. pursuant to 41(a)(1)(A) of the FRCP hereby voluntarily withdraws its cross−claims against co−deft the Episcopal Diocese of Long Island Party Episcopal Diocese of Long Island terminated. Ordered by Senior Judge Edward R. Korman on 8/4/08. (Fernandez, Erica) (Entered: 08/07/2008)
44 MOTION to Adjourn Conference by Episcopal Diocese of Long Island. (Hussey, Brian) (Entered: 08/18/2008)
ELECTRONIC ORDER granting 44 Motion. The time of the initial conference scheduled for 9/4/08 is changed to 3:00 p.m. Ordered by Judge William D. Wall on 8/19/08. (Disbrow, Sandra) (Entered: 08/19/2008)
45 Notice of MOTION to Strike Affirmative Defenses by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Responses due by 9/9/2008 (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support) (Adams, Raechel) (Entered: 08/25/2008)
ORDER REFERRING MOTION: 45 Notice of MOTION to Strike Affirmative Defenses filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Ordered by Senior Judge Edward R. Korman on Sept. 2, 2008. Motions referred to William D. Wall. (Susi, PaulaMarie) (Entered: 09/02/2008)
46 Proposed Scheduling Order on behalf of all parties by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Malloy, Margaret) (Entered: 09/03/2008)
47 NOTICE of Appearance by Margaret Ann Malloy on behalf of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (aty to be noticed) (Malloy, Margaret) (Entered: 09/03/2008)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge William D. Wall:Initial Pretrial Conference held on 9/4/2008 (Hepworth, F.) (Entered: 09/05/2008)
48 ORDER re 46 Proposed Scheduling Order filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. the proposed order is adopted and So Ordered. The next conference will be held on 3/12/09. Ordered by Magistrate Judge William D. Wall on 9/4/08. (Hepworth, F.) (Entered: 09/05/2008)
49 Letter MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply by Episcopal Diocese of Long Island. (Lynch, James) (Entered: 09/09/2008)
ORDER granting 49 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to 9/11/08. Ordered by Magistrate Judge William D. Wall on 9/10/08. (Hepworth, F.) (Entered: 09/10/2008)
50 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses filed by Episcopal Diocese of Long Island. (Hussey, Brian) (Entered: 09/15/2008)
51 Letter MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply by Episcopal Diocese of Long Island. (Hussey, Brian) (Entered: 09/15/2008)
ORDER granting 51 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Motion to Strike. Ordered by Magistrate Judge William D. Wall on 9/16/08. (Hepworth, F.) (Entered: 09/16/2008)
52 REPLY in Support re 45 Notice of MOTION to Strike Affirmative Defenses filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Malloy, Margaret) (Entered: 09/22/2008)
53 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 45 Notice of MOTION to Strike Affirmative Defenses filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The undersigned recommends that the motion be granted for the reasons set forth in the attached Report. Entered by Magistrate Judge William D. Wall on 11/13/08. (Hepworth, F.) (Entered: 11/13/2008)
54 MOTION to Vacate 111308 Report & Recommendation by Episcopal Diocese of Long Island. (Lynch, James) (Entered: 11/24/2008)
55 First MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery by Grace Episcopal Church of Whitestone, Inc.. (Peters, Bonnie) (Entered: 11/26/2008)

Case: 2:06-cv-5302 As of: 06/05/2017 05:15 PM EDT 8 of 23

12/01/2008 12/02/2008
12/04/2008
12/08/2008 01/13/2009 01/19/2009 01/20/2009 01/20/2009 01/20/2009 01/22/2009 01/22/2009 01/23/2009
01/26/2009
01/27/2009 01/27/2009

ORDER REFERRING MOTION: 55 First MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery filed by Grace Episcopal Church of Whitestone, Inc.. Ordered by Senior Judge Edward R. Korman on Nov. 26, 2008. Motions referred to William D. Wall. (Susi, PaulaMarie) (Entered: 12/01/2008)
PRETRIAL ORDER re 55 First MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery filed by Grace Episcopal Church of Whitestone, Inc. A telephone conference will be held on 12/4/08 at 2:00 p.m. to discuss the requested extension. Counsel for the defendant Grace Episcopal Church shall initiate the call to 631−712−5720, including other counsel. The court will grant an extension, but wants more information on when new defense counsel will appear. Any requests to adjourn the conference must be filed as a letter motion and must include dates and times available to all counsel. Ordered by Magistrate Judge William D. Wall on 12/2/08. (Hepworth, F.) (Entered: 12/02/2008)
56 Minute Order. for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge William D. Wall:granting 55 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery; Telephone Conference held on 12/4/2008. All deadlines extended to date of next conference on 3/12/09. Order entered by Magistrate Judge William D. Wall on 12/4/08. (Hepworth, F.) (Entered: 12/04/2008)
57 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 54 MOTION to Vacate 111308 Report & Recommendation filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Malloy, Margaret) (Entered: 12/08/2008)
58 ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations 53 . Ordered by Senior Judge Edward R. Korman on 12/3/08. (Greene, Donna) (Entered: 01/13/2009)
59 MOTION for Protective Order by Episcopal Diocese of Long Island. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit, # 10 Exhibit, # 11 Exhibit, # 12 Exhibit, # 13 Exhibit, # 14 Exhibit, # 15 Exhibit, # 16 Exhibit) (Lynch, James) (Entered: 01/19/2009)
60 NOTICE of Consent to Change Attorney by Joseph John Ortego substituting Nixon Peabody LLP in place of Bonnie Peters−Lawston (Ortego, Joseph) (Entered: 01/20/2009)
61 NOTICE of Appearance by Joseph John Ortego on behalf of Grace Episcopal Church of Whitestone, Inc. (aty to be noticed) (Ortego, Joseph) (Entered: 01/20/2009)
62 NOTICE of Appearance by James W. Weller on behalf of Grace Episcopal Church of Whitestone, Inc. (aty to be noticed) (Weller, James) (Entered: 01/20/2009)
63 Letter MOTION for Protective Order by Episcopal Diocese of Long Island. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 11, # 2 Exhibit 12) (Lund, Charlene) (Entered: 01/22/2009)
64 RESPONSE in Opposition re 59 MOTION for Protective Order filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Judge Hurley Hearing Transcript) (Malloy, Margaret) (Entered: 01/22/2009)
ELECTRONIC ORDER granting 63 Motion for Protective Order. The attachments to the motion are accepted as exhibit J to the 59 motion. The defendant is reminded to comply with Magistrate Judge Wall's individual rules regarding the number of pages to be filed via electronic case filing and comply with same for future court filings. Ordered by Magistrate Judge William D. Wall on 1/23/2009. (Talbott, Thomas) (Entered: 01/23/2009)
PRETRIAL ORDER re 59 MOTION for Protective Order filed by Episcopal Diocese of Long Island. Oral argument will be heard on 1/30/09 at 11:30 a.m. Any request to adjourn the conference must be filed as a motion and must include alternative dates during the week of 1/26 or on 2/2, 2/3 or 2/4. Ordered by Magistrate Judge William D. Wall on 1/26/2009. (Hepworth, F.) (Entered: 01/26/2009)
65 Letter MOTION to Adjourn Conference by Episcopal Diocese of Long Island. (Lund, Charlene) (Entered: 01/27/2009)
66 Letter MOTION to Adjourn Conference Oral Argument by Episcopal Diocese of Long Island. (Lund, Charlene) (Entered: 01/27/2009)

Case: 2:06-cv-5302 As of: 06/05/2017 05:15 PM EDT 9 of 23

01/28/2009 02/03/2009
02/26/2009 03/12/2009 05/18/2009 05/18/2009
05/18/2009 05/18/2009
05/18/2009 05/18/2009
05/18/2009 05/18/2009

ELECTRONIC ORDER granting 65 Motion to Adjourn Conference; granting 66 Motion to Adjourn Conference. Rescheduling to Tuesday, February 3, 2009 at 11:30 a.m. Ordered by Magistrate Judge William D. Wall on 1/28/2009. (Talbott, Thomas) (Entered: 01/28/2009)
67 Minute Order for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge William D. Wall: Motion Hearing held on 2/3/2009 re 59 MOTION for Protective Order filed by Episcopal Diocese of Long Island. the motion is granted to the extent that the movant shall serve responses to all outstanding discovery, limited to the issue of "joint employers," by 2/27/09. See attached. Order entered by Magistrate Judge William D. Wall on 2/3/09 (Hepworth, F.) (Entered: 02/03/2009)
Motions terminated: 54 45 (see entry #58). Ordered by Senior Judge Edward R. Korman on 2/26/2009. (Susi, PaulaMarie) (Entered: 02/26/2009)
68 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge William D. Wall:Status Conference held on 3/12/09. Next status conference adjourned without date pending plaintiff's motion to compel. (Hepworth, F.) (Entered: 03/12/2009)
69 MOTION to Compel Discovery Responses by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Malloy, Margaret) (Entered: 05/18/2009)
70 AFFIDAVIT/DECLARATION in Support re 69 MOTION to Compel Discovery Responses filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Subpoena, # 2 Exhibit 2 − court transcript, # 3 Exhibit 3 − EEOC letter, # 4 Exhibit 4 − EEOC Doc Requests to EDLI, # 5 Exhibit 5 − EEOC Doc Request to Grace Church, # 6 Exhibit 6 − EDLI Response Doc Requests, # 7 Exhibit 7 − Grace Church Response Doc Requests, # 8 Exhibit 8 − St. James Decision) (Malloy, Margaret) (Entered: 05/18/2009)
71 MEMORANDUM in Support re 69 MOTION to Compel Discovery Responses filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Malloy, Margaret) (Entered: 05/18/2009)
72 Cross MOTION for Protective Order −Affirmation of James W. Weller in Opposition to EEOC's Motion to Compel and In Support of Defendants' Cross Motion, with Exs. A − N by Grace Episcopal Church of Whitestone, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit "A"− Amended Answer to Amended Complaint, # 2 Exhibit "B" − Memorandum and Order, # 3 Exhibit "C" − 7/10/2008 Memorandum and Order, # 4 Exhibit "D" − 3/25/2009 Letter, # 5 Exhibit "E" − 3/31/2009 Letter, # 6 Supplement "F" − 4/07/2009 Letter, # 7 Exhibit "G" − 04/15/2009 Letter, # 8 Exhibit "H" − 4/21/2009 Letter, # 9 Exhibit "I" − 4/21/2009 Letter, # 10 Exhibit "J" − 4/22/2009 Letter, # 11 Affidavit Affirmation of James W. Weller in Opposition to EEOC's Motion to Compel and In Support of Defendants' Cross Motion) (Weller, James) (Entered: 05/18/2009)
73 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 69 MOTION to Compel Discovery Responses, 72 Cross MOTION for Protective Order −Affirmation of James W. Weller in Opposition to EEOC's Motion to Compel and In Support of Defendants' Cross Motion, with Exs. A − N And In Support of Defendant's Cross Motion for Protective Order filed by Grace Episcopal Church of Whitestone, Inc.. (Weller, James) (Entered: 05/18/2009)
74 Cross MOTION for Protective Order by Episcopal Diocese of Long Island. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M, # 14 Exhibit N, # 15 Exhibit O, # 16 Exhibit P, # 17 Exhibit Q, # 18 Exhibit R, # 19 Exhibit S) (Lund, Charlene) (Entered: 05/18/2009)
75 MEMORANDUM in Support re 74 Cross MOTION for Protective Order filed by Episcopal Diocese of Long Island. (Lund, Charlene) (Entered: 05/18/2009)
76 AFFIDAVIT/DECLARATION in Support re 69 MOTION to Compel Discovery Responses and in Opposition to Cross−Motions filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − EEOC to Lund, # 2 Exhibit 2 − EEOC to Lund, # 3 Exhibit 3 − ParishPay, # 4 Exhibit 4 − Dominion, # 5 Exhibit 5 − Letter to Rectors and Admins, # 6 Exhibit 6 − Walker Letter, # 7 Exhibit 7 − Walker Letter) (Malloy, Margaret) (Entered: 05/18/2009)

Case: 2:06-cv-5302 As of: 06/05/2017 05:15 PM EDT 10 of 23

05/18/2009 05/18/2009 05/18/2009 05/18/2009 06/01/2009 06/08/2009 06/18/2009
06/18/2009 06/22/2009
07/05/2009
07/06/2009 07/13/2009 07/13/2009 07/21/2009 07/21/2009

77 REPLY in Support re 69 MOTION to Compel Discovery Responses and in Opposition to Cross−Motions filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Malloy, Margaret) (Entered: 05/18/2009)
78 REPLY in Support re 74 Cross MOTION for Protective Order filed by Episcopal Diocese of Long Island. (Lund, Charlene) (Entered: 05/18/2009)
79 MEMORANDUM in Support re 74 Cross MOTION for Protective Order filed by Episcopal Diocese of Long Island. (Lund, Charlene) (Entered: 05/18/2009)
80 REPLY in Support re 72 Cross MOTION for Protective Order −Affirmation of James W. Weller in Opposition to EEOC's Motion to Compel and In Support of Defendants' Cross Motion, with Exs. A − N filed by Grace Episcopal Church of Whitestone, Inc.. (Weller, James) (Entered: 05/18/2009)
ORDER Oral Argument will be heard on the pending motion and cross−motions on Thursday, 6/4/09 at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom 820. Ordered by Magistrate Judge William D. Wall on 6/1/2009. (Hepworth, F.) (Entered: 06/01/2009)
81 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 69 Motion to Compel; denying 72 Motion for Protective Order; denying 74 Motion for Protective Order. See attached order. Ordered by Magistrate Judge William D. Wall on 6/8/2009. (Hepworth, F.) (Entered: 06/08/2009)
82 Letter MOTION to Set Aside 81 Order on Motion to Compel, Order on Motion for Protective Order, regarding certain findings by Grace Episcopal Church of Whitestone, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit "A" − Order dated 6/8/09, # 2 Exhibit "B" Plaintiff EEOC's First Set of Requests for Production) (Weller, James) (Entered: 06/18/2009)
83 Letter MOTION to Set Aside , in part, Order dated 6/8/09, on Motion to Compel and Motion for Protective Order by Episcopal Diocese of Long Island. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit B) (Lund, Charlene) (Entered: 06/18/2009)
84 APPEAL OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION to District Court by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 81 Order on Motion to Compel, Order on Motion for Protective Order, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit EEOC Document Requests, # 2 Exhibit Diocese Responses, # 3 Certificate of Service) (Malloy, Margaret) (Entered: 06/22/2009)
85 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 82 Letter MOTION to Set Aside 81 Order on Motion to Compel, Order on Motion for Protective Order, regarding certain findingsLetter MOTION to Set Aside 81 Order on Motion to Compel, Order on Motion for Protective Order, regarding certain findings, 83 Letter MOTION to Set Aside , in part, Order dated 6/8/09, on Motion to Compel and Motion for Protective Order filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − St. James v. Diocese) (Malloy, Margaret) (Entered: 07/05/2009)
86 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to Plaintiff's Objection to the June 8, 2009 Order of Magistrate Judge Wall filed by Episcopal Diocese of Long Island. (Lund, Charlene) (Entered: 07/06/2009)
87 Letter MOTION for Leave to File reply papers in connection with objections to Judge Wall's June 8, 2009 Ruling by Grace Episcopal Church of Whitestone, Inc.. (Weller, James) (Entered: 07/13/2009)
88 Letter MOTION for Leave to File reply papers PLEASE DISREGARD PREVIOUS FILING (DOCKET #87) AND ACCEPT THIS AS THE CORRECTED VERSION by Grace Episcopal Church of Whitestone, Inc.. (Weller, James) (Entered: 07/13/2009)
89 REPLY in Opposition re 85 Memorandum in Opposition,, Defendant Grace Church's Response to New Issues Raised by the EEOC in its Response to Defendant's Objections to the June 8, 2009 Order of Magistrate Judge Wall filed by Grace Episcopal Church of Whitestone, Inc.. (Weller, James) (Entered: 07/21/2009)
90 REPLY in Opposition re Memorandum in Opposition, Defendant Episcopal Diocese of Long Island's Response to New Issues Raised by the EEOC in its Response to Defendant's Objections to the June 8, 2009 Order of Magistrate Judge Wall filed by Episcopal Diocese of Long Island. (Lund, Charlene) (Entered: 07/21/2009)

Case: 2:06-cv-5302 As of: 06/05/2017 05:15 PM EDT 11 of 23

07/24/2009
08/26/2009 08/26/2009
08/31/2009 08/31/2009 08/31/2009 09/01/2009 09/03/2009
09/04/2009 09/04/2009 09/08/2009 09/08/2009 09/15/2009

91 ORDER denying 82 Letter MOTION to Set Aside 81 Order on Motion to Compel, Order on Motion for Protective Order, regarding certain findings Letter MOTION to Set Aside 81 Order on Motion to Compel, Order on Motion for Protective Order, regarding certain findings; 83 Letter MOTION to Set Aside, in part, Order dated 6/8/09, on Motion to Compel and Motion for Protective Order; 84 Appeal of Magistrate Judge Decision to District Court. The Order of the U.S. Magistrate Judge is affirmed subject to modifications specified in the attached order. Ordered by Senior Judge Edward R. Korman on 7/24/2009. (Bashago, Sidney) (Entered: 07/24/2009)
92 MOTION for Discovery Regarding Transcripts by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Malloy, Margaret) (Entered: 08/26/2009)
93 MOTION for Discovery Re. 2nd & 3rd Request for Production of Documents to Diocese by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit EEOC 2nd Request For Production to Diocese, # 2 Exhibit EEOC 3rd Request For Production to Diocese, # 3 Exhibit Diocese Response to EEOC 2nd Request for Production, # 4 Exhibit Diocese Response to EEOC 3rd Request for Production) (Malloy, Margaret) (Entered: 08/26/2009)
94 MOTION to Withdraw 92 MOTION for Discovery Regarding Transcripts by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Malloy, Margaret) (Entered: 08/31/2009)
ELECTRONIC ORDER granting 94 Motion to Withdraw discovery motion. Accordingly, 92 Motion for Discovery is deemed withdrawn. Ordered by Judge William D. Wall on 8/31/2009. (Disbrow, Sandra) (Entered: 08/31/2009)
95 RESPONSE in Opposition re 93 MOTION for Discovery Re. 2nd & 3rd Request for Production of Documents to Diocese filed by Episcopal Diocese of Long Island. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Affirmation as exhibit) (Lund, Charlene) (Entered: 08/31/2009)
96 MOTION to Amend/Correct/Supplement 93 MOTION for Discovery Re. 2nd & 3rd Request for Production of Documents to Diocese by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit EEOC Requests, # 2 Exhibit Diocese Responses, # 3 Exhibit Group Exemption Letter) (Malloy, Margaret) (Entered: 09/01/2009)
PRETRIAL ORDER re 93 MOTION for Discovery Re. 2nd & 3rd Request for Production of Documents to Diocese filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and 95 motion for a protective order. Oral argument on the motions will be heard on September 9, 2009 at 2:30 p.m. in Courtroom 820 of the federal courthouse in Central Islip. Any request to adjourn this conference must be filed as a motion and must contain alternative dates within one week of the scheduled date that are acceptable to all counsel. Ordered by Magistrate Judge William D. Wall on 9/3/2009. (Hepworth, F.) (Entered: 09/03/2009)
97 MOTION to Adjourn Conference by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Malloy, Margaret) (Entered: 09/04/2009)
98 Cross MOTION to Amend/Correct/Supplement 95 Response in Opposition to Motion for Discovery Re. 2nd & 3rd Request for Production of Documents to Diocese by Episcopal Diocese of Long Island. (Lund, Charlene) (Entered: 09/04/2009)
ORDER granting 97 Motion to Adjourn Conference from 9/9/09 to 9/15/09 at 10:00 a.m.. Ordered by Magistrate Judge William D. Wall on 9/8/2009. (Hepworth, F.) (Entered: 09/08/2009)
ORDER granting 96 Motion to Amend/Correct/Supplement; granting in part and denying in part 98 Motion to Amend/Correct/Supplement. The court will consider both the amended motion by the EEOC and the additional argument by the Diocese. Ordered by Magistrate Judge William D. Wall on 9/8/2009. (Hepworth, F.) (Entered: 09/08/2009)
99 Minute Order for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge William D. Wall:granting in part and denying in part 93 Motion for Discovery; Motion Hearing held on 9/15/2009 re 93 MOTION for Discovery Re. 2nd & 3rd Request for Production of Documents to Diocese filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. See attached order. Order entered by Magistrate Judge William D. Wall on 9/15/09.

Case: 2:06-cv-5302 As of: 06/05/2017 05:15 PM EDT 12 of 23

09/29/2009 10/01/2009 10/02/2009 10/14/2009 10/16/2009 10/19/2009
10/20/2009 10/21/2009
10/23/2009
10/27/2009 11/10/2009 11/16/2009 11/16/2009 11/16/2009 11/17/2009 11/18/2009

(Hepworth, F.) (Entered: 09/15/2009)
100 Letter to court pursuant to 9/15/09 court order for in camera inspection by Episcopal Diocese of Long Island (Lund, Charlene) (Entered: 09/29/2009)
101 Letter MOTION to Set Aside , in part, Order dated 9/15/09, on Motion to Compel and Motion for Protective Order by Episcopal Diocese of Long Island. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, B & C) (Lund, Charlene) (Entered: 10/01/2009)
102 Letter regarding deposition on October 5, 2009 by Episcopal Diocese of Long Island (Lund, Charlene) (Entered: 10/02/2009)
103 Letter regarding further depositions by Episcopal Diocese of Long Island (Lund, Charlene) (Entered: 10/14/2009)
104 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 101 Letter MOTION to Set Aside , in part, Order dated 9/15/09, on Motion to Compel and Motion for Protective Order filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Malloy, Margaret) (Entered: 10/16/2009)
ORDER granting 101 Motion *** The application for an extension of time to file an extension to, and appeal, the order of the US Magistrate dated Sept. 15, 2009, is granted. The matter is remanded to the US Magistrate to consider the objections raised relating to document request 28, and to consider whether appropriate steps can be taken to redact the documents to protect the interests of third parties. Ordered by Senior Judge Edward R. Korman on 10/19/2009. (Susi, PaulaMarie) (Entered: 10/19/2009)
105 Letter to Judge Wall dated 10/20/09 by Grace Episcopal Church of Whitestone, Inc. (Weller, James) (Entered: 10/20/2009)
ORDER The District Judge having remanded this matter for consideration of arguments raised in the defendant Diocese's motion of 10/1/09, DE 101 , I will rely on the papers filed by the Diocese and the opposition papers filed by the plaintiff before Judge Korman. The Diocese is directed to submit hard copies of their papers and the opposition papers to the undersigned upon receipt of this order. Ordered by Magistrate Judge William D. Wall on 10/21/2009. (Hepworth, F.) (Entered: 10/21/2009)
106 ORDER re 99 Order on Motion for Discovery, Motion Hearing. The Diocese having produced for in camera inspection the group exemption letters, they are directed to produce the letters to the plaintiff upon receipt of this order. See attached. Ordered by Magistrate Judge William D. Wall on 10/23/2009. (Hepworth, F.) (Entered: 10/23/2009)
107 PRETRIAL ORDER re 99 Order on Motion for Discovery. See attached for modification of earlier order. Ordered by Magistrate Judge William D. Wall on 10/27/2009. (Hepworth, F.) (Entered: 10/27/2009)
108 Letter MOTION for Protective Order by Episcopal Diocese of Long Island. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit) (Lund, Charlene) (Entered: 11/10/2009)
109 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 108 Letter MOTION for Protective Order and to File Response to Privilege Log by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Malloy, Margaret) (Entered: 11/16/2009)
110 Letter to Magistrate Judge Wall by Episcopal Diocese of Long Island (Attachments: # 1 Privilege Log, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B) (Lund, Charlene) (Entered: 11/16/2009)
111 Letter with corrected Exhibit A to Magistrate Judge Wall by Episcopal Diocese of Long Island (Attachments: # 1 Privilege Log, # 2 Corrected Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B) (Lund, Charlene) (Entered: 11/16/2009)
112 Letter to Magistrate Judge Wall by Episcopal Diocese of Long Island (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Law, # 2 Supplemental Privilege log) (Lund, Charlene) (Entered: 11/17/2009)
ORDER granting 109 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. The plaintiff may have until November 24 to file opposition to motion 108 and to the Diocese's November 17 filings. Ordered by Magistrate Judge William D. Wall on

Case: 2:06-cv-5302 As of: 06/05/2017 05:15 PM EDT 13 of 23

11/19/2009
11/23/2009 11/24/2009 11/24/2009 11/24/2009 11/24/2009 11/24/2009
11/24/2009 11/25/2009 12/01/2009 12/02/2009
12/02/2009 12/03/2009 12/03/2009 12/07/2009

11/18/2009. (Hepworth, F.) (Entered: 11/18/2009)
113 ORDER re 111 Letter filed by Episcopal Diocese of Long Island. Having reviewed both parties proposed confidentiality orders and the Dioceses objections to the EEOCs version, I substantially adopt the EEOCs Confidentiality Stipulation and Order, annexed as Exhibit B to DE 111 , with certain changes set forth in the attached order, including striking paragraph 9. See attached. Ordered by Magistrate Judge William D. Wall on 11/19/2009. (Hepworth, F.) (Entered: 11/19/2009)
114 MOTION for Protective Order by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Malloy, Margaret) (Entered: 11/23/2009)
ORDER granting 114 Motion for Protective Order. the Confidentiality Stipulation and Order is adopted and So Ordered. Ordered by Magistrate Judge William D. Wall on 11/24/2009. (Hepworth, F.) (Entered: 11/24/2009)
115 Letter to Magistrate Judge Wall dated Novemver 24, 2009 by Episcopal Diocese of Long Island (Lund, Charlene) (Entered: 11/24/2009)
116 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 108 Letter MOTION for Protective Order and in Response to Claims of Privilege filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Malloy, Margaret) (Entered: 11/24/2009)
117 MOTION to Compel Diocese to produce 30(b)(6) witness and documents by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Malloy, Margaret) (Entered: 11/24/2009)
118 AFFIDAVIT/DECLARATION in Support re 117 MOTION to Compel Diocese to produce 30(b)(6) witness and documents filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 30(b)(6) notice, # 2 Exhibit Porter Deposition, # 3 Exhibit Oral Argument Trans., # 4 Exhibit Letter from EEOC to Diocese, # 5 Exhibit Baietto Deposition, # 6 Exhibit Diocese Supp. Responses, # 7 Exhibit Letter from EEOC to Diocese, 8/10/09, # 8 Exhibit Diocese Response 4th Set Doc. Requests, # 9 Exhibit Vestry Minutes) (Malloy, Margaret) (Entered: 11/24/2009)
119 MEMORANDUM in Support re 117 MOTION to Compel Diocese to produce 30(b)(6) witness and documents filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Malloy, Margaret) (Entered: 11/24/2009)
ORDER re 115 Letter filed by Episcopal Diocese of Long Island. The Diocese may file a reply not to exceed five pages on or before December 2, 2009. Ordered by Magistrate Judge William D. Wall on 11/25/2009. (Hepworth, F.) (Entered: 11/25/2009)
120 Letter to Magistrate Judge Wall dated December 1, 2009 by Episcopal Diocese of Long Island (Lund, Charlene) (Entered: 12/01/2009)
ORDER re 120 Letter filed by Episcopal Diocese of Long Island. No action will be taken on the letter, which does not comply with the undersigned's Individual Rule requiring that all requests for court intervention, including requests for extensions of time, be filed as motions, not letters. The Diocese may renew the request as a motion. Ordered by Magistrate Judge William D. Wall on 12/2/2009. (Hepworth, F.) (Entered: 12/02/2009)
121 REPLY to Response to Motion re 108 Letter MOTION for Protective Order filed by Episcopal Diocese of Long Island. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (Lund, Charlene) (Entered: 12/02/2009)
122 Letter MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 119 Memorandum in Support, 118 Affidavit in Support of Motion,, 117 MOTION to Compel Diocese to produce 30(b)(6) witness and documents dated December 3, 2009 by Episcopal Diocese of Long Island. (Lund, Charlene) (Entered: 12/03/2009)
ORDER granting 122 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to motion to compel until December 14, 2009. Ordered by Magistrate Judge William D. Wall on 12/3/2009. (Hepworth, F.) (Entered: 12/03/2009)
123 ORDER denying 108 Motion for Protective Order and ruling on in camera review of the Diocese's privilege log. See attached for detailed rulings. Ordered by Magistrate Judge William D. Wall on 12/7/2009. (Hepworth, F.) (Entered: 12/07/2009)

Case: 2:06-cv-5302 As of: 06/05/2017 05:15 PM EDT 14 of 23

12/07/2009 12/09/2009 12/10/2009 12/14/2009 12/14/2009 12/15/2009 12/15/2009 12/16/2009 12/16/2009 12/16/2009 12/18/2009 01/15/2010 01/15/2010 01/15/2010 01/29/2010
01/29/2010

124 MOTION to Vacate Bifurcation Order and Time Restriction by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Malloy, Margaret) (Entered: 12/07/2009)
ORDER REFERRING MOTION: 124 MOTION to Vacate Bifurcation Order and Time Restriction filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Ordered by Senior Judge Edward R. Korman on 12/9/2009. Motions referred to William D. Wall. (Susi, PaulaMarie) (Entered: 12/09/2009)
125 RESPONSE in Opposition re 124 MOTION to Vacate Bifurcation Order and Time Restriction filed by Grace Episcopal Church of Whitestone, Inc.. (Weller, James) (Entered: 12/10/2009)
126 AFFIDAVIT/DECLARATION in Opposition re 117 MOTION to Compel Diocese to produce 30(b)(6) witness and documents dated December 14, 2009 filed by Episcopal Diocese of Long Island. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit) (Lund, Charlene) (Entered: 12/14/2009)
127 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 117 MOTION to Compel Diocese to produce 30(b)(6) witness and documents dated December 14, 2009 filed by Episcopal Diocese of Long Island. (Lund, Charlene) (Entered: 12/14/2009)
128 Letter MOTION to Amend/Correct/Supplement 126 Affidavit in Opposition to Motion, dated December 15, 2009 by Episcopal Diocese of Long Island. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (Lund, Charlene) (Entered: 12/15/2009)
129 RESPONSE in Opposition re 124 MOTION to Vacate Bifurcation Order and Time Restriction dated December 15, 2009 filed by Episcopal Diocese of Long Island. (Hussey, Brian) (Entered: 12/15/2009)
ORDER granting 128 Motion to Amend/Correct/Supplement. The court accepts the revised exhibit. Ordered by Magistrate Judge William D. Wall on 12/16/2009. (Hepworth, F.) (Entered: 12/16/2009)
130 MOTION for Leave to File a Reply Declaration by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Malloy, Margaret) (Entered: 12/16/2009)
ORDER granting 130 Motion for Leave to File. Ordered by Magistrate Judge William D. Wall on 12/16/2009. (Hepworth, F.) (Entered: 12/16/2009)
131 AFFIDAVIT/DECLARATION in Support re 124 MOTION to Vacate Bifurcation Order and Time Restriction, 117 MOTION to Compel Diocese to produce 30(b)(6) witness and documents filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1) (Malloy, Margaret) (Entered: 12/18/2009)
132 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 117 Motion to Compel. See attached order. Ordered by Magistrate Judge William D. Wall on 1/15/2010. (Hepworth, F.) (Entered: 01/15/2010)
133 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 124 MOTION to Vacate Bifurcation Order and Time Restriction filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, recommending that the motion be granted. See attached. Ordered by Magistrate Judge William D. Wall on 1/15/2010. (Hepworth, F.) (Entered: 01/15/2010)
134 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission of Report and Recommendation (Malloy, Margaret) (Entered: 01/15/2010)
135 APPEAL OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION to District Court by Episcopal Diocese of Long Island re 133 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 124 MOTION to Vacate Bifurcation Order and Time Restriction filed by Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionREPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 124 MOTION to Vacate Bifurcation Order and Time Restriction filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 132 Order on Motion to Compel (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit) (Hussey, Brian) (Entered: 01/29/2010)
136 APPEAL OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION to District Court by Episcopal Diocese of Long Island re 133 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 124 MOTION to Vacate Bifurcation Order and Time Restriction filed by Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionREPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 124 MOTION to Vacate Bifurcation Order and Time Restriction filed by Equal

Case: 2:06-cv-5302 As of: 06/05/2017 05:15 PM EDT 15 of 23

02/04/2010 02/04/2010 02/24/2010 02/24/2010 06/02/2010 06/14/2010 06/15/2010 07/14/2010 07/14/2010
07/26/2010 07/27/2010
09/27/2010

Employment Opportunity Commission, 132 Order on Motion to Compel (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit) (Lund, Charlene) (Entered: 01/29/2010)
ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations as to 133 Report and Recommendations.. Ordered by Senior Judge Edward R. Korman on 2/4/2010. (Susi, PaulaMarie) (Entered: 02/04/2010)
ORDER re 132 Order on Motion to Compel *** The appeal of the Magistrate Judge's ruling is denied and the order is adopted. Ordered by Senior Judge Edward R. Korman on 2/4/2010. (Susi, PaulaMarie) (Entered: 02/04/2010)
ORDER denying as moot 87 Motion for Leave to File; denying as moot 88 Motion for Leave to File. Ordered by Senior Judge Edward R. Korman on 2/24/2010. (Susi, PaulaMarie) (Entered: 02/24/2010)
ORDER granting 124 Motion to Vacate (see order dated 2/4/2010). Ordered by Senior Judge Edward R. Korman on 2/24/2010. (Susi, PaulaMarie) (Entered: 02/24/2010)
137 Request for Status Report.Status Report due by 6/14/2010. So Ordered by U. S. Magistrate Judge William D. Wall, 6/2/10. (Talbott, Thomas) (Entered: 06/02/2010)
138 SELECTION OF MEDIATOR Linda Singer selectedReport of Mediation due by 9/15/2010. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Malloy, Margaret) (Entered: 06/14/2010)
Appointment of Linda Singer as mediator withdrawn. (Lim, Christine) Modified on 7/27/2010 (Levine, Evelyn). (Entered: 07/27/2010)
139 ORDER REFERRING CASE to Mediation.Selection of Mediator due by 8/2/2010. See attached order. Ordered by Magistrate Judge William D. Wall on 7/14/2010. (Hepworth, F.) (Entered: 07/14/2010)
MEDIATION INSTRUCTIONS sent to Counsel. Letter of Instruction is found on Court's ADR website at www.nyed.uscourts.gov/adr. By 07/28/2010, Counsel are to select a Mediator, schedule the first mediation session, and electronically file (ECF) and confirm in writing to the ADR Administrator, Gerald P. Lepp, the name of the mediator, and the date, time, and place of the first mediation session. For a list of the EDNY Mediators and their qualifications, see the Court's website at www.nyed.uscourts.gov/adr. The Confidentiality Stipulation which is a separate entry on the Court's ADR website is to be signed at the mediation session by all participants, including the mediators, and sent by FAX (718) 613−2368 to the ADR Administrator. In accordance with Administrative Order 2004−08 (as of August 2, 2004) electronic filing became mandatory in the Eastern District of New York for all cases,(pro se cases are excluded). (Huang, Kenneth) (Entered: 07/14/2010)
140 SELECTION OF MEDIATOR Ruth D. Raisfeld selectedReport of Mediation due by 10/27/2010. (Malloy, Margaret) (Entered: 07/26/2010)
SELECTION OF MEDIATOR Ruth D Raisfeld selected as Mediator. The first mediation session will take place on 08/31/2010 at 10:00am at Nixon Peabody LLP 50 Jericho Quadrangle, Suite 300, Jericho, NY 11753. On or before 08/24/2010, Counsel shall file with the Mediator their client's mediation statement summarizing the facts,legal issues, particulars of any prior settlement discussions, and the name and title of the client or client representative with full settlement authority who will attend the mediation in person. Attendance in person is required of the trial attorney, insurance adjuster, and client or client representative with full settlement authority. The Confidentiality Stipulation will be signed at the mediation session by all participants and the Mediator and returned to the ADR Administrator, Gerald Lepp, by fax (718) 613−2368. Report of Mediation due by 09/15/2010. (Lim, Christine) (Entered: 07/27/2010)
MEDIATION INSTRUCTIONS Mediation session was scheduled for August 31, 2010. By October 1, 2010 Plaintiffs Counsel will send the ADR Administrator an update in regard to the status of mediation (Not Settled, Settled, Continuing Mediation, etc.). Counsel will file the update electronically via ECF and send a copy via fax (718) 613−2368, attention Gerald Lepp, ADR Administrator. Additional questions can be directed to Toby Latham at (718) 613−2162 or Intern3_ADR@nyed.uscourts.gov.

Case: 2:06-cv-5302 As of: 06/05/2017 05:15 PM EDT 16 of 23

10/01/2010
03/02/2011 05/02/2011 05/12/2011 05/17/2011
05/24/2011 05/26/2011
05/27/2011 06/03/2011 06/03/2011 06/21/2011 06/21/2011
06/28/2011 06/28/2011 06/29/2011 09/13/2011

(Latham, Toby) (Entered: 09/27/2010)
141 STATUS OF MEDIATION: Plaintiff's Counsel faxed to the ADR Office an update in regard to the status of mediation. Parties participated in the first mediation session on August 31, 2010. Parties made progress toward a possible settlement of this matter and have scheduled a second mediation session on November 2, 2010. (Latham, Toby) (Entered: 10/01/2010)
REPORT of Mediation. The Mediator reports two full day mediation sessions were held on 8−31−2010 and 11−2−2010. A third session scheduled for 1−24−2011 was cancelled and has not been re−scheduled.Report of Mediation due by 3/31/2011. (Lepp, Gerald) (Entered: 03/02/2011)
142 Request for Status Report. Status Report due by 5/12/2011. Ordered by Magistrate Judge William D. Wall, 5/2/11. (Talbott, Thomas) (Entered: 05/02/2011)
143 STATUS REPORT by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Malloy, Margaret) (Entered: 05/12/2011)
ELECTRONIC ORDER: A status conference has been scheduled for 6/2/11 at 2:00 p.m. in courtroom 820 of the federal courthouse in Central Islip. Any request to adjourn this conference must be electronically filed as a "Motion" and must include proposed alternative dates acceptable to all parties. Ordered by Judge William D. Wall on 5/17/2011. (Disbrow, Sandra) (Entered: 05/17/2011)
144 STATUS REPORT Response by Episcopal Diocese of Long Island (Lynch, James) (Entered: 05/24/2011)
ORDER A status conference will be held on June 6, 2011 at 11:30 a.m. in courtroom 820. Any request to adjourn this conference must be filed as a motion and must contain alternate dates acceptable to all counsel. The court is available on June 3 or 7 and any day the week of June 13 at 1:30 p.m. Ordered by Magistrate Judge William D. Wall on 5/26/2011. (Hepworth, F.) (Entered: 05/26/2011)
ORDER The June 6 conference was scheduled in error. The conference will go forward on June 2 at 2:00 p.m., as originally scheduled. Ordered by Magistrate Judge William D. Wall on 5/27/2011. (Hepworth, F.) (Entered: 05/27/2011)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge William D. Wall:Status Conference held on 6/2/2011 (Hepworth, F.) (Entered: 06/03/2011)
145 ORDER A settlement conference will be held on June 21, 2011 at 1:30 p.m. All discovery is stayed. Ordered by Magistrate Judge William D. Wall on 6/2/2011. (Hepworth, F.) (Entered: 06/03/2011)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge William D. Wall:Settlement Conference held on 6/21/2011 (Hepworth, F.) (Entered: 06/21/2011)
146 ORDER Attempts at settlement have not succeeded. The discovery stay is lifted. All fact discovery to be completed by 9/29/11. The next conference will be held on 9/30/11 at 10:30, at which time deadlines for expert discovery and dispositive motions will be set. Ordered by Magistrate Judge William D. Wall on 6/21/2011. (Hepworth, F.) (Entered: 06/21/2011)
Incorrect Case/Document/Entry Information. Original docket entry 147 MOTION for Protective Order has been deleted since there was and error on the document and the entry will be refiled. (Glueckert, Lisa) (Entered: 06/28/2011)
147 MOTION for Protective Order by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Re. Confidentiality of Documents) (Malloy, Margaret) (Entered: 06/28/2011)
ORDER granting 147 Motion for Protective Order. The Stipulation is So Ordered. Ordered by Magistrate Judge William D. Wall on 6/29/2011. (Hepworth, F.) (Entered: 06/29/2011)
148 MOTION to Intervene by Mildred Spencer. (Cronin, Linda) (Entered: 09/13/2011)

Case: 2:06-cv-5302 As of: 06/05/2017 05:15 PM EDT 17 of 23

09/13/2011 09/13/2011 09/13/2011 09/20/2011 09/21/2011 09/22/2011 09/22/2011 09/23/2011 09/28/2011 09/29/2011
10/03/2011 10/04/2011
10/06/2011 10/17/2011 10/17/2011
10/17/2011 10/18/2011 10/18/2011

149 AFFIDAVIT/DECLARATION in Support re 148 MOTION to Intervene filed by Mildred Spencer. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A) (Cronin, Linda) (Entered: 09/13/2011)
150 MEMORANDUM in Support re 148 MOTION to Intervene filed by Mildred Spencer. (Cronin, Linda) (Entered: 09/13/2011)
151 AFFIDAVIT/DECLARATION in Support re 148 MOTION to Intervene as amended please omit document #149 filed by Mildred Spencer. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A) (Cronin, Linda) (Entered: 09/13/2011)
152 MOTION to Adjourn Conference currently scheduled for 9/30/11 by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Malloy, Margaret) (Entered: 09/20/2011)
ORDER granting 152 Motion to Adjourn Conference from 9/30 to 10/6/11 at 2:30 p.m. Ordered by Magistrate Judge William D. Wall on 9/21/2011. (Hepworth, F.) (Entered: 09/21/2011)
153 STIPULATION Extending Time for Response to Motion to Intervene by Grace Episcopal Church of Whitestone, Inc. (Weller, James) (Entered: 09/22/2011)
154 MOTION for Protective Order re. Confidentiality of Third−Party Documents by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order as stipulated) (Malloy, Margaret) (Entered: 09/22/2011)
ORDER granting 154 Motion for Protective Order. Ordered by Magistrate Judge William D. Wall on 9/23/2011. (Hepworth, F.) (Entered: 09/23/2011)
155 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Discovery Motion by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Malloy, Margaret) (Entered: 09/28/2011)
PRETRIAL ORDER re 155 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Discovery Motion filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Defendant Episcopal Diocese of Long Island is directed to file a response to the motion indicating its position on the plaintiff's request to file a discovery motion by 10/6/11, no later than Monday, 10/3/11 by 3:00 p.m.Ordered by Magistrate Judge William D. Wall on 9/29/2011. (Hepworth, F.) (Entered: 09/29/2011)
156 RESPONSE to Motion re 155 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Discovery Motion filed by Episcopal Diocese of Long Island. (Hussey, Brian) (Entered: 10/03/2011)
PRETRIAL ORDER re 155 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Discovery Motion filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The motion will be discussed at the conference on 10/6. Ordered by Magistrate Judge William D. Wall on 10/4/2011. (Hepworth, F.) (Entered: 10/04/2011)
157 Minute Order for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge William D. Wall:granting 155 Motion for Extension of Time to File; Status Conference held on 10/6/2011. See attached order (Hepworth, F.) (Entered: 10/06/2011)
158 Letter MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 148 MOTION to Intervene by Episcopal Diocese of Long Island. (Lynch, James) (Entered: 10/17/2011)
ORDER denying 158 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply without prejudice to renewal before Judge Korman, before whom the motion to intervene is pending. Ordered by Magistrate Judge William D. Wall on 10/17/2011. (Hepworth, F.) (Entered: 10/17/2011)
159 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 148 MOTION to Intervene filed by Grace Episcopal Church of Whitestone, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit in Opposition, # 2 Exhibit "A" to Affirmation of James Weller) (Weller, James) (Entered: 10/17/2011)
160 Letter MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 148 MOTION to Intervene by Episcopal Diocese of Long Island. (Hussey, Brian) (Entered: 10/18/2011)
161 RESPONSE to Motion re 160 Letter MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 148 MOTION to Intervene filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Malloy, Margaret) (Entered: 10/18/2011)

Case: 2:06-cv-5302 As of: 06/05/2017 05:15 PM EDT 18 of 23

10/19/2011 10/28/2011 10/31/2011 10/31/2011 10/31/2011
11/02/2011 11/04/2011 11/04/2011 11/04/2011 11/07/2011 11/11/2011 11/15/2011 11/17/2011 12/02/2011 12/02/2011

162 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to Motion to Intervene filed by Episcopal Diocese of Long Island. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B) (Hussey, Brian) (Entered: 10/19/2011)
163 Letter MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Motion to Intervene by Mildred Spencer. (Cronin, Linda) (Entered: 10/28/2011)
164 MOTION for Sanctions and to Compel by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Malloy, Margaret) (Entered: 10/31/2011)
165 MEMORANDUM in Support re 164 MOTION for Sanctions and to Compel filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Malloy, Margaret) (Entered: 10/31/2011)
166 AFFIDAVIT/DECLARATION in Support re 164 MOTION for Sanctions and to Compel filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Corresp. from Invest., # 2 Exhibit Resp. Subpoena, # 3 Exhibit Diocese to Judge Hurley, # 4 Exhibit Powell Dep., # 5 Exhibit Boller Dep., # 6 Exhibit Walker Dep., # 7 Exhibit Segall Dep., # 8 Exhibit Finley Dep., # 9 Exhibit Levine Dep., # 10 Exhibit Speyer Dep., # 11 Exhibit Fardella Dep., # 12 Exhibit DOL Docs., # 13 Exhibit GC Resp. 2d Interrogs., # 14 Exhibit EEOC email to Diocese, # 15 Exhibit Diocese Resp. 7th RFPs, # 16 Exhibit EEOC letter to Diocese, # 17 Exhibit Diocese NJ Priv. Log, # 18 Exhibit Fardella Aff., # 19 Exhibit Diocese Resp. 4th RFAs, # 20 Exhibit Mullin Aff., # 21 Exhibit Wright Aff., # 22 Exhibit Diocese Resp. 3d RFPs, # 23 Exhibit Diocese Supp. Resp. 3d RFPs, # 24 Exhibit Diocese 2d Supp. Resp. 3d RFPs, # 25 Exhibit Diocese Resp. 6th RFPs, # 26 Exhibit Diocese Resp. 2d Interrogs) (Malloy, Margaret) (Entered: 10/31/2011)
ORDER granting 163 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 163 Letter MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Motion to Intervene Responses due by 11/11/2011. Ordered by Senior Judge Edward R. Korman on 11/2/2011. (Susi, PaulaMarie) (Entered: 11/02/2011)
167 Letter MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 164 MOTION for Sanctions and to Compel by Grace Episcopal Church of Whitestone, Inc.. (Weller, James) (Entered: 11/04/2011)
ORDER granting 167 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to motion to compel and for sanctions. Ordered by Magistrate Judge William D. Wall on 11/4/2011. (Hepworth, F.) (Entered: 11/04/2011)
168 Letter MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 164 MOTION for Sanctions and to Compel by Episcopal Diocese of Long Island. (Hussey, Brian) (Entered: 11/04/2011)
ORDER granting 168 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. Ordered by Magistrate Judge William D. Wall on 11/7/2011. (Hepworth, F.) (Entered: 11/07/2011)
169 Letter MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 148 MOTION to Intervene by Mildred Spencer. (Cronin, Linda) (Entered: 11/11/2011)
ORDER granting 169 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 169 Letter MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 148 MOTION to Intervene Responses due by 11/18/2011 Replies due by 12/2/2011.. Ordered by Senior Judge Edward R. Korman on 11/15/2011. (Susi, PaulaMarie) (Entered: 11/15/2011)
170 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 148 MOTION to Intervene Revised Memorandum In Opposition with letter to Hon. E. Korman filed by Grace Episcopal Church of Whitestone, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Letter to Hon. E. Korman) (Weller, James) (Main Document 170 replaced on 11/17/2011) (Layne, Monique). (Entered: 11/17/2011)
171 Letter MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 148 MOTION to Intervene by Mildred Spencer. (Cronin, Linda) (Entered: 12/02/2011)
172 Letter MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 164 MOTION for Sanctions and to Compel by Episcopal Diocese of Long Island. (Hussey, Brian) (Entered: 12/02/2011)

Case: 2:06-cv-5302 As of: 06/05/2017 05:15 PM EDT 19 of 23

12/05/2011 12/05/2011
12/07/2011 12/09/2011 12/09/2011 12/09/2011 12/12/2011 12/12/2011
12/12/2011

ORDER granting 172 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply until 12/9/11. Ordered by Magistrate Judge William D. Wall on 12/5/2011. (Hepworth, F.) (Entered: 12/05/2011)
173 RESPONSE in Opposition re 164 MOTION for Sanctions and to Compel (GRACE EPISCOPAL CHURCH OF WHITESTONE, INC.'S OPPOSITION TO EEOC'S MOTION TO COMPEL, FOR SANCTIONS AND TO PRECLUDE filed by Grace Episcopal Church of Whitestone, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Affirmation of James Weller in Support of Grace Episcopal's Opposition to EEOC's Motion to Compel, # 2 Exhibit "A" Segall Deposition, # 3 Exhibit "B: Boller Deposition, # 4 Exhibit "C" Powell Deposition, # 5 Exhibit "D" Finley Deposition, # 6 Exhibit "E" Levine Deposition, # 7 Exhibit "F" Fardella Deposition, # 8 Exhibit "G" Speyer Deposition, # 9 Exhibit "H" Mooney Deposition, # 10 Exhibit "I" Spencer Deposition, # 11 Exhibit "J" Grace Resp to 3rd Req. for Production, # 12 Exhibit "K" Fardella Interview of Powell, # 13 Exhibit "L" Grace Payroll Records, # 14 Exhibit "M" Gratia Plena Newsletter, # 15 Exhibit "N" New Assignment Notice, # 16 Exhibit "O" Application for License, # 17 Exhibit "P" Employment Eligibility, # 18 Exhibit "Q" Letter Agreement, # 19 Exhibit "R" Draft Letter Agreement, # 20 Exhibit "S" "Enrollment Form, # 21 Exhibit "T" Compensation Records, # 22 Exhibit "U" Church Pension Fund Corresp., # 23 Exhibit "V" Powell Projected Compensation, # 24 Exhibit "W" Powell Position Description, # 25 Exhibit "X" Interim Monthly Exp. Reports, # 26 Exhibit "Y" Boller file re Powell, # 27 Exhibit "Z" Diocese ltr to Powell licensing him, # 28 Exhibit "AA" Schedule of Powell Compensation, # 29 Exhibit "BB" Powell Vestry Minutes, # 30 Exhibit "CC" 2001 Vestry Minutes, # 31 Exhibit "DD" Grace Church Resp to 2nd Set of Interrog., # 32 Exhibit "EE" Grace Employee Anti−Harassment class certificates, # 33 Exhibit "FF" Insurance Policy) (Weller, James) (Entered: 12/05/2011)
PRETRIAL ORDER re 164 MOTION for Sanctions and to Compel filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Oral argument will be heard on December 16, 2011 at 11:00 a.m. Any reply by the movant must be filed by December 15, 2011. Any request to adjourn this oral argument must be filed as a motion and must contain alternative dates acceptable to all counsel, excluding the weeks of December 19 and 26. Ordered by Magistrate Judge William D. Wall on 12/7/2011. (Hepworth, F.) (Entered: 12/07/2011)
174 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 148 MOTION to Intervene Supplemental Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to Intervene filed by Episcopal Diocese of Long Island. (Hussey, Brian) (Entered: 12/09/2011)
175 MOTION to Adjourn Conference to January 6, 2012 by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Malloy, Margaret) (Entered: 12/09/2011)
176 AFFIDAVIT/DECLARATION in Opposition re 164 MOTION for Sanctions and to Compel filed by Episcopal Diocese of Long Island. (Hussey, Brian) (Entered: 12/09/2011)
ORDER granting 175 Motion to Adjourn Conference. Ordered by Magistrate Judge William D. Wall on 12/12/2011. (Hepworth, F.) (Entered: 12/12/2011)
PRETRIAL ORDER re 175 MOTION to Adjourn Conference to January 6, 2012 filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The oral argument scheduled for 12/16/11 is adjourned to 1/6/12 at 11:00 a.m. Defendant Episcopal Diocese of New York is advised that it must submit a memorandum of law in opposition to the motion. A Declaration will not be considered to be legal argument. The Diocese has asked for permission to file its exhibits today, 12/12, and that permission is granted, but it must also file a memorandum of law. If the movant requires a short extension for its reply based on the late filings of the Diocese, such extension will be granted. The EEOC shall inform the court of the requested new date for submission of the reply, taking into consideration the upcoming holidays. Ordered by Magistrate Judge William D. Wall on 12/12/2011. (Hepworth, F.) (Entered: 12/12/2011)
177 AFFIDAVIT/DECLARATION in Opposition re 164 MOTION for Sanctions and to Compel Further Declaration in Opposition to Motion for Sanctions and to Compel filed by Episcopal Diocese of Long Island. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D−1, # 5 Exhibit D−2, # 6 Exhibit D−3, # 7 Exhibit D−4, # 8 Exhibit D−5, # 9 Exhibit D−6, # 10 Exhibit D−7, # 11 Exhibit D−8, # 12 Exhibit

Case: 2:06-cv-5302 As of: 06/05/2017 05:15 PM EDT 20 of 23

12/16/2011 12/23/2011 12/23/2011
01/04/2012 01/05/2012 01/06/2012 01/19/2012 02/22/2012 03/07/2012
03/07/2012 03/21/2012 03/21/2012

D−9, # 13 Exhibit E) (Hussey, Brian) (Entered: 12/12/2011)
178 REPLY in Support re 148 MOTION to Intervene filed by Mildred Spencer. (Cronin, Linda) (Entered: 12/16/2011)
179 REPLY in Support re 164 MOTION for Sanctions and to Compel filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Malloy, Margaret) (Entered: 12/23/2011)
180 AFFIDAVIT/DECLARATION in Support re 164 MOTION for Sanctions and to Compel filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 4/27/04 letter from Brian Hussey to EEOC, # 2 Exhibit email correspondence re. representation of Powell, # 3 Exhibit draft Letter of Agreement, # 4 Exhibit revised draft Letter of Agreement, # 5 Exhibit Fardella's Notes, # 6 Exhibit EDLI privilege log, # 7 Exhibit Letter from EEOC to Grace Church re. 30(b)(6), # 8 Exhibit correspondence with counsel, # 9 Exhibit correspondence re. Mr. Hussey) (Malloy, Margaret) (Entered: 12/23/2011)
181 Letter MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 164 MOTION for Sanctions and to Compel and to adjourn oral argument presently scheduled for January 6, 2012 by Episcopal Diocese of Long Island. (Hussey, Brian) (Entered: 01/04/2012)
ORDER denying 181 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. The oral argument will go forward as scheduled tomorrow 1/6/12 at 11 a.m. Ordered by Magistrate Judge William D. Wall on 1/5/2012. (Kennedy, Michael) (Entered: 01/05/2012)
182 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge William D. Wall:Motion Hearing held on 1/6/2012. Re 164 MOTION for Sanctions and to Compel filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Decision reserved. (Talbott, Thomas) (Entered: 01/09/2012)
183 MOTION to Amend/Correct/Supplement 165 Memorandum in Support by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support corrected version) (Malloy, Margaret) (Entered: 01/19/2012)
ORDER granting 183 Motion to Amend/Correct/Supplement. The corrected version is accepted. Ordered by Magistrate Judge William D. Wall on 2/22/2012. (Hepworth, F.) (Entered: 02/22/2012)
184 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 164 MOTION for Sanctions and to Compel filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, recommending that the motion be granted to the following extent: (1) it is deemed established that the defendant Grace Episcopal Church and defendant Episcopal Diocese of Long Island are an integrated enterprise and that the Diocese has 501 or more employees; (2) it is deemed established that the Diocese hired Reverend John C. Powell and controlled the terms and conditions of his employment; and (3) the defendants must pay the reasonable costs of this motion pursuant to Rule 37. I do not recommend that the defendants at this time be precluded from offering evidence as to the reasons for Mildred Spencers termination, but the EEOC may renew that application if further discovery misconduct occurs. I have not treated this motion as one for spoliation, but the EEOC may make a spoliation motion if it finds it necessary to do so. Further, I will, contemporaneously with this report, issue an order regarding non−dispositive discovery matters raised in the motion. See attached. Ordered by Magistrate Judge William D. Wall on 3/7/2012. (Hepworth, F.) (Entered: 03/07/2012)
185 PRETRIAL ORDER re 164 MOTION for Sanctions and to Compel filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. See attached for non−dispositive discovery rulings. Ordered by Magistrate Judge William D. Wall on 3/7/2012. (Hepworth, F.) (Entered: 03/07/2012)
186 NOTICE of Appearance by Thomas M Mealiffe on behalf of Grace Episcopal Church of Whitestone, Inc. (aty to be noticed) (Mealiffe, Thomas) (Entered: 03/21/2012)
187 OBJECTION to 184 Report and Recommendations filed by Grace Episcopal Church of Whitestone, Inc.. (Mealiffe, Thomas) (Entered: 03/21/2012)

Case: 2:06-cv-5302 As of: 06/05/2017 05:15 PM EDT 21 of 23

03/21/2012 03/23/2012 03/28/2012 03/28/2012 03/29/2012 04/02/2012 04/04/2012 04/05/2012 04/10/2012 04/12/2012
04/19/2012 04/25/2012
06/14/2012
06/14/2012
06/14/2012 06/21/2012
06/21/2012

188 OBJECTION to 184 Report and Recommendations filed by Episcopal Diocese of Long Island. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E) (Hussey, Brian) (Entered: 03/21/2012)
189 Letter for Clarificiation of Discovery Orders by Episcopal Diocese of Long Island (Hussey, Brian) (Entered: 03/23/2012)
190 MOTION for Discovery in response to Diocese's March 23, 2012 Letter by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Malloy, Margaret) (Entered: 03/28/2012)
191 Letter of Correction to Diocese's Letter of March 23, 2012 by Episcopal Diocese of Long Island (Lynch, James) (Entered: 03/28/2012)
192 REPLY to Response to Motion re 190 MOTION for Discovery in response to Diocese's March 23, 2012 Letter filed by Episcopal Diocese of Long Island. (Hussey, Brian) (Entered: 03/29/2012)
193 ORDER granting 190 Motion for Discovery, providing clarification and imposing Rule 37 sanctions on the defendant Diocese. See attached. Ordered by Magistrate Judge William D. Wall on 4/2/2012. (Hepworth, F.) (Entered: 04/02/2012)
194 MEMORANDUM in Support re 164 MOTION for Sanctions and to Compel in response to Defendants' objections filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Malloy, Margaret) (Entered: 04/04/2012)
195 Letter MOTION for Reconsideration re 193 Order on Motion for Discovery by Episcopal Diocese of Long Island. (Attachments: # 1 Responsive Documents) (Hussey, Brian) (Entered: 04/05/2012)
196 RESPONSE in Opposition re 195 Letter MOTION for Reconsideration re 193 Order on Motion for Discovery filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Malloy, Margaret) (Entered: 04/10/2012)
197 ORDER denying 195 Motion for Reconsideration except to the extent that the defendant Diocese may have until two weeks from today to produce the documents. There will be no further extensions. See attached. Ordered by Magistrate Judge William D. Wall on 4/12/2012. (Hepworth, F.) (Entered: 04/12/2012)
198 Letter MOTION for Reconsideration for in camera review by Episcopal Diocese of Long Island. (Lund, Charlene) (Entered: 04/19/2012)
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 198 Motion for Reconsideration. The defendant must produce the Krasner confidentiality agreement under the relevant protective order between the parties, but may redact the dollar amounts therein. Ordered by Magistrate Judge William D. Wall on 4/25/2012. (Hepworth, F.) (Entered: 04/25/2012)
PRETRIAL ORDER re 148 MOTION to Intervene filed by Mildred Spencer. The movant shall submit hard copies of the motion papers to the undersigned by June 21, 2012. Ordered by Magistrate Judge William D. Wall on 6/14/2012. (Hepworth, F.) (Entered: 06/14/2012)
ORDER finding as moot 160 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply ; finding as moot 171 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. Ordered by Magistrate Judge William D. Wall on 6/14/2012. (Hepworth, F.) (Entered: 06/14/2012)
199 Letter regarding Motion to Intervene by Mildred Spencer (Cronin, Linda) (Entered: 06/14/2012)
ORDER REFERRING MOTION: 148 MOTION to Intervene filed by Mildred Spencer on September 13, 2011, DE 148, is referred to Magistrate Judge Wall. Ordered by Judge Edward R. Korman on 6/21/2012. (Schwenk, Andrew) (Entered: 06/21/2012)
200 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 148 MOTION to Intervene filed by Mildred Spencer, recommending that the motion be denied as untimely. See attached. Ordered by Magistrate Judge William D. Wall on 6/21/2012. (Hepworth, F.) (Entered: 06/21/2012)

Case: 2:06-cv-5302 As of: 06/05/2017 05:15 PM EDT 22 of 23

06/21/2012 07/05/2012 07/09/2012
08/20/2012 08/24/2012 08/29/2012 09/28/2012
11/19/2012 11/30/2012 12/19/2012 03/19/2013 03/19/2013 03/20/2013 03/20/2013 03/21/2013 03/21/2013

201 Letter to Judge Korman − Objecting to Intervenor's Letter by Episcopal Diocese of Long Island (Lynch, James) (Entered: 06/21/2012)
202 OBJECTION to 200 Report and Recommendations of Magistrate Wall dated June 21, 2012 filed by Mildred Spencer. (Bernstein, Susan) (Entered: 07/05/2012)
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS *** The recommendation of the U.S. Magistrate Judge is adopted. Even where the movant has a right to intervene as a matter of right, the motion must be timely. This motion, as the Magistrate found, was untimely. Ordered by Judge Edward R. Korman on 7/9/2012. (Susi, PaulaMarie) (Entered: 07/09/2012)
203 NOTICE of Appearance by Konrad Batog on behalf of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (aty to be noticed) (Batog, Konrad) (Entered: 08/20/2012)
204 MOTION to Withdraw Margaret A. Malloy as counsel by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration) (Malloy, Margaret) (Entered: 08/24/2012)
ORDER granting 204 Margaret A. Malloy's Motion to Withdraw as counsel. Ordered by Magistrate Judge William D. Wall on 8/29/2012. (Hepworth, F.) (Entered: 08/29/2012)
205 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 10/6/2011, before Magistrate Judge William D. Wall. Transcriber AAA Electronic Sound Reporters, Telephone number 888−866−5135. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 10/19/2012. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 10/29/2012. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/27/2012. (Russo, Eric) (Entered: 09/28/2012)
Status Conference set for 11/30/2012 03:00 PM in Courtroom 8A South before Judge Edward R. Korman. Parties to confirm with each other. Ordered by Judge Edward R. Korman on 11/19/2012. (Susi, PaulaMarie) (Entered: 11/19/2012)
206 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Edward R. Korman: Status Conference held on 11/30/2012. Counsel for parties present. Settlement discussions held. Conference set for 12/19/12 at 11 AM. (Court Reporter : ESR.) (Chee, Alvin) (Entered: 12/03/2012)
207 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Edward R. Korman: Settlement Conference held on 12/19/2012. Counsel for parties present. Further settlement discussions held. Parties to report by mid−January. (Court Reporter : Hong.) (Chee, Alvin) (Entered: 03/01/2013)
ORDER denying 164 without prejudice because of the progress made at the 3/19/2013 settlement conference. Ordered by Judge Edward R. Korman on 3/19/2013. (Susi, PaulaMarie) Modified on 3/21/2013 (Susi, PaulaMarie). (Entered: 03/19/2013)
208 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Edward R. Korman:Settlement Conference held (off site) on 3/19/2013. EEOC, Grace Episcopal and the Episcopal Diocese agree to settlement. (Lee, Tiffeny) (Entered: 03/20/2013)
209 Letter MOTION to Amend/Correct/Supplement Order on Motion for Sanctions, Order on Report and Recommendations, 208 Settlement Conference by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Batog, Konrad) (Entered: 03/20/2013)
210 Letter MOTION to Amend/Correct/Supplement Order on Motion for Sanctions, Order on Report and Recommendations, 208 Settlement Conference by Grace Episcopal Church of Whitestone, Inc.. (Mealiffe, Thomas) (Entered: 03/20/2013)
ORDER granting 209 Motion to Amend/Correct/Supplement. Ordered by Judge Edward R. Korman on 3/21/2013. (Susi, PaulaMarie) (Entered: 03/21/2013)
ORDER granting 210 Motion to Amend/Correct/Supplement. Ordered by Judge Edward R. Korman on 3/21/2013. (Susi, PaulaMarie) (Entered: 03/21/2013)

Case: 2:06-cv-5302 As of: 06/05/2017 05:15 PM EDT 23 of 23

04/25/2013 05/03/2013 05/20/2013 05/20/2013 05/21/2013 05/21/2013 03/21/2014

Status Conference set for 5/2/2013 01:00 PM in Courtroom 8A South before Judge Edward R. Korman. parties to confirm with each other. Ordered by Judge Edward R. Korman on 4/25/2013. (Susi, PaulaMarie) (Entered: 04/25/2013)
ORDER re 148 MOTION to Intervene*** This court's order of July 9, 2012 adopting the report and recommendation denying the motion to intervene is hereby vacated. The motion to intervene (DE 148) is hereby granted. Ordered by Judge Edward R. Korman on 5/3/2013. (Casteel, Heather) (Entered: 05/03/2013)
211 Intervenor COMPLAINT with jury demand, filed by Mildred Spencer. (Chee, Alvin) (Entered: 05/21/2013)
212 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Edward R. Korman: Settlement Conference held on 5/20/2013. Counsel for parties present. Argument heard. Court vacates the denial of the motion to intervene. Next settlement conference set for 5/21/13 at 11 AM. (Court Reporter : ESR.) (Chee, Alvin) (Entered: 05/21/2013)
213 CONSENT DECREE: Within 30 days of entry of this Decree, Grace Church will pay the total gross sum of $192,500 to Charging Party Mildred Spencer and claimant Robin Mooney. See document for further details. Ordered by Judge Edward R. Korman on 5/21/2013. (Chee, Alvin) (Entered: 05/21/2013)
214 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Edward R. Korman: Settlement Conference held on 5/21/2013. Counsel for parties present. Settlement as stated on the record. Plaintiff Intervenor Spencer sworn. Consent decree executed, so ordered and filed. (Court Reporter : Hong.) (Chee, Alvin) (Entered: 05/22/2013)
215 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 5/21/13, before Judge Korman. Court Reporter/Transcriber TRANSCRIPTION PLUS II. Email address: laferrara44@gmail.com. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 4/11/2014. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/21/2014. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/19/2014. (Hong, Loan) Modified on 4/17/2014 (Hong, Loan). (Entered: 03/21/2014)