IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT )

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

v.

)

)

CENTENNIAL IMPORTS, INC.,

)

)

)

Defendant.

)

-----------------------------)

3:OJ.GI) 4:03jU4CJm1>
CIVIL ACTION NO.
COMPLAINT
JURY TRIAL DEMAND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF SOUGHT

NATURE OF THE ACTION

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

Rights Act of 1991 to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of race, and to

provide appropriate reliefto Frederick Cannon, Alton Lee, Oscar McAroy, Stanley Olds, and

Willie Thomas who were adversely affected by such practices. As stated with greater

particularity in paragraph seven, the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

(hereinafter the "EEOC" or "Commission") alleges that Frederick Cannon, Alton Lee, Oscar

McAroy, Stanley Olds, and Willie Thomas, all Black, were subjected to unwelcome harassment

based on their race by coworkers and management. The harassment was sufficiently severe and

pervasive to constitute a hostile, intimidating work environment. Defendant knew or should

have known of the harassment, but failed to take prompt effective remedial action.

1

-!-= ~-~; _"1,
I
,1-'
( __'l:
j --- ~
: c
, -, ,
--L,
,-
- ::./-;
,-~

.C.) I

:>d

-(-L-
r--
, '-J
i

~ C U -~,

,-/)

'-.J -~
'----l -.J

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.c. §§ 451, 1331, 1337, 1343and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Section 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 Northern District of Florida, Pensacola Division.
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff, the United States Equal Employment Opportunity 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)(1) and (3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3). 4. At all relevant times, Defendant, Centennial Imports, Inc., (the "Employer"), has continuously been a Florida Corporation doing business in the State ofFlorida and the City of Pensacola, and has continuously had at least 15 employees. 5. At all relevant times, Defendant Employer 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).
2

STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 6. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Frederick Cannon, Alton Lee, Oscar McAroy, Stanley Olds, and Willie Thomas each filed a charge with the Commission alleging violations ofTitle VII by Defendant Employer. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled. 7. Since at least May 1999 and continuing, Defendant Employer has engaged in unlawful employment practices at its Pensacola, Florida facility, in violation of Section 703(a)(1), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a) by subjecting Black employees to a racially hostile work environment. Specifically, employees Frederick Cannon, Alton Lee, Oscar McAroy, Stanley Olds, and Willie Thomas were subjected to unwelcome racial comments by Supervisor Ron White and their coworkers which were sufficiently severe and pervasive to constitute an intimidating, hostile and offensive work environment. The racially offensive conduct included, but was not limited to Frederick Cannon, Alton Lee, Oscar McAroy, Stanley Olds, and Willie Thomas: (a) being called racially offensive names, including nigger, grape ape and bush baby; (b) being subjected to racially offensive jokes; (c) witnessing one another being made the subject of racial jokes and slurs; and (d) witnessing the display and hanging ofa hangman's noose in the workplace by Supervisor Ron White. 8. The Defendant knew or should have known of the racial harassment and failed to take prompt and appropriate remedial action to remedy the racially hostile environment. 9. The effect of the practice(s) complained of in paragraph 7 and 8 above have been to deprive Frederick Cannon, Alton Lee, Oscar McAroy, Stanley Olds, and Willie Thomas of
3

equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees because of their race.
10. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 7 and 8 above were intentional.
11. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 7 and 8 above were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Frederick Cannon, Alton Lee, Oscar McAroy, Stanley Olds, and Willie Thomas.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant Employer, its officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in racial harassment and any other employment practice which discriminates on the basis ofrace. B. Order Defendant Employer to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for all its employees regardless of race which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices. C. Order Defendant Employer to make whole Frederick Cannon, Alton Lee, Oscar McAroy, Stanley Olds, and Willie Thomas by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described in paragraph 7 and 8 above, including but not limited to, out ofpocket losses, medical expenses and job search expenses, in amounts to be determined at trial. D. Order Defendant Employer to make whole Frederick Cannon, Alton Lee, Oscar
4

McAroy, Stanley Olds, and Willie Thomas, by providing compensation for past and future nonpecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices complained of in paragraph 7 and 8 above, including but not limited to, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life, and humiliation, in amounts to be determined at trial.
E. Order Defendant Employer to pay Frederick Cannon, Alton Lee, Oscar McAroy, Stanley Olds, and Willie Thomas punitive damages for its malicious and reckless conduct described in paragraph 7 and 8 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.
Respectfully submitted, NICHOLAS N. INZEO Acting Deputy General Counsel GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel DELNER FRANKLIN-THOMAS Regional Attorney MICHAEL J. FARRELL Supervisory Trial Attorney
5

Trial Attorney Florida Bar Number 0083054 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Two South Biscayne Boulevard One Biscayne Tower, Suite 2700 Miami, Florida 33131 (305) 530-6006 (305) 536-4494 facsimile
6

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

v.

Case No. 3:02cv403/LAC

CENTENNIAL IMPORTS, INC.,

Defendant. _______________________________/

ORDER DENYING SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Pending before the Court are six separate motions for summary judgment and documents in support thereof (docs. 48-69) filed by Defendant. Plaintiff timely filed memoranda and evidentiary materials in opposition (docs. 77-83). The Court has taken summary judgment under advisement (doc. 70) and is now prepared to rule on Defendant’s motions. For the reasons stated below, Defendant’s motions for summary judgment are denied.

I. BACKGROUND This cause of action was raised under Title VII by the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) against Defendant Centennial Imports, Inc. (Centennial), an automobile dealership. The EEOC claims that the five individual AfricanAmerican claimants it represents, Willie D. Thomas, Oscar McAroy III, Stanley Olds, Alton Lee, and Frederick Cannon, were each subjected to racial harassment while employed in Centennial’s detail shop. The following facts are presented in a light most favorable to the EEOC and its claimants. The EEOC’s allegations center upon the actions of Ron White, who also worked in the detail shop and, depending upon the viewpoints of the parties, may or may not have been a supervisor over the claimants. Particularly during the summer of 2000, White is alleged by each of the claimants to have engaged in a daily pattern of racial remarks to each of them while at the detail shop. W hite frequently used epithets such as “nigger”, “grape ape”, “spook” and “bush baby” when addressing or talking about one of the claimants and frequently told jokes disparaging blacks. Some of White’s comments were of a threatening nature, such as his comment that the nearby Blackwater River was so named because there were dead black persons at the bottom of the riverbed and that the Ku Klux Klan still recruits in the nearby town of Milton. More directly, White told Olds that he wanted to take him hunting or fishing, kill him and then claim it was an accident; White later told both Lee and Cannon that he had made this comment to Olds. White also suggested to Lee that he would

Case N o. 3:0 2cv4 03 / LA C

Page 2 of 16

be subjected to racial violence if he were to be found in Milton after dark, and he mentioned to Cannon that he had a gun in his car which he would use if anyone gave him trouble. White made a specific threat regarding M cAroy that he “would not hesitate to put a bullet in his crybaby nigger ass” (doc. 83 at 33) and later repeated that statement to Thomas.
Moreover, on a few occasions during the summer of 2000, each of the claimants observed White openly fashioning a noose from a piece of rope in the detail shop. On one occasion, White walked around Olds with a noose while Olds was washing a car, and on another, White stood behind Lee and waved a noose while Lee was talking with Olds. On still another occasion, White ran behind Cannon attempting to put a noose around his neck, telling Cannon he wanted to see how long it took before he turned red. Finally, on September 20, 2000, after White had hung a noose in Olds’ work area in the shop, Olds and Lee reported the incident to the Escambia Pensacola Human Relations Commission, and an investigation was commenced. When Centennial learned of the investigation and the reasons behind it, White w as sw iftly term inated. White admitted that he was a racist and verified that he had made racial comments and played with a noose at the shop. Other employees at the shop corroborated some of the incidents.
Well before the official investigation commenced, management at Centennial had been informed about White’s behavior. As far back as 1998, McAroy had informed General Manager John Mobley1 regarding White’s use of racial comments, and during 1999 Thomas

1 It was Centennial’s policy for employees to report acts of harassment to a supervisor, and Centennial does not contend that it was inappropriate for the claimants to have met with the

Case N o. 3:0 2cv4 03 / LA C

Page 3 of 16

had regularly complained to Service Manager William Evans regarding White’s racist behavior, and specifically a statement from White regarding blacks being at the bottom of the Blackwater River. In April or May of 2000, Thomas again met with Evans, this time with McAroy and two other employees present, to discuss White’s continued racial slurs and unfair work practices, and the two other employees stated their opinion that White was a racist. After White’s threatening remark in July of 2000 about shooting McAroy, Thomas and McAroy again met with Evans about the incident. Evans allegedly responded that he would speak with White and take care of the matter. McAroy had commented numerous times to Office Manager Karen Box regarding racial matters in the shop. After the incident in which White waved a noose behind Lee, Olds reported to Evans that White was playing with “a rope” and making racial comments, and Evans said he would look into the matter. On another occasion in which White was playing with a noose, Olds similarly complained, and on yet another occasion while White was fixing a noose in Evans’ presence, and Evans walked away. Additionally, V. Freeman, a Caucasian coworker, complained twice to Evans about White tying a noose in the detail shop, and K. Freeman complained once to Evans about White’s racial comments. Shortly before the September 20 noose-hanging incident which resulted in White’s firing, McAroy and Thomas had met with Box because McAroy was upset over the lack of respect he was receiving in the detail shop. In the face of these numerous meetings with supervisory staff, none of the claimants or other employees report

supervisors mentioned herein.
Case N o. 3:0 2cv4 03 / LA C

Page 4 of 16

any sort of tangible action having been taken to remedy the situation, and White’s racial harassment continued until his firing.

II. MOTION TO STRIKE As a preliminary matter, Centennial moves to strike portions of the statements of fact and the related deposition excerpts (doc. 94) filed by the EEOC in response to the summary judgment motion. The EEOC has responded (doc. 101). First, Centennial contends that the EEOC failed to com ply with Local Rule 56.1(A), ostensibly the provision requiring that each statement of fact reference the particular deposition, affidavit or other evidence from which it draws its source, “sufficient to permit the court to readily locate and check the source.” Centennial identifies several instances where no citation to the record accompanies a particular statement of fact. In many of these instances, however, the EEOC had identified the source in its response to the summary judgment motion, and Plaintiff otherwise provides the pinpoint citations in the response to the motion to strike. Although the Court expresses chagrin at the EEOC’s repeated “inadvertent” omissions in the statement of facts, nonetheless, the record is now satisfactory. Centennial also contends that some of the statements of fact should be stricken because counsel’s representations of the related deposition testimony are misleading or based upon leading questions posed during the depositions. Regardless of the merit of Centennial’s arguments as to each contested statement of fact, the Court finds no basis for striking the

Case N o. 3:0 2cv4 03 / LA C

Page 5 of 16

testimony. Rather, Centennial’s assertions amount more to argument regarding the meaning or the inferences to be drawn from the testimony.2 In this regard, Centennial’s motion more resembles a reply memorandum than a motion to strike.3
Finally, Centennial asserts that some of the EEOC’s statements of fact are based upon inadmissible hearsay and therefore should not be considered during summary judgment review. A statement that is inadmissible hearsay may be considered on a motion for summary judgment only if it is capable of being later submitted at trial in admissible form. See Macuba v. Deboer, 193 F.3d 1316, 1322-24 (11th Cir. 1999); McMillian v. Johnson, 88 F.3d 1573, 1584 (11th Cir. 1996), aff'd on other grounds, 520 U.S. 781, 117 S.Ct. 1734, 138 L.Ed.2d 1 (1997).
Statements regarding employment matters made during the course of an employment relationship may be excepted from the definition of hearsay. See Zaben v. Air Products & Chemicals, Inc., 129 F.3d 1453, 1456 (11th Cir. 1997) (citing Fed.R.Evid. 801(c)). Equally, such statements may be excepted if they constitute direct evidence of discrimination. Id. (citing Carter v. City of Miami, 870 F.2d 578, 581-82 (11th Cir.1989)). In hostile work environment claims in particular, statements directed at those other than the plaintiff may be admitted if relevant to the general perception that a hostile environment existed. See

2 The Court notes that counsel for the EEOC in one instance has admitted to representing that a certain deposition statement concerned, among other things, racial slurs when it in fact did not. Counsel for the EEOC has therefore withdrawn that particular assertion. Doc. 101 at 27.

3 Furthermore, Local Rule 7.1(c)(2) requires that leave of Court be obtained before a reply memorandum may be filed.

Case N o. 3:0 2cv4 03 / LA C

Page 6 of 16

McCowan v. All Star Maintenance, Inc., 273 F.3d 917, 925-26 (10th Cir. 2001); Carter v. Chrysler Corp., 173 F.3d 693, 701 n.3 (8th Cir. 1999); Schwapp v. Town of Avon, 118 F.3d 106, 111-12 (2d Cir. 1997); Hudson v. Norfolk Southern Ry. Co., 209 F. Supp.2d 1301, 132627 (N.D. Ga. 2001); see also, Vance v. Southern Bell Tel., 863 F.2d 1503, 1511 & n.5 (11th Cir. 1989), overruled on other grounds, 510 U.S. 17, 114 S.Ct. 367, 126 L.Ed.2d 295 (1993).
Centennial largely complains about deposition statements made by the claimants regarding what other claimants or other employees had told them regarding racial comments or actions made by Ronald White. Although these statements could amount to double hearsay, they meet the exceptions stated above because they are statements against interest and because they are verbal acts denoting a hostile work environment. Additionally, the hearsay nature of many of these statements may be later cured at trial through more direct examination of the declarants. Therefore, the Court finds as a whole that these statements are admissible at this stage of the proceedings.

III. MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT A. Standard
Summary judgment is appropriate where “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317,

Case N o. 3:0 2cv4 03 / LA C

Page 7 of 16

322, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 2552, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1986). “[T]he substantive law will identify which facts are material” and which are irrelevant. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 2510, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202 (1986). A genuine issue exists only if sufficient evidence is presented favoring the nonmoving party for a jury to return a verdict for that party. See id. at 249, 106 S. Ct. at 2510–11; see also Hairston v. Gainesville Sun Publ’g Co., 9 F.3d 913, 918 (11th Cir. 1993) (finding that a court must view all the evidence, and all factual inferences reasonably drawn from the evidence, “in the light most favorable to the non-moving party” when determining whether a genuine issue exists).
The party moving for summary judgment bears the initial burden “of informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of the ‘pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any,’ which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Celotex, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 2553, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1986); see also Fitzpatrick v. City of Atlanta, 2 F.3d 1112, 1115 (11th Cir. 1993). Only when the moving party has discharged this initial burden does the burden shift to the nonmoving party to demonstrate there is a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment. See Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 160–61, 90 S. Ct. 1598, 1610, 26 L. Ed. 2d 142 (1970); Clark v. Coats & Clark, Inc., 929 F.2d 604, 608 (11th Cir. 1991). If the nonmoving party satisfies its burden of production and creates a genuine issue of material fact, then summary judgment must be denied. See FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c).

Case N o. 3:0 2cv4 03 / LA C

Page 8 of 16

B. Discussion
As the Eleventh Circuit has held:
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from discriminating “against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” 42 U.S.C. S 2000e- 2(a)(1). A hostile work environment claim under Title VII is established upon proof that “the workplace is permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult, that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim's employment and create an abusive working environment.” Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21, 114 S.Ct. 367, 370, 126 L.Ed.2d 295 (1993). This court has repeatedly instructed that a plaintiff wishing to establish a hostile work environment claim show: (1) that he belongs to a protected group; (2) that he has been subject to unwelcome harassment; (3) that the harassment must have been based on a protected characteristic of the employee, such as [race]; (4) that the harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the terms and conditions of employment and create a discriminatorily abusive working environment; and (5) that the employer is responsible for such environment under either a theory of vicarious or of direct liability.
Miller v. Kenworth of Dothan, Inc., 277 F.3d 1269, 1275 (11th Cir. 2002).
SEVERITY
Centennial first contends, under the fourth element of proof identified above, that the
alleged harassment of each of the claimants was not severe enough to constitute a Title VII
violation. The Court readily rejects this argument. The racial epithets alone, allegedly
spoken on a daily basis and laced with intimidation and physical threats, were sufficient to
meet the Title VII threshold. See Miller, 277 F.3d at 1276-77; Walker v. Ford Motor Co.,
684 F.2d 1355, 1358-59 (11th Cir. 1982). Even if one or more of the claimants did not
receive the brunt of the comments or threats (and the Court does not so find), it is enough

Case N o. 3:0 2cv4 03 / LA C

Page 9 of 16

that the comments were made in their presence or in such a manner that they would readily
learn of them. See Walker, 684 F.2d at 1359 n.2. The Court notes significant “overlap” in
this case as each of the claimants either witnessed or appeared well aware of the abuse being
levied upon the others, and at times more than one of the claimant would meet with one of
the supervisors to discuss the harassment. Moreover, the frequency of events
notwithstanding, the “noose” incidents alone were of such severity to meet the standard, and
again, all the claimants to varying degrees witnessed White’s behavior in this regard. See
Vance v. Southern Bell Tel., 863 F.2d 1503, 1510-11 (11th Cir. 1989), overruled on other
grounds, 510 U.S. 17, 114 S.Ct. 367, 126 L.Ed.2d 295 (1993). Centennial appears to contend that the claimants did not subjectively4 perceive the
harassment as severe because there was no evidence of injury such as missed work or
psychological troubles. Even though the Court finds some evidence of this type of injury,
none is necessary. As the Supreme Court has explained,
Title VII comes into play before the harassing conduct leads to a nervous breakdown. A discriminatorily abusive work environment, even one that does not seriously affect employees' psychological well-being, can and often will detract from employees' job performance, discourage employees from remaining on the job, or keep them from advancing in their careers. Moreover, even without regard to these tangible effects, the very fact that the discriminatory conduct was so severe or pervasive that it created a work

4 In order to meet the fourth prong of the Title VII harassment standard, the harassment must result in an environment that is objectively severe, and it must be perceived by the victim to be abusive. See Miller, 277 F.3d at 1276; Johnson v. Booker T. Washington Broadcasting Serv., Inc., 234 F. 3d 501, 509 (11th Cir. 2000). In this regard, Centennial is seen to attack the subjective portion.

Case N o. 3:0 2cv4 03 / LA C

Page 10 of 16

environment abusive to employees because of their race, gender, religion, or national origin offends Title VII's broad rule of workplace equality.
. . . [W]hether an environment is "hostile" or "abusive" can be determined only by looking at all the circumstances. These may include the frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee's work performance. The effect on the employee's psychological well-being is, of course, relevant to determining whether the plaintiff actually found the environment abusive. But while psychological harm, like any other relevant factor, may be taken into account, no single factor is required.
Harris, 510 U.S. at 22-23, 114 S.Ct. 367, 370-71 (citations omitted). After examining all
these factors as they relate to the facts of this case, the Court concludes that each claimant
found the detail shop environment to be severely abusive.
NOTICE
Centennial next challenges whether it received adequate notice of the harassment such
that it should be found liable. In this regard, the parties disagree whether White should be
considered a supervisor; the Court, however, does not find this distinction to be
determinative. It is true that, if the harassment is conducted by a supervisor and results in
tangib le employment action such as termination or some other significant change in the terms
of employment, then the employer is strictly liable. See Madray v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc.,
208 F.3d 1290, 1296-97(11th Cir. 2000). However, it is not alleged in this case that the
harassment resulted in any tangible employment action. Centennial may therefore assert its
affirmative defense that 1) the claimants failed to follow its promulgated procedures for
reporting harassment and 2) it acted reasonably to prevent or correct any harassment. See id.

Case N o. 3:0 2cv4 03 / LA C

Page 11 of 16

On the other hand, if White is simply a coworker, the EEOC must show that Centennial had notice and failed “to take immediate and appropriate corrective action.” Watson v. Blue Circle, Inc., 324 F.3d 1252, 1259 (11th Cir. 2003). Furthermore:
Actual notice is established by proof that management knew of the harassment. When an employer has a clear and published policy that outlines the procedures an employee must follow to report suspected harassment and the complaining employee follows those procedures, actual notice is established. Id. (citation omitted). The Court finds these standards quite similar and in any event finds that the EEOC has met its burden under each of them. As detailed above, notice was clearly provided to management at the dealership, as was the lack of tangible action taken in response. In fact, Centennial does not assert lack of notice in relation to claimants McAroy and Thomas but only the remaining three. Centennial evidently considers that each claimant must provide his own notice in order to perfect his claim, but this is not the case. Notice of harassment need not come directly from the victim, and in fact notice of harassment to someone other than the victim can be sufficient so long as the harassment is closely related to the victim’s own. See Crowley v. L.L. Bean, Inc., 303 F.3d 387, 402 (1st Cir. 2002); Sims v. Health Midwest Physician Servs. Corp., 196 F.3d 915, 921 (8th Cir. 1999); Davis v. U.S. Postal Service, 142 F.3d 1334, 1342 (10th Cir. 1998); Hirase-Doi v. U.S. West Communications, Inc., 61 F.3d 777, 783-84 (10th Cir. 1995). This is especially true in this case because of the clear “overlap” of harassment, knowledge among the claimants that one of them had met with management, and the overall sense that the claimants as a group were being harassed. What

Case N o. 3:0 2cv4 03 / LA C

Page 12 of 16

is important is that Centennial received sufficient notice to require it to act, not any
piecemeal findings regarding each claimant’s individual efforts concerning each incident or
circumstance.
Moreover, the EEOC has provided sufficient evidence to controvert that Centennial’s
anti-harassment policy was effectively implemented. An employer’s failure to investigate
and reasonably act to rectify harassment renders its policy ineffective, and the employer is
therefore liable for any harassment pervasive enough to confer constructive knowledge upon
it. See Watson, 324 F.3d at 1260-61 (citing Farley v. American Cast Iron Pipe, 115 F.3d
1548, 1553-54 (11th Cir. 1997)). In this case it is abundantly clear that the claimants’
notification bore little or no tangible result; while White was terminated, it was only after the
claimants sought the help of an outside agency.
CONCILIATION
Finally, Centennial contends that summary judgment in its favor should be granted
because of the EEOC’s failure in its statutory duty to fairly attempt to conciliate this matter
before filing suit. As stated by the Eleventh Circuit:
To satisfy the statutory requirement of conciliation, the EEOC must (1) outline to the employer the reasonable cause for its belief that Title VII has been violated; (2) offer an opportunity for voluntary compliance; and (3) respond in a reasonable and flexible manner to the reasonable attitudes of the employer. EEOC v. Klingler Elec. Corp., 636 F.2d 104, 107 (5th Cir. 1981). In evaluating whether the EEOC has adequately fulfilled this statutory requirement, “the fundamental question is the reasonableness and responsiveness of the EEOC's conduct under all the circumstances.” Id.
E.E.O.C. v. Asplundh Tree Expert Co., 340 F.3d 1256, 1259 (11th Cir. 2003).

Case N o. 3:0 2cv4 03 / LA C

Page 13 of 16

The parties contest nearly every factual issue relating to this motion. Centennial contends that the EEOC conducted its on-site investigation of Centennial in an intimidating fashion and did not allow Centennial sufficient time to answer to the charges before issuing its Letters of Determination finding reasonable cause for Title VII violations. The EEOC denies that it took any intimidating actions during the investigation. During the conciliation process, EEOC sent a proposed Conciliation Agreement to Centennial, the terms of which included a $35,000 payment to each of the claimants and a provision that Centennial participate in a news media conference regarding the case. Centennial counter-offered that it would pay each claimant $1,000 and that it did not wish to participate in any news conference. The EEOC rejected the counter-offer but allegedly agreed to strike the news conference requirement from the agreement; thus, according to the EEOC, the only remaining hurdle to settlement was the disparity in the payment award, which it saw as significant. Centennial disagrees, contending that the EEOC never backed off on the news conference issue, which from Centennial’s viewpoint was a pivotal issue that precluded it from further negotiating the monetary issue. According to Centennial, the EEOC refused to budge from its $35,000 demand and then unilaterally terminated the conciliation while Centennial was still actively pursuing negotiations. However, the EEOC contends that Centennial was unwilling to increase its $1,000 offer, resulting in the EEOC’s declaration that conciliation would cease, which was done with Centennial’s knowledge and assent. While Centennial claims it was never informed of the factual information underlying the

Case N o. 3:0 2cv4 03 / LA C

Page 14 of 16

EEOC’s $35,000 demand, the EEOC states that it fully informed Centennial of the relevant facts.
The EEOC’s alleged failure to fairly conciliate does not meet the standard set out in Asplundh Tree, which presented a more compelling case against the EEOC. In Asplundh Tree, the court found that the EEOC 1) did not provide the defendant with sufficient time to respond to the conciliation proposal before filing suit; 2) refused to confer with defendant’s counsel during conciliation; 3) failed to identify for defendant a legal theory under which it may be held liable, in a situation in which the defendant likely had no inkling that it would be charged; and 4) demanded a remedy that was national and far-reaching in scope, and demanded one form of relief that was impossible for the defendant to provide. Id.at 1260-61. The court thus concluded that the EEOC had set up a fait accompli situation where conciliation was doomed to fail. By contrast, none of the facts in the case at bar suggest the sort of egregious conduct present in Asplundh Tree, especially when viewed under summary judgment review in a light most favorable to the EEOC, nor is there present the sense that conciliation was doomed from the start. Rather, the instant facts suggest only that the parties reached an impasse in the details of the agreement, perhaps hastily and with the attendant stubbornness on both sides.
Since each party champions its own willingness to flexibly negotiate a settlement in this case but accuses the other side of being too rigid, it would seem that this case is ripe for a successful mediation. It is therefore ironic, and some cause for consternation by the Court,

Case N o. 3:0 2cv4 03 / LA C

Page 15 of 16

that the parties mutually agreed and successfully moved that mediation should be postponed in this case until after the Court ruled upon the instant summary judgment motions. See doc. 21 at 3. Nonetheless, the Court will by separate order direct the parties to commence mediation.
IV. SUMMARY The Court’s ruling in this matter may be summarized as follows, and IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. Defendant’s motions to strike (docs. 90, 92, 94) are DENIED. 2. Defendant’s motions for summary judgment (docs. 48, 51, 54, 57, 60, 67) are
DENIED. ORDERED on this 21st day of July, 2004.
s/L.A. Collier
Lacey A. Collier Senior United States District Judge

Case N o. 3:0 2cv4 03 / LA C

Page 16 of 16

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff, vs.
CENTENNIAL IMPORTS, INC.,
Defendant.

) ) ) )CASE NO. 3:02cv4031LACIMD ) ) ) ) ) )

CONSENT DECREE
1. This Consent Decree (the "Decree") is made and entered into by and between Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (hereinafter referred to as the "Plaintiff' or "EEOC:') and Defendant, Centennial Imports, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "Defendant"). Plaintiff and Defendant are collectively referred to herein as "the Parties."
2. On September 27,2002, Plaintiffinitiated this action by filing its Complaint against Defendant. Plaintiff's Complaint alleged that Defendant violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, including but not limited to, amendments authorized by the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981a, 2000e et seq. ("Title VII"), by sUbjecting Frederick Cannon, Alton Lee, Oscar McAroy III, Stanley OIds, and Willie D. Thomas (hereinafter collectively referred to as "the Claimants") to a racially hostile environment.
3. On or about October 8, 2002, Defendant filed its answer to Plaintiff's

18
F'L

Defendant disputes and denies any and all ofthe claims alleged against its past and present officers, managers, employees and agents, in that certain civil action styled United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Centennial Imports, Inc., Case No. 3:02cv403ILCIMD, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida, Pensacola Division.
4. Discovery in this case has revealed a distinct divergence in the Parties' respective views and versions of the events, circumstances, claims, and defenses involved in this case, including differences in the testimonyby the Plaintiff's witnesses, the Claimants, and the Defendant's witnesses of what transpired in the work place during the Claimants' employment with the Defendant. The Parties recognize these complexities, difficulties, and uncertainties oflitigation along with its associated expense oftime and costs. Accordingly, in the interests ofresolving this matter, to avoid the costs of further litigation, and as a result of having engaged in comprehensive negotiations, the Parties have agreed that this action should be finally resolved by the entry ofthis Decree. Defendant's agreement to resolve this action will not be interpreted as any admission by Defendant of any liability or wrongdoing or ofany violation ofany law, rule, regulation, or order ofany kind. This Decree is final and binding upon the Parties, their successors and assigns.
5. The Parties hereby agree to the terms and conditions ofthis Decree as set forth below by the Court and to the entry ofthis Decree by the Court. The Parties agree that this Decree resolves all claims against Defendant alleged in the Complaint filed in this action and in the administrative proceedings, EEOC Charge Numbers 151 AO 2178, 151 AO 2179, 151 AO 2180, 151 AO 2181, and 151 AO 2182 (hereinafter collectively referred to as "the Administrative Proceedings"). This Decree constitutes the complete agreement between Plaintiff and Defendant pertaining to the matters expressly identified and addressed herein.
2

No waiver, modification, or amendment of any provision of this Decree shall be effective unless made in writing, approved by all parties to this Decree, and approved or ordered by the Court.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Court having carefully examined the terms and provisions of this Consent Decree, the Parties' agreement thereto, and being otherwise advised in the premises, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that:
JURISDICTION 6. This Court has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this action and over the Parties for the purposes of entering and enforcing this Decree.
GENERAL INJUNCTIVE PROVISION 7. Defendant (and its officers, managers, agents and partners) is an employer as defined by Title VII and therefore is to comply with Title VII ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, by not adversely affecting the terms and conditions of any individual's employment by subjecting any employee to a racially hostile work environment. 8. As an employer under Title VII, Defendant (and its officers, managers, agents and partners, as applicable) is given the responsibility to prevent any conduct by employees that might be deemed reprisal for an employee's engaging in any activity protected by Title VII. Accordingly, in implementing and enforcing its existing policies and procedures, and in conducting its business operations, Defendant shall prohibit, prevent, and curtail any conduct that may discriminate or retaliate against any employee who opposes any of Defendant's practices that the employee believes in good faith to be a violation of Title VII; who files a charge of discrimination with the EEOC alleging violation(s) of Title VII; who cooperates with the EEOC in the investigation and/or prosecution of any charge of
3

discrimination under Title VII; or who has cooperated in the investigation or prosecution of this case.
9. Defendant has established a written policy of compliance with Title VII (hereinafter referred to as "EEO Policy"). A copy of Defendant's EEO Policy has been provided to the EEOC during the course of this litigation, and Defendant certifies that a complete copy of its EEO Policy will be provided to its current employees at its facility on or before December 31, 2004. Defendant will provide all newly hired employees with a copy of the EEO policy as part of the newly hired employee orientation process within (1) one week of the new employee's association with Defendant.
10. To further ensure the effective implementation ofDefendant's EEO and antidiscrimination policies, Defendant will include in its EEO training program, additional training for all of its managers and supervisory personnel on management legal duties, responsibilities and procedures required under Title VIT. Such training will be conducted by AmStaffHuman Resources, Inc. II of Pensacola, Florida ("AmStaff'), or if AmStaffis not used by Defendant, any other firm or organization specializing in the area of employment discrimination law training mutually acceptable to and approved by Plaintiffand Defendant, with the total length of such training being at least (8) eight hours annually throughout the duration of this Consent Decree. The first such training session shall be conducted on or before December 31,2004, and thereafter on a yearly basis throughout the duration of this decree. Defendant will provide Plaintiff with at least a two-week notice before Defendant conducts its training session(s), including in the notice the date(s) ofthe training, copies of all training material to be used at the training session, and a list ofthe names and titles or job positions of each employee who will be in attendance at the training. Additionally, a
4

representative of the EEOC shall be permitted to attend each training session at EEOC's discretion.
POSTING 11. Defendant will post, within (7) seven days from the Court's execution ofthis Decree, a laminated 11" x 17" size copy of the notice attached hereto as Exhibit A. This notice shall be posted at Defendant's facility located at 3050 Navy Boulevard, Pensacola, Florida, for the duration ofthis Decree in a conspicuous location accessible to all employees.
REPORTING AND MONITORING 12. Defendant will retain all employment records relating in any way to any complaint, allegation, and/or investigation ofracial harassment at its 3050 Navy Boulevard facility for the duration ofthis Decree and as required by law. 13. Defendant will certify to EEOC every (6) six months throughout the duration ofthis Decree that Defendant is in compliance with all aspects ofthis Decree. The first such certification will be due no later than June 30, 2005, and thereafter annually on December 30th and June 30th throughout the duration of this Decree. With each such certification, Defendant will provide EEOC with the name, address, and phone number of any persons who allege they have been subjected to racial harassment while working at Defendant's facility during the preceding (6) six months. Defendant will also state actions taken by it in response to each such allegation. Defendant will provide upon request by EEOC (a) a copy of the complaint, or if no written complaint was filed, a statement describing the nature of the complaint; (b) a statement describing the actions taken byDefendant; and (c) the outcome regarding such complaint.
5

MONETARY RELIEF 14. Defendant shall pay a lump sum of$11O,000 in resolution of this litigation, which represents compensatory and punitive damages. The monies shall issue to Claimants Frederick Cannon, Alton Lee, Oscar McAroy III, Stanley Olds, and Willie D. Thomas pursuant to the provisions of the distribution schedule in Exhibit B. Defendant will also issue an I.R.S. Form 1099 to the Claimants substantiating same. All payments shall issue by certified mail to the Claimants within (10) business days from the date of the Clerk's electronic notice to the parties of the entry of this Decree. Copies of the payments and the IRS forms shall be forwarded to the attention ofthe Regional Attorney ofthe Miami District Office, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, One Biscayne Tower, 2 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 2700, Miami, Florida 33131. 15. If Defendant fails to tender the above-mentioned payments as set forth in paragraph 14 above, then Defendant shall pay interest on the defaulted payment at the rate calculated pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6621(b) until the same is paid, and bear any additional costs incurred by the EEOC caused by the non-compliance or delay of the Defendant.
ENFORCEMENT OF THE DECREE 16. Plaintiff and Defendant will make best efforts to effectuate the terms of this Decree. 17. The Parties shall be allowed to seek the judicial enforcement by this Court of any aspect, term, or provision of this Decree.
COSTS 18. Each Party shall bear its own costs and attorneys' fees associated with this litigation.
6

DURATION OF THE CONSENT DECREE 19. The duration ofthis Decree shall be (4) four years from the date ofthe Court's execution of this Decree. 20. This action is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; however, the Court will retainjurisdiction to enforce this Consent Decree during the four-year period thatthis Decree is in effect.
0 0c;;;J:2Q:. SO ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED thiJ..-"iy ofNovember, 2004,
in Chambers at Pensacola, Escambia County, Florida
LACEY A. COLLIER"1 United States Senior District Judge

CONSENTED AND AGREED TO FOR THE PLAINTIFF, UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION:

By: DELNER FRANKLIN-THOMAS Regional Attorney U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower, Suite 2700 2 South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131 Telephone: (305) 530-6006 Telefacsimile: (305) 536-4494
CONSENTED AND AGREED TO FOR DEFENDANT CENTENN IMPORTS, INC.

Date: 1/ /5/0'-/ f •

By: RALPH A. PETERSON BEGGS & LANE LLP 501 Commendencia Street (32502-5915)
7

Date:

P.O. Box 12950 Pensacola, Florida 32591-2950 Telephone: (850) 432-2451 Telefacsimile: (850) 469-3331
8

NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES POSTED PURSUANT TO A CONSENT DECREE BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
AND CENTENNIAL IMPORTS, INC. This notice is being posted pursuant to a Consent Decree entered by the court in Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Centennial Imports, Inc., Civil Action No. 3:02cv403ILACIMD. Centennial Imports, Inc. has agreed that it will not discriminate against employees in violation of Title VIT of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (tlTitle VITti). Title VIT protects individuals from discrimination because of the race, religion, color, sex (including sexual harassment and pregnancy), and/or national origin. Title VIT also protects individuals from retaliation for having complained ofunlawful employment discrimination. Centennial Imports, Inc. does not condone and will not condone discrimination of any kind as set forth in federal laws, including, but not limited to racial harassment. Furthermore, Centennial Imports, Inc., assures its employees that it supports Title VIT and will not take any action against an individual because he/she has exercised hislher rights under the law to oppose discriminatory acts or to file charges with the EEOC. Appropriate corrective action, up to and including discharge, shall be taken against any employee (including management personnel) found to violate the policies regarding discrimination. This notice shall remain posted for (4) four years from the date signed. Employees or applicants for employment who have questions about their rights under Title VIT or any other federal anti-discrimination law may telephone the Miami District Office ofthe Equal Employment Opportunity Commission at 1-800-669-4000. Signed this __ day of_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _, 2004.
John W. Mobley, IV President, Centennial Imports, Inc.
EXHIBIT A
9

PAYMENT DISTRIBUTION SCHEDULE
Defendant shall issue a check to Frederick Cannon in the amount of$13, 200.00 in resolution of all claims advanced in Mr. Cannon's charge ofdiscrimination (Charge No: 151 AO 2178) and the complaint in this action. Defendant will also issue an IRS form 1099 to Mr. Cannon substantiating same. The payment and IRS Form 1099 shall issue to Mr. Cannon at: 3143 Clarabelle Street, Columbus, Georgia 31903-1707.
Defendant shall issue a check to Alton Lee in the amount of$12,200.00 in resolution of all claims advanced in Mr. Lee's charge of discrimination (Charge No:151 AO 2179) and the complaint in this action. Defendant will also issue an IRS form 1099 to Mr. Lee substantiating same. The payment and IRS form 1099 shall issue to Mr. Lee at: 3000 North G Street, Pensacola, Florida 32501.
Defendant shall issue a check to Oscar McAroy III in the amount of$38,700.00 in resolution of all claims advanced in Mr. McAroy's charge ofdiscrimination (Charge No: 151 AO 2181) and the complaint in this action. Defendant will also issue an IRS form 1099 to Mr. McAroy substantiating same. The payment and IRS form 1099 shall issue to Mr. McAroy at: 4426 Monpellier Drive, Pensacola, Florida 32505.
Defendant shall issue a check to Stanley Olds in the amount of $12,200.00 in resolution of all claims advanced in Mr. Olds' charge ofdiscrimination (Charge No: 151 AO 2182) and the complaint in this action. Defendant will also issue an IRS form 1099 to Mr. Olds substantiating same. The payment and IRS form 1099 shall issue to Mr. Olds at: 502 49th Avenue, Apt. B, Pensacola, Florida 32503.
Defendant shall issue a check to Willie Thomas in the amount of$33,700.00 in resolution of all claims advanced in Mr. Thomas' charge of discrimination (Charge No:151 AO 2180) and the complaint in this action. Defendant will also issue an IRS form 1099 to Mr. Thomas substantiating same. The payment and IRS form 1099 shall issue to Mr. Thomas at: 6160 Denver Avenue, Pensacola, Florida 32526.
EXHIBITB
10

 
 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:flnd - Docket Report

https://ecf.flnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?613276300462141-L_3...

CLERK_1, CLOSED, MD, MEDIATION
U.S. District Court Northern District of Florida - District Version 3.0 (Pensacola)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:02-cv-00403-LC

US EQUAL EMPLOYMENT v. CENTENNIAL IMPORTS Assigned to: SENIOR JUDGE LACEY A COLLIER Demand: $0 Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

Date Filed: 09/27/2002 Date Terminated: 10/19/2004 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff
UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

represented by KENNETH LAWRENCE GILLESPIE EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMM - MIAMI FL TWO SOUTH BISCAYNE BLVD SUITE 2700 ONE BISCAYNE TOWER MIAMI, FL 33131 305-530-6006 Fax: 305-536-4494 Email: kenneth.gillespie@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant CENTENNIAL IMPORTS INC

represented by RALPH ALAN PETERSON BEGGS & LANE - PENSACOLA FL 501 COMMENDENCIA ST (32502-5915) PO BOX 12950 PENSACOLA, FL 32591-2950 850/432-2451 Fax: 850/469-3331 Email: rap@beggslane.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed
09/27/2002 09/27/2002 09/27/2002

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT - Title VII to correct unlawful employment practices on the bases of race; jury demand (jrm,Pensacola) (Entered: 09/27/2002)
2 CIVIL Cover Sheet (jrm,Pensacola) (Entered: 09/27/2002)
**ADDED Magistrate Judge Miles Davis (jrm,Pensacola) (Entered: 09/27/2002)

1 of 13

5/23/2007 1:57 PM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:flnd - Docket Report

https://ecf.flnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?613276300462141-L_3...

09/27/2002 09/30/2002 10/22/2002 11/04/2002
11/05/2002 11/06/2002
12/06/2002 12/19/2002 12/20/2002 12/20/2002 12/23/2002
12/23/2002 12/23/2002 01/15/2003 02/12/2003 03/17/2003
03/17/2003

Setting 90 day no activity deadline pursuant to N.D.Fla.Loc.R.41.1 to 12/26/02 (jrm,Pensacola) (Entered: 09/27/2002)
SUMMONS(ES) issued for defendant CENTENNIAL IMPORTS and forwarded to Plaintiff. (jrm,Pensacola) (Entered: 09/30/2002)
3 RETURN of Service Executed as to defendant CENTENNIAL IMPORTS 10/15/02. Answer due on 11/4/02. (lcu,Pensacola) (Entered: 10/23/2002)
4 ANSWER and AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES to Complaint by defendant CENTENNIAL IMPORTS (Attorney :RALPH ALAN PETERSON) (lcu,Pensacola) Modified on 11/05/2002 (Entered: 11/05/2002)
File Returned to Court: to Judge Lacey A. Collier Re: proposed scheduling order (lcu,Pensacola) (Entered: 11/05/2002)
5 SCHEDULING ORDER by Judge Lacey A. Collier setting deadlines for: Discovery Cutoff: 3/5/03. Copies sent as noted on document. (lcu,Pensacola) (Entered: 11/06/2002)
6 ATTORNEY Time Record by defendant CENTENNIAL IMPORTS (lcu,Pensacola) (Entered: 12/09/2002)
7 JOINT Report of Planning Meeting signed by Peterson & Gillespie (lcu,Pensacola) (Entered: 12/20/2002)
File Returned to Court: to Judge Lacey A. Collier Re: [7-1] report (lcu,Pensacola) (Entered: 12/20/2002)
Resetting 90 day no activity deadline pursuant to N.D.Fla.Loc.R.41.1 to 3/20/03 (lcu,Pensacola) (Entered: 12/20/2002)
8 ORDER ADOPTING PROPOSED DISCOVERY PLAN by Judge Lacey A. Collier Resetting Discovery deadline to 5/30/03 . Copies sent as noted on document. (lcu,Pensacola) (Entered: 12/23/2002)
9 ORDER by Judge Lacey A. Collier for Court Ordered Mediation . Copies sent as noted on document. (lcu,Pensacola) (Entered: 12/23/2002)
CASE Referred to Mediation by Judge Lacey A. Collier (lcu,Pensacola) (Entered: 12/23/2002)
10 ATTORNEY Time Record by defendant CENTENNIAL IMPORTS (lcu,Pensacola) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
11 ATTORNEY Time Record by defendant CENTENNIAL IMPORTS (tnc,Pensacola) (Entered: 02/13/2003)
12 NOTICE by defendant CENTENNIAL IMPORTS to take deposition Duces Tecum of OSCAR MCAROY, III on 3/31/03 at 9:00 am at 220 W. FL. (lcu,Pensacola) Modified on 03/18/2003 (Entered: 03/18/2003)
13 NOTICE by defendant CENTENNIAL IMPORTS to take deposition Duces Tecum of WILLIE THOMAS on 4/1/03 at 9:00 AM at 220 W Garden, Pensacola, FL. (lcu,Pensacola) Modified on 03/18/2003 (Entered: 03/18/2003)

2 of 13

5/23/2007 1:57 PM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:flnd - Docket Report

https://ecf.flnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?613276300462141-L_3...

03/17/2003 03/17/2003 03/17/2003 03/17/2003 03/18/2003 04/15/2003 05/02/2003 05/16/2003 05/22/2003 05/23/2003
05/28/2003
05/28/2003 06/02/2003 06/04/2003 06/13/2003

14 NOTICE by defendant CENTENNIAL IMPORTS to take deposition Duces Tecum of STANLEY OLDS on 4/2/03 at 9:00 AM at 220 W Garden, Pensacola, FL. (lcu,Pensacola) Modified on 03/18/2003 (Entered: 03/18/2003)
15 NOTICE by defendant CENTENNIAL IMPORTS to take deposition Duces Tecum of ALTON LEE on 4/3/03 at 9:00 AM at 220 W Garden, Pensacola, FL. (lcu,Pensacola) Modified on 03/18/2003 (Entered: 03/18/2003)
16 ATTORNEY Time Record by defendant CENTENNIAL IMPORTS (lcu,Pensacola) (Entered: 03/18/2003)
17 NOTICE by defendant CENTENNIAL IMPORTS to take deposition Duces Tecum of FREDERICK CANNON on 4/4/03 at 9:00 AM at 220 W Garden, Pensacola, FL. (lcu,Pensacola) (Entered: 03/18/2003)
Resetting 90 day no activity deadline pursuant to N.D.Fla.Loc.R.41.1 to 6/16/03 (lcu,Pensacola) (Entered: 03/18/2003)
18 ATTORNEY Time Record by defendant CENTENNIAL IMPORTS (mjm,Pensacola) (Entered: 04/16/2003)
19 NOTICE by defendant CENTENNIAL IMPORTS of Parties' Designation of Mediator (M.D. Smith, Esquire (lcu,Pensacola) (Entered: 05/02/2003)
20 ATTORNEY Time Record by defendant CENTENNIAL IMPORTS (tnc,Pensacola) (Entered: 05/16/2003)
21 JOINT MOTION AND STIPULATION by defendant CENTENNIAL IMPORTS and plaintiff US EQUAL EMPLOYMENT for Modification of Scheduling Order and Completion of Discovery Date (lcu,Pensacola) (Entered: 05/23/2003)
Motion submitted with file to Judge Lacey A. Collier Re: [21-1] joint motion for Modification of Scheduling Order and Completion of Discovery Date by US EQUAL EMPLOYMENT, CENTENNIAL IMPORTS (lcu,Pensacola) (Entered: 05/23/2003)
File Returned to Clerk from Judge Lacey A. Collier - Re: [21-1] joint motion for Modification of Scheduling Order and Completion of Discovery Date by US EQUAL EMPLOYMENT, CENTENNIAL IMPORTS - REFER to Magistrate Judge Davis (lcu,Pensacola) (Entered: 05/28/2003)
Motion(s) referred: with file [21-1] joint motion for Modification of Scheduling Order and Completion of Discovery Date referred to Magistrate Judge Miles Davis (lcu,Pensacola) (Entered: 05/28/2003)
Deadline updated Setting Dispositive Motion deadline for 6/19/03 (lcu,Pensacola) (Entered: 06/02/2003)
22 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Miles Davis granting [21-1] joint motion for Modification of Scheduling Order and Completion of Discovery Date Copies sent as noted on document. (jrm,Pensacola) (Entered: 06/04/2003)
23 ATTORNEY Time Record by defendant CENTENNIAL IMPORTS (jrm,Pensacola) (Entered: 06/13/2003)

3 of 13

5/23/2007 1:57 PM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:flnd - Docket Report

https://ecf.flnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?613276300462141-L_3...

06/20/2003 06/20/2003 07/14/2003 07/14/2003 07/15/2003 07/15/2003 07/15/2003 07/15/2003 07/15/2003 07/15/2003 07/15/2003 07/15/2003 07/15/2003 07/16/2003 07/21/2003

Deadline updated Resetting Discovery deadline to 7/31/03 (lcu,Pensacola) (Entered: 06/20/2003)
Resetting 90 day no activity deadline pursuant to N.D.Fla.Loc.R.41.1 to 9/18/03 (lcu,Pensacola) (Entered: 06/20/2003)
24 NOTICE by defendant CENTENNIAL IMPORTS to take RULE 30(b)(6) deposition of PLAINTIFF on 7/17/03 at 9:00 PM at 220 W GARDEN in PENSACOLA, FL. (lcu,Pensacola) (Entered: 07/15/2003)
25 NOTICE by defendant CENTENNIAL IMPORTS to take deposition DUCES TECUM BY TELEPHONE of EDDIE SHOOTS on 7/25/03 at 11:00 AM at 2914 FITZHUGH AVE in RICHMOND, VA. (lcu,Pensacola) (Entered: 07/15/2003)
26 NOTICE by defendant CENTENNIAL IMPORTS to take deposition of DANA RIVERS on 7/15/03 at 9:00 AM at 220 W GARDEN, PENSACOLA, FL. (lcu,Pensacola) (Entered: 07/16/2003)
27 NOTICE by defendant CENTENNIAL IMPORTS to take deposition of VERA ANN MCAROY on 7/15/03 at 11:00 AM at 220 W GARDEN, PENSACOLA, FL. (lcu,Pensacola) (Entered: 07/16/2003)
28 NOTICE by defendant CENTENNIAL IMPORTS to take deposition of GLORIA WILLIAMS on 7/15/03 at 1:00 PM at 220 W GARDEN, PENSACOLA, FL. (lcu,Pensacola) (Entered: 07/16/2003)
29 NOTICE by defendant CENTENNIAL IMPORTS to take deposition of FRANCES JOHNSON on 7/15/03 at 3:00 PM at 220 W GARDEN, PENSACOLA, FL. (lcu,Pensacola) (Entered: 07/16/2003)
30 NOTICE by defendant CENTENNIAL IMPORTS to take deposition of MARYLIN ANN THOMAS on 7/16/03 at 9:00 AM at 220 W PENSACOLA, FL. (lcu,Pensacola) (Entered: 07/16/2003)
31 NOTICE by defendant CENTENNIAL IMPORTS to take deposition of LASHAWNA OLDS on 7/16/03 at 11:00 AM at 220 W GARDEN, PENSACOLA, FL. (lcu,Pensacola) (Entered: 07/16/2003)
32 NOTICE by defendant CENTENNIAL IMPORTS to take deposition of ERNESTINE OLDS on 7/16/03 at 2:00 PM at 220 W GARDEN, PENSACOLA, FL. (lcu,Pensacola) (Entered: 07/16/2003)
33 NOTICE by defendant CENTENNIAL IMPORTS to take deposition of BARBARA HOARD on 7/18/03 at 9:00 AM at 220 W GARDEN, PENSACOLA, FL. (lcu,Pensacola) (Entered: 07/16/2003)
34 NOTICE by defendant CENTENNIAL IMPORTS to take deposition of EUGENE BROWN on 7/18/03 at 2:00 PM at 220 W GARDEN, PENSACOLA, FL. (lcu,Pensacola) (Entered: 07/16/2003)
35 ATTORNEY Time Record by defendant CENTENNIAL IMPORTS (lcu,Pensacola) (Entered: 07/17/2003)
36 STIPULATION by defendant CENTENNIAL IMPORTS and plaintiff US EQUAL EMPLOYMENT for Deposition Taken by Telephone of EDDIE SHOOTS scheduled for 7/25/03. (lcu,Pensacola) (Entered: 07/22/2003)

4 of 13

5/23/2007 1:57 PM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:flnd - Docket Report

https://ecf.flnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?613276300462141-L_3...

07/31/2003 08/07/2003 08/15/2003 08/21/2003 08/25/2003 08/26/2003 08/29/2003 08/29/2003 09/02/2003 09/02/2003 09/02/2003 09/03/2003
09/04/2003
09/04/2003

37 AMENDED NOTICE by defendant CENTENNIAL IMPORTS to take Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Plaintiff U.S. EEOC on 7/30/3 at 9:00 p.m. at Pensacola, FL. (jrm,Pensacola) (Entered: 08/01/2003)
Deadline updated Setting Dispositive Motion deadline for 8/20/03 (lcu,Pensacola) (Entered: 08/07/2003)
38 ATTORNEY Time Record by defendant CENTENNIAL IMPORTS (lcu,Pensacola) (Entered: 08/18/2003)
File Returned to Court: to Judge Lacey A. Collier Re: [0-0] relief Setting Dispositive Motion deadline for 8/20/03 (lcu,Pensacola) (Entered: 08/21/2003)
39 MOTION by defendant CENTENNIAL IMPORTS for Modification of Dispositive Motion Schedule . Deadline for filing response to motion is: 9/12/03 (lcu,Pensacola) (Entered: 08/26/2003)
Motion submitted without file to Judge Lacey A. Collier Re: [39-1] motion for Modification of Dispositive Motion Schedule by CENTENNIAL IMPORTS (lcu,Pensacola) (Entered: 08/26/2003)
40 MOTION by defendant CENTENNIAL IMPORTS for Modification of Dispositive Motion Schedule . Deadline for filing response to motion is: 9/16/03 (lcu,Pensacola) (Entered: 08/29/2003)
Motion submitted without file to Judge Lacey A. Collier Re: [40-1] motion for Modification of Dispositive Motion Schedule by CENTENNIAL IMPORTS (lcu,Pensacola) (Entered: 08/29/2003)
41 ORDER by Judge Lacey A. Collier granting [39-1] motion for Modification of Dispositive Motion Schedule. Setting Dispositive Motion deadline for 9/12/03 . Copies sent as noted on document. (lcu,Pensacola) (Entered: 09/02/2003)
42 ORDER by Judge Lacey A. Collier granting [40-1] motion for Modification of Dispositive Motion Schedule (see document #41). Copies sent as noted on document. (lcu,Pensacola) (Entered: 09/02/2003)
Resetting 90 day no activity deadline pursuant to N.D.Fla.Loc.R.41.1 to 12/1/03 (lcu,Pensacola) (Entered: 09/02/2003)
File Returned to Court: to Judge Lacey A. Collier Re: Proposed Deficiency Order on EEOC's Response to Defendant's Motion for Modification of Dispositive Motion Schedule (first page of document does not have a 2 inch margin) (lcu,Pensacola) (Entered: 09/03/2003)
43 ORDER by Judge Lacey A. Collier. The clerk shall file the document (EEOC'S response to defendant's motion for modification of dispositive motion schedule) but no further pleadings will be accepted unless they comply with N.D. Florida Local Rules. Copies sent as noted on document. (jrm,Pensacola) (Entered: 09/04/2003)
44 RESPONSE by plaintiff US EQUAL EMPLOYMENT re: [40-1] motion for Modification of Dispositive Motion Schedule by CENTENNIAL IMPORTS (jrm,Pensacola) (Entered: 09/04/2003)

5 of 13

5/23/2007 1:57 PM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:flnd - Docket Report

https://ecf.flnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?613276300462141-L_3...

09/09/2003 09/09/2003 09/10/2003
09/15/2003 09/29/2003 09/29/2003 09/29/2003 09/29/2003 09/29/2003 09/29/2003
09/29/2003
09/29/2003 09/29/2003 09/29/2003

45 EXPEDITED MOTION by defendant CENTENNIAL IMPORTS for Modification of Dispositive Motion Schedule (lcu,Pensacola) Modified on 09/09/2003 (Entered: 09/09/2003)
Motion submitted with file to Judge Lacey A. Collier Re: [45-1] Expedited motion for Modification of Dispositive Motion Schedule by CENTENNIAL IMPORTS (lcu,Pensacola) (Entered: 09/09/2003)
46 ORDER by Judge Lacey A. Collier granting in part. [45-1] motion for Modification of Dispositive Schedule. Dispositive motions due N.L.T. 26 Sept. 03. Resetting Dispositive Motion deadline for 9/26/03 . Copies sent as noted on document. (lcu,Pensacola) (Entered: 09/10/2003)
47 ATTORNEY Time Record by defendant CENTENNIAL IMPORTS (jrm,Pensacola) (Entered: 09/17/2003)
File Returned to Court: to Judge Lacey A. Collier Re: [46-2] order (dispositive motions) (lcu,Pensacola) (Entered: 09/29/2003)
48 MOTION by defendant CENTENNIAL IMPORTS for Summary Judgment on Stanley Olds' Claims . Deadline for filing response to motion is: 10/17/03 (lcu,Pensacola) (Entered: 10/01/2003)
49 MEMORANDUM by defendant CENTENNIAL IMPORTS in support of [48-1] motion for Summary Judgment on Stanley Olds' Claims by CENTENNIAL IMPORTS. (lcu,Pensacola) (Entered: 10/01/2003)
50 STATEMENT of Facts by defendant CENTENNIAL IMPORTS Re: [48-1] motion for Summary Judgment on Stanley Olds' Claims by CENTENNIAL IMPORTS (lcu,Pensacola) (Entered: 10/01/2003)
51 MOTION by defendant CENTENNIAL IMPORTS for Summary Judgment on Oscar McAroy III's Claims . Deadline for filing response to motion is: 10/17/03 (lcu,Pensacola) Modified on 10/01/2003 (Entered: 10/01/2003)
52 MEMORANDUM by defendant CENTENNIAL IMPORTS in support of [51-1] motion for Summary Judgment on OSCAR McAROY III's Claims by CENTENNIAL IMPORTS . (lcu,Pensacola) Modified on 10/01/2003 (Entered: 10/01/2003)
53 STATEMENT of Facts by defendant CENTENNIAL IMPORTS Re: [51-1] motion for Summary Judgment on OSCAR McAROY III's Claims by CENTENNIAL IMPORTS (lcu,Pensacola) Modified on 10/01/2003 (Entered: 10/01/2003)
54 MOTION by defendant CENTENNIAL IMPORTS for Summary Judgment on WILLIE D. THOMAS' Claims . Deadline for filing response to motion is: 10/17/03 (lcu,Pensacola) (Entered: 10/01/2003)
55 MEMORANDUM by defendant CENTENNIAL IMPORTS in support of [54-1] motion for Summary Judgment on WILLIE D. THOMAS' Claims by CENTENNIAL IMPORTS. (lcu,Pensacola) (Entered: 10/01/2003)
56 STATEMENT of Facts by defendant CENTENNIAL IMPORTS Re: [54-1] motion for Summary Judgment on WILLIE D. THOMAS' Claims by CENTENNIAL IMPORTS (lcu,Pensacola) (Entered: 10/01/2003)

6 of 13

5/23/2007 1:57 PM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:flnd - Docket Report

https://ecf.flnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?613276300462141-L_3...

09/29/2003 09/29/2003 09/29/2003 09/29/2003 09/29/2003 09/29/2003 09/29/2003 09/29/2003 09/29/2003 09/29/2003 09/29/2003 09/29/2003
09/29/2003
10/02/2003

57 MOTION by defendant CENTENNIAL IMPORTS for Summary Judgment on ALTON LEE'S Claims . Deadline for filing response to motion is: 10/17/03 (lcu,Pensacola) (Entered: 10/01/2003)
58 MEMORANDUM by defendant CENTENNIAL IMPORTS in support of [57-1] motion for Summary Judgment on ALTON LEE'S Claims by CENTENNIAL IMPORTS. (lcu,Pensacola) (Entered: 10/01/2003)
59 STATEMENT of Facts by defendant CENTENNIAL IMPORTS Re: [57-1] motion for Summary Judgment on ALTON LEE'S Claims by CENTENNIAL IMPORTS (lcu,Pensacola) (Entered: 10/01/2003)
60 MOTION by defendant CENTENNIAL IMPORTS for Summary Judgment on FREDERICK CANNON'S Claims . Deadline for filing response to motion is: 10/17/03 (lcu,Pensacola) (Entered: 10/01/2003)
61 MEMORANDUM by defendant CENTENNIAL IMPORTS in support of [60-1] motion for Summary Judgment on FREDERICK CANNON'S Claims by CENTENNIAL IMPORTS. (lcu,Pensacola) (Entered: 10/01/2003)
62 STATEMENT of Facts by defendant CENTENNIAL IMPORTS Re: [60-1] motion for Summary Judgment on FREDERICK CANNON'S Claims by CENTENNIAL IMPORTS (lcu,Pensacola) (Entered: 10/01/2003)
63 NOTICE by defendant CENTENNIAL IMPORTS of Filing Affidavit of Karan Box (lcu,Pensacola) (Entered: 10/01/2003)
64 NOTICE by defendant CENTENNIAL IMPORTS of Filing Affidavit of John W. Mobley, IV (lcu,Pensacola) (Entered: 10/01/2003)
65 NOTICE by defendant CENTENNIAL IMPORTS of Filing Affidavit of M. Casey Rodgers (lcu,Pensacola) (Entered: 10/01/2003)
66 NOTICE by defendant CENTENNIAL IMPORTS of Filing Deposition Excerpts with exhibits in support of motions for summary judgment . NOTE: deposition excerpts and exhibits not scanned. (lcu,Pensacola) (Entered: 10/01/2003)
67 MOTION by defendant CENTENNIAL IMPORTS for Summary Judgment for Plaintiff's Failure to Satisfy Conciliation Requirements . Deadline for filing response to motion is: 10/17/03 (lcu,Pensacola) (Entered: 10/01/2003)
68 MEMORANDUM by defendant CENTENNIAL IMPORTS in support of [67-1] motion for Summary Judgment for Plaintiff's Failure to Satisfy Conciliation Requirements by CENTENNIAL IMPORTS (lcu,Pensacola) (Entered: 10/01/2003)
69 STATEMENT of Facts by defendant CENTENNIAL IMPORTS Re: [67-1] motion for Summary Judgment for Plaintiff's Failure to Satisfy Conciliation Requirements by CENTENNIAL IMPORTS (lcu,Pensacola) (Entered: 10/01/2003)
Motion submitted without file to Judge Lacey A. Collier Re: [67-1] motion for Summary Judgment for Plaintiff's Failure to Satisfy Conciliation Requirements by CENTENNIAL IMPORTS, [60-1] motion for Summary Judgment on FREDERICK CANNON'S Claims by CENTENNIAL IMPORTS, [57-1] motion

7 of 13

5/23/2007 1:57 PM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:flnd - Docket Report

https://ecf.flnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?613276300462141-L_3...

10/09/2003
10/15/2003 10/16/2003 10/21/2003 10/22/2003 10/27/2003
11/03/2003 11/06/2003
11/07/2003 11/07/2003

for Summary Judgment on ALTON LEE'S Claims by CENTENNIAL IMPORTS, [54-1] motion for Summary Judgment on WILLIE D. THOMAS' Claims by CENTENNIAL IMPORTS, [51-1] motion for Summary Judgment on Oscar McAroy III's Claims by CENTENNIAL IMPORTS, [48-1] motion for Summary Judgment on Stanley Olds' Claims by CENTENNIAL IMPORTS w/documents #63-66 (lcu,Pensacola) (Entered: 10/02/2003)
70 ORDER by Judge Lacey A. Collier. The following motions for summary judgment [48-1], [51-1], [54-1], [57-1] [60-1] and [67-1] will be taken under advisement. Setting motions for summary judgment to be taken under advisement on 10/30/03 . Copies sent as noted on document. (lcu,Pensacola) (Entered: 10/09/2003)
71 ATTORNEY Time Record by defendant CENTENNIAL IMPORTS (lcu,Pensacola) (Entered: 10/16/2003)
DOCUMENT Location re: [71-1] time record attorney by CENTENNIAL IMPORTS sent to Judge Collier Reason: update file (lcu,Pensacola) (Entered: 10/16/2003)
72 MOTION by plaintiff US EQUAL EMPLOYMENT for Modification of the Court's October 9, 2003 Order and Notice (lcu,Pensacola) (Entered: 10/22/2003)
Motion submitted without file to Judge Lacey A. Collier Re: [72-1] motion for Modification of the Court's October 9, 2003 Order and Notice by US EQUAL EMPLOYMENT (lcu,Pensacola) (Entered: 10/22/2003)
73 ORDER by Judge Lacey A. Collier granting [72-1] motion for Modification of the Court's October 9, 2003 Order and Notice. Setting response to motion deadline for 11/7/03 Re: motions for Summary Judgment and Setting deadline for - defendant CENTENNIAL IMPORTS to file reply to response to motions by: 11/24/03 . Copies sent as noted on document. (lcu,Pensacola) (Entered: 10/27/2003)
74 UNOPPOSED MOTION by plaintiff US EQUAL EMPLOYMENT to exceed the twenty-five page limit imposed by local rule 7.1(A) to file a consolidate response to defendant's five summary judgment motions with respect to plaintiff's hostile environment claim (jrm,Pensacola) (Entered: 11/04/2003)
75 ORDER by Judge Lacey A. Collier granting [74-1] motion to exceed the twenty-five page limit imposed by local rule 7.1(A) to file a consolidate response to defendant's five summary judgment motions with respect to plaintiff's hostile environment claim Copies sent as noted on document. (tnc,Pensacola) (Entered: 11/06/2003)
76 EXPEDITED MOTION for Extension of Time of one business day to File Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant's Motions for Summary Judgment by UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION. (lcu, Pensacola) (Entered: 11/13/2003)
MOTION 76 for Extension of Time of one business day to File Plaintiff's response to motions for summary judgment REFERRED to Judge Lacey Collier w/o file. (lcu, Pensacola) (Entered: 11/13/2003)

8 of 13

5/23/2007 1:57 PM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:flnd - Docket Report

https://ecf.flnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?613276300462141-L_3...

11/10/2003
11/10/2003 11/10/2003 11/10/2003
11/10/2003
11/10/2003
11/10/2003 11/12/2003 11/13/2003 11/24/2003 11/24/2003 11/24/2003 11/24/2003

77 RESPONSE in Opposition re 51 Motion for Summary Judgment, 60 Motion for Summary Judgment, 54 Motion for Summary Judgment, 57 Motion for Summary Judgment, 48 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION. (lcu, Pensacola) (Entered: 11/13/2003)
78 RESPONSE in Opposition re 67 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION. (lcu, Pensacola) (Entered: 11/13/2003)
79 STATEMENT OF FACTS in Dispute filed in Response to document#67 (see document #78) by UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION. (lcu, Pensacola) (Entered: 11/13/2003)
80 NOTICE of Filing Affidavit of Jearlean Johnson by UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION re 77 Response in Opposition to Motion,78 Response in Opposition to Motion (lcu, Pensacola) (Entered: 11/13/2003)
81 NOTICE of Filing Affidavit of Manuel Zurita by UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION re 77 Response in Opposition to Motion, 78 Response in Opposition to Motion (lcu, Pensacola) (Entered: 11/13/2003)
82 NOTICE of Filing Deposition Excerpts w/Exhibits by UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION re 77 Response in Opposition to Motion,78 Response in Opposition to Motion. DEPOSITION EXCERPTS AND EXHIBITS IN SEPARATE FOLDER. (lcu, Pensacola) Modified on 11/13/2003 (lcu, Pensacola). (Entered: 11/13/2003)
83 STATEMENT OF FACTS in Opposition to documents 48,51,54,57,60 (see documents #77 and #78) by UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION. (lcu, Pensacola) (Entered: 11/13/2003)
84 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS by CENTENNIAL IMPORTS INC. (lcu, Pensacola) (Entered: 11/13/2003)
85 ORDER granting 76 Motion for Extension of Time to File . Signed by Judge LACEY A COLLIER. (lcu, Pensacola) (Entered: 11/14/2003)
86 REPLY MEMORANDUM of Law in Support re 67 Motion for Summary Judgment for Plaintiff's Failure to Satisfy Conciliation Requirements filed by CENTENNIAL IMPORTS INC. (lcu, Pensacola) (Entered: 11/25/2003)
87 RESPONSE re 79 Statement of Facts by CENTENNIAL IMPORTS INC. (lcu, Pensacola) (Entered: 11/25/2003)
88 NOTICE of Filing Second Affidavit of JOHN W. MOBLEY, IV by CENTENNIAL IMPORTS INC (lcu, Pensacola) (Entered: 11/25/2003)
89 NOTICE of Filing Deposition Excerpts by CENTENNIAL IMPORTS INC. NOTE: deposition excerpts in separate folder (not scanned) (lcu, Pensacola) (Entered: 11/25/2003)

9 of 13

5/23/2007 1:57 PM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:flnd - Docket Report

https://ecf.flnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?613276300462141-L_3...

11/24/2003 11/25/2003 11/25/2003 11/25/2003 11/25/2003 11/26/2003 12/03/2003
12/08/2003
12/08/2003 12/10/2003 12/11/2003 12/11/2003 12/15/2003

90 MOTION to Strike by CENTENNIAL IMPORTS INC. Responses due by 12/15/2003 (lcu, Pensacola) Modified on 11/26/2003 (lcu, Pensacola). See document #93 for Rule 7.1(B) certificate. Modified on 11/26/2003 (lcu, Pensacola). (Entered: 11/26/2003)
91 NOTICE Of Filing Deposition Excerpts by CENTENNIAL IMPORTS INC (lcu, Pensacola) (Entered: 11/26/2003)
92 MOTION to Strike by CENTENNIAL IMPORTS INC. Responses due by 12/15/2003. See document #93 for Rule 7.1(B) certificate.(lcu, Pensacola) (Entered: 11/26/2003)
93 CERTIFICATE of Counsel re 90 MOTION to Strike and 92 MOTION to Strike by RALPH ALAN PETERSON on behalf of CENTENNIAL IMPORTS INC (lcu, Pensacola) (Entered: 11/26/2003)
94 MOTION to Strike by CENTENNIAL IMPORTS INC and RESPONSE to Plaintiff's Statement of Facts Responses due by 12/15/2003. See document #93 for Rule 7.1(B) certificate.(lcu, Pensacola) (Entered: 11/26/2003)
Reset Deadline - 90 Day No Activity Deadline set for 2/24/2004 (lcu, Pensacola) (Entered: 11/26/2003)
95 UNOPPOSED MOTION for Extension of Time of Three (3) Business Days to File Responses as to 94 MOTION to Strike, 90 MOTION to Strike, and 92 MOTION to Strike by UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION. (lcu, Pensacola) Modified on 12/5/2003 (lcu, Pensacola). (Entered: 12/05/2003)
96 ORDER granting 95 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 95 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 94 MOTION to Strike, 90 MOTION to Strike, 92 MOTION to Strike Responses due by 12/11/2003. Signed by Judge LACEY A COLLIER. (lcu, Pensacola) (Entered: 12/08/2003)
97 RESPONSE to Motion re 90 MOTION to Strike filed by UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION. (lcu, Pensacola) RESPONSE was withdrawn pursuant to order 12/31/03. Modified on 1/12/2004 (tdg, Pensacola). (Entered: 12/10/2003)
98 NOTICE of Filing Corrected Response by UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION re 97 Response to Motion (lcu, Pensacola) (Entered: 12/15/2003)
100 RESPONSE in Opposition re 92 MOTION to Strike filed by UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION. (lcu, Pensacola) (Entered: 12/15/2003)
101 RESPONSE in Opposition re 94 MOTION to Strike filed by UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION. (lcu, Pensacola) (Entered: 12/15/2003)
99 CORRECTED RESPONSE in Opposition re 90 MOTION to Strike filed by UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION. (lcu, Pensacola) (Entered: 12/15/2003)

10 of 13

5/23/2007 1:57 PM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:flnd - Docket Report

https://ecf.flnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?613276300462141-L_3...

12/15/2003
12/16/2003 12/23/2003 12/31/2003 01/16/2004 02/17/2004 05/17/2004 05/17/2004 05/18/2004
05/18/2004 06/01/2004 06/02/2004 06/15/2004 07/15/2004 07/21/2004

102 NOTICE of Filing Supplemental Authority in Support of Defendant's motions for summary concerning claims of McAroy, Thomas, Lee, Olds, & Cannon by CENTENNIAL IMPORTS INC (lcu, Pensacola) Modified on 12/17/2003 (lcu, Pensacola). (Entered: 12/17/2003)
104 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS by CENTENNIAL IMPORTS INC. (lcu, Pensacola) (Entered: 12/19/2003)
105 MOTION to Withdraw 97 Response to Motion by UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION. (lcu, Pensacola) (Entered: 12/30/2003)
106 ORDER granting 105 Motion to Withdraw 97 Response to Motion . Signed by Judge LACEY A COLLIER. (lcu, Pensacola) (Entered: 12/31/2003)
107 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS by CENTENNIAL IMPORTS INC. (lcu, Pensacola) (Entered: 01/20/2004)
108 NOTICE by CENTENNIAL IMPORTS INC OF FILING ATTORNEY AND PARALEGAL FEE RECORDS UNDER SEAL (PETERSON, RALPH) (Entered: 02/17/2004)
109 NOTICE by CENTENNIAL IMPORTS INC OF FILING ATTORNEY AND PARALEGAL TIME RECORDS UNDER SEAL (PETERSON, RALPH) (Entered: 05/17/2004)
110 NOTICE by CENTENNIAL IMPORTS INC (SECOND) OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Supplemental Authority (Order on Reconsideration in 3:02cv440))(PETERSON, RALPH) (Entered: 05/17/2004)
111 DOCKET ANNOTATION BY COURT: Re 109 Notice (Other) filed by CENTENNIAL IMPORTS INC - Incorrect code was used for this entry, should have used Category: Other Documents, Event: Attorney Time Records (lcu, Pensacola) (Entered: 05/18/2004)
ACTION REQUIRED BY CHAMBERS: Chambers of Judge Lacey A. Collier notified that action is needed Re: 110 Notice (Other) filed by CENTENNIAL IMPORTS INC (lcu, Pensacola) (Entered: 05/18/2004)
112 NOTICE by CENTENNIAL IMPORTS INC (THIRD) OF FILING OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Final Judgment in 3:02cv440/LAC-MCR)(PETERSON, RALPH) (Entered: 06/01/2004)
ACTION REQUIRED BY CHAMBERS: Chambers of Judge Lacey A. Collier notified that action is needed Re: 112 Notice (Other) filed by CENTENNIAL IMPORTS INC (lcu, Pensacola) (Entered: 06/02/2004)
113 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS by CENTENNIAL IMPORTS INC. (PETERSON, RALPH) (Entered: 06/15/2004)
114 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS by CENTENNIAL IMPORTS INC. (PETERSON, RALPH) (Entered: 07/15/2004)
115 ORDER DENYING SUMMARY JUDGMENT re 54 Motion for Summary Judgment, 51 Motion for Summary Judgment, 57 Motion for Summary Judgment, 90 MOTION to Strike, 92 MOTION to Strike, 60 Motion for

11 of 13

5/23/2007 1:57 PM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:flnd - Docket Report

https://ecf.flnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?613276300462141-L_3...

07/22/2004 07/29/2004
08/11/2004 08/20/2004 08/23/2004
08/24/2004 08/24/2004 10/15/2004 10/15/2004 10/18/2004
10/19/2004 11/18/2004

Summary Judgment, 67 Motion for Summary Judgment, 48 Motion for Summary Judgment, and 94 MOTION to Strike filed by CENTENNIAL IMPORTS INC. Motions terminated: 54, 51, 57, 90, 92, 60, 67,48, and 94 . Signed by Judge LACEY A COLLIER on July 21, 2004. (lcu, Pensacola) (Entered: 07/22/2004)
116 ORDER REFERRING CASE to Mediation.. Signed by Judge LACEY A COLLIER on July 22, 2004. (lcu, Pensacola) (Entered: 07/22/2004)
117 NOTICE by CENTENNIAL IMPORTS INC, UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION AND STIPULATION OF PARTIES' DESIGNATION OF MEDIATOR (PETERSON, RALPH) (Entered: 07/29/2004)
118 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS by CENTENNIAL IMPORTS INC. (PETERSON, RALPH) (Entered: 08/11/2004)
119 MOTION to Extend Time by UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION. (GILLESPIE, KENNETH) (Entered: 08/20/2004)
ACTION REQUIRED BY CHAMBERS: Chambers of Judge Lacey A. Collier notified that action is needed Re: 119 MOTION to Extend Time filed by UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION (djb, Pensacola) (Entered: 08/23/2004)
120 ORDER - Granting in part Parties' 119 Motion For Extension of Time to conduct mediation. Only until 10/15/2004. Signed by Judge LACEY A COLLIER. (cbj, Pensacola) (Entered: 08/24/2004)
ReSet Deadline for Mediation re 120 - Mediation to take place by 10/15/2004 (cbj, Pensacola) (Entered: 08/24/2004)
121 NOTICE of Settlement by UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION (GILLESPIE, KENNETH) . (Entered: 10/15/2004)
122 ATTORNEY TIME RECORDS by CENTENNIAL IMPORTS INC. (lcu, Pensacola) (Entered: 10/18/2004)
ACTION REQUIRED BY CHAMBERS: Chambers of Judge Lacey A. Collier notified that action is needed Re: 121 Notice of Settlement filed by UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION (lcu, Pensacola) (Entered: 10/18/2004)
123 ORDER DISMISSING CASE (case settled). Signed by Judge LACEY A COLLIER on 10/19/04. (lcu, Pensacola) (Entered: 10/19/2004)
124 ORDER (CONSENT DECREE) . Signed by Judge LACEY A COLLIER on 11/17/2004. (lcu, Pensacola) (Entered: 11/19/2004)

12 of 13

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt

5/23/2007 1:57 PM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:flnd - Docket Report

https://ecf.flnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?613276300462141-L_3...

05/23/2007 13:36:18

PACER Login:

hs0328

Client Code:

Description:

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

Billable Pages: 8

Cost:

eeoc 3:02-cv-00403-LC 0.64

13 of 13

5/23/2007 1:57 PM