WILLIAM R. TAMAYO, REGIONAL ATTORNEY U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNIN COMMISSION SAN FRANCISCO DISTRICT 350 THE EMBARCADERO, SUITE 500 SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94105-1260
KATHRYN OLSON, SUPERVISORY TRIAL ATTORNEY JOHN F. STANLEY, ACTING SUPERVISORY TRIAL ATTORNEY WESLEY KATAHIRA, SENIOR TRIAL ATTORNEY WESLEY.KATAHIRA@EEOC.GOV EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 909 FIRST AVENUE, SUITE 400 SEATTLE, WA 98104 TEL: (206) 220-6918
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
CREW CONCEPTS, INC., Defendant.

) ) CIVIL ACTION NO.
1
) COMPLAINT
1
) JURY TRIAL DEMAND
) )

NATURE OF THE ACTION This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to correct unlawful employment practices and to provide appropriate relief to Rachael Koval and Emily Clegg, who were adversely affected by

COMPLAINT - 1

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Seattle Field Offlce
909 First Avenue. Suite 400 Seattle. Washington 98104-1061
Telephone: (206)220-6883 Facsimile: (206)22C-6911
TDD: (206)220-6882

such practices. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC" or "the Commission") alleges that defendant sexually harassed Ms. Koval and Ms. Clegg because of their sex, creating a hostile environment. EEOC further alleges that defendant harassed Ms. Koval and Ms. Clegg based on their gender, creating a hostile environment. EEOC also alleges that defendant, as a result of its failure to take prompt remedial actions to stop the harassment, caused Ms. Koval's and Ms. Clegg's constructive discharge. Finally, the EEOC contends that defendant discriminated against Ms. Koval and Ms. Clegg by requiring them to pay more in health insurance premiums than men based on their sex, female, for the same coverage. Plaintiff seeks monetary and injunctive relief, including pecuniary and nonpecuniary compensatory damages and punitive damages.
JURISDICTION 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 Sections 706(f)(l) and (3) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-5(f)(l) and (3) ("Title VII"), and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991,42 U.S.C. s1981a. 2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the District of Idaho.
PARTIES Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the

COMPLAINT - 2

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Seattle Field Office
909 First Avenue. Suite 400 Seattle. Washington 98104-1061
Telephone: (206) 220-6883 Facsilrile: (206) 220691 I
TDD: (206) 220-6882

"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(f)(l) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. s2000e-5(f)(l).
4. At all relevant times, defendant, Crew Concepts, Inc., ("Crew Concepts") incorporated in the State of Idaho, has continuously been a corporation doing business in the State of ldaho and has continuously had at least 15 employees.
At all relevant times, defendant has continuously 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).
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Rachael Koval and Emily Clegg filed charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleging violations of Title VII by defendant Crew Concepts. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled. 7. From at least September, 2004 to May, 2005 defendant engaged in unlawful employment practices at its Nampa, ldaho facility in violation of § 703(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2(a). Defendant affected the terms and conditions of employment of Ms. Koval and Ms. Clegg by subjecting them to a sexually hostile work environment and a hostile work environment because of their gender, female, and by requiring them to pay more in health insurance premiums than men because of their gender for the same coverage. Finally, defendant caused Ms. Koval's and Ms. Clegg's

COMPLAINT - 3

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Seattle Field Office
909 First Avenue, Suite 400 SeatUe, Washington 98104-1061
Telephone: (206) 220-6883 Facsimle: (206) 220-6911
TDD: (206) 220-6882

constructive discharge by its failure to take prompt remedial actions to stop the harassment.
8. The effect of the practices complained of in paragraph 7 above has been
to deprive Ms. Koval and Ms. Clegg of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees of Crew Concepts because of their sex.
9. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 7 above were intentional.
10. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 7 above were done with malice or with reckless indifferenceto the federally protected rights of Rachael Koval and Emily Clegg.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining defendant, its officers, successors, agents, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in any other employment practice which discriminates on the bases of sex, race, and retaliation. B. Order defendant to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for all employees and which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices. C. Order defendant to make whole Rachael Koval and Emily Clegg by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful

COMPLAINT - 4

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Seattle Field Office
909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle. Washinglcm 98104-1061
Telephone: (206) 220-6883 Facsimile: (206) 220691 1
TDD: (206) 220-68BZ

employment practices described in paragraph 7 above, including past and future out-ofpocket expenses, in amounts to be determined at trial.
D. Order defendant to make whole Rachael Koval and Emily Clegg by providing compensation for past and future nonpecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices complained of in paragraph 7 above, including without limitation emotional pain, suffering, and loss of enjoyment of life, in amounts to be determined at trial.
E. Order defendant to pay Rachael Koval and Emily Clegg punitive damages for its malicious and reckless conduct described in paragraph 7 above, in amounts to be determined at trial.
F. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public interest.
G. 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.

COMPLAINT - 5

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Seattle Field Office
909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington 98104-1061
Telephone:(206)220-6883 Facsimile: (206) 220-691 1
TDD: (206)220-6882

DATED this 27thday of September, 2006.

WILLIAM R. TAMAYO Regional Attorney San Francisco District 350 The Embarcadero, Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94105-1260

RONALD S. COOPER General Counsel

KATHRYN OLSON Supervisory Trial Attorney

JAMES L. LEE Deputy General Counsel

JOHN F. STANLEY Acting Supervisory Trial Attorney

GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel

WESLEY KATAHIRA Senior Trial Attorney

IS/ WILLIAM R. TAMAYO EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Seattle Field Office 909 1st Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, WA 981040

Office of the General Counsel 1801 "L" Street NW Washington, D.C. 20507

Attorneys for Plaintiff

COMPLAINT - 6

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Seattle Field Office
909 First Avenue. Suite 400 Seattle. Washinglon 98104-1061
Telephone: (206) 2206883 Facsimile: (206)220-6911
TDD: (206)

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff, v. CREW CONCEPTS, INC.,
Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. CV 06-388-S-EJL

)

)

ORDER

)

)

)

Currently pending before the Court is Defendant's Motion for Protective Order (Docket No. 35). In the interest of avoiding delay, and because the Court conclusively finds that the decisional process on the pending motion would not be significantly aided by oral argument, the Court will address and resolve the motion without a hearing. Having carefully reviewed the record and otherwise being fully advised, the Court enters the following Order.
I. BACKGROUND On June 21, 2007, Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") served Defendant, Crew Concepts, Inc. ("Crew Concepts") with a Notice of Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition scheduled for July 12, 2007 at 9:00 am ("Deposition Notice"). Motion for Protective Order, Ex. A (Docket No. 35). On July 2, 2007, Crew Concepts filed the instant Motion for Protective Order (Docket No. 35) seeking to quash the entire Deposition Notice, because it has "permanently ceased its operations" and cannot designate anyone within 100 miles of this Court

ORDER-I-

to comply with the Deposition Notice. Memorandum in Support ofMotion for Protective Order, p. 2 (Docket No. 36). Crew Concepts also objects to the relevancy of certain categories of questions set forth in the Deposition Notice. Id. at 4-5. Specifically, Crew Concepts objects to questions related to the relationship between Crew Concepts and Mustang Helicopters, Inc.; Helicraft, Inc.; Placement B. Allard; and Coast to Coast Helicopters, as these entities are not parties to this lawsuit. Id. at 4. In addition, Crew Concepts objects to question surrounding the voluntary surrender of its Federal Aviation Administration Certificate of Operation. Id. at 5. Finally, Crew Concepts seeks its attorneys fees and costs associated with the pursuit of the Protective Order.
II. ANALYSIS "Upon motion by a party or by the person from whom discovery is sought," Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes the Court to make "any order which justice requires to protect a party or person from armoyance, embarrassment, oppression or undue burden or expense." "The Supreme Court has interpreted this language as conferring 'broad discretion on the trial court to decide when a protective order is appropriate and what degree of protection is required.'" Phillips ex. rei. Estates ofByrdv. General Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1211 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 36 (1984)). A protective order may issue, however, only "for good cause shown." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). A. Motion to Quash Deposition Notice Defendant's Motion for Protective Order asks the Court to quash Plaintiffs Deposition Notice in its entirety. Crew Concepts argues that it carmot comply with the Deposition Notice,
ORDER-2-

because it is no longer in operations, no officer or director ofthe company lives within 100 miles of Boise, and the individuals with the most knowledge of the subject matter described in the Deposition Notice live in Canada and do not consent to testify on Crew Concept's behalf. Memorandum in Support ofMotion to Compel (Docket No. 36).
Defendant does not cite to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or any applicable case law in support of its argument. See Local Dist. Idaho Loc. Civ. R. 7.l(b)(I) ("[e]ach motion ... must be accompanied by a separate brief ... containing all the reasons and points and authorities relied upon by the moving party"). As a result, Defendant appears to ignore the fact that Crew Concepts, an Idaho corporation in good standing, has certain obligations it must honor when named as a deponent pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6).
Pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6), a party may name as the deponent a public or private corporation and "describe with reasonable particularity the matters on which examination is requested." Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6). "In that event, the organization so named shall designate one or more officers, directors, or managing agents, or other persons who consent to testify on its behalf." Id. Once named as a deponent pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6), a corporation has two central duties: (I) designate one or more individuals who consent to testify on its behalf and (2) prepare the witness or witnesses to answer questions on the topic identified in the notice of deposition. "The corporation ... must not only produce such number of persons as will satisfy the request, but, more importantly, prepare them so that they may give complete, knowledgeable and binding answers on behalf of the corporation." Marker v. Union Fidelity Life Ins. Co., 125 F.R.D. 121, 126 (M.D.N.C. 1989).
ORDER-3-

A corporation is not relieved from preparing its Rule 30(b)(6) designee even when it no longer employs individuals who remember the earlier event. United States v. Taylor, 166 F.R.D. 356, 361 (M.D.N.C. 1996). "[T]he duty to present and prepare a Rule 30(b)(6) designeee goes beyond matters personally known to that designee or to matters in which that designee was personally involved." Id. "The deponent must prepare the designee to the extent matters are reasonably available, whether from documents, past employees, or other sources." Bank o/New Yorkv. Meridien BIAL Bank Tanzania Ltd., 171 F.R.D. 135, 151 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) (citing SE.C. v. Morelli, 143 F.R.D. 42, 45 (S.D.N.Y. 1992».
To comply with Rule 30(b)(6), the corporation must demonstrate that it made a good faith effort to find and prepare a corporate designee. A corporation "must make a conscientious goodfaith endeavor to designate the persons having knowledge of the matters sought by the party noticing the deposition and to prepare those persons in order that they can answer fully, completely, unevasively, the questions posed ... as to the relevant subject matters." Id.
Upon receipt of the Deposition Notice, Crew Concepts, an Idaho corporation with its principal place of business in Nampa, Idaho, was obligated to designate and prepare an individual in Idaho to act as its corporate designee. The record here does not demonstrate that Defendant has met its obligations under the Rule.
It is undisputed that Crew Concepts is no longer operating a business. See Cox Declaration, Ex. A (letter to Federal Aviation Administration dated august 28, 2006) (Docket No. 40-2). However, the corporate entity continues to exist. Id. at Ex. B (Crew Concept's Annual Report, dated October 31, 2006). Further, Crew Concepts continues to actively defend this lawsuit, including responding to discovery requests. Id. at Ex. C (Crew Concept's Response
ORDER-4-

to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories an Requests for Production of Documents dated May 31, 2007). Clearly, counsel is in contact with someone currently or formerly associated with Crew Concepts with at least some knowledge relevant to the categories of information identified in the Deposition Notice. There is no evidence in the record why this individual or individuals cannot similarly prepare a Rule 30(b)(6) designee.
Defendant argues that it cannot comply with the Deposition Notice, because no officer or director of the company lives within 100 miles of Boise, and the individuals with the most knowledge of the subject matter described in the Deposition Notice live in Canada and do not consent to testify on Crew Concept's behalf. The problem with this argument is that Rule 30(b)(6) identifies that corporation as a deponent. "The designated witness is 'speaking for the corporation,' and this testimony must be distinguished from that of a 'mere corporate employee' whose deposition is not considered that of the corporation and whose presence must be obtained
us. by subpoena." v. Taylor, 166 F.R.D. at 361 (citing SA Wright, Miller & Marcus § 2103 at
36-37.) Thus, it is immaterial that the best witnesses are in Canada. The corporation is still obligated to prepare someone to testify on its behalf in Idaho pursuant to the Deposition Notice.
In short, Crew Concepts is not relieved of its duties under Rule 30(b)(6) simply because it no longer leases helicopters and two of its former employees now live in Canada. The corporation continues to exist and is obligated to make a good faith effort to designate and prepare a witness to be deposed in compliance with Plaintiffs Deposition Notice. Nonetheless, given the short timeframe involved with this expedited motion, for practical purposes, the 30(b)(6) deposition will be continued for at least fourteen (14) days in order to provide Defendant with sufficient time to prepare a designated witness.
ORDER-5-

B. Relevancy Objections Defendant also objects to categories one and six in the Deposition Notice, which identify
the following categories of questioning: (I) "[t]he interrelatedness of operations of Crew Concepts, Mustang Helicopters, Placement B. Allard, Helicraft, and Coast to Coast Helicopters" and (6) "[i]nformation regarding the forfeiture of Crew Concepts FAA certificate of operations." Motionfor Protective Order, Ex. A (Docket No. 35-2). Defendant argues such information is not relevant to Plaintiffs claims. Memorandum in Support ofMotionfor Protective Order, pp. 4-5 (Docket No. 36).
As a general rule "parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action.... The information sought need not be admissible at the trial if the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(I).
The Supreme Court of the United States has indicated that the definition of relevancy, for purposes of discovery, "has been construed broadly to encompass any matter that bears on, or that reasonably could lead to other matters that could bear on, any issue that is or may be in the case." Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 350 (1978). Consistent with the liberal, notice pleading standards, "discovery is not limited to issues raised in the pleadings, for discovery itself is designed to help define and clarify the issues." Id.
At the same time, there are limits to what a party may properly seek via discovery. "District courts need not condone the use of discovery to engage in 'fishing expedition[s]. ", Rivera v. NIBCO, 364 F.3d 1057, 1072 (9th Cir. 2004)(citing Exxon Corp. v. Crosby-Mississippi Res., Ltd., 40 F.3d 1474, 1487 (5th Cir. 1995».
ORDER-6-

In the instant case, there is no need to limit the discovery as Defendant requests. The relevancy objections are unfounded, as Plaintiff is not confined solely to the allegations in the Complaint as Defendant argues. The questions regarding corporate ownership are important and potentially relevant to this lawsuit, as Plaintiff has alleged that Crew Concepts, Mustang Helicopters, and Helicraft are an integrated enterprise and all three entities played a role in establishing the terms and conditions of employment at issue in this lawsuit. PlaintiffEEOC's Memorandum in Support ofits Motion to Amend Complaint and Join Defendants, p. 2 (Docket No. 15-2). Further, as made clear in Crew Concept's letter to the Federal Aviation Administration, Cox Declaration, Ex. A (Docket No. 40-2), information related to the voluntary surrender of Crew Concept's Federal Aviation Administration license, may also lead to relevant information related to the interconnectedness of the above-identified corporate entities. Therefore, Defendant's request to limit the categories of questions sought in the Deposition Notice is denied. C. Attorneys Fees
Because Defendant's Motion for Protective Order (Docket No. 35) is denied, its request for attorneys fees is also denied.
III. ORDER In accordance with the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Protective Order (Docket No. 35) is DENIED. However, the deposition will be continued for
ORDER-7-

at least fourteen (14) days for practical purposes to accommodate travel schedules and allow Defendant time to prepare its designated witness.
DATED: July 11,2007. Honorable Larry M. Boyle U. S. Magistrate Judge
ORDER-8-

 
 WILLIAM R. TAMAYO, REGIONAL ATTORNEY U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION SAN FRANCISCO DISTRICT 350 THE EMBARCADERO, SUITE 500 SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94105-1260
JOHN STANLEY, SUPERVISORY TRIAL ATTORNEY LISA COX, TRIAL ATTORNEY EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 909 FIRST AVENUE, SUITE 400 SEATTLE, WA 98104 TEL: (206) 220-6859 LISA.COX@EEOC.GOV
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
v.
CREW CONCEPTS, INC., MUSTANG HELICOPTERS, INC. And HELICRAFT 2000, Inc.
Defendants. _____________________________________

CIVIL ACTION NO. CV-06-00388 EJL
EEOC’S FIRST AMENDED
COMPLAINT )
JURY TRIAL DEMAND

NATURE OF THE ACTION

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

Civil Rights Act of 1991 to correct unlawful employment practices and to provide

AMENDED COMPLAINT - 1

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Seattle Field Office
909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington 98104-1061
Telephone: (206) 220-6883 Facsimile: (206) 220-6911
TDD: (206) 220-6882

appropriate relief to Rachael Koval (now “Wilmorth”) and Emily Clegg, who were adversely affected by such practices. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC” or “the Commission”) alleges that defendants sexually harassed Ms. Wilmorth and Ms. Clegg because of their sex, creating a hostile environment. EEOC further alleges that defendants harassed Ms. Wilmorth and Ms. Clegg based on their gender, creating a hostile environment. EEOC also alleges that defendants, as a result of their failure to take prompt remedial actions to stop the harassment, caused Ms. Wilmorth’s and Ms. Clegg's constructive discharge. Plaintiff seeks monetary and injunctive relief, including pecuniary and nonpecuniary compensatory damages and punitive damages.
JURISDICTION 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 Sections 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3) (“Title VII”), and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. §1981a. 2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the District of Idaho.

PARTIES 3. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the “Commission”), is the agency of the United States of America charged with the

AMENDED COMPLAINT - 2

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Seattle Field Office
909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington 98104-1061
Telephone: (206) 220-6883 Facsimile: (206) 220-6911
TDD: (206) 220-6882

administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title VII, and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Section 706(f)(1) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5(f)(1).
4. At all relevant times, defendant, Crew Concepts, Inc., ("Crew Concepts") incorporated in the State of Idaho, and its affiliated companies Mustang Helicopters, Inc. (“Mustang”) and Helicraft 2000, Inc. (“Helicraft”), through their integrated enterprise, have continuously done business in the State of Idaho and have continuously had at least 15 employees.
5. At all relevant times, defendants have continuously 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).
6. Defendants Mustang Helicopters and Helicraft are proper parties pursuant to this court permitting joinder of Mustang and Helicraft under Rule 20(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 6. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Rachael Wilmorth and Emily Clegg filed charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleging violations of Title VII by defendant Crew Concepts. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled. 7. From at least September, 2004 to May, 2005 defendants engaged in unlawful employment practices at their Nampa, Idaho facility in violation of § 703(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2(a). Defendants affected the terms and conditions of

AMENDED COMPLAINT - 3

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Seattle Field Office
909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington 98104-1061
Telephone: (206) 220-6883 Facsimile: (206) 220-6911
TDD: (206) 220-6882

employment of Ms. Wilmorth and Ms. Clegg by subjecting them to a sexually hostile work environment and a hostile work environment because of their gender, female. Finally, defendants caused Ms. Wilmorth's and Ms. Clegg's constructive discharge by their failure to take prompt remedial actions to stop the harassment.
8. The effect of the practices complained of in paragraph 7 above has been to deprive Ms. Wilmorth and Ms. Clegg of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees because of their sex.
9. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 7 above were intentional.
10. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 7 above were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Rachael Wilmorth and Emily Clegg.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining defendants, their officers, successors, agents, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with them, from engaging in any other employment practice which discriminates on the bases of sex. B. Order defendants to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for all employees and which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices.

AMENDED COMPLAINT - 4

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Seattle Field Office
909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington 98104-1061
Telephone: (206) 220-6883 Facsimile: (206) 220-6911
TDD: (206) 220-6882

C. Order defendants to make whole Rachael Wilmorth and Emily Clegg by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described in paragraph 7 above, including past and future out-ofpocket expenses, in amounts to be determined at trial.
D. Order defendants to make whole Rachael Wilmorth and Emily Clegg by providing compensation for past and future nonpecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices complained of in paragraph 7 above, including without limitation emotional pain, suffering, and loss of enjoyment of life, in amounts to be determined at trial.
E. Order defendants to pay Rachael Wilmorth and Emily Clegg punitive damages for its malicious and reckless conduct described in paragraph 7 above, in amounts to be determined at trial.
F. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public interest.
G. 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. // // // //

AMENDED COMPLAINT - 5

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Seattle Field Office
909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington 98104-1061
Telephone: (206) 220-6883 Facsimile: (206) 220-6911
TDD: (206) 220-6882

DATED this 13th day of August, 2007.
WILLIAM R. TAMAYO Regional Attorney San Francisco District 350 The Embarcadero, Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94105-1260
JOHN F. STANLEY Supervisory Trial Attorney
LISA COX Trial Attorney

RONALD S. COOPER General Counsel
JAMES L. LEE Deputy General Counsel
GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel

/S/ WILLIAM R. TAMAYO____________ EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Seattle Field Office 909 1st Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, WA 98104

Office of the General Counsel 1801 "L" Street NW Washington, D.C. 20507

Attorneys for Plaintiff

AMENDED COMPLAINT - 6

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Seattle Field Office
909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington 98104-1061
Telephone: (206) 220-6883 Facsimile: (206) 220-6911
TDD: (206) 220-6882

 
 WILLIAM R. TAMAYO, REGIONAL ATTORNEY 1 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 2 SAN FRANCISCO DISTRICT OFFICE
350 THE EMBARCADERO, SUITE 500 3 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105-1260

4 JOHN STANLEY, SUPERVISORY TRIAL ATTORNEY LISA COX, TRIAL ATTORNEY
5 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 6 909 FIRST AVENUE, SUITE 400
SEATTLE, WA 98104 7 TEL: (206) 220-6859

8 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
9

10

11

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

12

13
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

14 COMMISSION,

CIVIL ACTION NO. CV06-388-S-EJL

15

Plaintiff

16

v.

17 CREW CONCEPTS, INC. 18 MUSTANG HELICOPTERS, INC. and
HELICRAFT, INC.

19

Defendant.

[PROPOSED] CONSENT DECREE AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL

20

I. INTRODUCTION

21

22

1. This action originated with discrimination charges filed by Emily Clegg and Rachael

23 Willmorth (“Charging Parties”) with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

24
(“EEOC”). The Charging Parties alleged that Crew Concepts, Inc. discriminated against them on

25
the basis of their sex by subjecting them to sexual harassment, and constructive discharge, in

[PROPOSED] CONSENT DECREE AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL - Page 1 of 10

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITYCOMMISSION
Seattle Field Office 909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington 98104-1061 Telephone: (206) 220-6883
Facsimile: (206) 220-6911 TDD: (206) 220-6882

violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. §
1
2 2000e et seq. On

3

2. The EEOC filed a lawsuit against Crew Concepts on behalf of Ms. Clegg and Ms.

4 Willmorth, on September 27, 2006, in the United States District Court for the District of Idaho.

5 On August 13, 2007, the complaint was amended to join Mustang Helicopters, Inc. and Helicraft
6
Inc. as parties. The parties submit this Consent Decree in an effort to conclude all claims arising
7
out of the above charges without expending further resources in contested litigation.
8
3. The parties want to conclude fully and finally all claims arising out of the charges of
9
10 discrimination filed with the EEOC by Ms. Clegg and Ms. Willmorth. The parties enter into this

11 Consent Decree to further the objectives of equal employment opportunity as set forth in Title

12 VII.

13

II. NONADMISSION OF LIABILITY

14
4. This Consent Decree is not an adjudication or finding on the merits of this case and
15
shall not be construed as an admission by Defendant.
16

III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
17

18

5. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 451, 1331, 1337, 1343

19 and 1345. This action is authorized pursuant to Sections 706(f) (1) and (3) of Title VII of the

20 Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-5(f) (1) and (3), and Section 102 of

21
the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a. The parties agree that the alleged acts took
22
place within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the District of Idaho.
23

24

IV. SETTLEMENT SCOPE

25

[PROPOSED] CONSENT DECREE AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL - Page 2 of 10

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITYCOMMISSION
Seattle Field Office 909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington 98104-1061 Telephone: (206) 220-6883
Facsimile: (206) 220-6911 TDD: (206) 220-6882

6. This Consent Decree is the final and complete resolution of all allegations of unlawful
1
2 employment practices contained in the Charging Parties discrimination charges, in the EEOC's 3 administrative determinations, and in the complaints filed herein, including all claims by the

4 parties for attorney fees and costs.

5
V. MONETARY RELIEF
6

7

7. In settlement of this lawsuit, Defendant Crew Concepts has agreed to pay $15,000 to

8 Ms. Clegg and $25,000 to Ms. Willmorth, within ten (15) business days of signing this

9
agreement. This payment will be sent directly to Ms. Clegg and Ms. Willmorth, at addresses to
10
be provided by the EEOC.
11

12

VII. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

13

A. General Provisions

14

8. Crew Concepts shall comply with Title VII and shall monitor the affirmative

15 obligations of this Consent Decree. The terms of this Consent Decree apply to all applicants and
16
employees. The EEOC will dismiss the Complaint as to Mustang Helicopters, Inc. and Helicraft,
17
Inc. with prejudice, each side bearing its own costs and fees.
18
9. The company will not retaliate against any applicant or employee for opposing a
19
20 practice deemed unlawful by Title VII or for making a charge, testifying, assisting, or
21 participating in any investigation, proceeding, or hearing associated with this action.

22

10. Crew Concepts, its officers, agents, and employees are hereby enjoined from

23 engaging in personnel practices which unlawfully discriminate against applicants and/or
24
employees in violation of Title VII.
25

[PROPOSED] CONSENT DECREE AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL - Page 3 of 10

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITYCOMMISSION
Seattle Field Office 909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington 98104-1061 Telephone: (206) 220-6883
Facsimile: (206) 220-6911 TDD: (206) 220-6882

1

2

B. Prospective Provisions

3

The EEOC recognizes that Crew Concepts has scaled back its operations and is currently

4 operating on a limited basis with only two employees. However, should Crew Concepts increase

5 its operations to include 15 or more employees, at any time within three years of filing this
6
consent decree, it agrees to institute the policies and practices set forth below in sections I-II.
7
I. Retention of a Consultant to Develop Policy Against Discrimination
8
11. With the assistance of an independent consultant who specializes in anti-
9
10 discrimination issues, Crew Concepts shall adopt a written equal employment opportunity policy

11 which sets forth the requirements of federal and state laws against employment discrimination

12 and specifically those provisions which make sexual harassment unlawful and which make it
13 unlawful to retaliate against any current or former employee for opposing any practice made
14
unlawful by Title VII. The consultant shall be retained at Crew Concept’s expense, and will be
15
subject to the prior approval of the EEOC. The policy and complaint procedure to be developed
16
will address the following statement of a Zero-Tolerance Policy: “Crew Concepts is firmly
17
18 committed to developing and maintaining a zero-tolerance policy concerning discrimination,

19 harassment and retaliation against individuals who report discrimination or harassment in the

20 company's workplace; to swiftly and firmly responding to any acts of discrimination, harassment
21
or retaliation of which the company becomes aware; to implementing a disciplinary system that
22
is designed to strongly deter future acts of discrimination, harassment or retaliation; to
23
eradicating any vestiges of a work environment that is discriminatorily hostile to employees; and
24
25 to actively monitor its workplace in order to ensure tolerance, respect and dignity for all people.

[PROPOSED] CONSENT DECREE AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL - Page 4 of 10

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITYCOMMISSION
Seattle Field Office 909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington 98104-1061 Telephone: (206) 220-6883
Facsimile: (206) 220-6911 TDD: (206) 220-6882

1

2

II. Development of Anti-Discrimination Policies, Procedures and Practices

3

12. In order to effectuate the objectives embodied in Crew Concepts’ Zero-Tolerance

4 Policy and this Decree; Crew Concepts shall develop and maintain policies, procedures and

5 practices that contain the following elements.

6
a. Anti-Discrimination and Harassment Policy. Crew Concepts agrees that it
7
shall implement an anti-discrimination and harassment policy, as necessary, in
8
order to:
9

10

i. provide clear definitions and examples of prohibited discrimination,

11

harassment, and retaliation;

12

ii. provide for substantial and progressive discipline for incidents of

13

discrimination, harassment, and/or retaliation;

14
iii. provide that complaints of discrimination, harassment and/or
15
retaliation will be accepted by Crew Concepts in writing and orally;
16

iv. provide a timetable for reporting a complaint, for commencing an
17

18

investigation after a complaint is made or received and for remedial action

19

to be taken upon conclusion of an investigation; and

20

v. indicate that, promptly upon the conclusion of its investigation of a

21
complaint, Crew Concepts will communicate to the complaining party the
22
results of the investigation and remedial actions taken or proposed, if any.
23
b. Complaint Procedures.
24

25

[PROPOSED] CONSENT DECREE AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL - Page 5 of 10

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITYCOMMISSION
Seattle Field Office 909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington 98104-1061 Telephone: (206) 220-6883
Facsimile: (206) 220-6911 TDD: (206) 220-6882

1. Crew Concepts agrees that it shall institute a complaint procedure
1

2

designed to encourage employees to come forward with complaints about

3

violations of its anti-discrimination, harassment and retaliation policy. As

4

part of this policy, Crew Concepts agrees that it shall provide its

5

employees with convenient, confidential and reliable mechanisms for

6
reporting incidents of discrimination, harassment and retaliation. Crew
7
Concepts agrees that it shall designate at least two upper management
8
employees charged with investigating such issues, as persons who may be
9

10

contacted, and their names, responsibilities, work locations and telephone

11

numbers shall be routinely and continuously posted.

12

2. Crew Concepts agrees that it shall ensure that its policies and

13

procedures provide that complaint handling and disciplinary procedures

14
regarding all complaints of discrimination, harassment and/or retaliation
15
are investigated and addressed promptly. Specifically, Crew Concepts
16

agrees that it shall make its best effort to investigate all complaints of
17

18

discrimination, harassment and/or retaliation promptly and to complete

19

investigations within two (2) weeks.

20

3. Crew Concepts agrees that it shall make its best effort to ensure that

21
appropriate remedial action is taken to resolve complaints and to avoid the
22
occurrence of further incidents of discrimination, harassment and/or
23
retaliation. Crew Concepts further agrees that it shall institute a
24

25

progressive discipline policy to provide for appropriate discipline

[PROPOSED] CONSENT DECREE AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL - Page 6 of 10

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITYCOMMISSION
Seattle Field Office 909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington 98104-1061 Telephone: (206) 220-6883
Facsimile: (206) 220-6911 TDD: (206) 220-6882

including, but not limited to, suspensions without pay, demotion or
1

2

termination, as possible consequences for violations of its anti-

3

discrimination and harassment policy.

4

c. Policies Designed To Promote Supervisor Accountability.

5

1. Crew Concepts agrees that it shall impose discipline designed to stop

6
any unlawful behavior, up to and including suspension without pay,
7
demotion or termination upon any employee, including supervisors or
8
managers, who engages in discrimination or harassment or permit any
9

10

such conduct to occur in his or her work area or among employees under

11

his or her supervision, or who retaliates against any person who complains

12

or participates in any investigation or proceeding concerning any such

13

conduct. Crew Concepts shall communicate this policy to all of its

14
employees.
15
2. Crew Concepts agrees that it shall continue to advise all managers and
16

supervisors of their duty to actively monitor their work areas to ensure
17

18

employees’ compliance with the company’s anti-discrimination and

19

harassment policy, and to report any incidents and/or complaints of

20

discrimination, harassment and/or retaliation of which they become aware

21
to the management employees charged with handling such complaints.
22
3. Crew Concepts agrees that, in evaluating the performance and
23
determining compensation of managers and supervisors, it shall take into
24

25

account how supervisors and managers handle equal employment

[PROPOSED] CONSENT DECREE AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL - Page 7 of 10

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITYCOMMISSION
Seattle Field Office 909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington 98104-1061 Telephone: (206) 220-6883
Facsimile: (206) 220-6911 TDD: (206) 220-6882

opportunity (“EEO”) issues, and to link such evaluations to any supervisor
1

2

or management promotion and/or salary/bonus decisions.

3

d. Anti-Discrimination Training.

4

Crew Concepts agrees that it shall provide four (4) hours of mandatory

5

anti-discrimination and harassment training annually to all employees,

6
including supervisors, managers, for the duration of this decree. The
7
training shall be conducted by an individual approved by the EEOC.
8
D. Disclosure if Information
9

10

13. With the exception of the Consent Decree entered in this case, Crew Concepts shall

11 not disclose any information or make references to any charge of discrimination or this lawsuit in

12 responding to requests for information about Ms. Clegg or Ms. Willmorth.

13

E. Reporting

14
14. Crew Concepts shall report in writing to the EEOC on an annual basis, beginning six
15
months (6) months from the date of the entry of this decree, and thereafter every twelve (12)
16

months the following information:
17

18

a. Certification of the completion of training for managers, supervisors, and non-

19

management employees along with lists of attendees;

20

b. Certification that their EEO policies have been distributed to all current and

21

newly hired employees;

22

c. A list of any changes, modifications, revocations or revisions to their EEO

23

policies and procedures which concern or affect the subject of discrimination.

24

d. A summary of internal discrimination, harassment or retaliation complaints, if

25

any; and

[PROPOSED] CONSENT DECREE AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL - Page 8 of 10

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITYCOMMISSION
Seattle Field Office 909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington 98104-1061 Telephone: (206) 220-6883
Facsimile: (206) 220-6911 TDD: (206) 220-6882

e. A statement certifying that the company has complied with the terms of this
1

2

Consent Decree. If Defendant has not complied with any term of this Consent

3

Decree, the statement will specify the areas of noncompliance, the reason for the

4

noncompliance, and the steps taken to bring Defendant into compliance.

5

F. Posting

6
15. Crew Concepts will post a Notice, attached as Exhibit A to this Consent Decree at its
7
facility. The Notice shall include a recitation of the “Zero-Tolerance Policy” referred to in
8
Paragraph 11 above. The Notice shall be posted on a centrally located bulletin board or other
9

10 place where such notices are normally posted and read by employees during the four (4) year

11 period of this Consent Decree.

12

VIII. ENFORCEMENT

13

16. If the EEOC determines that Crew Concepts has not complied with the terms of this

14
Consent Decree, the EEOC shall provide written notification of the alleged breach to the
15
company. The EEOC agrees not to petition the Court for enforcement of this Consent Decree for
16

at least thirty (30) days after providing written notification of the alleged breach. The 30-day
17

18 period following the written notice shall be used by the parties for good faith efforts to resolve

19 the dispute.

20

IX. RETENTION OF JURISDICTION

21
17. The United States District Court for the District of Idaho shall retain jurisdiction over
22
this matter for the duration of this Consent Decree.
23
X. DURATION AND TERMINATION
24

25

[PROPOSED] CONSENT DECREE AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL - Page 9 of 10

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITYCOMMISSION
Seattle Field Office 909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington 98104-1061 Telephone: (206) 220-6883
Facsimile: (206) 220-6911 TDD: (206) 220-6882

18. This Consent Decree shall be in effect for three (3) years beginning the day the Court
1
2 enters the Decree. If the EEOC petitions the Court for breach of this settlement agreement, and 3 the Court finds Defendant to be in violation of its terms, the Court may extend the duration of

4 this Consent Decree.

5

XI. CONCLUSION

6
19. The parties are not bound by any provision of this agreement until it is signed by
7
authorized representatives of each party and entered by the Court.
8

9

Dated this 18th day of September , 2007.

10 WILLIAM R. TAMAYO 11 Regional Attorney

RONALD S. COOPER General Counsel

12 JOHN STANLEY Supervisory Trial Attorney
13
LISA COX 14 Trial Attorney
15
BY: /s/ Lisa Cox for William R. Tamayo 16 Attorney for Plaintiff, EEOC
San Francisco District Office 17 350 The Embarcadero, Suite 500
San Francisco, CA 94105-1260
18
19 Seattle Field Office 909 First Avenue, Suite 400
20 Seattle, Washington 98104 Telephone (206) 220-6859
21
22 BY: /s/ Dennis Charney Attorney for Defendant, Crew Concepts, Inc.
23 1191 E. Iron Eagle Drive Eagle, Idaho 83616
24

JAMES L. LEE Associate General Counsel
GWENDOLYN Y. REAMS Associate General Counsel

25

[PROPOSED] CONSENT DECREE AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL - Page 10 of 10

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITYCOMMISSION
Seattle Field Office 909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington 98104-1061 Telephone: (206) 220-6883
Facsimile: (206) 220-6911 TDD: (206) 220-6882

 
 District of Idaho Live CM/ECF

https://ecf.idd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?794854824178469-L_19...

LCKP, NDPLMB, TERMED
U.S. District Court District of Idaho (LIVE Database)Version 3.1.2 (Boise - Southern)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:06-cv-00388-EJL-LMB

US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Crew Concepts, Inc. Assigned to: Honorable Edward J. Lodge Referred to: Honorable Larry M. Boyle Cause: 42:2000 Job Discrimination (Sex)

Date Filed: 09/27/2006 Date Terminated: 09/25/2007 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff
US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by Lisa Cox EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 909 First Ave #400 Seattle, WA 98104-1061 (206) 220-6859 Fax: (206) 220-6911 Email: lisa.cox@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Freeman Stanley US EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 909 First Ave #400 Seattle, WA 98104-1061 (206) 220-6883 Email: john.stanley@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kathryn Blaire Olson 1-206-220-6895 Fax: 1-206-220-6911 Email: kathryn.olson@eeoc.gov TERMINATED: 05/24/2007 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Wesley Katahira US EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Seattle District Office 909 First Ave #400 Seattle, WA 98104-1061

1 of 8

3/17/2008 4:42 PM

District of Idaho Live CM/ECF

https://ecf.idd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?794854824178469-L_19...

V. Defendant Crew Concepts, Inc.
Defendant Mustang Helicopters Inc Defendant Helicraft 2000 Inc

(206) 220-6883 Fax: 1-206-220-6911 Email: wesley.katahira@eeoc.gov TERMINATED: 12/07/2006
represented by Dennis M Charney Charney and Assoc 1191 East Iron Eagle Drive Eagle, ID 83616 (208) 938-9500 Email: dennischarney@gmail.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 09/27/2006 09/28/2006
09/28/2006
09/28/2006 09/28/2006 10/06/2006

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT Jury Trial Demand against Crew Concepts, Inc., filed by US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Summons)(Katahira, Wesley)
CORRECTIVE ENTRY - The entry docket number 1 Complaint filed by US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, was filed without a cover sheet in this case. The filing party shall submit their cover sheet using Supplement located under Other Documents. (ta, )
2 NOTICE of Availability of Magistrate Judge and Requirement for Consent sent to counsel for US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 1 Complaint (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by ta, )
3 SUPPLEMENT by Plaintiff US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Civil Cover Sheet. (Katahira, Wesley)
Summons Issued as to Crew Concepts, Inc. (ja, )
4 LITIGATION ORDER Telephonic Scheduling Conference set for 12/27/2006 09:30 AM before Honorable Edward J. Lodge.. Signed by Judge Edward J. Lodge. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by ja, )

2 of 8

3/17/2008 4:42 PM

District of Idaho Live CM/ECF

https://ecf.idd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?794854824178469-L_19...

10/25/2006 10/26/2006
10/30/2006 12/07/2006 12/07/2006 12/13/2006 12/20/2006
01/09/2007 01/10/2007
03/07/2007 03/07/2007 03/15/2007
04/25/2007

5 Defendant's ANSWER to Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial by Crew Concepts, Inc..(Charney, Dennis)
6 NOTICE of Availability of Magistrate Judge and Requirement for Consent sent to counsel for Crew Concepts, Inc. re 5 Answer to Complaint (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by ja, )
7 CONSENT filed. (ja, ) (Entered: 10/31/2006)
NOTICE TO COURT that counsel Wesley Katahira wishes to no longer be noticed electronically on this case as of the date of this notice. (Katahira, Wesley)
8 NOTICE of Substitution - Attorney Wesley Katahira terminated. (Katahira, Wesley)
9 SCHEDULING CONFERENCE FORM - LITIGATION PLAN by US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Cox, Lisa)
10 SCHEDULING ORDER: Order referring to Magistrate Judge Larry M. Boyle non-dispositive pretrial matters. Amended Pleadings due by 4/25/2007. Discovery due by 7/24/2007. Joinder of Parties due by 4/25/2007. Pretrial Motions due by 8/23/2007. Jury Trial set for 2/5/2008 09:30 AM in Boise, ID before Honorable Edward J. Lodge.. Signed by Judge Edward J. Lodge. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by ja, )
11 MOTION for Disclosure by Crew Concepts, Inc.. Responses due by 2/2/2007 (Charney, Dennis)
CORRECTIVE ENTRY - The entry docket number 11 MOTION for Disclosure filed by Crew Concepts, Inc. was filed incorrectly in this case. The document is entitled "Initial Disclosures." Pursuant to Local Rule 5.4 Non-Filing of Discovery, discovery documents must be served upon other counsel and parties but must not be filed with the Clerk of Court unless on order of the court or for use in the proceeding. The docket clerk will term the motion. (ja, )
12 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery by Crew Concepts, Inc.. Responses due by 4/2/2007 (Charney, Dennis)
13 AFFIDAVIT of Dennis M. Charney re 12 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery filed by Crew Concepts, Inc.. (Charney, Dennis)
14 RESPONSE to Motion re 12 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery filed by US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Replies due by 3/29/2007. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration of Lisa Cox# 2 Exhibit A# 3 Exhibit B# 4 Exhibit C# 5 Exhibit D# 6 Exhibit E# 7 Exhibit F# 8 Exhibit G# 9 Exhibit H# 10 Exhibit I# 11 Exhibit J# 12 Exhibit K# 13 Exhibit L# 14 Exhibit M)(Cox, Lisa)
15 MOTION to Amend/Correct 1 Complaint by US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Responses due by 5/21/2007 (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support # 2 Declaration# 3 Exhibit A to Declaration# Exhibit B to Declaration# Exhibit C to Declaration# 6 Exhibit D to Declaration# 7 Exhibit E to Declaration#

3 of 8

3/17/2008 4:42 PM

District of Idaho Live CM/ECF

https://ecf.idd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?794854824178469-L_19...

04/25/2007
04/26/2007 04/26/2007 04/26/2007 05/07/2007 05/07/2007 05/07/2007 05/07/2007
05/07/2007 05/18/2007 05/21/2007
05/21/2007

Exhibit F to Declaration# 9 Exhibit G to Declaration# 10 Exhibit H to Declaration# 11 Exhibit I to Declaration# 12 Exhibit J to Declaration# 13 Exhibit K to Declaration# 14 Exhibit L to Declaration# 15 Exhibit M to Declaration# 16 Exhibit N to Declaration# 17 Exhibit O to Declaration# 18 Proposed Amended Complaint# 19 Proposed Order)(Cox, Lisa) Modified on 4/26/2007 to seal exhibit B & C due to personal identifiers (ja, ). (Ex F image removed as per order dkt #19.
16 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 15 MOTION to Amend/Correct 1 Complaint MOTION to Amend/Correct 1 Complaint MOTION to Amend/Correct 1 Complaint (Cox, Lisa)
17 ERRATA by Plaintiff US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 15 MOTION to Amend/Correct 1 Complaint Redacted Version of Exhibit F to Replace Original. (Cox, Lisa) (ja, ).
18 MOTION to Strike 15 MOTION to Amend/Correct 1 Complaint by US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Responses due by 5/21/2007 (Cox, Lisa) .
19 DOCKET ENTRY ORDER granting 18 Motion to Strike. Signed by Judge Edward J. Lodge. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by dmc, )
20 Joint MOTION to Continue ADR Deadline by US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Responses due by 5/31/2007 (Cox, Lisa)
21 DECLARATION of Lisa Cox re 20 Joint MOTION to Continue ADR Deadline filed by US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Cox, Lisa)
22 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 20 Joint MOTION to Continue ADR Deadline (Cox, Lisa)
23 ORDER granting Joint 20 Motion to extend parties ADR Deadline. The ADR deadline is hereby extended until August 10, 2007. Signed by Judge Edward J. Lodge. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by ja, )
Set Deadlines/Hearings: This is a court utility event only. ADR deadline 8/10/2007. (ja, )
24 AFFIDAVIT of Pierre Marcoux filed by Crew Concepts, Inc.. (Charney, Dennis)
25 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 12 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery. Defendant must respond to Plaintiff's Discovery Requests by 6/4/07. Signed by Judge Larry M. Boyle. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by ja, )
26 RESPONSE to Motion re 15 MOTION to Amend/Correct 1 Complaint MOTION to Amend/Correct 1 Complaint MOTION to Amend/Correct 1 Complaint MOTION to Amend/Correct 1 Complaint filed by Crew Concepts, Inc.. Replies due by 6/5/2007. (Charney, Dennis)

4 of 8

3/17/2008 4:42 PM

District of Idaho Live CM/ECF

https://ecf.idd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?794854824178469-L_19...

05/24/2007 05/25/2007 06/05/2007 06/05/2007 06/11/2007 06/18/2007 06/18/2007 06/28/2007
06/29/2007 07/02/2007 07/02/2007 07/03/2007

27 NOTICE of Substitution - Attorney John Freeman Stanley and Lisa Cox for US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission added. Attorney Kathryn Blaire Olson terminated. (Cox, Lisa)
28 ERRATA by Plaintiff US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 27 Notice of Substitution To Replace Incorrect Image in Docket # 27. (Cox, Lisa)
29 REPLY to Response to Motion re 15 MOTION to Amend/Correct 1 Complaint MOTION to Amend/Correct 1 Complaint MOTION to Amend/Correct 1 Complaint MOTION to Amend/Correct 1 Complaint filed by US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Cox, Lisa)
30 DECLARATION of Lisa Cox re 29 Reply to Response to Motion, filed by US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Rachael Willmorth# 2 Exhibit Marcoux verification page# 3 Exhibit Crew Concepts Annual Report# 4 Exhibit org chart)(Cox, Lisa)
31 NOTICE by US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission NOTICE OF UNAVAILABILITY (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Cox, Lisa) .
32 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery and file pre-trial motions by US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Responses due by 7/16/2007 (Cox, Lisa)
33 DECLARATION of Lisa Cox re 32 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery and file pre-trial motions filed by US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Cox, Lisa)
34 DOCKET ENTRY ORDER granting 32 Joint Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery and File Pre-Trial Motions. Upon good cause shown, the deadlines for discovery and pre-trial motions shall be extended for approximately 90 days. Accordingly, the parties are required to complete all discovery by October 22, 2007 and to file all pre-trial motions by August 23, 2007. All other provisions in the Scheduling Order (Docket No. 10) shall remain unchanged. Signed by Judge Larry M. Boyle. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by Pfisterer, Kira)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: This is a court utility event only. Discovery due by 10/22/2007. Pretrial Motions due by 8/23/2007. (ja, )
35 MOTION for Protective Order by Crew Concepts, Inc.. Responses due by 7/30/2007 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Charney, Dennis)
36 MEMORANDUM in Support re 35 MOTION for Protective Order filed by Crew Concepts, Inc.. (Charney, Dennis)
37 DOCKET ENTRY ORDER amending Docket Entry Order 34 . Based on the parties' Joint Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery and File Pre-Trial Motions (Docket No. 32), the extended deadlines are October 22, 2007 for discovery to be completed and November 21, 2007 for all pre-trial motions. Signed by Judge Larry M. Boyle. (Pfisterer, Kira)

5 of 8

3/17/2008 4:42 PM

District of Idaho Live CM/ECF

https://ecf.idd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?794854824178469-L_19...

07/03/2007
07/03/2007 07/03/2007 07/03/2007 07/06/2007 07/06/2007
07/09/2007 07/09/2007 07/11/2007 07/30/2007
07/30/2007 08/08/2007 08/09/2007 08/09/2007 08/09/2007

38 ORDER granting request for expedited briefing schedule on Defendant's Motion for Protective Order (Docket No. 35). Plaintiff's response is due on or before Friday, July 6, 2007 and Defendant's reply is due on or before Monday, July 9, 2007. Signed by Judge Larry M. Boyle. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by Pfisterer, Kira)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: This is a court utility event only. Discovery due by 10/22/2007. Pretrial Motions due by 11/21/2007. (ja, ) Modified on 7/3/2007 to correct dates(ja, ).
Set/Reset Deadlines as to 35 MOTION for Protective Order. This is a court utility event only. Responses due by 7/6/2007 Replies due by 7/9/2007. (ja, )
Set Deadlines/Hearings: This is a court utility event only. Pretrial Motions due by 11/21/2007. (ja, )
39 RESPONSE to Motion re 35 MOTION for Protective Order By Crew Concepts filed by US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Replies due by 7/23/2007. (Cox, Lisa)
40 DECLARATION of Lisa Cox re 39 Response to Motion filed by US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission To Defendant's Motion for Protective Order, Filed on July 2, 2007. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - H# 2 Exhibit I - R# 3 Certificate of Service)(Cox, Lisa)
41 REPLY to Response to Motion re 35 MOTION for Protective Order filed by Crew Concepts, Inc.. (Charney, Dennis)
42 AFFIDAVIT of Dennis M. Charney re 41 Reply to Response to Motion filed by Crew Concepts, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B)(Charney, Dennis)
43 ORDER denying 35 Motion for Protective Order. Signed by Judge Larry M. Boyle. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by ja, )
44 ORDER granting 15 Motion to Amend Complaint and Join Defendants. Plaintiff may amend the Complaint within 14 days of this order. Signed by Judge Larry M. Boyle. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by ja, )
Set Deadlines/Hearings: This is a court utility event only. Case Management deadline set for 8/13/2007 for Plaintiff to amend complaint. (ja)
45 Joint MOTION to Continue ADR Deadline to 9/10/07 by US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Responses due by 9/4/2007 (Cox, Lisa)
46 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Crew Concepts, Inc.. Responses due by 9/4/2007 (Charney, Dennis)
47 MEMORANDUM in Support re 46 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Crew Concepts, Inc.. (Charney, Dennis)
48 AFFIDAVIT of Pierre Marcoux re 46 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Crew Concepts, Inc.. (Charney, Dennis)

6 of 8

3/17/2008 4:42 PM

District of Idaho Live CM/ECF

https://ecf.idd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?794854824178469-L_19...

08/09/2007 08/09/2007
08/09/2007 08/09/2007 08/10/2007 08/13/2007 08/14/2007 08/17/2007 08/17/2007 09/04/2007
09/17/2007 09/18/2007 09/25/2007

49 DOCKET ENTRY ORDER granting 45 Motion to Continue. The ADR deadline shall be extended to September 10, 2007. Signed by Judge Edward J. Lodge. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by dmc, )
50 DOCKET ENTRY ORDER granting 45 Joint Motion to Continue ADR Deadline to September 10, 2007. For good cause shown, the deadline set forth in the Court's May 7, 2007 Order (Docket No. 23) is hereby extended to September 10, 2007. Signed by Judge Larry M. Boyle. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by Pfisterer, Kira)
51 AFFIDAVIT of Dennis M. Charney re 46 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Crew Concepts, Inc.. (Attachments: # Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# Exhibit B1)(Charney, Dennis)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: This is a court utility event only. ADR Plan to be filed by 9/10/2007. (ja)
CORRECTIVE ENTRY - The entry docket number 51 Exhibit A to Affidavit filed by Crew Concepts, Inc. appears to be missing images on pages 54-57. Also, Ex A and Ex B1 have been sealed due to personal identifiers. The filing party shall re-submit their filing if there are supposed to be images on those pages. (ja, )
52 AMENDED COMPLAINT Joining Mustang Helicopters, Inc. and Helicraft 2000, Inc. as Defendants in EEOC's action against Crew Concepts, Inc., filed by US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Amended Summons# 2Amended Summons)(Cox, Lisa)
Summons Issued as to Mustang Helicopters Inc, Helicraft 2000 Inc. (ja, )
53 SUPPLEMENT by Defendant Crew Concepts, Inc. re 51 Affidavit of Dennis M. Charney. (Charney, Dennis)
54 SUPPLEMENT by Defendant Crew Concepts, Inc. re 51 Affidavit Dennis M. Charney. (Charney, Dennis)
55 RESPONSE to Motion re 46 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Replies due by 9/21/2007. (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Facts# 2 Declaration# 3 Exhibit Exhibit A to Declaration# 4 Exhibit B Part 1 of 3 to Declaration# 5 Exhibit B Part 2 of 3 to Declaration# 6 Exhibit B Part 3 of 3 to Declaration# 7 Exhibit C to Declaration# 8 Exhibit D to Declaration# 9 Exhibit E to Declaration# 10 Exhibit F to Declaration)(Cox, Lisa)
56 STIPULATION and Joint ADR report by US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Cox, Lisa)
57 PROPOSED CONSENT DECREE AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL by US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Cox, Lisa) Modified on 9/19/2007 to edit text (ja, ).
58 ORDER re 56 Stipulation filed by US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 57 Proposed Consent Decree filed by US Equal Employment

7 of 8

3/17/2008 4:42 PM

District of Idaho Live CM/ECF

https://ecf.idd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?794854824178469-L_19...
Opportunity Commission. The foregoing Consent Decree be, and the same hereby is, approved as the final agreement in full settlement of this action. This lawsuit is dismissed with prejudice and without costs or attorneys' fees to any party. Signed by Judge Edward J. Lodge. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by ja, )

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

PACER Login:
Description:
Billable Pages:

03/17/2008 15:42:31

wu0079 Client Code: eeoc

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

1:06-cv-00388-EJL-LMB

6

Cost:

0.48

8 of 8

3/17/2008 4:42 PM