Case 3:05-cv-00710 Document 1 Filed 09/13/2005 Page 1 of 6

N THE UNITED STATES D~STR~CT COURT FOR THE M~ODLE DiSTRiCT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVI LLE D~VlSIQN

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION0

P~aint~.

C~V~L ACTION

DIGITAL CONNECTIONS, INC, DefendanL

COMPlAiNT JURY DEMAND

NATURE OFTHE ACTION This is an adion under ~le V~ of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Tit~e I of the Civil Rights Act of 199t ~o co~re~ uniawl:u~ employment pradices on the bad~s of reta~iation~ ano to provde a~prosdate relief to Rebecca Angela She~Iey whom Defendant t~used to employ and who was adversely affeGed by such p~Gices, The Csmmission a~l~es that Rebecca AnneSe Shel~ey ms denied employment at Dig£al Connections, ~nc., in retaliation for fi~ing a p~or charge of discdminatien~
JUR~SD~CTI@N AND VENUE Jurisdiction of this Cou~ is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.,C~ §§ 45t0 1331~ 1337. 1343 and 1~5. This action is aubhodzed an8 instituted pumuast to Section 706 (f)(l} and (3) of Title V~t of the Civil Rights A~ d I9~, as amendS, 42 U.SoC. § 2000eo5,~f}(l) and (3) (~it~e VtP} a~ Seclion 102 of the Civit Rights A~ of 19~1~ 42 8.S.C, §

Case 3:05-c.v-00710 Document 1 Filed 09/13/2005 Page 2 of 6
2, The unla~ul employment practices al~eg~ below were commi~ed the jurisdiction of he United States Distd~ Court for the Middle Distdc~ of Tennessee, Nan hvi~J e D Ms
PARTIES 3 P~aiht~ff~ the Equa~ Employment OppoRunity Commss~on (She ~Commiss~on~’)~ ~s the agency of the United States of Amedca charged with admh~strat~om ~nterpretat~on and enforcement of T~le V~, and ~s expressly a~thodz~ to bdng t~s action by Se~on 708 (0(1) and (3)of T~t~e V~l, 42 U.S.C. ~2080e~5 (0(1) and
4. At a~I reJevan~ times. Defendan~ D~g~ta] Cosnect;oas ~ac, [the a Tehnessee Corporation, has continuously beeh do}ng bus~ness in the S~te of Tennessee and the C~ty of HendeJ*sonv~l~e, and has con~nuou~y had at ~eas~ 15 empaoyees.
5. At ai~ re~evant times. Defendant Employer has ~ntinuously been an em31oye~ engaged in an indust~ affecting commerce within the meaning d Sect}ons 701(b}, (g) and (h} of Tit~e VII, 42 UoSoC. §§ 2000e(b), (9) a~d {h),
T OF CLAIMS 6. More lhas lhi~y days pri~ to the institution of this lawsu£, Rebec~ Anne~e Shelley flied a charge with the Commission allegisg vio}ations of Title VII by Defendant Emslos’er. A]t ~nditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been

Case 3:05-cv-00710 Document 1 Filed 09/13/2005 Page 3 of 6
7 On or about November 8, 2004, Defendant Employer engaged in un~a~u~ employment praGJces at its Hendersonvi~le0 Tennessee facility0 in violation of Se~ion 704 (a} d T:~e VI~o 42 U,S.C. § 2000e-3.
8. On November 8, 20~, Rebe~ Anne~e She~:Iey reposed for work at Defendant sometime before 8:00
9. Ms. SheI~ey had been referred by a ~emporary p~acement agency to Defenoa~s estabIishmeat to pe:~o~ secreta#a~ and da~ ent~
10. When Ms. Shel}ey arrwed at Defendant’s o~ceo sh~ was met by Defendant’s Human Re~urces Director.
11. When Defendant’s Human Resorts DirsCtor saw Ms She~ey, the Ditcher mmedtate~y caaI~ the temporal’ p~acement agency and cance~Ied the assignment, and refus~ ~ allow Ms. Shel|ey to worK~
12, Ddendant’s Human Resources Dire~or had been ~.he human resou~es supe~/isor at a former employer at the same time Mso Shelley had been emp!oyed there.
l& Ms. Shelley had flied a cha@e of discrimination against the fo~er employer0 and Defendant’s Human Resour~s Direder had been directly involved in the i~westigation at the fo~er employer.
14, Defendant’s Human Resources DireGer rdused to aI~ow Ms~ SheIIey to woK~ at Defendant’s p~ace of business in retaliation for discrim nation against their former emplo~r.
15. The effect of the practice(s) complained of in paragraph(s) 8 - 14 above has been to deprive Re~cca AnneEe Shelley of equaf employment oppoGunities and

Case 3:05-cv-00710 Document 1 Filed 09/13/2005 Page 4 of 6
otheP~ise adversely affeG her status as an employee, in retaliation for op~sing unta~uI discriminatory practices.
16, The un~a~u~ employment practices ~mp~ain~ of in saragraphs 8 - 14 a~ve were intentional.
17. The unla~ul employment practices ~mp~ained of ~n paragraphs 8 - 14 above were done w]th malice or w~th reckless ~r~d~erence to the federally proteGed r~ghts of Rebe~ AnneEe She~ey~
P~YER FOR REUEF Wherefore. the Commission respec~ully requests that tMs CouP: A. Grant a pe~anent injund~n enjoining Ddendant Employer, ~ o~ce:~, successors, assigns a~ a~ pe~ons ~n a~we conceG or participation wkh ~L from e:ngag~ng ~n ~eta~at~on and any other employment practice which d~scr minates on ~e bas~s of B. Order Defendant Employer to institute and cam¢ out ps~c~es, p~ct~ces, and programs ’~ch provide p@~eG~on against re~iatbn, and which erad~te the effe~s of ~ts sast and present un~a~{uI employment pta~ces. C. Order Defendant Employer to make who~e Rebecca AnneGe Shelley, by providing appropriate backpay w~th sre~udgment ~nterest. ~n amounts to be determined at tr~a~, and other a~atJve relief necessa~ to eradJ~te the effects d ~ts un~a~u~ emp~oymenl practices, D, Q~er ndant Employer to make who~e Rebe~ AnneEe Shelley by providing @mpen~t~on for past and futu~ nonpecunia~ ~osses resulting from the

Case 3:05-cv-00710 Document 1 Filed 09/13/2005 Page 5 of 6
sufferingi imco~V:eniemce, and humiii:ation, in :amounts to ~ deter]ned at: t:riai: E0 Orde~ D8fendamt Em#Ioyer to ~ay R.eb:ec~ Anne~e Shelley’ punitive

Case 3:05-cv-00710 Document 1 Filed 09/13/2005 Rage 6 of 6
~URY TRIAL OEMAN B:
JAMES LEE GWENDOLYNYOUNG R!~iMS
~THAR!N8 W, KORES TN Ba~ No, 6283
TN Bar No:!! 780 EQUAL EMRLOYMENT OPPORTUNi~’ C:OMMiSSION 1407 U~ion Ave~ue~ Su~:e 821 Memphis, Tennessee 38I:04 Te~e
EiQ~UAILEM~PL,OYMiENT,OPPORTUNII~"

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff, v. DIGITAL CONNECTIONS, INC.,
Defendant.

) ) ) ) ) No. 3:05-0710 ) JUDGE ECHOLS ) ) ) )

MEMORANDUM

Pending before the Court is the Motion for Summary Judgment

(Docket Entry No. 23), filed by Defendant Digital Connections, Inc.

(“DCI”), to which the Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission (“EEOC”), has responded in opposition (Docket Entry

No. 29).

I. FACTS

This is a Title VII case for unlawful retaliation, although

the facts of the underlying dispute are not germane to the pending

Motion for Summary Judgment. In summary, a temporary employment

agency referred Rebecca Annette Shelley to DCI to fill an

employment position. By coincidence, DCI’s Human Resource

Director, Sarah Jones, was familiar with Shelley, as both of them

had worked previously for the same employer. According to the

Complaint, Jones knew that Shelley had filed a charge of

discrimination against the former employer, and Jones was directly

involved in the investigation of that charge. The EEOC alleges

that Jones immediately contacted the temporary agency, cancelled

1

Case 3:05-cv-00710 Document 39 Filed 09/26/2006 Page 1 of 6

the assignment, and refused to allow Shelley to work for DCI in retaliation for her previous filing of a discrimination charge. DCI denies the allegation that Jones retaliated against Shelley.
Turning to the matter pending before the Court, it is undisputed that Shelley filed a retaliation charge with the EEOC against DCI on November 8, 2004. On June 27, 2005, Shelley filed a voluntary Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Tennessee.
In Schedule I of the petition, Shelley reported her employer as “DISABLED” and reported monthly gross wages, salary, and commissions of “$0.00.” Item 4 of the “STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL AFFAIRS” is titled “Suits and administrative proceedings, executions, garnishments and attachments” and asks the bankruptcy debtor to: “List all suits and administrative proceedings to which the debtor is or was a party within one year immediately preceding the filing of this bankruptcy case.” In response, Shelley marked “None.”
In item 20 of Schedule B of the petition, the debtor was asked to identify and describe “[o]ther contingent and unliquidated claims of every nature.” In response, Shelley marked “None.”
On July 19, 2005, while the bankruptcy petition was pending, the EEOC forwarded to counsel for DCI a proposed Conciliation Agreement, in which the EEOC requested that DCI pay Shelley a total of $54,800 to settle the claim. On August 25, 2005, the Bankruptcy Court confirmed Shelley’s Chapter 13 Plan.
2
Case 3:05-cv-00710 Document 39 Filed 09/26/2006 Page 2 of 6

On September 13, 2005, the EEOC filed this lawsuit against DCI. In the Complaint, the EEOC states that it brought the action in part to provide appropriate relief for Shelley. The EEOC asks the Court to make Shelley whole by awarding backpay and prejudgment interest, as well as compensatory and punitive damages.
On January 30, 2006, the Bankruptcy Court dismissed Shelley’s bankruptcy petition because Shelley failed to make a single payment under her Plan. On March 23, 2006, Shelley filed another voluntary Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition in the same court. She listed her occupation as “leasing assistant.” As in the previous petition, Shelley marked “None” when asked to reveal “all suits and administrative proceedings to which the debtor is or was a party within one year immediately preceding the filing of this bankruptcy case” and to identify and describe “[o]ther contingent and unliquidated claims of every nature.”
The 2006 Chapter 13 Plan, which was approved on June 5, 2006, requires Shelley to pay unsecured creditors $0. Shelley previously filed bankruptcy in 1994 and 1997 and jointly with her husband in 1990. At her deposition, Shelley testified she told her bankruptcy lawyer about the EEOC claim.
It is further undisputed that Shelley is not a party to the instant case, and that her bankruptcy attorney has subsequently amended Schedule B of Shelley’s bankruptcy petition to respond to the request for identification of “[o]ther contingent and unliquidated claims of every nature” with the following: “Possible damages arising from E.E.O.C. vs. Digital Connections, U.S.
3
Case 3:05-cv-00710 Document 39 Filed 09/26/2006 Page 3 of 6

District Court, Middle District Tennessee, No. 3 05 0710 (Debtor is not a party to the suit).”1
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW A party may obtain summary judgment if the evidence establishes there are not any genuine issues of material fact for trial and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986); Covington v. Knox County School Sys., 205 F.3d 912, 914 (6th Cir. 2000). The moving party bears the initial burden of satisfying the Court that the standards of Rule 56 have been met. See Martin v. Kelley, 803 F.2d 236, 239 n.4 (6th Cir. 1986).
III. ANALYSIS DCI contends the Court should apply the doctrine of judicial estoppel to preclude this lawsuit where Shelley failed to identify her retaliation claim in her bankruptcy schedules. Judicial estoppel prevents a party from taking a position in a legal proceeding that is contradictory to a position taken by the party in a previous proceeding. New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742, 749 (2001). The purpose of the doctrine is to protect the integrity of the judicial process by prohibiting parties from deliberately changing their litigation positions to respond to the circumstances of the moment. Id.; Edwards v. Aetna Life Ins. Co.,
1The EEOC proffered a Statement of Additional Material Facts, to which DCI failed to respond. Under Local Rule 56.01(g), the additional material facts are deemed admitted for purposes of summary judgment.
4
Case 3:05-cv-00710 Document 39 Filed 09/26/2006 Page 4 of 6

690 F.2d 595, 598 (6th Cir. 1982). Judicial estoppel is an equitable doctrine that may be invoked by the Court at its discretion. See New Hampshire, 532 U.S. at 750.
The cases delineate several factors that should inform the Court’s decision whether to apply the doctrine of judicial estoppel against a party. See New Hampshire, 532 U.S. at 750; Lewis v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 141 Fed.Appx. 420, 425 (6th Cir. 2005). But a recitation and examination of each of these factors is unnecessary here where DCI’s motion founders on a fundamental precept: Shelley is not a party to this case.
Without doubt, Shelley should have disclosed in her 2005 and 2006 bankruptcy petitions her EEOC administrative charge and her interest in this lawsuit, and even good faith reliance on counsel is no excuse. See Lewis, 141 Fed.Appx. at 427. If she had brought this suit in her own name, the Court would have little hesitation in applying the doctrine of judicial estoppel to preclude her from proceeding with the claim. See Johnson v. Lewis Cass Intermediate School Dist. (In re Johnson), 345 B.R. 816, 822-825 (Bankr. W.D. Mich. 2006) (applying judicial estoppel to bar debtor from litigating adversary proceeding); Scott v. The Dress Barn, Inc., 2006 WL 962534 at *3-5 (W.D. Tenn. Apr. 12, 2006) (applying judicial estoppel to bar Title VII suit where plaintiff party failed to disclose claim in her bankruptcy proceeding).
The fact remains, however, that the EEOC, as the plaintiff party, decided to bring this lawsuit against DCI. Shelley did not file the action, she is not a party to it, and she did not control
5
Case 3:05-cv-00710 Document 39 Filed 09/26/2006 Page 5 of 6

the EEOC’s decision to bring the action. See EEOC v. Apria Healthcare Group, Inc., 222 F.R.D. 608, 613 (E.D. Mo. 2004) (holding under similar facts that judicial estoppel should not be applied where EEOC filed lawsuit). The Court will not stretch to hold that Shelley abused the judicial process when she was not the master of it. In addition to protecting Shelley’s rights, the EEOC brings this lawsuit to adjudicate the public interest in deterring retaliation for filing discrimination claims. See EEOC v. Waffle House, Inc., 534 U.S. 279, 291 (2002) (“The statute clearly makes the EEOC the master of its own case and confers on the agency the authority to evaluate the strength of the public interest at stake.”) Because DCI has not cited the Court to any authority contradicting Apria Healthcare Group, the Court concludes that DCI has not shown its entitlement to summary judgment on the undisputed facts.
IV. CONCLUSION Because the EEOC, and not Shelley, filed this Title VII action, the Court concludes that this is not an appropriate case for the application of judicial estoppel. Therefore, DCI’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket Entry No. 23) will be DENIED. An appropriate Order shall be entered.
___________________________________ ROBERT L. ECHOLS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6
Case 3:05-cv-00710 Document 39 Filed 09/26/2006 Page 6 of 6

 
 • •

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff,
v.
DIGITAL CONNECTIONS, INC.,
Defendant.

) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. 3:05-071 0 ) ) Judge Echols ) Magistrate Judge Brown
) ) JURY DEMAND

CONSENT DECREE
This civil action was instituted by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "Commission") against Digital Connections, Inc., pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C § 2000e, et seq., and Title I of the
Civil Rights Act of 1991, to remedy the unlawful employment practices alleged in the
Complaint filed on September 13, 2005.
The Complaint alleged that Digital Connections, Inc. refused to allow Rebecca
Annette Shelley to work in retaliation for her filing a prior charge of discrimination. Defendant denies that it discriminated or retaliated against Rebecca Annette
Shelley in any fashion. The Parties have agreed to this Consent Decree to settle all of the claims involved in this lawsuit. This Consent Decree does not constitute an admission by the Defendant of the allegations in the complaint. The parties to this action desire to avoid the additional expense and delay in the litigation of this case.
In the event this Consent Decree is not approved or does not become final, it

Case 3:05-cv-00710 Document 47-1 Filed 12/12/2006 Page 1 of 7

•

• ,,,

shall not be admissible in evidence in any subsequent proceeding in this action. This Decree constitutes the complete and exclusive agreement between the
Commission and Digital Connections, Inc., with respect to the matters referred to herein. No waiver, modification or amendment of any provision of this Decree shall be effective unless made in writing. No representations or Inducements to compromise this action have been made between the parties hereto, other than those recited or referenced in this Decree.
The Court has reviewed the terms of this Consent Decree in light of the applicable laws and regulations, the representations of counsel for all parties, and hereby approves the Consent Decree.
It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED:
I. JURISDICTION The United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division, has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this litigation and will retain jurisdiction over this Decree for the purposes of enforcement and dispute resolution.
II. SCOPE OF DECREE A. This Consent Decree resolves all issues and claims arising out of the Commission's complaint in this case, Civil Action No. 3:05-0710, alleging unlawful employment practices by Defendant based on Charge No 253-2005-00305 filed by Rebecca Annette Shelley. This Consent Decree shall not be considered in any manner to be dispositive of any other charge which is or may be pending before any office of the
2

Case 3:05-cv-00710 Document 47-1 Filed 12/12/2006 Page 2 of 7

• ----

········• -~···

Commission other than Charge No. 253-2005-00305. B. The provisions of this Consent Decree shall be effective and binding upon
the parties to this action for three years after the date of its entry by the Court.
Ill. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
A. Defendant, its officers, agents, employees, and all persons acting in concert with Defendant are hereby enjoined from engaging in any employment practice which has the purpose or effect of retaliating against any employee, or applicant for employment, for participating in any proceeding under Title VII or for opposing discriminatory employment practices made unlawful under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.
B. Defendant, its officers, agents, employees, and all persons acting in concert with Defendant are hereby enjoined from engaging in any employment practice which has the purpose or effect of discriminating against any employee on the basis of sex or race pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.
IV. TRAINING
Defendant shall provide employment-discrimination awareness training to all employees, supervisory, and management personnel at Digital Connections, Inc., according to the following tenns:
(a) the training session will include at least two (2) hours of instruction; (b) the training will include the following topics: what constitutes retaliation in violation of Title VII; and Defendant's policy against discrimination and retaliation; (c) the training will be conducted by an outside trainer to be agreed upon by the
3

Case 3:05-cv-00710 Document 47-1 Filed 12/12/2006 Page 3 of 7

parties; (d) within thirty (30) days after execution of this Consent Decree by the parties, Defendant shall submit to the Commission the date of the proposed training session and a detailed outline of the proposed training; the Commission will have thirty (30) days after the date of receipt of such information to accept or reject the training proposal; the Commission will not unreasonably withhold its approval of the proposal. If the Commission does not approve the contents of the training session, the parties shall attempt to resolve the matter and, if unsuccessful, submit the dispute to the Court; (e) the training session will be conducted within ninety (90) days after the date of the entry of this Consent Decree by the Court or within thirty (30) days of approval of the outline or resolution of disputes relating to same as set forth in (d) above, whichever occurs later; and (f) any and all new management and supervisory employees will be given training within 30 days of hiring/promotion.
V. INDIVIDUAL RELIEF A. In compromise and settlement of these disputed claims, Defendant agrees to pay a total of$ 20.000.00 compensatory damages. B. Defendant agrees to make an initial payment of $2,000.00 on December 1, 2006, and payments of $2,000.00 on the first of each subsequent month until the individual relief has been paid in full. Full payment terms are set forth in the Promissory Note executed by Defendant, attached to this Decree as Exhibit B.
4
--------------
Case 3:05-cv-00710 Document 47-1 Filed 12/12/2006 Page 4 of 7

-·
C. Defendant shall mail cashier's checks, payable to "Chapter 13 Trustee," with written reference on the check to "Bk. No. 06-01356-GP3-13, Rebecca Annette Shelley" to the following address:
Chapter 13 Trustee P.O. Box 190664 Nashville, TN 37219-0664 The Defendant shall also mail a copy of the cashier's checks to: Sally Ramsey, Senior Trial Attorney Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 50 Vantage Way, Suite 202 Nashville, TN 37228
VI. POSTING OF NOTICE A. Oefendant shall post at its Hendersonville, Tennessee, home office, in a location conspicuous and accessible to all applicants and employees, the Notice attached to this Oecree as Exhibit A. Exhibit A shall remain posted for the duration of this Decree. B. At all times Defendant shall continue to post and maintain at its Hendersonville, Tennessee, home office in a location conspicuous and accessible to all applicants and employees the poster summarizing pertinent provisions of Title VII required by Section 711 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.§2000e10(a). C. At ail times Defendant shall continue to post and maintain at its Hendersonville, Tennessee, home office, in a conspicuous location accessible to all applicants and employees, a copy of its policy and procedure for reporting or preventing discrimination in the workplace.
5
Case 3:05-cv-00710 Document 47-1 Filed 12/12/2006 Page 5 of 7

• •

VII. COSTS Each of the parties shall be responsible for their own costs and fees.

~AY ~06. IT IS SO ORDERED THIS /:2.

OF

~
ROBERT L. ECHOLS United States District Court Judge

6
Case 3:05-cv-00710 Document 47-1 Filed 12/12/2006 Page 6 of 7

•
Respectfully submitted:
One Burton Hills Blvd., Suite 300 Nashville. TN 37213 (6151 320-7206

··-·· ...... -·· ...... --

. .,. -,---·

FOR THE COMMISSION
RONALD S. COOPER General Counsel
JAMESLLEE Deputy General Counsel
GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS
Associate General Counsel
(F~~.t.zW-il--LIAdM·S wRegional Attorney
TN BPR # 11730
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 1407 Union Avenue, Suite 621 Memphis. Tennessee 38104 (901) 544-0088

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 50 Vantage Way, Suite 202 Nashville, TN 37228 (615) 736-2105
Case 3:05-cv-00710 Document 47-1 Filed 12/12/2006 Page 7 of 7

• • Exhibit A
NOTICE Federal law requires an employer to maintain a workplace free from harassment based on sex (gender), as well as race, color, religion, national origin, age (40 or older), or disability with respect to working environment or terms and conditions of employment. It is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, 42 u.s.c. §2000e, et seq., to retaliate against
a person for exercising their rights under the law. Digital Connections, Inc. agrees to comply with this Federal law in all respects and will not take any action against employees or applicants for employment because they have exercised their rights under the
law.
At no time will Digital Connections, Inc. tolerate or condone retaliation against any employee or applicant for employment. Retaliation is a violation of company policy as well as federal law. Violation of this company policy by anyone employed by Digital Connections, Inc. will result in disciplinary action up to and including termination.
Title: Digital Connections, Inc.
2
Case 3:05-cv-00710 Document 47-2 Filed 12/12/2006 Page 1 of 1

• • EXHIBITS
PROMISSORY NOTE
To evidence the agreement of the undersigned as to payments required of it in settlement of the case of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Digital Connections, lnc.,(U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville, Civil Action No. 3:05-0710) (the "Case"), the undersigned promises to pay:
On or before December 1, 2006, the payment of Two Thousand and 00/100 Dollars {$2,000.00) to "Chapter 13 Trustee", referencing Bk. No. 06-01356-GP3-13 -Rebecca Annette Shelley; and on or before the first day of each month commencing January 1, 2007, the payment of Two Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($2,000.00) for nine 'consecutive months, for a total payment of $20,000.
The undersigned may make a full or partial prepayment of the principal of this Note at any time and from time to time, without penalty or charge. Any such prepayment shall not change the due date or amount of monthly payment due hereunder unless the holder hereof agrees in writing to any such changes.
In the event there is a default in the payment of any part of interest or principal in accordance with the terms hereof, or upon failure of the undersigned to keep and perform all the covenants, promises, agreements, conditions and provisions of this Note, or if any obligor herein makes a general assignment for the benefit of creditors, or files a voluntary petition in bankruptcy or a petition for reorganization under the bankruptcy laws or if a petition in bankruptcy is filed against any obligor; or should any levy, attachment or garnishment be issued, or any lien filed against the property of any obligor and not be satisfied or released within thirty (30) days after filing, then, in any such case, the entire unpaid principal sum evidenced by this Note, together with all accrued interest, shall, at the option of the holder, without notice, become due and payable forthwith, and shall thereafter bear interest until paid at the highest rate of interest permitted to be charged under the laws in effect from time to time. Failure of the holder to exercise the right of accelerating the maturity of the debt, or indulgence
granted from time to time shall in no event be considered as a waiver of said right of
acceleration or stop the holder from exercising said right.
All persons or corporations now or at any time liable, whether primarily or secondarily, for the payment of the indebtedness hereby evidenced for themselves, their heirs, legal representatives and assigns, waive demand, presentment for payment, notice of dishonor protest, notice of protest, and diligence in collection and all other notices or demands whatsoever with respect to this Note or the enforcement hereof, and consent that the time of said payments or any part thereof may be extended by the holder hereof and assent to any substitution, exchange, or release of collateral permitted by the holder hereof, all without in any wise modifying, altering, releasing, affecting or limiting their respective liability.
The term obligor, as used in this Note, shall mean all parties, and each of them, directly or indirectly obligated for the indebtedness that this Note evidences, whether as
3
Case 3:05-cv-00710 Document 47-3 Filed 12/12/2006 Page 1 of 2

• •
p~incipal, maker, endorser, surety, guarantor or otherwise. It is expressly understood and agreed by all parties hereto, including obligors,
that if it Is necessary to enforce payment of this Note through an attorney or by suit, undersigned or any obligors shall pay reasonable attorney's fees and all costs of collection.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF. this Note has been duly executed by the undersigned the day and year first above written. DIGITAL CONNECTIONS, INC.
By: uf..u...wA ~
e_e<J PR1ii51CEJSIOF- DCI
4 Case 3:05-cv-00710 Document 47-3 Filed 12/12/2006 Page 2 of 2

 
 CM/ECF - DC V2.5 (October 2005) - Docket Report

https://ecf.tnmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?723529262638957-L_9...

CASE-CLOSED, CASE-MANAGER-BROWN
U.S. District Court Middle District of Tennessee (Nashville) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:05-cv-00710

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Digital Connections, Inc. Assigned to: District Judge Robert Echols Cause: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

Date Filed: 09/13/2005 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by Faye A. Williams Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 1407 Union Avenue Suite 621 Memphis, TN 38104 (901) 544-0088 Email: faye.williams@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sally Ramsey Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 50 Vantage Way Suite 202 Nashville, TN 37228 usa (615) 736-2105 Fax: (615) 736-2107 Email: sally.ramsey@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Adele Rapport Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 1407 Union Avenue Suite 621 Memphis, TN 38104 (901) 544-0113 Fax: (901) 544-0111 TERMINATED: 08/01/2006

Katharine W. Kores Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

1 of 7

7/26/2007 1:02 PM

CM/ECF - DC V2.5 (October 2005) - Docket Report

https://ecf.tnmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?723529262638957-L_9...

V. Defendant Digital Connections, Inc.

1407 Union Avenue Suite 621 Memphis, TN 38104 (901) 544-0116 Email: katharine.kores@eeoc.gov TERMINATED: 03/30/2006
Steven W. Dills Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 50 Vantage Way, Suite 202 Nashville, TN 37202 615-736-5784 Email: steven.dills@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Gregory H. Oakley Soper & Oakley, PLLC One Burton Hills Boulevard Suite 330 Nashville, TN 37215 (615) 320-7206 Fax: (615) 320-7208 Email: greg@soperoakley.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 09/13/2005 09/13/2005 10/18/2005 11/03/2005

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT against Digital Connections, Inc. , filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. NO summons issued. Waiver to be filed. (rm) Modified on 9/14/2005 (rm). (Entered: 09/14/2005)
2 NOTICE of Initial Case Management Conference set for Monday, 11/7/2005 at 9:30 AM in Courtroom 776 before Magistrate Judge Joe Brown. (rm) (Entered: 09/14/2005)
3 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Digital Connections, Inc. waiver sent on 9/14/2005, answer due 11/14/2005. (Ramsey, Sally) (Entered: 10/18/2005)
4 PROPOSED CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER (Joint) filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Ramsey, Sally) (Entered: 11/03/2005)

2 of 7

7/26/2007 1:02 PM

CM/ECF - DC V2.5 (October 2005) - Docket Report

https://ecf.tnmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?723529262638957-L_9...

11/07/2005 11/09/2005
11/10/2005 11/10/2005
11/14/2005 03/08/2006 03/09/2006 03/13/2006 03/13/2006 03/28/2006 03/30/2006 04/05/2006 05/19/2006

5 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Joe Brown : Case Management Conference held on 11/7/2005. Order to enter. (Tape #1149.) (hv) (Entered: 11/07/2005)
6 **PDF DOCUMENT INCOMPLETE - WILL BE RE-FILED** ICM ORDER: Final Pretrial Conference set for 10/9/2006 01:30 PM and Jury Trial set for 11/7/2006 09:00 AM in Courtroom 874 before District Judge Robert Echols. Telephone Status Conference set for 3/13/2006 02:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Joe Brown. Signed by Judge Joe Brown on 11/9/05. (hv) Modified text on 11/10/2005 (hv). (Entered: 11/10/2005)
NOTE: the Initial Case Mgt Order filed on 11/10/05 as docket entry no. 6 was missing pages; complete order to be re-filed as docket entry no. 7. (hv) (Entered: 11/10/2005)
7 ICM ORDER: Amended Pleadings due by 1/13/2006. Written Discovery due by 5/1/2006. Motions due by 6/30/2006, response ddl 28 days, reply ddl 14 days. Final Pretrial Conference set for 10/9/06 at 1:30 pm and Jury Trial set for 11/7/2006 09:00 AM in Courtroom 874 before District Judge Robert Echols. Telephone Status Conference set for 3/13/2006 02:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Joe Brown. Signed by Judge Joe Brown on 11/10/05. (hv) (Entered: 11/10/2005)
8 ANSWER to Complaint with Jury Demand by Digital Connections, Inc..(Oakley, Gregory) (Entered: 11/14/2005)
9 MOTION for Protective Order by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Responses due by 3/27/2006 (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Joint Protective Order)(Ramsey, Sally) (Entered: 03/08/2006)
10 JOINT PROTECTIVE ORDER signed by Judge Joe Brown on 3/9/06. (hv) (Entered: 03/09/2006)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Brown: Telephone Conference held on 3/13/2006. (tm) (Entered: 03/13/2006)
11 ORDER following 3/13/06 telephone conference: the parties are on schedule; parties have exchanged offers & demands. Signed by Judge Joe Brown on 3/13/06. (hv) (Entered: 03/14/2006)
12 MOTION to Substitute Attorney by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Responses due by 4/14/2006 (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Rapport, Adele) (Entered: 03/28/2006)
13 ORDER granting 12 Motion to Substitute Attorney. Added attorney Adele Rapport for Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Attorney Katharine W. Kores terminated. Signed by Judge Joe Brown on 3/30/06. (dt) (Entered: 03/30/2006)
14 NOTICE of Appearance by Steven W. Dills on behalf of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Dills, Steven) (Entered: 04/05/2006)
15 ORDER: Telephone Conference set for 5/22/2006 11:30 AM before Magistrate Judge Joe Brown. Signed by Judge Joe Brown on 5/19/06. (hv) (Entered: 05/19/2006)

3 of 7

7/26/2007 1:02 PM

CM/ECF - DC V2.5 (October 2005) - Docket Report

https://ecf.tnmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?723529262638957-L_9...

05/22/2006 05/31/2006 05/31/2006 06/01/2006 06/02/2006 06/02/2006 06/07/2006 06/08/2006 06/30/2006 06/30/2006
07/01/2006 07/01/2006 07/03/2006

16 ORDER Cancelling 5/22/06 telephone conference re discovery dispute; the parties had resolved the issue prior to the time of the conference. Signed by Judge Joe Brown on 5/22/06. (hv) (Entered: 05/22/2006)
17 First MOTION to Amend/Correct Scheduling Order by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Responses due by 6/19/2006 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit exhibits 1 and 2 - emails)(Ramsey, Sally) (Entered: 05/31/2006)
18 MEMORANDUM in Support of 17 First MOTION to Amend/Correct Scheduling Order filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Proposed Order granting motion)(Ramsey, Sally) (Entered: 05/31/2006)
19 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery by Digital Connections, Inc.. Responses due by 6/19/2006 (Oakley, Gregory) (Entered: 06/01/2006)
NOTE TO FILER: the Motion to Extend (#19) is a scanned document. Scanning should be used ONLY for documents that do not exist in electronic format on your computer. This document does NOT need to be re-filed. (hv) (Entered: 06/02/2006)
20 ORDER granting 17 Motion to Modify Scheduling Order as to deposition of deft only. Signed by Judge Joe Brown on 6/2/06. (hv) (Entered: 06/02/2006)
21 RESPONSE to Motion re 19 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Ramsey, Sally) (Entered: 06/07/2006)
22 ORDER granting 19 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery (Brown, Joe) (Entered: 06/08/2006)
23 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Digital Connections, Inc.. Responses due by 7/24/2006 (Oakley, Gregory) (Entered: 06/30/2006)
24 ****ATTY TO RE-FILE USING ACCURATE DESCRIPTIONS**** MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT of 23 Motion for Summary Judgment by Digital Connections, Inc.. Responses due by 7/24/2006 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit Exhibit 3# 4 Exhibit Exhibit 4# 5 Exhibit Exhibit 5# 6 Exhibit Exhibit 6# 7 Exhibit Exhibit 7# 8 Exhibit Exhibit 8# 9 Exhibit Exhibit 9# 10 Exhibit Exhibit 10# 11 Exhibit Exhibit 11# 12 Exhibit Exhibit 12# 13 Exhibit Exhibit 13# 14 Exhibit Exhibit 14)(Oakley, Gregory) Modified text & linkage on 7/3/2006 (hv). (Entered: 06/30/2006)
25 STATEMENT of facts filed by Digital Connections, Inc. in support of 23 Motion for Summary Judgment. (Oakley, Gregory) (Entered: 07/01/2006)
26 MOTION for Extension of Time to File dispositive motions by Digital Connections, Inc.. Responses due by 7/18/2006 (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Proposed order extending dispositive motion deadline)(Oakley, Gregory) (Entered: 07/01/2006)
NOTE TO FILER: The Motion for Summary Judgment & Supporting documents (#23-26) are scanned documents. Scanning should be used only for documents that do not exist in electronic format on your computer. The documents do not need to be re-filed. The Memorandum in Support was incorrectly filed as another

4 of 7

7/26/2007 1:02 PM

CM/ECF - DC V2.5 (October 2005) - Docket Report

https://ecf.tnmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?723529262638957-L_9...

07/05/2006
07/06/2006 07/27/2006 07/27/2006 07/27/2006 08/01/2006 08/01/2006 08/01/2006

Motion for Summary Judgment (event Memo in Support/Other Documents); the clerk's office modified the text & linkage of that entry. The Exhibits to the Memo in Support MUST be described accurately and in detail (ie: Exh 1 - Charge of Discrimination; Exh 2 - Concilliation Agreement). The Memo in Support must be RE-FILED using accurate, detailed descriptions for your attachments. (hv) (Entered: 07/03/2006)
27 MEMORANDUM in Support of 23 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Digital Connections, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exh 1 - Charge of Discrimination# 2 Exhibit Exh. 2 - Conciliation Agreement# 3 Exhibit Exh. 3 6-27-05 Chapter 13 Petition# 4 Exhibit Exh. 4 - 2005 Schedule I# 5 Exhibit Exh. 5 - 2005 Statement of Financial Affairs# 6 Exhibit Exh. 6 - 2005 Schedule B Personal Property# 7 Exhibit Exh. 7 - Order Confirming 2005 Chapter 13 Plan# 8 Exhibit Exh. 8 - Order Dismissing 2005 Chapter 13# 9 Exhibit Exh. 9 - 3-23-06 Chapter 13 Petition# 10 Exhibit Exh. 10 - 2006 Schedule I# 11 Exhibit Exh. 11 2006 Statement of Financial Affairs# 12 Exhibit Exh. 12 - 2006 Schedule B Personal Property# 13 Exhibit Exh. 13 - Order Confirming 2006 Chapter 13 Plan# 14 Exhibit Exh. 14 - (Collective) Docket Sheets from 1990, 1994 and 1997 Bankruptcies)(Oakley, Gregory) (Entered: 07/05/2006)
28 ORDER denying 26 Motion for Extension of Time to File . Signed by Judge Joe Brown on 7/6/06. (km, ) (Entered: 07/06/2006)
29 RESPONSE in Opposition re 23 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Ramsey, Sally) (Entered: 07/27/2006)
30 MEMORANDUM in Support of 29 Response in Opposition to Motion filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1 - Jones Deposition# 2 Exhibit Exhibit 2 - Shelley Deposition part 1# 3 Exhibit Exhibit 2 - Shelley deposition - part 2# 4 Exhibit Exhibit 3 - Webb deposition# 5 Exhibit Exhibit 4 - Schedule B)(Ramsey, Sally) (Entered: 07/27/2006)
31 RESPONSE filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 25 Deft's Statement of Undisputed Facts; Plaintiff's Response to Statement of Undisputed Facts in Support of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, and STATEMENT OF FACTS in Dispute. (Ramsey, Sally) Modified linkage on 7/27/2006 (hv). (Entered: 07/27/2006)
32 ***DISREGARD ENTRY - INCORRECT DOCUMENTS - RE-FILED AT #33 *** MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney, MOTION to Substitute Attorney by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Responses due by 8/18/2006 Responses due by 8/18/2006 (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Ramsey, Sally) Modified on 8/1/2006 (hv). (Entered: 08/01/2006)
33 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney, MOTION to Substitute Attorney by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Responses due by 8/18/2006 Responses due by 8/18/2006 (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Ramsey, Sally) (Entered: 08/01/2006)
NOTE: Motion to Withdraw Atty & Substitute Atty (#32) has incorrect documents attached; please disregard this entry; the Motions are RE-FILED at #33. (hv) (Entered: 08/01/2006)

5 of 7

7/26/2007 1:02 PM

CM/ECF - DC V2.5 (October 2005) - Docket Report

https://ecf.tnmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?723529262638957-L_9...

08/23/2006 09/15/2006
09/25/2006 09/25/2006 09/25/2006
09/26/2006 09/26/2006
09/28/2006
10/03/2006 10/05/2006 10/06/2006 11/07/2006

34 ORDER granting 33 Motion to Withdraw Atty Adele Rapport and to Substitute Attorney Faye A. Williams for plaintiff. Signed by Judge Robert Echols on 8/23/06. (hv) (Entered: 08/24/2006)
35 ORDER SETTING TRIAL: Jury Trial set for 11/7/2006 09:00 AM in Courtroom 874 before District Judge Robert Echols. List due by 10/4/2006. Expert Witness List due by 10/4/2006. Final Pretrial Conference set for 10/12/2006 02:00 PM in Courtroom 874 before District Judge Robert Echols. Proposed Pretrial Order due by 10/4/2006. Motions in limine due 9/25/06, responses by 10/4/06. Briefs on damages due 10/4/06. Signed by Judge Robert Echols on 9/15/06. (hv) (Entered: 09/15/2006)
36 MOTION in Limine Number one by Digital Connections, Inc.. Responses due by 10/12/2006 (Oakley, Gregory) (Entered: 09/25/2006)
37 MOTION in Limine Number Two by Digital Connections, Inc.. Responses due by 10/12/2006 (Oakley, Gregory) (Entered: 09/25/2006)
38 MEMORANDUM in Support of 37 MOTION in Limine Number Two filed by Digital Connections, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1 SSDI Application# 2 Exhibit Exhibit 2 SSDI Application Section 2# 3 Exhibit Exhibit 3 Notice of Benefit Termination# 4 Exhibit Exhibit 4 Schedule I Bankruptcy petition)(Oakley, Gregory) (Entered: 09/25/2006)
39 MEMORANDUM AND OPINION. Signed by Judge Robert Echols on 9/26/06. (dt) (Entered: 09/26/2006)
40 ORDER: For the reasons explained in the Memorandum entered contemporaneously herewith, the Motion for Summary Judgment 23 is Denied. This case will proceed to Final Pretrial Conference as previously scheduled on 10/12/06 at 2:00 p.m. Signed by Judge Robert Echols on 9/26/06. (dt) (Entered: 09/26/2006)
41 ORDER: Magistrate Judge certifies this matter as ready for trial, which is presently set for 11/7/06 at 9:00 a.m., with a final pretrial conference before Judge Echols on 10/12/06 at 2:00 p.m. Inasmuch as there appear to be no further proceedings to be conducted before the Magistrate Judge, the Clerk is directed to transmit this file to the District Court. Judge Joe Brown no longer assigned to case. Signed by Judge Joe Brown on 9/28/06. (dt) (Entered: 09/28/2006)
42 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Pre-trial pleadings by Digital Connections, Inc.. Responses due by 10/20/2006 (Oakley, Gregory) (Entered: 10/03/2006)
43 ORDER: Court having been advised by counsel for the parties that this action has been settled. This action is dismissed without prejudice. Signed by Judge Robert Echols on 10/5/06. (dt) (Entered: 10/05/2006)
44 Docket entry no. 43 was entered on the docket in compliance with Rule 58 and/or Rule 79(a) FRCP, on 10/5/06 by hv. (hv) (Entered: 10/06/2006)
45 Joint MOTION For Rule 60(b)(6) Relief From Order Of Dismissal In Order To Enter Consent Decree re 43 Order Dismissing Case by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Consent Decree)(Ramsey, Sally) (Entered: 11/07/2006)

6 of 7

7/26/2007 1:02 PM

CM/ECF - DC V2.5 (October 2005) - Docket Report

https://ecf.tnmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?723529262638957-L_9...

12/05/2006 12/12/2006

46 MOTION to Ascertain Status of Joint Motion for Rule 60(b)(6) Relief from Order of Dismissal in Order to Enter Consent Decree re 45 by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Ramsey, Sally) (Entered: 12/05/2006)
47 CONSENT DECREE: Deft, its officers, agents, employees, and all persons acting in concert with deft are enjoined from engaging in any employment practice which has the purpose or effect of retaliating against any employee, or applicant for employment, for participating in any proceeding under Title VII or for opposing discriminatory employment practices made unlawful under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. In compromise and settlement, deft agrees to pay a total of $20,000.00 compensatory damages. Full payment terms are set forth in the Promissory Note attached as Exhibit B. Deft shall post at its home office the Notice attached as Exhibit A. Signed by Judge Robert Echols on 12/12/06. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-Notice; # 2 Exhibit B-Promissory Note)(gi, ) (Entered: 12/12/2006)

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

07/26/2007 13:00:58

PACER Login: hs0328

Client Code: eeoc

Description: Docket Report Search Criteria: 3:05-cv-00710

Billable Pages: 5

Cost:

0.40

7 of 7

7/26/2007 1:02 PM