Case 2:04-cv-01257-RLH-LRL

Document 1

Filed 09/08/2004
I

Page 1 of 6

.<-Z-' ct...D.:..:.
0

UNITED STATEr -~~~-~~~ ~-~,-~

8

CV-S-04-1257-RLI l. TRl.

DISTRlCl

9

10 U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT 11 OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

RIVIERA. OPERATING CORPORATION, d/b/a the Riviera Hotel and Casino,

1" i -I

Defendant.

16

)
) COMPLAINT-CIVIL RIGHTS ). Retaliation (Tith~ VII, ADEA) )
) ) DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
) ) ) )

17

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

IS

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

19 1343 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to: (a) Section 706(f)(1) and

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

21 ("Title VII") and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991,42 U.S.C. § 1981 a; and
2:~ I (b) Section 7(b) of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended, 29 U.S.C.

13 i § 626(b) (the "ADEA"), which incorporates by reference Sections 16(c) and 17 of the Fair Labor

2.l Standards Act of 1938 (the "FLSA"), as amended, 29 U.S.C. §§ 216(c) and 217.

2S

2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were and are now being

26 committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the District of Nevada,

27 Southern Division.

-1-
\

Case 2:04-cv-01257-RLH-LRL Document 1 Filed 09/08/2004 Page 2 of 6

Case 2:04-cv-01257-RLH-LRL Document 1 Filed 09/08/2004 Page 3 of 6

1

NATURE OF THE ACTION

2

3. This is an action under Title VII and the ADEA to correct unlawful employment

3 practices and to provide appropriate relief to Ronni Hill, Jo-Anna Harris, and a class of similarly

4 situated individuals, whom plaintiff U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

5 ("EEOC" or "Commission") alleges were unlawfully retaliated against for having participated

6 as witnesses in the EEOC's enforcement efforts against defendant Riviera Operating Corp

7 ("Defendant Employer"). As alleged more particularity in paragraphs 8-11 below, Ronni Hill,

8 .To·Anna Harris, and a class of similarly situated individuals were subjected to discipline,

9 termination, and/or were not hired or rehired for employment because they engaged in a
,
10 I protected activity by participating as witnesses in the enforcement efforts of the EEOC in a

II matter wherein Defendant Employer was alleged to have maintained a hostile environment for

12 former Riviera employee Jean Sylvia on the basis of sex and age in violation of Titk VII and the

13 ADEA.

14

PARTIES

15

4. Plaintiff EEOC is the agency of the United States of America charged with the

16 administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title VII and the ADEA, and is expressly
i
17 authorized to bring this action by Section 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.c. § 2000e-

1X 5(t)(1) and (3) and by Section 7(b) of the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. § 626(b), as amended by Section 2

19 of Reorg,mization Plan No.1 of 1978, 92 Stat. 3781, and by Public Law 98-532 (l984), 98 Stat.

20 2705.

2l

5. Plaintiff alleges that, at all relevant times, Defendant Employer has

22 continuously been a Nevada corporation doing business in the State of Nevada and the City of

23 Las Vegas, and has continuously had at least 20 employees.

24

6. At all relevant times, Defendant Employer has continuously been an employer

25 engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 70 I(b), (g) and (h) of

26 Title VIl., 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(b), (g) and (h) and within the meaning of Sections 11(b), (g) and

27, (h) of the ADEA, 29 U.S.c. §§ 630(b), (g) and (h).

-2-

Case 2:04-cv-01257-RLH-LRL Document 1 Filed 09/08/2004 Page 4 of 6

1

STATEMENT OF CLAIMS

2

7. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Chargillg Parties

3 Ronni Hill and Jo-Anna Harris each filed a charge with the Commission alleging violations of

4 Title VII and the ADEA by Defendant Employer. All conditions preced'~nt to the institution of

5 this lawsuit have been fulfilled.

6

8.

Since at least January 2003, Defendant Employer has engaged in unlawfill

7 I employment practices at its Las Vegas, Nevada, casino, in violation of Section 704(a) of

8 Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a) and section 4(d) of the ADEA, 29 U.S.c. § 623(d). Charging

9 Parties Ronni Hill and Jo-Anna Harris, and a class of similarly situated individuals, ~ngaged in a

10 . protected activity by participating as witnesses for the EEOC in the enforcement efD:>rts of the

11 EEOC in another matter, wherein Defendant Employer was alleged to have maintained a hostile

12 environment for former employee Jean Sylvia on the basis of sex and age in violation of

13 Title VII and the ADEA. Because of their participation in said protected activity, Defendant

14 Employer unlawfully retaliated against Charging Parties Ronni Hill and Jo-Anna Harris, and a

15 class of similarly situated individuals, by, inter alia, disciplining them, terminating their

16 employment, andlor failing or refusing to hire or rehire them.

17

9.

The effect of the practices complained of in paragraph 8 above has been to

1S deprive Charging Parties Ronni Hill, Jo-Anna Harris, and a class of similarly situatt:d

19 individuals, of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their

20 status as ,~mployees and/or applicants for employment, because of their participation in a

21 protected activity as witnesses for the EEOC in another matter.

22

10. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs 8-9 above were

23 intentional.

24

11. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs 8-10 above

25 were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Ronni

26 Hill, Jo-Anna Harris, and a class of similarly situated individuals.

27 Iii

-3-

Case 2:04-cv-01257-RLH-LRL Document 1 Filed 09/08/2004 Page 5 of 6

1

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

2

Wi1erefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court:

3

A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant Employer, its officers,

4 successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in

" ! retaliation and any other employment practice which discriminates on the basis of se:x and age.

6

B. Order Defendant Employer to institute and carry out policies, practices, and

7 programs which provide equal employment opportunities for women and persons over 40 years

8 i of age, and which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices.

9

c. Order Defendant Employer to make whole Ronni Hill, lo-Anna Harris, and a

10 class of similarly situated individuals, by providing to them appropriate backpay with

11 prejudgment interest, in amounts to be determined at trial, and other affirmativl~ relief necessary

12 to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices, including, but not limited to, front

1 .~' pay, reinstatement, expungement of adverse employment records, and positive employment
14 references.

D. Order Defendant Employer to make whole Ronni Hill, lo-Anna Harris, ,md a

16 . class of similarly situated individuals, by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary

17 losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described in paragraphs 8-11 above,

18 including job search expenses and reimbursement for lost benefits, in arnounts to be determined

19 at trial.

20

E. Order Defendant Employer to make whole Ronni Hill, lo-Anna H!m-is, and a

21 class of similarly situated individuals, by providing compensation for past and future

22 nonpecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices complained of in paragraphs 8-11

23 above, including emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life, and

24 i. humiliation, in amounts to be determined at trial.

2S

F. Order Defendant Employer to pay to Ronni Hill, lo-Anna Harris, and a class of

26 similarly situated individuals, punitive damages for its malicious and reckless conduct described

27 in paragraphs 8-11 above, in amounts to be determined at trial.

-4-

Case 2:04-cv-01257-RLH-LRL Document 1 Filed 09/08/2004 Page 6 of 6

1

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

2 interest.

3

H. Award the Commission its costs of this action.

4

5

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

6

The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact rais,~d by its complaint.

7

Eric S. Dreiband

General Counsel

8 James L. Lee

9

Deputy General Counsel

10

Gwendolyn Young Reams

Associate General Counsel

11

Anna Y. Park

1'",,

Regional Attorney

Peter F. Laura Senior Trial Attorney 14

15 16

BY~~_)____:=~:). __

Anna Y. ParR - ..----..---... -

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

l:{

Los Angeles District Office

(213) 894-1076

19 '

20

21

23 24 25 26 27
-5-

 
 Case 2:04-cv-01257-RLH-LRL Document 11 Filed 05/31/2005 Page 1 of 24

<!,L;TI)JA S. HOLMAN "Je'J,tda S~ate Bar No. 3742 ~475 South Pecos Road ~,,'lS Vegas, Nevada 89121
,, ~el: (702) 454-2111
;C'ax: (702) 454-3333
Actorney for Plaintiffs, fn'")J~ FTLL and JO-ANNA HARRIS

_ ----"_ '---

FILlD ENTtRED

I~\.I.,I-\ ',f

'~-'

.
I

. J CLERK US DISTRICT COU,~T

OIStRIc.r OF Nti,i:;,\

BY:

lV\d ____

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

S :>·,::0Nj HILL and JO-ANNA HARRIS,) )

q

:'L:n n t iff s ,

)

)

II) \''',

)

)

I I "' I V: ERA 8PERATING CORPORATION,)

jib/a THE RIVIERA HOTEL AND )

12 .:J\:)JNO; and DOES I through X, )

L11~·:...t:Sl'/e!

)

1.1

)

i:l"tendants.

)

14

)
. -. . ---~--~--~--

PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT (Jury Demanded)

I.' I

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

I (I

1. ThiS is a civil action for damages and injunctive relief

]7.iLC1C'1' a variety of state and federal statutes prohibiting

IS u~scrlmi~ation and to secure the protection of and to redress

I () I, ,;(CP). i vat Ion of rights under these laws and related tort claims.

:I
21J I:

.,
L,

Plaintiffs' ("Hill," "Harris," or "Plaintiff(s)")statutory

~IlI"I".'i~:rs arise under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title

" I .. r: "
- - I ",-

as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.; the Civil Rights Act

,I

',Ii"

1'J9~, 1"1991 Civil Rights Act"); the Nevada anti-discrimination

-i

'4 1 oi~atllte, N,R.S. § 613.310 et seq.; and as to Ronni Hill, Section 7(b)
- Ii

25 1 uf ~.he Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) of 1967, as

2() I c':',ended, 29 U,S.C. § 626(b) (the "ADEA").

,-

This action includes claims arising under the laws of the

_I

.).

28 S~ate of Nevada which are joined pursuant to the doctrine of

1

\ \

Case 2:04-cv-01257-RLH-LRL Document 11 Filed 05/31/2005 Page 2 of 24

supplemental jurisdiction and 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

2

4. As Plaintiffs' employer during the relevant time period,

, I.e flcndant, RIVIERA OPERATING CORPORATION, d/b/a THE RIVIERA HOTEL AND

4 ['ASINO (hereinafter referred to as "Defendant" or "the Riviera") was

, c.~eraclng within the County of Clark, State of Nevada; was engaged in

() .In industry affecting commerce; and employed more than 500 employees.

7

As an employer in Nevada, Defendant is required to comply

X ~Ith all state and federal statutes which prohibit sex discrimination

lIld sexGal harassment pursuant to state laws and 42 U.S.C. § 2000e,

"t. seq., as amended; and age discrimination pursuant to N .R. S. §

et seq. and related tort claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Ms. Hill filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Nevada

Rlghts Commission ( "NERC" ) and the U. S. Equal Employment

14 l~port ).;n:. t y Commi ssion ("EEOC") on or about June 2, 2003. (See Exhibi t

I~

~ttached hereto.)

7. On or about March 6, 2004, Ms. Hill received a Letter of

1711 :Jc'cecT12nation from the EEOC indicating a finding in favor of Ms. Hill
I lSI: i.,,)dnLng her retaliation claim. In an Amended Letter of Determination
II
IlJj;l:ited June 29,2004, the EEOC also stated that "examination of the
-"I) i,I c·vi dence also revealed reasonable cause to believe that a class of ~l !i ic::-Ip',-:Jyees \'iere retaliated against for opposing or participating in a
I
~~ i ' -'~t:ached y),I""',(,rted activity in violation of Title VII and ADEA." (See Exhibit hereto.)

-"41II1

8. Ms. Harris filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Nevada

-"':; I"I'i i':crual Rights Commission ("NERC") and the U. S. Equal Employment

:!(l Ii ')~)pcc·tuni ty Commission ("EEOC") on or about April 17, 2003. (See

Ii D Exh bi t 3, attached hereto.)

2

Case 2:04-cv-01257-RLH-LRL Document 11 Filed 05/31/2005 Page 3 of 24

9. On or about March 6, 2004, Ms. Harris received a Letter of ,)ptermination from the EEOC indicating a finding In her favor
o, ,cgarding her retaliation claim. In an Amended Letter of Determination

.:dted June 29, 2004, the EEOC also stated that "examination of the

\'ldcnce also revealed reasonable cause to believe that a class of

-'!!lployees were retaliated against for opposing or participating in a

: : ol,t.'c::ed activity in violation of Title VII and ADEA." (See Exhibit

" attached hereto.)

'il

_ v • Venue lS proper In the District of Nevada pursuant to 28

I

III! . . ,S . (" § 1391(b) because Defendant is incorporated here .
,I

I I Ii

THE PARTIES

II

I ~ II

"1, Plaintiff, Ronni Hill, at all times relevant to this

1:1 "~;[Jlaint, was a female citizen of the County of Clark, State of

1-1 ~0vada, who was hired by the Riviera on or about January 13, 1987 and

I:' i ':1~ lJ~ued her employment with Defendant until the Riviera terminated ,I
lilll :,E.-:' employment on or about February 28, 2003.

I

~

II
Ii

12, Plaintiff, Jo-Anna Harris, at all times relevant to this

I

,
"

II
II
II

'wlplalnt,

was a

female citizen of Clark County,

State of Nevada,

who

~_iS 'I

1<)11

hIred by the Riviera on or about May 20, 1996 and continued her

Ii
i 2(1 ""',[)lcy:nent with the Riviera until the Riviera terminated her
" I
21 ,·rnployment on or about February 27, 2003.

13 . The Riviera is an employer within the meaning of Title VIr

23

i!
I:

_.

',he 21 vll Rights Act of 1964,

as amended,

and the ADEA.

14 ' DOE Defendants I through x, inclusive, are persons,

,(')'poratlons or business entities who are or which may also be

!esponsible for or who directed or assisted in the wrongful actions
27 il;f the named Defendants, or who may be individual officers or
'I
2::; 'iClplcyees of the named Defendants. The true identities of the DOE

3

Case 2:04-cv-01257-RLH-LRL Document 11 Filed 05/31/2005 Page 4 of 24

Defendants are unknown to Plaintiff at this time. Plaintiff therefore

2 alleges that DOES I-X, inclusive, may be responsible In part and

3 individually for the damages or injuries suffered by Plaintiff as a

-l'i : "cml t of their own wrongful actions and/or those of their agents

,.:; I,
-

employees. l

,
j

•

_j
L.

,II

',-, ~ r---y"

Plaintiff will

seek leave to amend this Complaint

Ii

" () r" "~ soon as the true identities of DOE Defendants I-X, inclusive, are

FACTS

Plaintiff Ronni Hill

1:). On or about January 13, 1987, the Riviera hired Ms. Hill
'.I,
,
II "'.l dealer and within six months she was promoted to the position of

I~ I,
: ~

~oc person. She was 38 years old at the time. She was then promoted

I.' :i
Ii - ,. sen:or floor person in or about February 2002. Throughout the

1-1 i"l : '-flure of her employment, up until the date of her termination on I'
I.':;:!I' :,:b,-~ary 28, 2003, she was a loyal and dedicated employee, performing
",I!. I(li! .~ I the requirements of her job in a professional manner. Her salary

1:.tt !;

I"

tiE' ttme of her termination was $48,000 per year.

ISiiIi

:6. Along with all Riviera employees, Ms. Hill received annual

I,

I') il il.:itOiSmer.t and sexual awareness training in compliance with EEOC

II,f
~lllf ILlde':'::1es, along with written training materials, which according to

21 il ':C1 AffIdavIt of Attendance Harassment Awareness Training dated
i:
22!!,;ClOber 22,1999, "describe in detail the Riviera's zero-tolerance

_"_" Ii ·_3n·2e agaI. nst a 11 h arassment.
:'

"

I;

-"-I ,i.,".,'

17_ Ms. Hill claims that from her first day on the job until her

..., -
-\

I;
',1

:f'r~ination,

she was subjected to a sexually hostile,

intimidating and

, "

~(), ·,ffensIve work environment that caused her much stress and anxiety.

Ii "7' ~cr example, on her first day at the Riviera, she was a dealer on the

28 ,! Black Jack table and lost approximately $2,000. She overheard the pi t

4
II

Case 2:04-cv-01257-RLH-LRL Document 11 Filed 05/31/2005 Page 5 of 24

"1;:~3e:' :0 t the tlme say to another employee, "Get that fucking cunt

,

~ :1 Ii that game," ~ :

':

."' dI

18, This hostile environment was a result of the rampant use of

.11:I::I li~rogatory remarks regarding her age and gender by her co-workers and

.:~_.pt:l.-\rlSOrS I as well as sexually explicit jokes that were posted in

~ a.lr: 1Jiew of all employees. Such remarks included, but were not

',I:I:~ed to, "old broad," "old bag," "douche bag," "old slut," "fucking

8:,,(11, u and derogatory and sexually explicit comments about women's
r: arts ,

19, Because of her concern about losing her job, Ms. Hill

11 <,:ifered :,' silence for years. Then, when she finally complained to ;1 ,.
I~:, :,"1 manager, starting at or around 1995, regarding the sexually
!" i
I; Ii ,'x;:Jelcit Jokes and other material posted in plain view as well as the
i1-1 " ::c';.:ual jokes and derogatory comments regarding her age and sex, no " l __'l:Ol1 was taken.

2ll, Sometime in 2000, the EEOC launched an investigation into

'<,gallcns of gender and age discrimination at the Riviera (EEOC

1:-;, "',ilCle No, 34BA00743) and subsequently filed a court action on
i
"
I'):' :>c'Dcembe:c' 20, 2002 against the Riviera (U.S.D.C. Case No. CV-S-02ii
2uil ';'l3.HDM-PAL), which is currently In litigation. As part of the

'_I ,[!I !_ciCovery process, Ms. Hill was identified in writing to the Riviera

i" :

1 -, :'
~_ I,

l~3

c.i

v''/.i':ness.

At that time, Ms. Hill was unaware that she had been

L

-...., i!
I , I'
-- I'

tlsclosed

as

a

witness.

I

2-1 I:

21. On or about February 21,

2003,

Frank Deletto,

the Shift

2d ~':dllaC1er, Elformed Ms. Hill that the Riviera had placed her on

,.
..:: ()

!:
,:
;1

::Jspe~sicn

pending

an

investigation

into

allegations

that

Ms.

Hill

had

I'I,

I,
-11IIi

f:1LY..i:~:gly

accepted stolen cigarettes.

She was

terminated on or about

Ii

2:-: i1:ebl:1ary 28, 2003 on an alleged charge of "dishonesty,"

1

I

5

'I

"
':1

Case 2:04-cv-01257-RLH-LRL Document 11 Filed 05/31/2005 Page 6 of 24
, 'I

22. Ms. Hill claims that her termination was nothing but pretext

2'1 :01 l'etaliation, and that the real reason for her termination was her
,I
JII .aentlfication as a witness in the court action and/or participation

the EEOC process when the other discrimination lawsuit was filed

,,-,lillst the Riviera by the EEOC.

23. Ms. Hill was subjected to sexual harassment in the workplace
II
-;" I D\/ Defendant Riviera to such an extreme that any reasonable person in
:1

s :/ :,,-1 position would have found it to be so severe and pervasive that

I
l) :1

I wo~~d certainly have adversely affected her ability to perform her

:I

1(Ill

~1alntiff repeatedly reported the harassment and yet continued

~) 11 :11 De subJected to it on a daily basis.

I

1 ~i

Ms. Hill also alleges she was subjected by Defendant to a

I ~ :1 i ~:.~Ern of discrimination and harassment on the basis of her age. She
I.q1 ,·::,8 subJ ected to unwanted, degrading and humiliating comments and
I~:I ::ClIIK'calllng based on her age by both her co-workers and superVIsors, 'I
1 (, :1 \,:i.c:: o:ten took place in front of other employees and/or customers.
!:
1- I,I: "'!":lc1ant Riviera ignored and failed to remedy the situation, despite \''\1" :(:)eCl~ed complaints by Ms. Hill. Ms. Hill's complaints were rebuffed
,

1'i : ,:ll ISf1ored, and the harassment continued.

'I ') I)
-I

FACTS

i'

21 !

Plaintiff Joanna Harris

:

2~ On or about May 20, 1996, the Riviera hired Ms. Harris as

,'oc,,-t311 Server. Throughout the tenure of her employment, up untIl

: il'· date of her termination on or about February 27, 2003, she was a 25 II ~oyal and dedicated employee, performing all the requirements of her

2() 11 Job in a professional manner. Her salary at the time of her
:;
.,- , : ,=,'Il',ination was approximately $40,000 to $50,000 per year.

l"- I

I!

-(' :1 I I I

'I
I'I

:

6

Case 2:04-cv-01257-RLH-LRL Document 11 Filed 05/31/2005 Page 7 of 24
I
,

I

, I

26. Sometime in 2000, the EEOC launched an investigation into

1 "I i:iegatlons of gender and age discrimination at the Riviera (EEOC

; IILtlg'" No. 34BA00743) and subsequently filed a court action on

-+ ::f·uLe~1Dcr 20, 2002 against the Riviera (U.S.D.C. Case No. CV-S-02-

, _.' '.8 !DM-PAL) , which 1S currently 1n litigation. As part of the

I) ::~3covcry process, Ms. Harris was identified in writing to the Riviera

)3 LI w:..:::ness. At that time, Ms. Harris was unaware that she had been

~. 1: sci osed as a witness.

, i
ii

~2</.

'I
III II \L,:-:age:-,

On or about February 21, 2003, Mr. Haseev, the Beverage
Informed Ms. Harris that the Riviera had placed her on

II :! '1\I.c;~)er:slon pending an investigation into allegations that Ms. Harris

I:' ', .• d sl':.J:en cigarettes. She was terminated on or about February 27,

I; , ;''-' . '_' c·]' an alleged charge of "dishonesty."

I -+ !

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

Sex Discrimination UDder State and Federal

Anti-Discrimination Statutes

I I)

2 S. Plaintiffs replead and reallege and incorporate herein by

I ~I :(~erer;ce each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through ,I

II)

31)ove as if fully set forth.

Ie;

2'" . Defendant Riviera was aware of the prior conduct by its

:'1) '·I.I!Jloyees to engage 1n behavior 1n front of and toward female

:'1 ")lluloyees that was degrading, threatening, sexually offensive, and

30. The Riviera, as an employer, knew or should have known of

2..\ t.; longstanding obligation, pursuant to state and federal statutes,

2~

!na:ntain a workplace free of sexual harassment, a form of sexual

2!J c11s~·c_mination .

'1"7

,. ,

28 / / .I

7

Case 2:04-cv-01257-RLH-LRL Document 11 Filed 05/31/2005 Page 8 of 24
;i

51. The Riviera failed to take reasonably adequate steps to ~_-event sex discrimination, including sexual harassment, In its

32 . The Riviera failed to institute effective institutional

.' 'I ["' •• ,~·}es to remedy complaints about conduct which might constitute sex

()!: Jl.scrimination, including sexual harassment.

~ .

n. Therefore, Plaintiffs allege that the Riviera has

:-:' 1.1 :;LTirninated against them based on their gender in that they were

')! ';c:hjected to frequent Intentional, unwelcome, degrading and offensive

1II" '"xr:,'l: ccrr,ments and proposals from employees of Defendant, and that

II, '''' fI.IVlera allowed, authorized and ratified these actions, including

12,: .lssment and threatening behavior toward Plaintiffs, and allowed the

I.~, ,> :)f FlaIntiffs' service as witnesses in a discrimination lawsuit
1..1 ' ; eu against it as grounds for adverse employment decisions about

I.", . 'WIll. This created a hostile and abusive environment based on sexual

1(, i.,1:"3SSmeEt which interfered with Ms. Hill's and Ms. Harris' ability

I~·

perform their job functions, in violation of state and federal

1:-:: ~Itlltes, and included tangible job detriment to them and detriment

It)

the:]" professional careers.

211

34. Plaintiffs have also suffered serious mental and emotional

21slress as a result of this unlawful discrimination.

II I

Plaintiffs are entitled to be fully compensated for all

2.' . :,,',Idges they have sustained.

2..1

36. It has been necessary for Plaintiffs to retain the services

2'" "! em at torney and they should be compensated therefor.

2S i 8

Case 2:04-cv-01257-RLH-LRL Document 11 Filed 05/31/2005 Page 9 of 24

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Ronni Hill Only)
Age Discrimination onder State and Federal Anti-Discrimination Statutes

37 . Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate as though fully set

. 'rtll herein, each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1

(, ~ [.rough 36 of this complaint.

l8. Ronni Hill alleges that the Riviera subjected her to a

~,' ((:':'11 of discrimination and harassment on the basis of her age as

') :-tcned by the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and N.R.S.

I I,

.: ~ J. Oll 0, et seq. She was not only subj ected to unwanted degrading

II ,[Id Ilumlliating comments and name-calling by both her co-workers and

I~ ,.pen·lsurs, which often took place in front of other employees and/or

l.'.,'to!rers, but also suffered as a result of the Riviera's unequal

l-l I !ecllrr.ent of her on the basis of age.

I~

~9. Plaintiff Hill alleges that she was given unequal treatment

1(, ·.'!rtpa::ed to younger similarly situated employees. She was subjected

1-

:la,'C\ssment/unequal treatment as to the conditions and privileges

I~

c:nployment, including derogatory and degrading comments .

•j o. The termination of Plaintiff Hill's employment by the

211. :1,·:endant constitutes a willful violation of 29 U.S.C. § 623 and as

.21".;,'11, encltles Plaintiff to recover double damages.

4i. At the time of her discharge, Plaintiff Hill earned a salary

'.' . dpproXlmately $48,000 per year, and health, vacation and other 2.:1.' :,- !le::its, As a direct result of these unlawful acts, Plaintiff has

'1,' ;',:: fered and continues to suffer financial loss, benefit loss and

2(• . '~vere emotional distress.

Plaintiff has also suffered serious mental and emotional

as a result of this unlawful discrimination.

9

Case 2:04-cv-01257-RLH-LRL Document 11 Filed 05/31/2005 Page 10 of 24

43. Plaintiff is entitled to be fully compensated for all

~! damages she has sustained.

.,' '

It has been necessary for Plaintiff to retain the services

-I ,,1 ,in attorney and she should be compensated therefor.

~

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

011

Retaliation

!

45. Plalntiffs replead and reallege and incorporates herein by

,·~terence each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through

3bove as lf fully set forth.

Plaintiffs were subjected to discipline and termination

II ; : ·'"a,.se t:'1ey engaged in a protected activity by participating as
I
1_" ,i, ,'.' :'",lesses In the enforcement efforts of the EEOC in a matter wherein

I.~

~{"!:ddnL Riviera was alleged to have maintained a hostile environment

1-1 .. r fonner Riviera employee Jean Sylvia on the basis of sex and age

I',

"vi.)lar,ion of Title VII and the ADEA.

The Riviera knew or should have known of its obligation to

Ii',: r ,l j n [rom and prevent retaliatory acts against Plaintiffs and

ISte],dant Riviera failed to do so.

I')

~8, The Riviera failed to take immediate corrective action when

~II ,

: e,",rned that Plaintiffs had suffered acts of retaliation by the

~I I ,~Lera's own employees and management personnel.

--1) ,,

49. Plaintiffs have been seriously harmed, economically and

-,,1, . .c'i,)Ll'Jnally, by this unlawful discrimination and are entitled to be

-'-I : l!; 1 v compensated therefor.

",

50, It has been necessary for Plaintiffs to retain the serVlces

-' () ,c dn attorney and they should be compensated therefor.

..,-, , "
-'

, ,I /

28 ;

• I

I I

I
/

10

Case 2:04-cv-01257-RLH-LRL Document 11 Filed 05/31/2005 Page 11 of 24

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Injunctive Relief

1

~] Plaintiffs replead and reallege and incorporate herein by

~ ; : ('renc:e each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through

.;

:IL~8'/e as if fully set forth.

:i2. Pursuant to 42 U. s. C. § 2000e-2 et seq., Plaintiffs seek

:1 I 'd::ct 1 'Ie relief requiring that Defendant Riviera correct its past

';cr1:1~inatory practices and take appropriate steps to ensure that all

'I [:,::d EC employees are afforded a workplace free of unlawful sex and age

Iii'

llunation, inc:luding sexual harassment and retaliation.

I I

'; 3 . Plalntiffs seek injunctive relief from this Court requiring

I ~ .i (·::c:anL Riviera to take all steps necessary to evaluate the

I~

_H~~~ce of conduc:t In its workplace which might constitute

14 i ::;':-;mination and institute effective educational and prevention

I' . ~'jl,:\I;lS to prevent or remedy conduct which might constitute sex

l;e)( age discrimination; and to take appropriate disciplinary

I'"

:.':;:: ,c,gainst all employees who participated in, tolerated or failed

1:-;

.Jet (:0 prevent, stop or remedy the acts of sex discrimination

I')

,I :lst both Plaintiffs and age discrimination against Plaintiff Hill.

~II

'e -1 . It has been necessary for Plaintiffs to retain the services

::' 1 " : 1 at torney and they should be compensated therefor.

" ,

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

::'~ ,

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

Plaintiffs replead and reallege and incorporate herein by

=~,. i f,:-ence each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through

2(,-, :ibuve as if fully set forth.

"he aforementioned actions of the Riviera, in addition to

~~ ; ,:rl9 illegal, constitute extreme and outrageous conduct and were

11

Case 2:04-cv-01257-RLH-LRL Document 11 Filed 05/31/2005 Page 12 of 24

.~, i()C!~ed with the intent or reasonable knowledge or reckless
, ,~ .sr~gard that such actions would cause severe emotional harm and

1 . I stress to Plaintiffs, and did in fact cause such harm.

.:j

I I

The other Defendants{Defendants Doe) authorized and/or

~. '~lfled the conduct of the Riviera by failing to take measures to

(II l,~event further reoccurrences.

,,\ The aforementioned conduct of the other Defendants is
,. . ,) .' :·~rlE' and outrageous and was performed with the intent or reasonable

c) '.:. )./1. cage or reckless disregard that such actions would cause severe

III

t :c1:1aJ harm to the Plaintiff, and did in fact cause such harm.

II

S9. As a result, Plaintiffs have suffered damages and they are

I~ I:: "I .eo to recover compensatory and punitive damages related thereto.

L~ ,

:r.,] '..'.... It has been necessary for Plaintiffs to retain the services

1-\

:til a:torney and they should be compensated therefor.

I'

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

I (,

Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress

1-'

n". Plaintiffs replead and reallege and incorporate herein by

IS' ~('rence each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through

I')

"Dove as if fully set forth.

2(1

62. The Riviera owed a duty to exercise due care not to subj ect

21 ~alllllffs to foreseeable risk of mental, emotional, and/or physical

::111'y, and the Riviera knew or reasonably should have known that its

2J

~~; and/or omissions, as herein alleged, were likely to result in

2-\ ·'nt:a~, ernotlonal and/or physical injury to Plaintiffs.

63. The Riviera, while engaging in the aforementioned conduct,

2(, :, C1 negligently inflict extreme mental and emotional distress,

'I . :~dlgni ty, embarrassment, and humiliation upon Plaintiffs.

12

Case 2:04-cv-01257-RLH-LRL Document 11 Filed 05/31/2005 Page 13 of 24

64. As a direct and proximate result of the Riviera's negligent

2 'Lnfllction of such emotional distress, Plaintiffs have suffered

~, ! ,:Tle,ges and they are entitled to recover compensatory damages and
i
~. '!:,-r damages related thereto.

,

It has been necessary for Plaintiffs to retain the services

(\

'1:1 at torney and they should be compensated therefor.

',,'f'SREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully pray as follows:

A trial by jury on all issues;

.'

All employment-related losses including but not limited to

III

(back pay, front pay, benefits)subject to proof;

I!

All compensatory, special and general damages allowed by

12

law;

1 .,

,
,t ,

Injunctive relief as set forth above;

I -1

Attorneys' fees and costs of suit incurred herein;

c. Prejudgment interest;

Puni tive damages in an amount sufficient to punish and

deter Defendants from engaging in any such conduct in the

I~

future and as an example to other employers not to engage

1 ()

In such conduct; and

211

t). For such other and further relief as the Court shall deem

21

Just and proper.

Rospectfully submitted this

-1 ,' '

2-1

Ne a State

o. 3742

4475 South Pecos oad

- ')( I

Las Vegas, Nevada 89121 Tel: (702) 454-2111

Fax: (702) 454-3333

Attorney for Plaintiffs,

RONNI HILL and JO-ANNA HARRIS

"',':',:: i '. Pleadings \Comp: aint . wpd

13

Case 2:04-cv-01257-RLH-LRL Document 11 Filed 05/31/2005 Page 14 of 24
EXHIBIT 1

CCHaAseR2G:04E-cOv-0F12~5'7-SRCL~HJ-LMRJLN-A--DT- oJ-cOu-mN-en-t 1-1-

~his form 1$ affected bv the Pn....dCy Act ot J :t74; S,
compHttmg this fOf"m_

-
lIacy Act Statement before

Fileid 05/3.\1. /20'C05"
CJ FEPA GJ EEOC

Page 15 of 24 - -~--

----- - - - "

-----~-

_~jA~Cc- ''>IlJ.,.1Ef=i:

340-2003 10093

NAME{Indicate Mr., M$.. Mrs.)
Ms. Ronni Hill

Nevada Equal Rillhts Commission
Sta,." or foal Aaencv. if any
HOME TELEPHONE (Incfude Area Cadel (702) 341-6886

and EEOC

STREET ADDRESS 3348 ApenzeUe Court

CITY, STATE AND ZIP CODE Las Vegas, NV 89129

DATE OF BIRTH Sept 16, 1949

NAMED IS THE EMPLOYER, LASOR ORGANIZATION, EMPLOYMENT AGENCY, APPRENTICESHIP COMMITTEE. STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT AGENCY WHO DISCRIMINATED AGAINST ME (If more than one list below.)

NAME The Riviera Hotel & Casino

NUMBER OF EMPlOYEES, MEMBERS

Cat

D (501 + employees)

TELEPHONE (Include Area Codel
(702) 734-5110

STREET ADDRESS

CITY. STATE AND ZIP CODE

2901 Las Vegas Boulevard South

Las Vegas, NV 89109

CAUSE OF DISCRIMINATION BASED ON (Checlc appropriate box(eslJ

COUNTY Clark
DATE DISCRIMINATION TOOK PLACE

D W 0 GJ DRACE

COLOR

SEX

RELIGION

W D D o RETAlIAnON

NAnONAL

DISABILITY

AGE OTHER

ORIGIN

Jan 1.1987

March 6. 2003

W CONTINUING ACTION

THE PARTICULARS ARE (If addition'" paper is needed, atrech ex"" sh....r(s/l:

I worked for the Riviera Hotel & Casino (Riviera) since on or about 1987 until my termination on March 6. 2003. Throughout my employment I was subjected to a hostile work environment created by the use of derogatory comments related to my gender and age by both co-workers and supervisors and sexually explicit posted jokes. Examples of the derogatory comments include. but is not limited to. "Old Broad", "Old Bag". "Deuchebag·. • Old Slut". "Fucking Bitch" and comments about women's body partL The posting of sexual jokes and the use of the phrases such as "Old Bag". "Old Broad" and "Fucking Bitch· continued until my suspension on February 21. 2003. I complained to the Riviera Management about the posted, visually expliCit, sexual jokes and about the comments.

I took part in an EEOC investigation into allegations of gender and age discrimination at the Riviera (EEOC Charge NO. 34BA00743). The EEOC filed a court action based on their investigation and is currently in litigation with the Riviera. As part of the discovery process, on January 31, 2003, the EEOC identified me in writing to the Riviera as a witness. On February 21. 2003. Frank Deleno. Shift Manager, informed me the Riviera placed me under suspension pending investigation. The Riviera accused me of knowingly accepting stolen cigarenes and dishonesty. They terminated me on March 6. 2003. allegedly for dishonesty.

I believe the Riviera Hotel &. Casino subjected me to a hostile work environment due to my age (531 and gender (female) and failed to take appropriate steps to prevent and correct age and sex related harassment. In addition, I believe the Riviera Hotel &. Casino suspended and terminated me in retaliation for my participation with an EEOC investigation. I believe the hostile work environment, the suspension and the tennination are in violation of TItle VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as respectively amended.

I want th4 charge filed with both the EEOC and the State or Ioc.~, if any. I will advise the -"<,in il I change my addrea or telephone number and I wiU cooperate fufty with thMn in the PfOCessing of my cnerve in accordance with their ptoCedunts.
I declare und.... penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

&J~J()3
0. . EEOC FORM 5 (Test 101ll.'

~ ~
~ PIny ISirIMturwI

NOTARY - (WIwI Me_''V f~r State and Local ReqUIrements'

.fffrni _ lowe.. or

I ....... aIIov. chwge and that it is

01 true to the best/of my~
SIGNATURE CO~NT "';u

iel.

SUBSCRJBm~SWOJRl.tJi!~ l1B~/RE{UUMJE THIS C TE

IOoy. momII.

lNT~

Case 2:04-cv-01257-RLH-LRL Document 11 Filed 05/31/2005 Page 16 of 24
EXHIBIT 2

Case 2:04-cv-01257-RLH-LRL Document 11 Filed 05/31/2005 Page 17 of 24

GOBIERll/O DE LOS ESTADOS UNIDOS COMISION DE IGUALDAD DE OPORTUNIDAD EN EL EMPLEO

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
2SS E. TEMPLE STREET, 4TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 900 12 1-800-669-4000 (213) 894-1000 TOD (213) 894-1121 FAX (213) 894-1118
Charge Number: 340-2003-10093

Ronni Hill 3348 Apenzelle Court Las Vegas_ NY 89129

Charging Party

The Riviera Hotel & Casino 2901 Las Vegas Boulevard South Las Vegas, NY' 89109

Respondent

AMENDED - LETTER OF DETER.rv1fNATION

I issue the following determination as to the merits of this charge.

Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.c. 2000-e et seq. ("Title VII") and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended, 29 U.S.C. 621 et seq. ("ADEA"). Timeliness and all other requirements for coverage have been met.

The Charging Party alleges that the Respondent engaged in employment practices made unlawful
by Title vn and ADEA by: (1) subjecting her to a hostile work environment because of her
gender and age; and (2) suspending and and discharging her in retaliation for participating in an
EEOC..: investigation. Respondent denies the allegations.

Examination of the evidence reveals reasonable cause to believe Charging Party's claim that she was suspended and discharged in retaliation for participating in an EEOC investigation in violation of Title VII and ADEA. Further, during the course of the investigation of this charge, examination of the evidence also revealed reasonable cause to believe that a class of employees were retaliated against for opposing or participating in a protected activity in violation ofTitIe VII and ADEA.

According to Section 706(b) of Title VII, if the Commission determines there is reason to believe that violations have occurred, it shall endeavor to eliminate the alleged unlawful practices by informal methods of conference, conciliation and persuasion. Having determined that there is reason to believe that violations have occurred, the Commission now invites the parties to join with it in a collective effort toward a just resolution of this matter.

Case 2:04-cv-01257-RLH-LRL Document 11 Filed 05/31/2005 Page 18 of 24

DETER.\1INAnON Charge Number: 340-2003-10093 Page 2 of2

If the Respondent declines to enter into settlement discussion, or when for any other reason, a settlement acceptable to the Director is not obtained, the Director will infonn the parties in writing and advise them of the court enforcement alternatives available to the Charging Party, aggrieved persons and the Commission. A Commission representative will contact you shortly to begin conciliation discussions.

On Behalf of the Commission:

Ie //·i./
-;\\ ) . ' __/ '
G~'

.--
/0.y

Date

Olophius E. Perry, DistricWirector

Los Angeles District 0t,e////

Case 2:04-cv-01257-RLH-LRL Document 11 Filed 05/31/2005 Page 19 of 24
EXHIBIT 3

l

or ----- CCaHseA2R:0G4E-cv-0125"7-IRSLHC-~LRMLJNADTocIuOmNent 11--F-i- le- d j05./- 3A1-·/2-0'-J0C-5y--P-a~g-e-2- 0 -of-C2-i4-'A-R-G-E-'lU-M-B-E-R---

'~IS. 'C~,1l ,; Jt~P.;c~ed.~v "'1f! ">"vdCI .l.ct:Jf • 374, Se
r__________________________________________ LWJ I comoletlng Ihls form

-acv Act Statement cefore

FE ~~==~E~E~O~C~L_~34~O~-~2~O~O~3~-~O~9~8~5~9_ __ _

________________________~N~e~v~a~d~a~E~q~u~a~I~R~ig~h~t~s_C~o~m~m~is~s~io~n~_______________________ and EEOC

NAME{lndicate Mr.• Ms.• Mrs.)

HOME TELEPHONE {Include Area Codel

Ms. Joanna Harris

STREET ADDRESS

741

Street

CITY. STATE AND ZIP CODE

Las

NV

DATE OF BIRTH 1971

NAMED IS THE EMPLOYER, LABOR ORGANIZATION, EMPLOYMENT AGENCY. APPflENTICESHIP COMMITTEE.

STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT AGENCY WHO DISCRIMINATED

ME (If more than

NAME

NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES. MEMBERS
D +

TELEPHONE (Include Area
Codel
734-5110

STREET ADDRESS

CITY. STATE AND ZIP CODE

COUNTY

South Las

Clark

NAME

TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include ArcD Cod:!1

STREET ADDRESS

CITY. STATE AND ZIP CODE

CAUSE OF DISCRIMINATION BASED ON (Check appropriate box(es))

DRACE

D COLOR

W D SEX

RELIGION WAGE

W D D 0 RETALIATION

NATIONAL

DISABILITY

OTHER

ORIGIN

THE PARTICU LARS ARE {If addftional pap"r is needed, arrach extra sheet(s/J:

COUNTY

DATE DISCRIMINATION TOOK PLACE

Feb 21. 2003

Feb 27.2003

D CONTINUING ACTION

I worked for the Riviera Casino & Hotel (Riviera) as a Cocktail Server from on or about May 20, 1996 until my termination on February 27, 2003, I took part in an EEOC investigation into allegations of gender and age discrimination at the Riviera (EEOC Charge NO. 34BA00743). The EEOC filed a court action based on their investigation and is currently in litigation with the Riviera. As part of the discovery process, on Januarj 31, 2003, the EEOC identified me in writing to the Riviera as a witness. On February 21, 2003, Haseeb, the Beverage Manager, informed me the Riviera placed me under suspension pending investigation. The Riviera accused me of stealing cigarettes and terminated me on February 27, 2003, allegedly for dishonesty ! deny stealing any cigarettes from the Riviera.
I believe the Riviera Hotel & Casino suspended and retaliated against me in retaliation for participating in an
EEOC investigation, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 anldt~Aee1~
Employment Act of 1967, as respectively amended.
APR 21 2013

I want this charge filed with both the EEOC and the State or local ~. if any. I will advise the iJ98ncies if I clw>ge my .dd.... or _phone number and I Will cooperate fully with them in the proceaing of my charge in accordance with their procedures.
I deela... under penalty of perjury thllt the for8QOing is true and comoct.

SIGNATUllE OF COMPlAINANT

10""._. - ' SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS DATE

Case 2:04-cv-01257-RLH-LRL Document 11 Filed 05/31/2005 Page 21 of 24
- - - - -....-RECEIVEr
WK i.. .. 11103

Case 2:04-cv-01257-RLH-LRL Document 11 Filed 05/31/2005 Page 22 of 24
EXHIBIT 4

Case 2:04-cv-01257-RLH-LRL Document 11 Filed 05/31/2005 Page 23 of 24

GOBI£llNO DE LOS ESTAOOS UNIDOS COMISION DE IGliALDAD DE OPORTUNIDAD g:'i EL E.VlPLEO

UNITED STATES GOVER."ME:"iT EQUAL E!~tPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
255 &. TEMPLE STREET. 4TH FLOOR
1*'''_ LOS ANGEl.£S, CALIFORNIA 901112
(213) 894-1011 rnD (213) 894-1121 FAX (213) 894-111.
Charge Number: 340-2003-09859

Joanna Harris 2741 Stargate Street Las Vegas, NY 89108

Charging Party

The Riviera Hotel & Casioo 2901 Las Vegas Boulevard South Las Vegas, NY 89109

Respondent

AMENDED - LE II ER OF DETERMlNATION

I issue the following determination as to the merits of this charge.

Respondent is an employer within the meaniog of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2000-e et seq. ("Title VII") and the Age Discrimination io Employment Act of 1967, as amended, 29 U.S.c. 621 et seq. (uADEA''). Timeliness and all other requirements for coverage have been met.

The Chargiog Party alleges that the Respondent engaged io employment practices made unlawful by Title VII and the ADEA by suspendiog and discharging her io retaliation for participating io an EEOC iovestigation. Respondent denies the allegations.

Examination of the evidence reveals reasonable cause to believe Charging Party's claim that she was suspended and discharged io retaliation for participating io an EEOC iovestigation io
vn violation of Title and the ADEA. Further, duriog the course of the iovestigation of
this charge, examination of the evidence also revealed reasonable cause to believe that a class of
employees were retaliated agaiost for opposing or participating io a protected activity in violation
of Title VII and the ADEA.

Accordiog to Section 706(b) of Title VII, if the Commission determines there is reason to believe
that violations have occurred, it shall endeavor to eliminate the alleged unlawful practices by informal methods of conference, conci1iation and persuasion. Having determined that there is reason to believe that violations have occurred, the Commission now iovites the parties to joio with it in a collective effort toward a just resolution of this matter.

Case 2:04-cv-01257-RLH-LRL Document 11 Filed 05/31/2005 Page 24 of 24
DETERMINATION Charge Number: 340-2003-09859
Page 2 of2
If the Respondent declines to enter into settlement discussion. or when for any other reason. a settlement acceptable to the Director is not obtained. the Director will inform the parties in writing and advise them of the cowt enforcement alternatives available to the Charging Party, aggrieved persons and the Commission. A Commission lepresentative will contact you shortly to begin conciliation discussions.
On Behalf ofthe Commission:

Date

Olophius E. P"Crry; District Direc r

Los Angeles District OfYce

L-

.>;.. • • -~

 
 Case 2:04-cv-01257-RLH-LRL Document 17 Filed 09/13/2005 Page 1 of 2

1

, ,-

. .,,

2

4

5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

7

* * *

8 U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

)

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, RONNI )

9 HILL, and JO-ANNA HARRIS,

)

)

10

Plaintiff(s),)

)

11

vs.

)

)

12 RIVIERA OPERATING CORPORATION, )

d/b/a the Riviera Hotel & Casino,

)

13

)

Defendant(s).

)

14

)

CV-S-04-1257-RLH (LRL)
ORDER (Motion to Dismiss--#12)

15

Defendant has filed a Motion to Dismiss Certain Causes of Action Brought by

16 Plaintiffs/Intervenors Ronni Hill, and Jo-Anna Harris Pursuant to Rule 12(b) (# 12, filed June

17 21,2005). Plaintiffs' Hill and Harris Opposition (#16) was ultimately filed August 24, 2005, and, in

18 substance, consents to the granting of the motion and promises a stipulation to that effect.

19

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Certain

20 Causes of Action Brought by Plaintiffsllntervenors Ronni Hill, and Jo-Anna Harris Pursuant

21 to Rule 12(b) (#12) is GRANTED and the following are dismissed:

22

1. Plaintiff Harris' cause of action for sex discrimination under federal and state anti-

23 discrimination statutes;

24

2. Plaintiff Hill's cause of action for disparate treatment based on age under federal and state

25 anti-discrimination statutes; and

26

1
\1

Case 2:04-cv-01257-RLH-LRL Document 17 Filed 09/13/2005 Page 2 of 2

1

3. Plaintiff Hill's causes of action only for the time period of 1/13/87 through 6/29/93 based

2 on the Riviera's disclosure of its bankruptcy action.

3

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that there remains at issue Plaintiffs Hill and Harris's

4 claims for retaliation and pendent state law claims of intentional and negligent infliction of

5 emotional distress.

6

Dated: September 12,2005.

7

8

,I

/

/

r -

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

26 2

 
 Case 2:04-cv-01257-RLH-LRL Document 52 Filed 10/03/2006 Page 1 of 11

1

2

3

4

5

6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
8

9

* * *

10 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )

COMMISSION, RONNI HILL, and JO-ANNA )

11 HARRIS,

)

)

12

Plaintiffs,

)

)

13

vs.

)

)

14 RIVIERA OPERATING CORPORATION, )

d/b/a the Riviera Hotel & Casino,

)

15

)

Defendant.

)

16 _______________________________________)

Case No.: 2:04-cv-01257-RLH-LRL
O R D E R
(Motion for Summary Judgment–#27 & Request to Strike Defendant’s Evidence
Supporting Its Motion for Summary Judgment–#34)

17 Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (#27), filed June
18 14, 2006. The Court has also considered Plaintiff’s Opposition (#28), filed June 30, 2006; the
19 Joinders to Plaintiff’s Opposition (#32 & #33), filed June 30, 2006; and Defendant’s Reply (#47),
20 filed August 14, 2006.
21 Also before the Court is Plaintiff’s Objections and Request to Strike
22 Defendant’s Evidence Supporting Its Motion for Summary Judgment (#34), filed June 30,
23 2006. The Court has also considered Defendant’s Opposition (#48), filed August 14, 2006.
24 Defendant has not filed a Reply within the time allotted by the Court’s extension (#51).
25 ////
26

AO 72

1

(Rev. 8/82)

Case 2:04-cv-01257-RLH-LRL Document 52 Filed 10/03/2006 Page 2 of 11

1

BACKGROUND

2

In January 2003 Defendant Riviera Operating Corporation (Riviera) was involved

3 in a separate trial involving Jean Sylvia, which concerned charges of hostile work environment

4 based on sex and age (Sylvia case). In a phone conversation that occurred on January 14 or 23,

5 2003, EEOC attorney Samantha Blake divulged the names of potential witnesses in the Sylvia

6 case to the Defendant’s attorney, Kimberly Wanker, who is also the attorney for Defendant in this

7 action. Among the names divulged were employees Joanna Harris (Harris), and Ronni Hill (Hill).

8 On January 25 or 26, 2003 the Defendant initiated surveillance on Riviera employees Harris and

9 Hill. Harris and Hill were terminated from their employment with Defendant soon after the

10 investigation began. Harris was terminated February 27, 2003, and Hill was terminated on March

11 6, 2003, both were terminated for “dishonesty.”

12

David Christensen (Christensen) was a former employee of Defendant from 1990-

13 1999. Christensen allegedly was also mentioned in either the January 14 or 23, 2003 phone

14 conversation as a potential witness in the Sylvia case. In November 2003 Christensen claims he

15 applied for a job opening with Defendant. Christensen was not rehired by Defendant.

16

In the case at bar, the claimants charge that Defendant retaliated against Harris,

17 Hill, and Christensen for their participation as witnesses in litigation against Defendant in the

18 Sylvia case. The EEOC has brought suit for these retaliation claims. Harris and Hill have

19 intervened as individually interested parties in this litigation and have joined the EEOC’s

20 argument concerning this motion. Hill individually has also made claims against Defendant for

21 allowing a hostile work environment.

22

Defendant now brings a motion for summary judgment against all plaintiffs on all

23 remaining claims. For the reasons discussed below, the Court only grants the motion as it pertains

24 to Christensen’s retaliation claims and Hill’s hostile work environment claims.

25 ////

26 ////

AO 72

2

(Rev. 8/82)

Case 2:04-cv-01257-RLH-LRL Document 52 Filed 10/03/2006 Page 3 of 11

1

DISCUSSION: SUMMARY JUDGMENT

2

In entertaining a summary judgment motion, the Court “must draw all reasonable

3 inferences in favor of the non-moving party.” Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530

4 U.S. 133, 150 (2000). Summary judgment is only proper if no material factual issues exist for trial.

5 Warren v. City of Carlsbad, 58 F. 3d 439 (9th Cir. 1995).

6

I. RETALIATION

7

To make out a prima facie case of retaliation under Title VII, plaintiffs must put

8 forth evidence sufficient to show that they: (1) were engaged in a protected activity, (2) suffered an

9 adverse employment action, and (3) there was a causal link between their activity and the

10 employment decision. Raad v. Fairbanks N. Star Borough Sch. Dist., 323 F. 3d 1185, 1196-97

11 (9th Cir. 2003).

12 (A) Ronni Hill and Jo-Anna Harris

13

Hill and Harris clearly satisfy points one and two for a prima facie retaliation case

14 since they were named as potential witnesses in the Sylvia case and an investigation began soon

15 thereafter which led to their dismissal. Point three is the focus of this motion for summary

16 judgment. Defendant points to several cases in the Seventh Circuit to show that Plaintiffs’

17 argument of temporal proximity is insufficient to preclude summary judgment. These cases stand

18 for the proposition that “[a] plausible scenario cannot counter direct evidence offered in support of

19 a motion for summary judgment.” (Def’s. Reply, Doc. 47, p. 10.)

20

However, in the Ninth Circuit the controlling law is clear: “Temporal proximity

21 between protected activity and an adverse employment action can by itself constitute sufficient

22 circumstantial evidence of retaliation in some cases.” Bell v. Clackamas County, 341 F.3d 858,

23 865 (9th Cir. 2003) (emphasis added). In Bell, the Ninth Circuit gave a convincing list of cases

24 that stood for this same proposition within the Circuit: Villiarimo v. Alha Island Air, Inc., 281 F.3d

25 1054, 105 (9th Cir. 2002)(cited to show that “[c]ausation can be inferred from timing alone where

26 an adverse employment action follows on the heels of protected activity.”); Winarto v. Toshiba

AO 72

3

(Rev. 8/82)

Case 2:04-cv-01257-RLH-LRL Document 52 Filed 10/03/2006 Page 4 of 11

1 Am. Elecs. Components, Inc., 274 F.3d 1276, 1287 n. 10 (9th Cir. 2001); and Yartzoff v. Thomas,

2 809 F.2d 1371, 1376 (9th Cir. 1987) (cited to show that “sufficient evidence of causation existed

3 where adverse actions occurred less than three months after complaint was filed, two weeks after

4 charge first investigated, and less than two months after investigation ended”). Bell, 341 F.3d at

5 865-66. Defendant’s counsel is obviously aware of the Bell case, but only cites the case as it

6 applies to Christensen, where, as discussed below, it has admittedly less chance of thwarting a

7 summary judgment motion. (See Def’s. Mot. for Summ. J., Doc. 27, p. 24.)

8

It is undisputed that the surveillance of Plaintiffs Harris and Hill began soon after

9 their names were given to defense counsel as potential witnesses for the Sylvia case. The

10 surveillance began on January 25 or 26, 2003. There is a minor question as to whether the names

11 were divulged to counsel in a January 14, 2003, or a January 23, 2003, phone conversation.

12 (Def’s. Mot. for Summ. J., Exh. 3, p. 4). The Ninth Circuit has refrained from creating a per se

13 rule about the timing required to meet muster in these circumstances. Coszalter v. City of Salem,

14 320 F.3d 968, 977-78 (9th Cir. 2003). However, given the Ninth Circuit law outlined above, and

15 the factual setting of this case, either combination of dates provides sufficient circumstantial

16 evidence to give rise to material issues of fact concerning whether there is a causal link between

17 the Plaintiffs’ protected activity and their later dismissal.

18

Even though Defendant claims a legitimate and alternative reason for firing Hill

19 and Harris, the Ninth Circuit has clearly held, and reiterated, that “evidence based on timing can be

20 sufficient to let the issue go to the jury, even in the face of alternative reasons proffered by the

21 defendant.” Passantino v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Prods., Inc., 212 F. 3d 493 (9th Cir.

22 2000) (cited in Bell, 341 F. 3d at 866) (emphasis added).

23

Other circumstantial evidence causes the Court to question the propriety of granting

24 this motion, but such discussion of that evidence would be redundant. As such, the Court denies

25 Defendant’s motion for summary judgment as to Harris’ and Hill’s retaliation claims.

26

AO 72

4

(Rev. 8/82)

Case 2:04-cv-01257-RLH-LRL Document 52 Filed 10/03/2006 Page 5 of 11

1 (B) David Christensen

2

Christensen’s situation is noticeably distinct from that of Harris and Hill. Notably,

3 the factual setting of Christensen’s claim makes it difficult for the Court to give nearly the same

4 weight to a temporal proximity argument as the Court did for Harris and Hill. Specifically,

5 Christensen would have been named as a potential witness in mid to late January, and then was not

6 rehired in November when possible opportunities arose. Both parties seem to realize this problem,

7 and as such, the EEOC claims that it “need not establish temporal proximity with respect to

8 Christensen because there is direct evidence of retaliation against him.” (Pl’s. Opp’n., Doc. 28, p.

9 16.) The Court, as explained below, disagrees with this assertion and as such will grant the motion

10 for summary judgment as it pertains to Christensen.

11

The EEOC’s argument for direct evidence is based on a series of conversations he

12 had with Holtzman, an employee of Defendant. In one conversation, Holtzman told Christensen

13 that his possibility of being hired “wasn’t a sure thing yet, but that he and Linda Komisar would be

14 the first two hired.” (Pl’s. Opp’n, Doc. # 28, p. 16.) In a subsequent conversation, Christensen

15 claims that Holtzman asked Christensen “how he could be a witness for Jean [Sylvia] and go

16 against all of the friends that he had at the Riviera.” Id. This was Christensen’s testimony as well

17 during his deposition. (Pl’s. Mot. for Summ. J., Exh. 38, Dep. p. 38.)

18

Just because the Sylvia litigation was discussed does not mean it was a reason in

19 the decisionmaking process. Even if the conversation evidenced some type of discrimination,

20 Holtzman’s position with the Defendant does not entail making the hiring decision, and therefore,

21 the conversation is irrelevant in determining the intent of defendant.

22

Plaintiff claims that Holtzman was a manager. (Pl’s. Opp’n, Doc. 28, p. 17.)

23 Defendant claims that Holtzman was a “Riviera Pit Liaison.” (Def’s. Mot. for Summ. J., Doc. 27,

24 p. 24.) Plaintiff has submitted no evidence to indicate that Holtzman has hiring or firing

25 capability. Christensen’s deposition clearly shows that he understood Holtzman did not have the

26 authority to hire or fire by himself, and also could not hire someone unless Michael Falba (Falba),

5
AO 72 (Rev. 8/82)

Case 2:04-cv-01257-RLH-LRL Document 52 Filed 10/03/2006 Page 6 of 11

1 Vice-President, approved it. (Def’s. Mot. for Summ. J., Exh. 38, Dep. p. 37-38.) Simply alleging,

2 as Christensen does, that “[i]f Bruce [Holtzman] wanted somebody hired, he could get them hired”

3 is not evidence of Holtzman’s manager status. Therefore, there simply is not enough evidence

4 here, direct or indirect, for a prima facie case of retaliation.

5

Even if there was enough evidence for a prima facie case of retaliation here,

6 Defendant, as dictated by McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), has met its

7 burden to “articulate some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the employee’s rejection.” Id.

8 at 802. Defendant has submitted evidence that Falba, the person who would have been in charge

9 of hiring Christensen, never received Christensen’s application for employment. (Def’s. Mot. for

10 Summ. J., Exh. 6, ¶ 20.)

11

Under McDonnell Douglas, the Plaintiff would now need to show that the

12 employer’s nondiscrimnatory reason was “a pretext for discrimination.” Lindahl v. Air France,

13 930 F. 2d 1434, 1437 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 804). “The Plaintiff

14 may carry this burden ‘either directly by persuading the court that a discriminatory reason more

15 likely motivated the employer or indirectly by showing that the employer’s proffered explanation

16 is unworthy of credence.’” Id. (quoting Texas Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248,

17 256 (1981)). Plaintiff fails to carry the burden on either of these standards. Plaintiff has not

18 persuaded the Court that a discriminatory reason more likely motivated the employer but relies

19 heavily on the assertion of “direct evidence.” As indicated above, the Court finds this “evidence”

20 unpersuasive. Furthermore, the Plaintiff has not shown that the employer’s proffered explanation

21 is unworthy of credence. Consider Christensen’s deposition:

22

“Q. Okay. How did you obtain the application?

23

“A. I’m not sure. I don’t remember.

24

“Q. You filled out the application, did you return it to the Riviera?

25

“A. Yes.

26

“Q. Where did you return it?

6
AO 72 (Rev. 8/82)

Case 2:04-cv-01257-RLH-LRL Document 52 Filed 10/03/2006 Page 7 of 11

1

“A. I’m not sure.”

2 (Def’s. Mot. for Summ. J., Exh. 38, Dep. p. 33.) Later, the deposition continues:

3

“Q. And somehow, we don’t know how, you got an employment application?

4

“A. Yes.

5

“Q. And you returned it somewhere, but you don’t know where; is that right?

6

“A. That’s right.”

7 (Id. at 36.) Intermittently Christensen alleges that he gave his application to possibly Holtzman

8 (Id. at 34), his friend Steve Batchelder (Id.), or with perhaps more confidence “somebody upstairs”

9 (Id. at 46). In short, the Plaintiff barely manages to allege that Chrisensen obtained, filled out, and

10 turned in an application “to someone.” Plaintiff provides no evidence to show that Defendant’s

11 reason for not rehiring Christensen is unworthy of credence.

12

The Plaintiff has failed to persuade the Court directly that a discriminatory reason

13 more likely motivated the employer or that the defendant’s legitimate reason is unworthy of

14 credence. Accordingly, the Court will grant the motion for summary judgment as to Christensen.

15

II. HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT

16 (A) Ronni Hill

17

Because Hill only filed a joinder to the EEOC’s argument for her retaliation claims,

18 she has not responded to the Motion for Summary Judgment as it pertained to her hostile work

19 environment claims. Defendant argues that Hill’s failure to respond to the motion for summary

20 judgment concerning the hostile work environment claims is a consent to summary judgment

21 according to Local Rule 7-2(d) which states: “The failure of an opposing party to file points and

22 authorities in response to any motion shall constitute a consent to the granting of the motion.”

23 This reasoning however does not apply to motions for summary judgment. Mirage Resorts, Inc.,

24 v. Stirpe, 152 F. Supp. 2d 1208, 1213 (D. Nev. 2000). In Mirage the Court found in accordance

25 with the ruling in Cristobal v. Siegel, 26 F.3d 1488, 1491 (9th Cir. 1994), that:

26

7
AO 72 (Rev. 8/82)

Case 2:04-cv-01257-RLH-LRL Document 52 Filed 10/03/2006 Page 8 of 11

1

a trial court may not grant summary judgment unless the moving party bears its

burden of showing it is entitled to such a judgment. A local rule that directs a court

2

to grant a summary judgment motion solely because no opposing papers have been

filed is inconsistent with Rule 56 of the [FRCP], and therefore is impermissible

3

under [FRCP] 83.

4 Mirage, 152 F. Supp. at 1213 (citations omitted).

5

Even though there was an opposition filed in this case (Doc. 28), to which Harris

6 and Hill joined (Docs. 32 & 33), nothing in the opposition addresses Hill’s hostile work

7 environment claims. Nevertheless, the reasoning stands that LR 7-2(d) does not negate a moving

8 party’s burden in a summary judgment motion. As such, the Court considers whether the moving

9 party has met its burden to show that there is no issue of material fact as to Hill’s hostile work

10 environment claims, even when all reasonable inferences are made in Hill’s favor.

11

In the opinion of the Court, Hill has simply failed to show a prima facie case for

12 hostile work environment. To present this claim, Hill would have to show that she was (1)

13 subjected to verbal or physical conduct of a harassing nature, (2) the conduct was unwelcome, and

14 (3) “that the conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of [her]

15 employment and create an abusive working environment.” Kortan v. California Youth Auth., 217

16 F.3d 1104, 1110 (9th Cir. 2000). To evaluate these prongs the Court will “look[] at all the

17 circumstances,” including the “frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is

18 physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably

19 interferes with an employee’s work performance.”’ Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 23

20 (1993). See also Kortan, 217 F.3d at 110 (citing Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775,

21 118 S.Ct. 2275, 2283 (1998)).

22

Hill’s complaint lays out a foundation for the first two prongs of analysis. The

23 alleged terms used, and pictures displayed, were of a harrassing and sexual nature. It is apparent

24 that this behavior was unwelcome as well given that Hill claims she reported this behavior to her

25 supervisor. Nichols v. Azteca Rest. Enters., Inc., 256 F.3d 864, 873-74 (9th Cir. 2001). However,

26

8
AO 72 (Rev. 8/82)

Case 2:04-cv-01257-RLH-LRL Document 52 Filed 10/03/2006 Page 9 of 11

1 Hill fails to make out a prima facie case based on the third prong of analysis and for that reason the

2 Court grants summary judgment for Defendant as to Hill’s hostile work environment claims.

3

Hill filed her complaint with the EEOC on or about June 2, 2003, which states that

4 “from her first day on the job until her termination, she was subjected to a sexually hostile,

5 intimidating and offensive work environment.” (Doc. 7, Compl. ¶ 17.) This hostility was caused

6 by derogatory and demeaning words and pictures. Hill “repeatedly reported the harassment and

7 yet continued to be subjected to it on a daily basis.” (Id. at ¶ 23) (emphasis added). Hill was

8 terminated on or about February 28, 2003. If these claims were alone in a vacuum it may appear

9 that “the conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of [her] employment

10 and create an abusive working environment.” Kortan, 217 F.3d at 1110. However, as stated

11 above, the Court is required to look at “all the circumstances,” including the “frequency of the

12 discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere

13 offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee’s work

14 performance.” Harris, 510 U.S. at 23 (emphasis added).

15

In essence, the problem is that Hill’s arguments for hostile work environment and

16 retaliation are pitted against each other. In her complaint Hill states:

17

On or about January 13, 1987, the Riviera hired Ms. Hill as a dealer and

within six months she was promoted to the position of floor-person. She was 38

18

years old at the time. She was then promoted to senior floor person in or about

February 2002. Throughout the tenure of her employment, up until the date of her

19

termination on February 28, 2003, she was a loyal and dedicated employee,

performing all the requirements of her job in a professional manner.

20

21 (Compl., Doc. 11, ¶ 15.)

22

These statements lead the Court to believe that the conduct did not “unreasonably

23 interfere[] with [her] work performance.” Harris, 510 U.S. at 23. Such loyalty and dedication

24 over the course of nearly 16 years of employment, coupled with intermittent promotions, without

25 filing an EEOC complaint until after she was terminated for “dishonesty,” indicates to the court

26 that the hostile work environment claim is somewhat disingenuous. The Court notes that Hill

9
AO 72 (Rev. 8/82)

Case 2:04-cv-01257-RLH-LRL Document 52 Filed 10/03/2006 Page 10 of 11

1 alleges she started complaining to her manager about the environment in 1995, but that no action

2 was taken. (Compl., Doc. 11, ¶ 19.) Hill’s complaint would therefore suggest that she was

3 complaining on a daily basis for seven years about the harassment until she was terminated,

4 without filing a complaint with the EEOC.

5

Therefore, according to the considerations the Supreme Court listed in Harris,

6 Hill’s complaint fails. The behavior, though allegedly frequent, did not threaten physical harm,

7 mainly consisted of offensive utterances and pictures, and by Hill’s own statements, does not

8 appear to have affected her job performance. Harris, 510 U.S. at 23.

9

In a distinguishable case, the Ninth Circuit determined that there was grounds for a

10 hostile work environment claim. Nichols v. Azteca Rest. Enters., Inc., 256 F.3d 864 (9th Cir.

11 2001). Nichols is somewhat similar to Hill’s case because of the repetitive nature of the conduct,

12 the medium of the hostility, and the fact that the alleged harassment was repetitively reported.

13 However, in Nichols the alleged discriminatory conduct was much more focused on the plaintiff

14 individually and did not stem from a general work environment. Furthermore, in that case the

15 Plaintiff left the job in frustration on his own volition after only four years. Id.

16

Therefore, after “looking at all the circumstances,” and taking all reasonable

17 inferences in favor of Hill, the Court determines that there is no genuine issue of material fact as to

18 Hill’s hostile work environment claims and that summary judgment should be granted for

19 Defendant as to those claims.

20

DISCUSSION: STRIKE EVIDENCE

21

Plaintiff’s motion aims to preserve the retaliation claims concerning Harris and

22 Hill. The claims have been preserved. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Request to Strike is denied as moot.

23 ////

24 ////

25 ////

26 ////

10
AO 72 (Rev. 8/82)

Case 2:04-cv-01257-RLH-LRL Document 52 Filed 10/03/2006 Page 11 of 11

1

CONCLUSION

2

Accordingly, and for good cause appearing,

3

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (#27)

4 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows:

5

(1) The Motion is GRANTED as to Christensen’s claims for retaliation and

6

Hill’s claims for hostile work environment.

7

(2) The Motion is DENIED as to all other remaining claims.

8

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Request to Strike Defendant’s

9 Evidence Supporting Its Motion for Summary Judgment (#34) is DENIED as moot.

10

11

Dated: October 2 , 2006.

12

13

____________________________________

ROGER L. HUNT

14

United States District Judge

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

11
AO 72 (Rev. 8/82)

 
 Case 2:04-cv-01257-RLH-LRL Document 66 Filed 04/13/2007 Page 1 of 1

1

2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5

6 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )

COMMISSION,

)

7

Plaintiff,

)

)

8

)

9 vs.

)

)

10 RIVIERA OPERATING CORPORATION, )

)

11

Defendant.

)

12 ____________________________________)

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE 2:04-cv-1257-RLH (LRL)

13

Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues have

14

been tried and the Court has granted a directed verdict.

15 Decision by Court. This action came to be considered by the Court. The issues have

16

been considered and a decision has been rendered.

17

An offer of judgment and an acceptance of that offer of judgment having been filed

18 herein, and counsel having complied with the terms and conditions of Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

19 JUDGMENT is hereby entered as follows:
20

Plaintiff Jo-Anna Harris to receive $20,000.00, Plaintiff Ronni Hill to receive $20,000.00, 21
inclusive of all accrued costs to date from defendant Rivera Operating Corporation d/b/a Riviera

22 Hotel and Casino.

23

24

25

26
ApLriAl 1N3,C2E00S7 . WILSON, CLERK 27

28 April 13, 2007

By:___________________________ Deputy Clerk

 
 Case 2:04-cv-01257-RLH-LRL Document 45 Filed 08/08/2006 Page 1 of 3

1

2

3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5

* * *

6

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

)

7 OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

)

)

8

Plaintiff,

)

9 v.

) 2:04-cv-01257-RLH-LRL )

10 RIVIERA OPERATING CORP.,

) ORDER )

11

)

Defendant.

)

12

)

13

Before the court is Plaintiff EEOC’s Motion for a Protective Order that Defendant’s 30(b)(6)

14 Deposition Not be Taken (# 24), defendant’s Opposition (# 25), and plaintiff’s Reply (# 26).

15

This action, which is brought under Title VII and the ADEA, alleges that certain individuals and

16 a class of people similarly situated were unlawfully retaliated against for having participated as

17 witnesses in the EEOC’s enforcement efforts against defendant. The discovery dispute centers on an

18 alleged communication between EEOC attorney Samantha Blake and EEOC investigator LaTanya

19 Williams.

20

The EEOC refuses to produce certain documentation under claims of privilege. Defendant has

21 already deposed Samantha Blake. Defendant now wishes to depose LaTanya Williams as to the

22 “investigation conducted by the EEOC relating to a Charge of Discrimination filed by Jo-Anna Harris,

23 EEOC Charge No.: 340-2003-09859; and . . . [ the I]nvestigation conducted by the EEOC relating to

24 a Charge of Discrimination filed by Ronni Hill, EEOC Charge No.: 340-2003-10093.”

25

26

Case 2:04-cv-01257-RLH-LRL Document 45 Filed 08/08/2006 Page 2 of 3

1

The EEOC seeks a protective order precluding the deposition of LaTanya Williams on the

2 ground that her testimony is not relevant. The EEOC argues that any testimony by LaTanya Williams

3 is cumulative and duplicative, that Riviera can obtain the information from more convenient sources,

4 and that the burden of production outweighs any particular benefit to Riviera. The EEOC argues this

5 lawsuit involves a trial de novo and an employer may not litigate the adequacy of the investigator’s

6 initial determination that the employee was the object of discrimination. Therefore, Williams’s

7 testimony is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

8 Additionally, the EEOC states it has produced the entire investigative file in this matter, except for

9 privileged materials. Production includes all of Williams’ interview notes, with certain portions

10 redacted because of privilege. Williams’ Declaration states that since this investigation took place she

11 has handled 75 files and has no independent recollection of the factual information developed during

12 this investigation. Mot. (# 24) at 15.

13

Riviera opposes the motion, arguing that the EEOC has failed to meet its burden of showing why

14 a protective order should be granted. Relying on Plummer v. Western Intern. Hotels Co., Inc., 656 F.2d

15 502, 505 n.9 (9th Cir. 1981), Riviera contends that the Ninth Circuit “allows a party to point out

16 deficiencies in the EEOC’s investigation at trial.” Opp’n (# 25) at 16. Finally, Riviera contends that

17 the EEOC has failed to show why the request is burdensome.

18

Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits discovery of any matter, not

19 privileged, “relevant to the claim or defense of any party.” However, the scope of discovery is not

20 unlimited. Discovery requests must not only be relevant to a claim or defense, but may not be

21 unreasonably cumulative, duplicative, or unnecessarily burdensome in light of their benefit. Fed. R.

22 Civ. P. 26(b)(2); Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 352 (1978). The court has broad

23 discretion in controlling discovery. Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988).

24

The court is persuaded that the EEOC has produced all the factual information in its

25 investigative file, and that Williams can offer no more factual information than Riviera already

26 possesses. Additionally, an employer may not litigate the adequacy of the EEOC’s investigation and

2

Case 2:04-cv-01257-RLH-LRL Document 45 Filed 08/08/2006 Page 3 of 3

1 determination, see EEOC v. KECO Industries, Inc., 748 F.2d 1097, 1100 (6th Cir. 1984), unless a

2 plaintiff enters the EEOC’s letter of determination as evidence, in which case the defendant is free to

3 point out deficiencies in the investigation. That is not the case here.

4

Accordingly, and for good cause shown,

5

IT IS ORDERED that the EEOC’s Motion for a Protective Order that Defendant’s 30(b)(6)

6 Deposition Not be Taken (# 24) is GRANTED.

7

DATED this 8th day of August, 2006.

8

9

LAWRENCE R. LEAVITT

10

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

3

 
 Case 2:04-cv-01257-RLH-LRL Document 50 Filed 09/13/2006 Page 1 of 4

1

2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

4

* * *

5 U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
6 Plaintiff,
7
8 v.
9 RIVIERA OPERATING CORP.,

2:04-cv-01257-RLH-LRL ORDER

10

Defendant.

11

12

Before the court is plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (# 39), defendant’s Opposition (# 44), and

13 plaintiff’s Reply (# 49). This action, which is brought under Title VII and the ADEA, alleges that

14 certain individuals and a class of people similarly situated were unlawfully retaliated against for having

15 participated as witnesses in the EEOC’s enforcement efforts against defendant. The EEOC asks the

16 court to compel defendant to identify all former employees rehired from January 2003, produce all

17 documents prepared by Riviera’s video surveillance operators, and produce the source tapes that were

18 used to make a compilation tape of the charging parties’ alleged misdeeds. Defendant responds that the

19 Motion is untimely and does not comply with Local Rules. Additionally, defendant argues the requests

20 are irrelevant, burdensome, oppressive, and overly broad.

21 I. Procedural Arguments

22

Defendant argues that the instant motion is untimely because a considerable amount of time

23 elapsed between the date the responses were produced and the initial meet and confer. Defendant also

24 claims untimeliness because the instant motion was filed after the discovery cut-off date and the

25 dispositive motion deadline. The court in Gault v. Nabisco Biscuit Co., 184 F.R.D. 620, 622 (D. Nev.

26 1999), held that if a delay results in “substantial prejudice” to the party to whom the motion was

Case 2:04-cv-01257-RLH-LRL Document 50 Filed 09/13/2006 Page 2 of 4

1 directed, then a court may hold that the requesting party has waived the right to compel response and

2 disclosure. In Gault the court had already made a ruling on a summary judgment motion, and the

3 request was filed on the eve of trial. Hence there was prejudice to the responding party. Here, while

4 a summary judgment motion has been filed, the court has not yet made a ruling. Additionally, no trial

5 date has yet been set. Consequently, there is no prejudice to the responding party. Further, the EEOC

6 provided the court with acceptable reasons for the delays.

7

Defendant also argues that the EEOC’s motion does not satisfy the requirements of Fed. R. Civ.

8 P. 37(a)(2)(B) and Local Rule 26-7. Local Rule 26-7(a) requires that all discovery motions set forth

9 the full text of the discovery sought. The text, however, may be attached as an exhibit; it need not be

10 reproduced in the body of the motion. The EEOC attached the text of their requests in Exhibits I, J, and

11 K. Thus, the requirement has been met.

12

Defendant objects to the sufficiency of counsel’s certification that a good faith effort to meet

13 and confer took place. Specifically, defendant points to the fact that not all of the parties’

14 communications were attached to the instant motion, and argues that the certification does not

15 adequately demonstrate “performance.” Defendant further contends that the communications, the

16 inadequate certification, along with defense counsel’s own declaration, show that the EEOC did not

17 engage in meaningful discussions. The EEOC claims that its counsel’s declaration and accompanying

18 exhibits set forth all the details of “who, what, where, and when.” Reply (# 49) at 5. A meaningful

19 meet and confer does not require that the parties agree, only that they attempt, in good faith, to resolve

20 their discovery issues without court intervention. After a reading of the parties’ communications the

21 court finds such a good faith effort was made.

22 II. Interrogatory No. 1

23

Interrogatory No. 1 seeks the identity of each and every employee who was rehired by defendant

24 Riviera from January, 2003 to the present. The EEOC maintains that this information is relevant to the

25 determination of whether there were other employees who were terminated, but who were later rehired

26 by the Riviera. This information, according to the EEOC, will serve as data for “comparators” and

2

Case 2:04-cv-01257-RLH-LRL Document 50 Filed 09/13/2006 Page 3 of 4

1 reveal any inconsistent treatment of the witnesses in the related action.

2

Riviera originally objected to the question, then answered that “none of the former employees

3 of the Riviera listed as witnesses on Plaintiff EEOC’s Initial Disclosures Pursuant to Federal Rules of

4 Civil Procedure 26(a)(1) in the Jean Sylvia litigation, re-applied to be re-hired to their former positions

5 between January 2003 and the present.” Mot. (# 39) Ex. K at 3. Thus, there is nothing to which to

6 compare the information. Additionally, the court is not convinced that this information would be

7 relevant even if there were witnesses who had reapplied. The events surrounding an employee leaving

8 and then applying for rehire are very fact-based. There could be any number of factors for which

9 Riviera may wish to rehire one employee and not rehire another. Consequently, such statistical analysis

10 is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. For these reasons, Rivera

11 will not be compelled to supplement their answer to Interrogatory No. 1.

12 III. Requests for Production 48 and 49

13

The EEOC asks for copies of the source tapes used to make a compilation tape of certain Riviera

14 employees. The compilation tape allegedly shows Hill and Harris stealing cigarettes. Riviera raises

15 multiple objections to the production. The Riviera avers that when the compilation tape was first

16 produced it indicated that the EEOC could view the source tapes. Simply making the tapes available

17 for viewing is not enough when the evidence is relevant and reasonably calculated to lead to the

18 discovery of admissible evidence. Riviera states that under Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 making documents

19 available for inspection and copying is permissible. This is true. The “copying” portion of the rule

20 seems to have been overlooked, however, by the defendant. It is not overly burdensome to send the 43

21 identified source tapes to an outside vendor for duplication. The EEOC will bear the expense of the

22 copying.

23

The EEOC also seeks an order compelling any documents pertaining to surveillance, or special

24 surveillance, prepared by Riviera’s surveillance operators in January and February 2003. The Riviera

25 declares that it has disclosed all written reports in connection with the its surveillance investigation, that

26 lead to the terminations of Harris, Hill, Pratt, and Harrington. The request for any documents related

3

Case 2:04-cv-01257-RLH-LRL Document 50 Filed 09/13/2006 Page 4 of 4

1 to any surveillance by Riviera’s operators is overly broad. The production already completed by Riviera

2 is appropriate.

3

Accordingly, and for good cause shown,

4

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff EEOC’s Motion to Compel (# 39) is GRANTED to the following

5 extent:

6

1) Defendant Riviera will send the 43 source tapes to an outside vendor for copying.

7

2) Riviera will send the copies to the EEOC, at which time the EEOC will reimburse Riviera

8 for the cost of copying. Riviera will provide to the EEOC an itemized accounting of the costs so

9 incurred.

10

3) All other requests are denied.

11

DATED this 13th day of September, 2006.

12

13

LAWRENCE R. LEAVITT

14

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

4

 
 CM/ECF - nvd - District Version 2.05 - Docket Report

https://ecf.nvd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?990203187555363-L_92...

CLOSED, ENE
United States District Court District of Nevada (Las Vegas) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:04-cv-01257-RLH-LRL

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission VS Riviera Operating Corporation Assigned to: Chief Judge Roger L. Hunt Referred to: Magistrate Judge Lawrence R. Leavitt

Date Filed: 09/08/2004 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by Anna Park U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 255 East Temple Street 4th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90012213-894-1083 Email: anna.park@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter F. Laura United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Legal Unit 255 East Temple Street 4th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90012(213) 894-1000 Fax: 213-894-1118 Email: peter.laura@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Wilfredo Tungol U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Honolulu Local Office 300 Ala Moana Blvd. #7-127 P.O. Box 50082 Honolulu, Ha 96850 (808)541-3121 Fax: (808)541-3390 Email: wilfredo.tungol@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

1 of 8

4/25/2007 3:18 PM

CM/ECF - nvd - District Version 2.05 - Docket Report

https://ecf.nvd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?990203187555363-L_92...

V. Intervenor Plaintiff Jo-Anna Harris
Intervenor Plaintiff Ronni Hill
V. Defendant Riviera Operating Corporation

represented by Kristina S. Holman Kristina S. Holman, Attorney at Law 4475 S. Pecos Road Las Vegas, NV 89121 (702) 454-2111 Fax: (702) 454-3333 Email: lbrick@mhrslaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Kristina S. Holman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Kimberly A Wanker . 6950 Via Olivero Ave Suite 3C Las Vegas, NV 89117 702-562-8650 Fax: 702-562-8651 Email: Miata38@earthlink.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed
09/08/2004 09/08/2004 09/08/2004 12/03/2004 01/03/2005 01/03/2005 02/07/2005

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT by Pltf w/jd. (Entered: 09/09/2004) SUMMONS ISSUED to pltf (1) (Entered: 09/09/2004)
2 CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PARTIES by Pltf. (Entered: 09/09/2004) 3 WAIVER OF SERVICE EXECUTED by Dft. (Entered: 12/07/2004) 4 ANSWER TO COMPLAINT by Dft. (s) (Entered: 01/04/2005) 5 CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PARTIES by Dft. (s) (Entered: 01/04/2005)
MISCELLANEOUS DOCUMENT stip disc plan/sched ord - LRL (Entered: 02/08/2005)

2 of 8

4/25/2007 3:18 PM

CM/ECF - nvd - District Version 2.05 - Docket Report

https://ecf.nvd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?990203187555363-L_92...

02/11/2005 02/17/2005
03/01/2005 03/07/2005 05/26/2005 05/31/2005 06/21/2005
07/06/2005 07/13/2005 07/14/2005 07/18/2005 08/16/2005 08/19/2005 08/24/2005 09/13/2005 09/30/2005 10/03/2005 11/14/2005
01/24/2006

6 ORDER ON STIPULATION Disc ddl 8/31/05; status report 7/5/05; dispo mtns 9/30/05; jnt pto 10/31/05. (cps dist) (Entered: 02/14/2005)
7 MOTION FOR MISCELLANEOUS RELIEF to intervene by Intervening Pltfs. (s)DISPO: non-oppo (#8), oppo (#9), GRANTED ORDER (#10) (Entered: 02/23/2005)
8 NON-OPPOSITION by Plf to Intervenor's mtn to intervene (#7). (s) (Entered: 03/02/2005)
9 RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION by Dft to mtn to intervene (#7). (s) (Entered: 03/10/2005)
10 ORDER That Roni Hill & Jo-Ann Harris' mtn to intervene (#7) is GRANTED. (cps dist) (Entered: 05/31/2005)
11 INTERVENOR COMPLAINT by Intervening Pltfs w/jd. (Entered: 05/31/2005)
12 MOTION TO DISMISS by Dft certain causes of action brought by Pltfs/intervenors. (s) (fld sep), oppo #16, GRANTED ORDER #17 (Entered: 06/23/2005)
MISCELLANEOUS DOCUMENT stip to ext disc - LRL (Entered: 07/07/2005)
13 ORDER ON STIPULATION (1st req) Disc ddl 11/29/05; dispo mtns 12/29/05; jnt pto 1/30/06. (cps dist) (Entered: 07/13/2005)
MISCELLANEOUS DOCUMENT Stp to ext time to fl oppo to mtn to dism -- to RLH (Entered: 07/14/2005)
14 ORDER ON STIPULATION ORD: stip to ext time for P to file oppo to mtn to dsmss #12, due 8/09/05. cps dist. (Entered: 07/20/2005)
MISCELLANEOUS DOCUMENT Stip to ext time to fl oppo to mtn to dism certain causes of actn -- RLH (Entered: 08/16/2005)
15 ORDER ON STIPULATION (2nd req) Dft is granted an ext to file resp to mtn to dism. (cps dist) (Entered: 08/22/2005)
16 RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION by Pltfs Harris & Hill to mtn to dism (#12). (s) (Entered: 08/25/2005)
17 ORDER Dfts mtn to dism certain causes (#12) is GRANTED. (cps dist) (Entered: 09/13/2005)
MISCELLANEOUS DOCUMENT stip to ext disc - RLH (Entered: 09/30/2005)
18 ORDER ON STIPULATION (2nd req) Disc ddl 2/17/06; dispo mtns 3/20/06; jnt pto 4/19/06. (cps dist) (Entered: 10/03/2005)
19 ANSWER to 1 Complaint by Defendant Riviera Operating Corporation. Certificate of Interested Parties due by 11/24/2005. Discovery Plan due by 12/29/2005.(MJZ ) (Entered: 12/01/2005)
20 STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME FOR DISCOVERY by Plaintiff U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Laura, Peter) (Entered: 01/24/2006)

3 of 8

4/25/2007 3:18 PM

CM/ECF - nvd - District Version 2.05 - Docket Report

https://ecf.nvd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?990203187555363-L_92...

01/26/2006 03/29/2006 03/30/2006
05/08/2006 05/19/2006
05/25/2006
06/14/2006
06/30/2006 06/30/2006 06/30/2006 06/30/2006 06/30/2006 06/30/2006 06/30/2006

21 SCHEDULING ORDER. Pretrial Order Due 5/31/06. Discovery due by 3/31/2006. Motions due by 5/1/2006. Signed by Judge Lawrence R. Leavitt on 1/26/06. (AXM, ) (Entered: 01/26/2006)
22 STIPULATION (4th Request) by Defendant Riviera Operating Corporation. (Wanker, Kimberly) (Entered: 03/29/2006)
23 ORDER ON STIPULATION re 22 Stipulation to Continue Discovery Deadlines. Discovery Plan due by 5/15/2006. Motions due by 6/14/2006. Proposed Joint Pretrial Order due by 7/14/2006. Signed by Judge Lawrence R. Leavitt on 3/30/06. (AAB) (Entered: 03/31/2006)
24 First MOTION for Protective Order that Defendant's 30(B)(6) Deposition Not Be Taken by Plaintiff U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 # 2)(Laura, Peter) (Entered: 05/08/2006)
25 RESPONSE to 24 First MOTION for Protective Order that Defendant's 30(B)(6) Deposition Not Be Taken; filed by Defendant Riviera Operating Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Index Exhibit Index# 2 Exhibit Exhibits 1 through 3# 3 Exhibit Exhibit 4 through Exhibit 12# 4 Exhibit Exhibit 13 through Exhibit 21# 5 Exhibit Exhibit 22 through Exhibit 28# 6 Exhibit Exhibit 29 through Exhibit 35# 7 Exhibit Exhibit 36)(Wanker, Kimberly) (Entered: 05/19/2006)
26 REPLY to Response to 24 First MOTION for Protective Order that Defendant's 30(B)(6) Deposition Not Be Taken; filed by Plaintiff U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Index Index of Exhibits# 2 Exhibit Exhibit A# 3 Exhibit Exhibit B# 4 Exhibit Exhibit C# 5 Exhibit Exhibit D# 6 Exhibit Exhibit E)(Laura, Peter) (Entered: 05/25/2006)
27 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Defendant Riviera Operating Corporation. Responses due by 7/2/2006. (Attachments: # 1 Index Exhibit# 2 Exhibit Exhibit 1 through 7# 3 Exhibit Exhibit 8# 4 Exhibit Exhibit 9 through Exhibit 12# 5 Exhibit Exhibit 13 through Exhibit 15# 6 Exhibit Exhibit 16# 7 Exhibit Exhibit 17 through Exhibit 21# 8 Exhibit Exhibit 22 through Exhibit 32# 9 Exhibit Exhibit 33 through Exhibit 39# 10 Exhibit Exhibit 40 through Exhibit 42)(Wanker, Kimberly) (Entered: 06/14/2006)
28 RESPONSE to 27 MOTION for Summary Judgment; filed by Plaintiff U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Opposition to Summary Judgment Motion Replies due by 7/14/2006. (Laura, Peter) (Entered: 06/30/2006)
29 ERROR: Wrong event selected. (MJZ) (Entered: 06/30/2006)
30 ERROR: Wrong event selected. (MJZ) (Entered: 06/30/2006)
31 ERROR: Wrong event selected. (MJZ) (Entered: 06/30/2006)
32 RESPONSE to 27 MOTION for Summary Judgment; filed by Intervenor Plaintiff Ronni Hill. (Holman, Kristina) (Entered: 06/30/2006)
33 RESPONSE to 27 MOTION for Summary Judgment; filed by Intervenor Plaintiff Jo-Anna Harris. (Holman, Kristina) (Entered: 06/30/2006)
34 OBJECTIONS and MOTION to Strike Evidence Supporting 27 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Plaintiff U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity

4 of 8

4/25/2007 3:18 PM

CM/ECF - nvd - District Version 2.05 - Docket Report

https://ecf.nvd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?990203187555363-L_92...

06/30/2006 07/05/2006 07/05/2006 07/05/2006 07/10/2006 07/10/2006 07/10/2006 07/13/2006
07/14/2006 07/20/2006 07/26/2006 07/26/2006

Commission. Responses due by 7/18/2006. (MJZ) (Entered: 07/05/2006)
35 DECLARATION of Samantha Blake re 28 Response to Motion for Summary Judgment; by Plaintiff U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (MJZ) (Entered: 07/05/2006)
NOTICE of Docket Correction to 29 Response to Motion for Summary Judgment: ERROR: Wrong event selected; CORRECTION: Re-docketed as Motion to Strike by Court. (no image attached)(MJZ) (Entered: 07/05/2006)
NOTICE of Docket Correction to 30 Response to Motion for Summary Judgment: ERROR: Wrong event selected; CORRECTION: Re-docketed as Declaration by Court. (no image attached)(MJZ) (Entered: 07/05/2006)
NOTICE of Docket Correction to 31 Response to Motion for Summary Judgment: ERROR: Wrong event selected; CORRECTION: Attorney Peter Laura advised to re-file declaration using the Declaration event under the Other Documents category. (no image attached)(MJZ) (Entered: 07/05/2006)
36 EX PARTE MOTION For Order Shortening Time For The Court to Consider the Riviera's Motion For Extension of Time by Defendant Riviera Operating Corporation. (Wanker, Kimberly) (Entered: 07/10/2006)
37 EX PARTE MOTION For Extension of Time for Riviera to File Summary Judgment Reply Brief And to File Opposition to EEOC's Motion to Strike Riviera's Summary Judgment Evidence by Defendant Riviera Operating Corporation. (Wanker, Kimberly) (Entered: 07/10/2006)
38 RESPONSE to 37 EX PARTE MOTION For Extension of Time for Riviera to File Summary Judgment Reply Brief And to File Opposition to EEOC's Motion to Strike Riviera's Summary Judgment Evidence; filed by Plaintiff U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Laura, Peter) (Entered: 07/10/2006)
39 MOTION to Compel Discovery Responses by Plaintiff U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Responses due by 7/31/2006. (Attachments: # 1 Index Index of Exhibits# 2 Exhibit Exhibit A# 3 Exhibit Exhibit B# 4 Exhibit Exhibit C# 5 Exhibit Exhibit D# 6 Exhibit Exhibit E# 7 Exhibit Exhibit F# 8 Exhibit Exhibit G# 9 Exhibit Exhibit H# 10 Exhibit Exhibit I# 11 Exhibit Exhibit J# 12 Exhibit Exhibit K)(tungol, wilfredo) (Entered: 07/13/2006)
40 REPLY to Response to 37 EX PARTE MOTION For Extension of Time for Riviera to File Summary Judgment Reply Brief And to File Opposition to EEOC's Motion to Strike Riviera's Summary Judgment Evidence; filed by Defendant Riviera Operating Corporation. (Wanker, Kimberly) (Entered: 07/14/2006)
41 ORDER granting 37 Ex Parte Motion for time to file pleadings. Signed by Judge Roger L. Hunt on 7/19/06. (AXM) (Entered: 07/20/2006)
42 STIPULATION re 39 MOTION to Compel Discovery Responses; to Extend Deadline to File Opposition by Defendant Riviera Operating Corporation. (Wanker, Kimberly) (Entered: 07/26/2006)
43 ORDER ON STIPULATION GRANTING re 42 Stipulation to extend deadline to file response to Motion to Compel. Responses due by 8/7/2006. Signed by Judge Lawrence R. Leavitt on 7/26/06. (RFJ) (Entered: 07/28/2006)

5 of 8

4/25/2007 3:18 PM

CM/ECF - nvd - District Version 2.05 - Docket Report

https://ecf.nvd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?990203187555363-L_92...

08/04/2006
08/08/2006 08/14/2006 08/14/2006
08/14/2006
08/18/2006 09/13/2006 09/15/2006 10/03/2006 10/31/2006

44 RESPONSE to 39 MOTION to Compel Discovery Responses; filed by Defendant Riviera Operating Corporation. and Declaration of Kimberly A. Wanker, Esq. Replies due by 8/18/2006. (Attachments: # 1 Index Exhibit# 2 Exhibit Exhibit 1 through Exhibit 3# 3 Exhibit Exhibit 4 through Exhibit 8# 4 Exhibit Exhibit 9 through Exhibit 17# 5 Exhibit Exhibit 18 through Exhibit 23# 6 Exhibit Exhibit 24 through Exhibit 29# 7 Exhibit Exhibit 30 through Exhibit 36# 8 Exhibit Exhibit 37)(Wanker, Kimberly) (Entered: 08/04/2006)
45 ORDER granting 24 Motion for Protective Order. Signed by Judge Lawrence R. Leavitt on 8/8/06. (MJZ) (Entered: 08/11/2006)
46 ORDER finding as moot 36 Ex Parte Motion for Order Shortening Time for the Court to Consider Motion for Extension of Time; extension was granted. Signed by Judge Lawrence R. Leavitt on 8/14/06. (MBS, ) (Entered: 08/14/2006)
47 REPLY to Response to 27 MOTION for Summary Judgment; filed by Defendant Riviera Operating Corporation. Declaration of Kimberly A. Wanker, Esq. (Attachments: # 1 Index Exhibit# 2 Exhibit 7A, 8A, 9A, 10A, 11A, 12A, 15A, 18A, 28A, 29A, 35A, 36A, 37A, 38A# 3 Exhibit Exhibit 43 through Exhibit 47# 4 Exhibit Exhibit 48 through Exhibit 52)(Wanker, Kimberly) (Entered: 08/14/2006)
48 RESPONSE to 34 MOTION to Strike 27 MOTION for Summary Judgment; filed by Defendant Riviera Operating Corporation. Declaration of Kimberly A Wanker, Esq. Replies due by 8/28/2006. (Attachments: # 1 Index Exhibits# 2 Exhibit Exhibit A Part 1 of 2# 3 Exhibit Exhibit A Part 2 of 2# 4 Exhibit Exhibit B Part 1 of 4# 5 Exhibit Exhibit B Part 2 of 4# 6 Exhibit Exhibit B Part 3 of 4# 7 Exhibit Exhibit B Part 4 of 4# 8 Exhibit Exhibit C# 9 Exhibit Exhibit D)(Wanker, Kimberly) (Entered: 08/14/2006)
49 REPLY to Response to 39 MOTION to Compel Discovery Responses; filed by Plaintiff U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Tungol, Wilfredo) (Entered: 08/18/2006)
50 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 39 Motion to Compel. Signed by Judge Lawrence R. Leavitt on 9/13/06. (AXM) (Entered: 09/13/2006)
51 ORDER granting time re:37 EX PARTE MOTION For Extension of Time for Riviera to File Summary Judgment Reply Brief, 36 EX PARTE MOTION For Order Shortening Time For The Court to Consider the Riviera's Motion For Extension of Time filed by Riviera Operating Corporation. Signed by Judge Roger L. Hunt on 9/11/06. (AXM) (Entered: 09/15/2006)
52 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 27 Motion for Summary Judgment. Granted as to Christensen's claims for retaliation and Hill's claims for hostile work environment; Denied to all remaining claims. Denying as moot 34 Motion to Strike. Signed by Judge Roger L. Hunt on 10/2/06. (AXM) (Entered: 10/03/2006)
53 STIPULATION And OrderTo Extend Time For Filing Joint Pre-Trial Order by Defendant Riviera Operating Corporation. (Wanker, Kimberly) (Entered: 10/31/2006)

6 of 8

4/25/2007 3:18 PM

CM/ECF - nvd - District Version 2.05 - Docket Report

https://ecf.nvd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?990203187555363-L_92...

11/03/2006 11/30/2006 12/04/2006 12/11/2006 12/15/2006
12/15/2006 12/20/2006 03/20/2007 03/21/2007 03/27/2007
04/10/2007 04/11/2007 04/13/2007

54 ORDER ON STIPULATION re 53 Stipulation for time to file joint pre-trial order. Due 12/4/06. Signed by Judge Roger L. Hunt on 11/1/06. (AXM) (Entered: 11/03/2006)
55 STIPULATION to Extend Deadline to File Joint Pre-trial Order- Second Request by Defendant Riviera Operating Corporation. (Wanker, Kimberly) (Entered: 11/30/2006)
56 ORDER ON STIPULATION re 55 Stipulation for time. Proposed Joint Pretrial Order due by 12/11/2006. Signed by Judge Roger L. Hunt on 12/1/06. (AXM) (Entered: 12/04/2006)
57 PROPOSED Pretrial Order Proposed Joint Pre-trial Order by Defendant Riviera Operating Corporation. (Wanker, Kimberly) (Entered: 12/11/2006)
58 PRETRIAL ORDER: Jury Trial set for 5/21/2007 08:30 AM in LV Courtroom 6C before Judge Roger L. Hunt. Calendar Call set for 5/16/2007 08:45 AM in LV Courtroom 6C before Judge Roger L. Hunt. Proposed Jury Instructions due by 5/16/2007. Proposed Voir Dire due by 5/16/2007. Signed by Judge Roger L. Hunt on 12/13/06. (AXM) (Entered: 12/15/2006)
59 ORDER referring action to Magistrate Leavitt for settlement conference. Signed by Judge Roger L. Hunt on 12/13/06. (AXM) (Entered: 12/15/2006)
60 ORDER Scheduling Settlement Conference: Settlement Conference set for 3/27/2007 09:30 AM before Magistrate Judge Lawrence R. Leavitt. Signed by Judge Lawrence R. Leavitt on 12/18/06. (AXM) (Entered: 12/20/2006)
61 MOTION for For Exemption From Settlement Conference by Intervenor Plaintiffs Ronni Hill. (Holman, Kristina) (Entered: 03/20/2007)
62 ORDER granting 61 Motion for Exemption from Settlement Conference. Signed by Judge Lawrence R. Leavitt. (AXM) (Entered: 03/21/2007)
63 MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS - Settlement Conference held on 3/27/2007 before Judge Lawrence R. Leavitt.Pla Counsel: Peter F. Laura and Kristina Holman; Def Counsel: Kimberly A. Wanker and Tullio Marchionne (in-house counsel); Time of Hearing: 9:30 a.m.. Counsel, the parties and the court met and conferred. Plaintiffs accepted defendant's offer of judgment. The judgment shall be entered not later than April 25, 2007. (CAP, ) (Entered: 03/28/2007)
64 NOTICE of Acceptance with Offer of Judgment by Plaintiff U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. PLAINTIFF'S ACCEPTANCE OF DEFENDANT'S RULE 68 OFFER OF JUDGMENT (Park, Anna) (Entered: 04/10/2007)
65 NOTICE of Acceptance with Offer of Judgment by Defendant Riviera Operating Corporation. Plaintiff Harris.Hill's Acceptance of Offer of Judgment (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Offer of Judgment)(Wanker, Kimberly) (Entered: 04/11/2007)
66 JUDGMENT Acceptance/Offer of Judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff Jo-Anna Harris in the amount of $20,000.00 and Plaintiff Ronni Hill in the amount of $20,000.00, to be received from Defendant Riviera Operating Corporation. Signed by Lance S Wilson on 4/13/07. (MAJ) (Entered:

7 of 8

4/25/2007 3:18 PM

CM/ECF - nvd - District Version 2.05 - Docket Report
04/13/2007)

https://ecf.nvd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?990203187555363-L_92...

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

PACER Login:
Description:
Billable Pages:

04/25/2007 13:17:57

hs0328 Client Code: nniles

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

2:04-cv-01257-RLH-LRL

5

Cost:

0.40

8 of 8

4/25/2007 3:18 PM