1

2

3

4

5

6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8

9 Equal Employment Opportunity)

Commission,

)

10

)

Plaintiff,

)

11

)

v.

)

12

)

)

13 Alamo Rent-A-Car LLC, ANC Rental )

Corporation,

)

14

)

Defendant.

)

15

)

)

16

No. CV 02-1908-PHX-ROS ORDER

17 Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion to Vacate (Doc. #102) and Defendants'
18 Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. #93).
19 Plaintiff is seeking to m ove the trial date from May 22, 2007 to May 29, 2007.
20 Therefore, the trial date will be postponed.
21 As for Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration, this Court has already decided the
22 issue of discrimination in granting partial summary judgment for the Plaintiff. The issue will
23 not be revisited at trial.
24 Accordingly,
25 IT IS ORDERED THAT Plaintiff's Motion to Vacate (Doc. #102) is GRANTED.
26 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT a status conference is set for May 22, 2007
27 at 9:00 a.m.
28

1

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT trial is set for May 29, 2007 at 8:30 a.m.

2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THATDefendant's Motion for Reconsideration (Doc.

3 #93) is DENIED.

4

DATED this 7th day of May, 2007.

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

 
 1

2

3

4

5

6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8

9 Equal Employment Opportunity)

Commission,

)

10

)

Plaintiff,

)

11

)

v.

)

12

)

)

13 Alamo Rent-A-Car LLC, ANC Rental )

Corporation,

)

14

)

Defendant.

)

15

)

)

16

No. CV 02-1908-PHX-ROS ORDER

17 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Quash and Issue Protective Order
18 (Doc. #115). Thomas A. Vierling, the former counsel to Bilan Nur, objects to the production
19 of certain documents on the basis that they areprotected by the attorney-client privilege. He
20 also seeks to quash the subpoena issued for trial testim ony to the extent that questions
21 attempt to elicit answers protected by the attorney-client privilege. The Court agrees.
22 Accordingly,
23 IT IS ORDERED THAT Plaintiff's Motion to Quash and Issue P rotective Order
24 (Doc. #115) is GRANTED.
25 DATED this 22nd day of May, 2007.
26

27

28

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
- 2 -

 
 1

2

3

4

5

6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8

9 Equal Employment Opportunity)

Commission,

)

10

)

Plaintiff,

)

11

)

v.

)

12

)

)

13 Alamo Rent-A-Car LLC, ANC Rental )

Corporation,

)

14

)

Defendant.

)

15

)

)

16

No. CV 02-1908-PHX-ROS ORDER

17 Pending before the Court are Defendant' s Motion in Lim ine RE: Plaintiff' s Lost
18 Wages (Doc. #72), Plaintiff' s Motion in Lim ine RE: Work Perform ance (Doc. #81),
19 Plaintiff's Motion in Lim ine RE: Back Pay (Doc. #82), Plaintiff' s Motion in Lim ine RE:
20 Bankruptcy (Doc. #83), and Plaintiff's Motion in Limine RE: Not Revisiting Liability (Doc.
21 #85).
22 I. Defendant's Motion in Limine RE: Plaintiff's Lost Wages and Compensatory
23 Damages
24 Defendant seeks to exclude any witness testim ony or documents not disclosed in
25 Plaintiff's Rule 26(a) disclosure statements, including evidence of Ms. Nurs' lost wages, lost
26 benefits, and compensatory damages. Defendant argues that while Plaintiff set forth Ms.
27 Nur's estimated back pay in its initial disclosur e statement ($26,800), Plaintiff failed to
28

1 provide any calculation for this total or any documents that detail the basis for this amount.

2 Further, Defendant argues that no information about lost benefits or compensatory damages

3 was provided in Plaintiff's Initial Disclosure Statement, other than the fact that Plaintiff was

4 seeking such damages.

5

Defendant states that it was not until Plaintiffs' 4th supplemental disclosure, received

6 on August 17, 2006, over two years after the close of discovery, that information as to how

7 Plaintiff's lost wages were calculated was provided to them. Defendant further argues that

8 no calculation or dollar amount has ever been provided for lost benefits and compensatory

9 damages.

10

However, it is Plaintiff's position, supported by the record, that several docum ents

11 were disclosed to Defendant that explained how Ms. Nusr'back pay was calculated. Plaintiff

12 states that Ms. Nur's hourly rate, her monthly salary, and the amount she has earned since her

13 employment with Defendant was term inated have all been disclosed to Defendant.

14 Additionally, while it is true that Plaintiff did not timely disclose Plaintiff's W-2 form, this

15 form was prepared by Defendant and copies of it should still be in Defendants' possession.

16

Plaintiff cites Gotthardt v. National R.R. Passenger Corp.,191 F.3d 1148, 1158 (9th

17 Cir. 1999), holding that back pay dam ages "are determined by ‘measuring the difference

18 between actual earnings for the period and those which she would have earned absent the

19 discrimination by de fendant." Plaintiff states that this m ethod of calculating back pay

20 damages is commonplace, and Defendant was in possession of all the information necessary

21 to explain the $26,800 figure that Plaintiffs are seeking. Plaintiff also states that

22 mathematical certainty is not necessary in calculating back pay awards, an approxim ation

23 will do. Real v. Continental Group, Inc. , 627 F.Supp. 434, 451 (N.D.Cal. 1986) (while

24 Plaintiffs testimony, by itself, that his lost compensation was about $25,000 will not support

25 a lost back pay award of $132,000, it is specific enough evidence to justify a reimttitur). The

26 Court agrees.

27

Additionally, Plaintiff argues, Defendant bears the burden of proving any mitigation

28 to back pay, i.e. interimearnings or lack of diligence. Alfred M. Lewis Inc. v. N.L.R.B,.681

- 2 -

1 F.2d 1154, 1156 (C.A.9, 1982) (stating "once the amount of back pay due to the discharged

2 employee [is established], the burden is on the employer to come forward with evidence to

3 mitigate its liability). The record supports Plaintiff's position that Defendant never sought

4 disclosure of any information about Ms. Nur's mitigation efforts or her interim earnings. It

5 follows that Defendant cannot fail to conduct discovery and object to Plaintiffs'disclosures

6 and now move to exclude evidence based on non-disclosure.

7

Plaintiff also makes clear that the only com pensatory damage award that they are

8 seeking is for Plaintiff's emotional damages. They will not be seeking medical expenses,

9 undisclosed benefits, job search or medical expenses.

10

A calculation of dam ages generally requires m ore than setting forth the am ount

11 demanded. City and County of San Francisco v. Tutor-Saliba Corp., 218 F.R.D. 219, 221

12 (N.D.Cal. 2003); Medhekar v. U.S. Dist. Court for the Northern Dist. of Californi,a99 F.3d

13 325, 327 (9th Cir. 1996). The defendant is entitled to a "specific computation" of damages

14 under Rule 26. Id. A party that without substantial justification fails to disclose information

15 required by Rule 26(a) or 26(e)(1), or to amend a prior response to discovery as required by

16 Rule 26(e)(2), is not, unless such failure is harmless, permitted to use as evidence at a trial,

17 at a hearing, or on a m otion any witness or inform ation not so disclosed. Fed.R.Civ.P.

18 37(c)(1). Yeti by Molly, Ltd. v. Deckers Outdoor Corp. , 259 F.3d 1101, 1106 (9th Cir.

19 2001).

20

The Court concludes that the disclosures and computations provided by Plaintiff are

21 sufficient for Rule 26 purposes. Further, even if the Court were to find that the disclosures

22 and computations were insufficient, Defendant has not shown how it was prejudiced in order

23 to justify the severe sanction of exclusion of evidence, as required by Rule 37. SeeFed. R.

24 Civ. P. 37(c)(1). Accordingly, Defendant' s Motion in Limine is denied and Plaintiff may

25 present evidence of Ms. Nur's lost wages, lost benefits, and compensatory damages.

26 II. Plaintiff's Motion in Limine RE: Work Performance

27

Plaintiff argues that any evidence that Ms. Nur received a written warning regarding

28 a personal em ail sent from her work com puter and a verbal warning in response to an

- 3 -

1 argument with a co-worker is inadmissible as irrelevant and prejudicial, claiming that this

2 evidence has no bearing on a trial for damages.

3

In its response, Defendant argues that a motion in limine is premature at this point and

4 that this evidence may be used for impeachment or for some other purpose.

5

Plaintiff is correct at this tim e. In a tr ial for damages, evidence of Plaintiff's work

6 performance is irrelevant and prejudicial. See Fed. R. Evid. 402. But the Court will

7 reconsider the ruling if issues surface at trial to allow its admission. Accordingly, Plaintiff's

8 Motion is granted.

9 III. Plaintiff's Motion in Limine RE: Back Pay

10

Plaintiff argues that Defendant should be precluded from introducing evidence of

11 mitigation of back pay and any offer of reinstatement. Plaintiff argues that this is a matter

12 that should be decided by the Court and should not be presented to the jury.

13

Defendant argues that Plaintiff' s position is incorrect, that the law sta tes that

14 mitigation and whether or not an offer of reinstatement would be accepted is a matter of fact

15 for the jury to decide. See Ninth Circuit ModleJury Instruction 7.3; Smith v. World Ins. Co.,

16 38 F.3d 1456 (9th Cir. 1994).

17

Defendant is correct. In order to reduce the damage award, it is Defendant's burden

18 to show that the Plaintiff failed to mitigate damages, including the amount by which damages

19 would have been m itigated. This includes wh ether or not an offer of reinstatem ent was

20 made. Alfred M. Lewis Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 681 F.2d 1154, 1156 (9th Cir. 1982) (stating that

21 once the amount of back pay due to the employee has been established, the burden is on the

22 employer to come forward with evidence to mitigate its liability). An offer of reinstatement

23 is relevant and admissible evidence to mitigate Defendant's liability. See Fed. R. Evid. 402.

24

Further, Plaintiff argues that Back Pay is an equitable remedy that should be decided

25 by a Court and not a jury. Plaintiff cites Lutz v. Glendale Union High School, 403 F.3d

26 1061, 1069 (9th Cir. 2005), which states that "there is no right to have a jury determine the

27 appropriate amount of back pay under Title VII [and]back pay remains an equitable remedy

28 to be awarded by the district court in its disrcetion." The Court agrees, however, will use the

- 4 -

1 jury in an advisory capacity to determ ine the issue of back pay. See e.g. In re Aircrash

2 Disaster Near Roselawn, Indiana on October 31, 1994, 909 F.Supp. 1083, 1113-14 (N.D.Ill.

3 1995) (empaneling a jury for all issues but treating the jury verdict concerning one of issues

4 as advisory).

5 IV. Evidence and Testimony Regarding Defendant's Bankruptcy

6

For the reasons discussed at the Final Pretrial Conferenc e, Plaintiff' s Motion in

7 Limine will be granted. Defendant is not allowed to introduce evidence of its bankruptcy at

8 trial.

9 V. Evidence Disputing Liability

10

Plaintiff argues that Defendant should bebarred from introducing evidence that would

11 challenge the Court's legal finding that Ms. Nur was discrim inated against by Defendants

12 under Title VII.

13

Defendant responds by arguing that Court statem ents in the context of summ ary

14 judgment rulings are limited for the purpose of determining whether summary judgment is

15 appropriate and not for the purpose of finding facts or making legal conclusions. Coca-Cola

16 Bottling Co. v. Coca-Cola Co., 769 F. Supp. 599, 614 (D. Del 1991). Defendant misstates

17 the law. Coca-Cola states:

18

The denial of a m otion for sum mary judgment is an

interlocutory ruling which establishes no more than that on the

19

summary judgment record there are fact issues which should be

submitted to the trier of fact. Since the record at a trial may be

20

different, such a prelim inary ruling does not determ ine what

issues should be submitted to the jury.

21

This ruling stands for the proposition that when a motion for summary judgment is

22

denied on an issue, the issue is generally one for the jury. In cases when summary judgment

23

is granted, however, the issue may not be relitigated later at trial.

24

Further, Defendant argues tha t the Court cannot decide issues of credibility in a

25

motion for summary judgment context. The Court, however, did not decide the issues before

26

it in summary judgment by weighing the credibility of witnesses. The decision was m ade

27

by the application of law to undisputed facts.

28

- 5 -

1

Also, the Court agrees with Plaintiff that the issue of liability has been decided. The

2 scope of the trial before the jury will only cover damages. Accordingly, Defendant may not

3 present evidence that would dispute their liability for discrimination and Plaintiff's Motion

4 in Limine is granted.

5 VI. Conclusion

6

Accordingly,

7

IT IS ORDERED THAT Defendant's Motion in Limine RE: Plaintiff's Lost Wages

8 (Doc. #72) is DENIED.

9

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT Plaintiff's Motion in Lim ine RE: Wor k

10 Performance (Doc. #81) is GRANTED.

11

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT Plaintiff's Motion in Limine RE: Back Pay

12 (Doc. #82) is DENIED.

13

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THATPlaintiff's Motion in Limine RE: Bankruptcy

14 (Doc. #83) is DENIED.

15

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT Plaintiff's Motion in Lim ine RE: Not

16 Revisiting Liability (Doc. #85) is GRANTED.

17

DATED this 17th day of May, 2007.

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 6 -

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,
Plaintiff, v. Alamo Rent-A-Car, et al.,
Defendants.

)

AMENDED

) JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

)

)

CV02-1908-PHX-ROS

)

)

)

)

)

)

XX Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues have been tried and the jury has rendered its verdict.
Decision by Court. This action came for consideration before the Court. The issues have been considered and a decision has been rendered.
IT IS ORDERED AN ADJUDGED that the Jury having found in favor of Plaintiff against Defendants as follows: Compensatory Damages: $16,000.00 and Punitive Damages: $250,000.00. Back Pay: $21,640.00 and Pre-Judgment Interest: $4,510.00.

August 28, 2007 cc: (all counsel)

RICHARD H. WEARE District Court Executive/Clerk
s/E.Leon By: Deputy Clerk

 
 1

2

3

4

5

6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8

9 Equal Employment Opportunity)

Commission,

)

10

)

Plaintiff,

)

11

)

vs.

)

12

)

)

13 Alamo Rent-A-Car LLC, et al.,

)

)

14

Defendants.

)

)

15

)

)

16

No. CV02-1908-PHX-ROS ORDER

17

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend the Judgement and for Equitable

18 Relief. (Doc. 143). For the reasons stated herein, this Motion will be granted in part and

19 denied in part.

20

BACKGROUND

21

Alamo Rent-A-Car LLC (“Alamo”) hired Bilan Nur, a Muslim woman, as a rental

22 agent in November 1999. (Doc. 62). In 2001, Nur requested permission to wear a head

23 covering at work during her religious holiday Ramadan, but was denied based on Alamo’s

24 dress-code policy. Id. She wore a head covering anyway, and was fired for non-compliance

25 with company policy. Id.

26

The Equal Opportunity Commission sued Alamo, on behalf of Nur, for religious

27 employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §

28 2000e et seq. (Doc. 1). The Court granted summary judgment on the issue of liability.

1 (Doc. 62). The issue of damages was tried by jury. On June 11, 2007, the jury returned a

2 verdict in Plaintiff’s favor and awarded $16,000 in compensatory damages, $250,000 in

3 punitive damages, and an advisory verdict of $21,640 in back pay. (Doc. 137). Judgment

4 was subsequently entered. (Doc. 139).

5

Plaintiff filed a motion to amend the judgment to grant additional back pay, pre-

6 judgment interest, and other injunctive relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e).

7 (Doc. 143).

8

ANALYSIS

9

A. Back Pay

10

Plaintiff asks the Court to award $54,521 in back pay to Nur, rather than the $21,640

11 recommended by the jury. (Doc. 143). Victims of discrimination are entitled to back pay

12 under Title VII. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(g)(1); Caudle v. Bristow Optical Co., 224 F.3d 1014,

13 1020 (9th Cir. 2000). Because back pay is an equitable remedy, it is awarded by the Court

14 in its discretion. Lutz v. Glendale Union High School, 403 F.3d 1061, 1069 (9th Cir. 2005).

15

Nur testified at trial that she lost wages of $54,521. She arrived at this amount by

16 projecting the amount she would have made had she stayed in Alamo’s employ at a salary

17 of $37,922 annually, which amounts to $189,610 over a five-year period. This evidence was

18 supported by her 2001 W-2 form and various pay stubs. She then deducted her actual

19 earnings from the expected earnings and arrived at $54,521 in lost wages. See Gotthardt v.

20 Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp., 191 F.3d 1148, 1158 (9th Cir. 1999) (holding that back pay is

21 determined by “measuring the difference between actual earning [] and those which she

22 would have earned absent the discrimination by defendant”).

23

Nur, however, had a duty to mitigate her damages by using reasonable diligence in

24 finding other suitable employment. See Ford Motor Co. v. EEOC, 458 U.S. 219, 232 (1982);

25 Odima v. Westin Tucson Hotel, 53 F.3d 1484, 1487 (9th Cir. 1995). Consequently, if Alamo

26 unconditionally offered Nur the job she sought and she rejected it, this would toll the accrual

27 of back-pay liability. See Ford Motor Co., 458 U.S. at 232. Alamo presented evidence at

28

- 2 -

1 trial that it unconditionally offered Nur reinstatement with full back pay and benefits and that

2 she rejected it. (Docs. 157, Exs. A & B).

3

Having heard and evaluated all the evidence, the jury found that Nur was entitled to

4 $21,640 in back pay. When calculating back pay, the Court must respect the findings

5 implied by the jury’s verdict. Pals v. Schepel Buick & GMC Truck, Inc., 220 F.3d 495, 501

6 (7th Cir. 2000). While the exact reasons for the jury’s decision are, of course, unknown, the

7 Court finds that the jury’s reduction in back pay from $54,521 to $21,640 reflects an implied

8 finding by the jury that Nur failed to mitigate her damages. If the jury found that Nur

9 rejected Alamo’s unconditional reinstatement offer about seven months after her termination,

10 her damages would be limited to lost wages for this period only. Pro-rating her annual salary

11 for a six-to-seven month period, Nur’s lost wages would be between $18,960 and $22,120.

12 The jury’s award of $21,640 was within this range. Therefore, the Court concludes that the

13 jury impliedly found that: (1) Alamo unconditionally offered Nur the job she sought, (2) she

14 rejected it, and (3) this failure to mitigate damages tolled the accrual of back-pay liability

15

Plaintiff urges that the evidence does not support this implied finding. Plaintiff asserts

16 this on the grounds that: (1) Alamo’s alleged offer of unconditional reinstatement was an

17 “illusory non-offer” because it did not explicitly state that Nur could wear her head covering

18 at work; (2) neither Ms. Nur nor her agent rejected the offer; and (3) if the offer was rejected,

19 this rejection was reasonable.

20

The Court, however, finds sufficient evidence in the record to support the jury’s

21 implied finding that Nur failed to mitigate her damages. First, on June 3, 2003, Alamo sent

22 a letter to Nur’s attorney stating that “[t]he purpose of this letter is to unconditionally offer

23 Ms. Nur reinstatement to her prior position with full back pay and benefits.” (Doc. 157, Ex.

24 A). The jury could have reasonably concluded that to “unconditionally offer” reinstatement

25 meant that Alamo was offering her reinstatement without the condition that she refrain from

26 wearing a head covering.

27

Second, Nur’s attorney sent a letter to Alamo’s counsel stating he had received

28 Alamo’s June 3, 2003 Letter, and that Nur decided to bring her claim to the EEOC. Id. at Ex.

- 3 -

1 B. It is entirely reasonable to view this letter as a rejection of Alamo’s offer for unconditional

2 reinstatement.

3

And third, the rejection of the unconditional offer could be deemed reasonable if the

4 jury concluded that the offer meant that Nur could wear a head covering, which, as discussed

5 above, it likely did.

6

Consequently, the Court adopts the jury’s implied findings and award of $21,640 in

7 back pay.

8

B. Pre-Judgment Interest

9

Plaintiff also seeks to recover pre-judgment interest on the back-pay award. An award

10 of pre-judgment interest serves the goal of making an employee whole after a defendant has

11 violated Title VII. Ford v. Alforo, 785 F.2d 835, 842 (9th Cir. 1986). Plaintiff computed this

12 interest to be $4,510 based on the IRS prime rate and a back-pay award of $21,640. (Doc.

13 143 & Ex. 4). The Court takes judicial notice of the IRS interest rates used for the

14 computation. See Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)(2) (permitting judicial notice of a fact that is “not

15 subject to reasonable dispute in that it is capable of accurate and ready determination by

16 resort to sources who accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned”).

17

Having reviewed Plaintiff’s methodology in determining the amount of interest, which

18 the Court deems reasonable, the Court awards prejudgement interest in the amount of $4,510.

19

C. Injunctive Relief

20

Plaintiff also requests injunctive relief, including, but not limited to, training, posting

21 a notice regarding retaliation, policy changes, and reporting requirements. (Doc. 143). Title

22 VII authorizes the Court to order equitable relief once an employer has been deemed guilty

23 of unlawful employment practices. 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-5(g)(1); EEOC v. Goodyear

24 Aerospace Corp., 813 F.2d 1539, 1543-44 (9th Cir. 1987).

25

While, “[g]enerally, a person subjected to employment discrimination is entitled to

26 an injunction against future discrimination unless the employer proves it is unlikely to repeat

27 the practice,” EEOC v. Goodyear Aerospace Corp., 813 F.2d 1539, 1544 (9th Cir. 1987)

28 (internal citations omitted), it is undisputed that Defendants no longer operate and are

- 4 -

1 bankrupt companies. (Doc. 6). As such, there is no danger of recurrent violations.

2 Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief will, therefore, be denied.

3

CONCLUSION

4

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend the Judgment and for Equitable

5 Relief, (Doc. 143), is GRANTED with respect to the award of pre-judgment interest and

6 DENIED with respect to all other requested relief.

7

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Judgment (Doc. 139) shall be amended in the

8 following manner: “the Jury having found in favor of Plaintiff against Defendants as follows:

9 Lost Wages, subject to her duty to mitigate: $21,640; Compensatory Damages: $16,000;

10 Punitive Damages: $250,000” shall be changed to: “the Jury having found in favor of

11 Plaintiff against Defendants as follows: Compensatory Damages: $16,000 and Punitive

12 Damages: $250,000. The Court having found in favor of Plaintiff against Defendants as

13 follows: Back Pay: $21,640 and Pre-Judgment Interest: $4,510.”

14

15

DATED this 28th day of August, 2007.

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 5 -

 
 ",

1 Mary Jo O'Neill #005924
C. Emanuel Smith
2 P. David Lopez
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
3 Phoenix District Office
3300 North Central Avenue, Suite 690
4 Phoenix, Ari~ona 85012-9688
Telephone: (602) 640-5016
5 Fax: (602) 640~50Q9

6 Attorneys for Plaintiff

7

8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

10 E'lual !:;mployment Opportunity
11 Commission,

12

Plaintiff,

13

vs.

14 Alamo Rent-A-Car LLC, ANC Rental Corporation,
15 Defendants.
16

COMPLAINT (Jury Trial Demanded)

17

18

NATURE OF THE ACTION

19

This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as

20 amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. ("Title VJI") and Title I of the Civil Rights Act

21 of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981 a, to correct unlawful employment practices on the

22 basis of religion and to provide appropriate relief to Slian Nur who was adversely

23 affected by such practices. The EEOC alleges Defendants Alamo Rent-A-Car

24 LLC and ANC Rental Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Aiamo")

25 discriminated against Silan Nur because of her religion, Islam, by failing to

26 accommodate her religious beliefs. and disciplining, suspending and discharging

27 her because of her religion.

28

CD

,\

1

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2

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

3 1331,1337,1343 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to

4 Sections 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title Vii of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended,

5 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(1)(1) and (3); §§2000e-6 and Section 102 of the Civil Rights

6 Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a.

7

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

8 being committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the

9 District of Arizona.

10

PARTIES

11

3. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the

12 "Commission"), is the agency of the United States of America charged with the

13' administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title Vii, and is expressly

14 authorized·to bring this action by Section 706(1)(1) and (3) otTitle VII, 42 U.S.C.

15 § 2000e-5(1)(1) and (3).

16

4. At all relevant times, Defendants Alamo Rent-A-Car LLC and ANC

17 Rental Corporation (Alamo or Defendants) have continuously been Arizona

18 corporations doing business in the State of Arizona, and the city of Phoenix and

19 have continuously had at least 15 employees.

20

5. At all relevant times, Defendants have continuously been employers

21 engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections

22 701(b), (g) and (h) ofTitie VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(b), (g) and (h).

23

STATEMENT OF CLAIMS

24

6. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Bilan Nur

25 filed a charge with the Commission alleging violations of Title Vii by Defendants.

26 All administrative conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been

27 fulfilled.

28

2

1

7. Since at least November, 2001 Defendants have engaged in

2 unlawful employment practices at one of its Phoenix, Arizona facilities in violabon

3 of Section 703(a) otTitie VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a) by discriminat-ing against

4 Bilan Nur on the basis of her religion when they failed to accommodate her

5 religious beliefs and when they disciplined her, suspended her and discharged

6 her because of her religion.

7

8. Respondent, Alamo Rental Car. refused to accommodate Charging

8 Party Bilan Nur's reiigious beliefs, disciplined and suspended her because of her

9 religion, Islam, and terminated her from her position as Customer Service

10 Representative because of her religion. Muslim.

11

9. Ms. Nur, who was 20 years old at the time of the termination,

12 recently immigrated to the United States from Somalia during Somalia's civil war.

13'

10. In November, 1999, Defendants hired Ms. Nur as a Customer

14 Service Representative.

15

11. In Ihis position, she worked al the front desk, 9reeted customers,

16 rented them cars and dealt with customer service issues. This was one of Ms.

17 Nur's first job in the United States.

18

12. Ms. Nur's job performance was exemplary up until her termination.

19

13. Ms. Nur's Muslim faith requires her to cover her head with a scarf

20 during the month of Ramadan.

21

14. Respondent permitled Ms. Nur to observe this religious belief of

22 wearing a head scarf during Ramadan in 1999 and 2000.

23

15. In or around late November/earty December, 2001, Defendants'

24 City Manager told Ms. Nur for the first time that she was in violation of the dress

25 code for wearing the scarf and mandated tllal she remove it.

26

16. She was told by Defendants that she had to remove the head scarf

27 or she would be fired.
28

J

1

17. Ms. Nur offered to wear a company issued scarf with the Alamo logo

2 as a compromise, but Defendants rejected Ms. Nur's offer.

3

18. Instead, Defendants disciplined, suspended and, on approximately

4 December 6, 2001, discharged Ms. Nur for wearing a scarf to work over her hair

5 due to her religious beliefs. Ms. Nur was wearing the scarf with the Alamo logo

6 the day of her termination.

7

1g. This decision was approved by Defendants' Corporate Human

8 Resources and Legal Department.

9

20. Defendants' dress code does not, in fact, prohibit head coverings. It

10 merely states "[p]lain hair pins or rubber bands should never be visible and can

11 be concealed by using the Alamo scarf."

12

21. The effect of the practices complained of in paragraphs 7-20 above

13· has been to deprive Bilan Nur of equai employment opportunities and otherwise

14 adversely affect her status as an employee because of her religion.

15

22. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs 7-20

16 above were and are intentional.

17

23. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs 7-20

18 above were and are done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally

19 protected rights of Bilan Nur.

20

f'.R!.\YER FOR RELIEF

21

WHEREFORE, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court

22

A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendants, its officers,

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

24 engaging in discrimination by failing to accommodate religious beliefs and any

25 other employment practice which discriminates on the basis of religion, and

26 retaliating against employees because they oppose practices made unlawful by

27 Title VII or are participating in a proceeding pursuant to Tille VII.

28

4

1

B. Order Defendants to institute and carry out policies, practices, and

2 programs which provide equal employment opportunities for employees

3 regardless of their religious beliefs and for those who oppose unlawful

4 employment discrimination, and which eradicate the effects of its past and

5 present unlawful employment practices.

6

C. Order Defendants to m"ke whole Bilan Nur by providing appropriate

7 backpay with prejudgment interest, in amounts to be determined at triai, and

8 other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful g employment practices, including. but not limited to. rightful place reinstatement.

10

D. Order Defendants to make whole Bilan Nur by providing

11 compensation for past and future pecuniary iosses resuiting from the unlawful

12 employment practices described above, in amounts to be determined at trial.

13·

E. Order Defendants to make whole Bilan Nur by providing

14 compensation for past and future non-pecuniary losses resulting from the

15 unlawful practices described above, including emotional pain, suffering,

16 inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life and humiliation, in amounts to be

17 determined at trial.

18

F. Order Defendants to pay punitive damages to Bilan Nur for its

19 malicious and/or reckless conduct, described above, in amounts to be determined

20 at trial.

21

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

22 the public interest.

23

H. Award the Commission its costs of this action.

24
_JURY TRIAL DEMAND 25
The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by this
26
Complaint. 27
28

5

1

DATED this 27th day of September, 2002.

2

Respectfully submitted,

3

GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS

4

Associate General Counsel

5

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

6

1801 LStreet NW.

Washington, D.C. 20507

7

8

9

10

11

12 13

C:-~A~-

Supervisory Trial Attorney

14

15

16

17

Trial Attorney

18

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

19

Phoenix District Office

3300 N. Central Ave.bSuite 690

20

Phoenix, Arizona 85 12

(602) 640-5016

21

Attorneys for Plaintiff

22

23

24

2S

26

27

28

6

 
 432 F.Supp.2d 1006 (2006)
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v.
ALAMO RENT-A-CAR LLC; ANC Rental Corporation, Defendants.
No. 02-01908-PHX-ROS.
United States District Court, D. Arizona.
May 26, 2006.
10078 *1007 *1008 C. Emanuel Smith, Mary Joleen O'Neill, P. David Lopez, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff.
Lonnie James Williams, Quarles & Brady Streich Lang LLP, Stephanie J. Quincy, Sherman & Howard LLC, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendants.
ORDER
SILVER, District Judge.
On March 28, 2005, this Court issued a Short Order granting Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's ("EEOC") Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. # 49), with an opinion to follow. This is that opinion.[1]
I. JURISDICTION
This Court has subject matter jurisdiction of the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question), § 1343 (civil rights action), and § 1345 (United States as a plaintiff).
II. BACKGROUND
A. Factual Background
Bilan Nur is a Muslim woman who immigrated to the United States from Somalia in 1998. [Doc. # 50 (Plaintiff's Statement of Undisputed Facts ("PSOF")) ¶¶, 6]. Alamo hired Ms. Nur as a rental agent in November 1999 for a rental agency location on East Washington Street in Phoenix, Arizona. [Id. ¶ 2]. In this position, Ms. Nur rented cars to customers, accepted payment, and answered the telephone; her duties required interaction with clients. [ Id. ¶ 4]. Until the events which led to her termination, Ms. Nur's job performance was "fine." [Id. 115]. While Ms. Nur was employed by Alamo, the company had in effect a "Dress Smart Policy" which promoted a favorable first impression with customers, and expressly prohibited employees from wearing certain clothing and accessories, for example, the wearing of more than one earring, open toe shoes, and half-grown beards. [Id. ¶¶ 9, 13]. Plaintiff states that the Policy did not expressly prohibit the wearing of head coverings; Alamo counters that the Policy prohibits the wearing of any "garment or item of outer clothing not specifically mentioned in the policy ....." [PSOF ¶ 10; Doc. # 56, Defendant's Controverting Statement of Facts ("DCSOF") ¶ 10].
The Muslim holiday of Ramadan began on November 16, 2001. [Id. ¶ 17; DCSOF ¶ 17]. At some point in November 2001, Plaintiff spoke to Alamo's "City Manager" Victor Bellavia and requested permission to wear a head covering at work during the Ramadan holiday.[2] Mr. Bellavia contacted Alamo's Human Resource Manager 1009 for the Western Region, Heather Phillips, about Ms. Nur's request for an accommodation *1009 to wear a head covering during Ramadan. Ms. Phillips instructed Bellavia that Plaintiff would be allowed to wear a head covering at work in the back of the office, but that she would need to remove the head covering while at the rental counter. [PSOF ¶ 22]. Alamo did not excuse Ms. Nur from working at the rental counter during Ramadan. [Id. ¶ 28].

On December 1, 2001, an Alamo manager, Herman Schilling wrote Ms. Nur a "Counselling [sic] Review," which stated: "You had previously been told by the City Manager that you are not allowed to wear a hat or head covering in your position at work. When I arrived at work this morning you were wearing a veil over your hair and I told you to clock-out and discuss with the City Manager on Sunday." [PSOF, Ex. B (Believe Dep.), Ex. 2]. The next day, December 2, 2001, Ms. Nur received another Counseling Review, pursuant to which she was suspended and advised: " You had been previously informed by the city manager that you are not allowed to wear a hat or head covering in your position at work. You were wearing a veil over your hair this morning. You were sent home yesterday for the same violation and will be sent home again today. You need to discuss this issue with the city manager tomorrow." [Id., Ex. 3]. The next day (December 3, 2001), Ms. Nur again received a counseling review. In this review, Mr. Bellavia and LaShunda Brown advised Ms. Nur: "Bilan you have been verbally warned on several different occassion [sic] reguarding [sic] your work uniform. You were also sent home on 12/01-12/02 for failing to comply with company policy. You are been [sic] suspended pending investigation. You are to return on 12/6/01, 8:30 am, To meet with the City Manager." [Id., Ex. 4].
Also on December 3, 2001, Mr. Bellavia wrote a memorandum to the file summarizing the disciplinary actions taken against Ms. Nur:
Bilan Nur approached me on Tuesday November 20, 2001 asking me if she was allowed to wear a scarf/head covering during her religious holiday Rhamadan. I informed her that I would run it by Human Resources and let her know if she was allowed to do this. Last year in December of 2000 Sal Vargas [Assistant City Manager] informed her she could not do this and made her take it off. Heather Phillips from Human Resources informed me that she was not allowed to have her head covered do [sic] to the fact its [sic] not part of the uniform policy. I informed this to Bilan and she was not happy with the answer. When the Holiday started she insisted on having her head covered. I informed Heather of the situation and she informed me to warn her that she could not wear it and if she continue [sic] to come to working [sic] wearing it Alamo would then start counseling her immediately. On Saturday December 1, 2001 she came to work not meeting the companies [sic] uniform policy, we counseled her on it and sent her home. On Sunday December 2, 2001 Bilan did not follow the company policy on her uniform and we counseled her again and sent her home. On Monday December 3, 2001 Bilan did not follow company policy with regards to Alamo uniform policy, we counseled her and suspended her three-day [sic] which may result in her termination of employment with Alamo Rent a Car.
[PSOF, Ex. B (Bellavia Dep.), Ex. 1]. Alamo terminated Ms. Nur's employment on December 6, 2001 for violation of company rules. [PSOF, Ex. I (Vargas Dep.), Ex. 5]. The termination form indicates that Ms. Nur was not eligible for re-hire. [Id.].
1010 *1010 B. Procedural history
EEOC filed its Complaint on September 27, 2002. [Doc. # 1]. On November 19, 2002, the matter was stayed after Alamo filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. [Doc. # 6]. The automatic stay was lifted by Order filed on April 14, 2003. [Doc. # 11]. EEOC filed the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. # 49) on April 30, 2004 in which it requests judgment regarding liability on its religious discrimination claim. EEOC asserts the claim pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., as amended, on behalf of Bilan Nur, a former employee of Defendants ("Alamo"). Alamo filed its Response on June 18, 2004 (Doc. # 55), followed by EEOC's Reply, filed on July 20, 2004 (Doc. # 59).
III. LEGAL STANDARD ON SUMARY JUDGMENT
A court must grant summary judgment if the pleadings and supporting documents, viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, "show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); see Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986); Jesinger v. Nev. Fed. Credit Union, 24 F.3d 1127, 1130 (9th Cir. 1994). Substantive law determines which facts are material, and "[o]nly disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment." Anderson

v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986); see Jesinger, 24 F.3d at 1130. In addition, the dispute must be genuine, that is, "the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505.
Furthermore, the party opposing summary judgment "may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of [the party's] pleadings, but . . . must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e); see Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586-87, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986); Brinson v. Linda Rose Joint Venture, 53 F.3d 1044, 1049 (9th Cir.1995). There is no issue for trial unless there is sufficient evidence favoring the non-moving party; if the evidence is merely colorable or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249-50, 106 S.Ct. 2505. However, because "[c]redibility determinations, the weighing of evidence, and the drawing of inferences from the facts are jury functions, not those of a judge, . . . [t]he evidence of the non-movant is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor" at the summary judgment stage. Id. at 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505 (citing Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 158-59, 90 S.Ct. 1598, 26 L.Ed.2d 142 (1970)); see Warren v. City of Carlsbad, 58 F.3d 439, 441 (9th Cir.1995).
IV. DISCUSSION
A. Framework
Title VII prohibits as an unlawful employment practice the discharging of an employee because of the employee's religion. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). "Religion" is defined to include "all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief, unless an employer demonstrates that he is unable to reasonably accommodate to an employee's . . . religious observance or practice without undue hardship on the conduct of the employer's business." 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(j). The Ninth Circuit employs a two-step framework to analyze claims of religious 1011 discrimination under Title *1011 VII. Tiano v. Dillard Dep't Stores, Inc., 139 F.3d 679, 681 (9th Cir.1998). Initially, a plaintiff must establish a prima facie case by demonstrating "(1) she had a bona fide religious belief, the practice of which conflicted with an employment duty; (2) she informed her employer of the belief and conflict; and (3) the employer threatened her or subjected her to discriminatory treatment, including discharge, because of her inability to fulfill the job requirements." Id. (citing Heller v. EBB Auto. Co., 8 F.3d 1433, 1438 (9th Cir.1993)). If the plaintiff establishes her prima facie case, the burden shifts to the employer to show one of two things: (1) "that it initiated good faith efforts to accommodate reasonably the employee's religious practices"; or (2) "that it could not reasonably accommodate the employee without undue hardship." Id. If negotiations between employee and employer "do not produce a proposal by the employer that would eliminate the religious conflict, the employer must either accept the employee's proposal or demonstrate that it would cause undue hardship were it to do so." Opuku-Boateng v. California, 95 F.3d 1461, 1467 (9th Cir.1996) (citing EEOC v. Townley Eng'g & Mfg. Co., 859 F.2d 610, 615 (9th Cir. 1988)).
B. Plaintiffs prima facie case
Alamo contends that EEOC has failed to prove a prima facie case of religious discrimination, arguing that Ms. Nur's religious beliefs did not conflict with her job requirements because her "personal practice did not require that she wear a [head covering] at all times during Ramadan." [Doc. # 55 (Def.'s Resp.),p. 4]. Alamo points to evidence that during Ramadan in 2000 (the year prior to the Ramadan at issue), Alamo's management asked Ms. Nur to remove her head covering and she complied, and did not assert a religious need to object to the request. [ Id., p. 5]. Alamo concludes that this evidence supports a question of fact regarding "whether Ms. Nur's religious beliefs are what she is stating in this lawsuit." [Id.]. Similarly, Alamo states that because Ramadan in 2001 began on Friday, November 16 and they say Plaintiff did not request an accommodation permitting her to wear a head covering until Tuesday, November 20, 2001, this could suggest that Ms. Nur's religious beliefs did not actually dictate that she wear a head covering at work under all circumstances. Alamo further states that Plaintiff went to the press with her story immediately after her termination and gave conflicting statements at deposition regarding whether she contacted the press or the press contacted her, arguing this casts doubt on whether Ms. Nur's statement of her religious beliefs is credible. [Id., p. 6].
"[I]t is entirely appropriate, indeed necessary, for a court to engage in analysis of the sincerity as 0907 opposed, of course to the verity0907of someone's religious beliefs in . . . the Title VII context." Philbrook v. Ansonia Bd. of Educ.,

757 F.2d 476, 481 (2d Cir.1985). Viewed in the light most favorable to Alamo, however, the evidence does not support the existence, of a material factual issue regarding the sincerity of Ms. Nur's religious belief at the time of her termination. During Ramadan 2001, Ms. Nur continued to wear a head covering despite warnings from her supervisors that she would be subjected to progressive disciplinary action, and then was terminated because Alamo concluded she had repeatedly violated its official dress policy. Ms. Nur's actions strongly "demonstrate that [s]he attached the utmost religious significance" to her belief that her religion required her to cover her head during Ramadan. Heller v. EBB Auto Co., 8 F.3d 1433, 1439 (9th Cir.1993).
1012 Assistant City Manager Sal Vargas testified that he required Plaintiff to remove *1012 her head covering during Ramadan in 2000, which he stated she did do without raising any objection, religious or otherwise. Alamo contends that this fact raises a question about whether Ms. Nur's belief was sincere in 2001. An analysis of the sincerity of Ms. Nur's belief should "be measured by the employee's words and conduct at the time the conflict arose between the belief and the employment requirement." EEOC v. IBP, Inc., 824 F.Supp. 147, 151 (C.D.Ill.1993). In the Complaint, the EEOC alleges that Alamo discriminated against Ms. Nur with regard to her assertion of her religious belief in November and December 2001, not in 2000. [Doc. # 1 ¶¶ 7, 15, 18]. Although there is a dispute of fact regarding whether Ms. Nur was permitted to wear a head covering during Ramadan in 1999 and 2000,[3] that dispute is not relevant to the sincerity of Ms. Nur's belief in the Fall of 2001, when Ms. Nur's assertions of religious belief led to her termination. Alamo further contends that because in 2001 Ramadan began on November 16, and because Alamo asserts that Ms. Nur did not raise the head covering issue with Mr. Bellavia until November 20, this is evidence that might lead a fact finder to infer that Ms. Nur did not wear a head covering at work during the first few days of Ramadan 2001, i.e., between. November 16 and November 20. [Doc. # 55, p. 5]. Similarly, Alamo suggests that because Ms. Nur was not first disciplined until December 1, 2001, 15 days into the Ramadan holiday, a reasonable fact finder might infer that Plaintiff had acted consistently with the accommodation Alamo offered prior to December 1, thus eroding Plaintiffs claim that Ms. Nur's religious belief was sincere. [DCSOF ¶ 30].
These inferences are not reasonable in the factual context before the Court. Plaintiff testified that when Ramadan began, she started to wear a scarf at work. [PSOF, Ex. A (Nur.Dep.), p. 33]. There is nothing in the record demonstrating that Plaintiff did not wear a head covering at work during Ramadan 2001. The record includes deposition testimony of both Victor Bellavia and LaShunda Brown, who supervised Ms. Nur. Neither Bellavia nor Brown testified that Ms. Nur did not wear a head covering during Ramadan in 2001. In fact, Victor Bellavia's December 3, 2001 memorandum to the file states that "[w]hen the Holiday started [Ms. Nur] insisted on having her head covered." [Doc. # 50 (PSOF), Ex. B, Ex. 1]. LaShunda Brown testified that Ms. Nur advised her that she wanted to wear a head covering "during Ramadan until after Ramadan was over." [DCSOF, p. 15]. The sort of speculation in which Alamo invites the fact finder to indulge does not create a factual dispute for purposes of summary judgment. Nelson v. Pima Cmty. Coll., 83 F.3d 1075, 1081-82 (9th Cir.1996). "When the moving party has carried its burden under Rule 56(c), its opponent must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts." Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Carp., 475 U.S. 574, 586, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). Alamo has not presented specific material facts in the record to reasonably support the inference that Ms. Nur did not wear a head covering during Ramadan 2001, or the further inference that her asserted religious belief was not sincere.
C. Alamo's burden
1013 Because Plaintiff has proven a prima facie case of discrimination, the burden *1013 shifts to Alamo to show one of two things: (1) that it initiated good faith efforts to reasonably accommodate Ms. Nur's religious practices; or (2) that it could not reasonably accommodate her without undue hardship. Tiano, 139 F.3d at 681.
1. Reasonable accommodation
Alamo argues that it made a good faith effort to accommodate Ms. Nur, and that Ms. Nur accepted the accommodation. [Doc. # 55, p. 7]. Alamo states, without citing authority, that "[w]hen an employer makes a good faith effort to accommodate which an employee accepts, the employer has met its obligation under Title VII." [Id.]. Alamo further argues that "[i]f a jury decides that Ms. Nur agreed that the accommodation was reasonable by agreeing to abide by it, Alamo's duty to accommodate would be fulfilled." [Id., p. 8].

Alamo's assertion that it made efforts to reasonably accommodate Plaintiff lack merit. Alamo must demonstrate that it made "some initial step to reasonably accommodate the religious belief' of Ms. Nur (or show that no reasonable accommodation was possible without undue burden). Heller, 8 F.3d at 1440 (internal citation omitted). This obligation requires, at a minimum, that the employer "negotiate with the employee in an effort reasonably to accommodate the employer's religious belief." Id. (internal citation omitted). The accommodation Alamo offered Ms. Nur was that "she would be allowed to wear [a head covering] when she was in the back office . . . but when she went to the rental counter to rent cars in the front of the office, she would have to remove it." [Doc. # 50 (PSOF), Ex. B (Bellavia Dep.) p. 25, 11. 10-14]. It is undisputed that the accommodation Alamo offered Ms. Nur required her to remove her head covering during Ramadan when she served clients but still required her to serve clients, making it impossible for Ms. Nur to avoid removing her head covering at work. [Doc. # 50 (PSOF), Ex. B (Bellavia Dep.), pp. 25-28; Ex. C (Phillips Dep.), pp. 45-49]. Accordingly, Alamo's proposal would have failed to accommodate Ms. Nur's religious conflict, and was not a reasonable accommodation. Thus, Alamo failed to uphold its burden to attempt to accommodate Ms. Nur's beliefs, and was left with the alternative burden to show that permitting Ms. Nur to wear a head covering during Ramadan while dealing with clients would impose an undue hardship. See Anderson v. General Dynamics Convair Aerospace Div., 589 F.2d 397, 401 (9th Cir.1978) ("The burden was on the [employer], not [the plaintiff] to undertake initial steps toward accommodation.").

Alamo seeks to avoid summary judgment by arguing there is a genuine issue of fact whether Ms. Nur accepted Alamo's proposed accommodation. This argument is based on Mr. Bellavia's testimony, as follows:

Q. And did you inform Bilan of this accommodation?

A. Yes.

Q. What did Bilan say?

A. I believe she agreed to it.

Q. Okay. Why do you believe that?

A. Because then later on she told LaShunda that she wasn't going to remove it when she went to the counter.

. . . . .

Q. You said you believe Bilan agreed to that. What's the basis for that statement?

1014

A. That we had a conversation, and I gave her the option that was given to me. I got back to her. We had a conversation that she wanted to wear it. I said I would go to HR. HR came back with the reasonable *1014 accommodation, and I discussed it with her.

Q. Okay. And you said she agreed to it. I'm asking for the basis.

A. I believe she didn't object and say at that conversation that she would say, "Well, this is not good enough" or "I'm not going to do this." She didn't say that.

Q. Did she ever say, "I agree"?

A. She didn't come out and say, you know, those words verbatim.

Q. Okay. Did she say anything comparable to "I agree"?

A. To be honest with you, I couldn't recall the total conversation.

Q. You're not sure whether she verbally agreed to it; correct?

A. No. All I can say is I know she didn't say that she wasn't going to do it.

. . . . .

Q. You testified you communicated that accommodation to Bilan; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. What happened next?
A. I believe she then told LaShunda that she wasn't going to remove her head covering when she went to the rental counter.
Q. When did she so that in proximity to your conversation with Heather [Phillips]?
A. I honestly don't recall.
Q. How did you find out she told LaShunda this?
A. LaShunda told me.
. . . . .
Q. When LaShunda told you that, what did you do?
A. I informed Heather that Bilan didn't want to agree 0907Bilan didn't want to remove her head covering or she informed LaShunda she didn't want to remove her head covering when she went to the rental counter.
Q. What did Heather say?
. . . . .
A. If she didn't remove her head covering when she went to the counter, to start progressive discipline.
[Doc. # 50, Ex. B (Bellavia Dep.), p. 29, ll. 5-13, 16-25; p. 30, ll. 1-15; p. 33, ll. 17-25; p. 34, ll. 1-3, 7-12, 18-20].
The evidence does not support Alamo's position that Ms. Nur accepted the proposed accommodation. The most that a reasonable fact finder could infer from Mr. Bellavia's testimony was that Ms. Nur did not immediately respond to Alamo's proposed accommodation. In fact, Bellavia's testimony states that when Ms. Nur did respond to the proposed accommodation, she rejected it by telling LaShunda Brown that she would refuse to remove her head scarf when she was required to go to the customer counter. Alamo has not raised a material factual issue regarding its burden to show either that it made a good faith effort to accommodate Ms. Nur's religious beliefs or that Ms. Nur accepted the accommodation Alamo offered[4]
2. Undue hardship
An employer need not make an effort to accommodate an employee's religious beliefs if "it can show that any accommodation would impose undue hardship." Heller, 8 F.3d at 1440. "Undue hardship" is created when an 1015 accommodation "results in more than a de minimis *1015 cost to the employer." Id. (citing Ansonia Bd. of Edna v. Philbrook, 479 U.S. 60, 67, 107 S.Ct. 367, 93 L.Ed.2d 305 (1986); TWA, Inc. v. Hardison, 432 U.S. 63, 84, 97 S.Ct. 2264, 53 L.Ed.2d 113 (1977)). "A claim of undue hardship cannot be supported by merely conceivable or hypothetical hardships; instead, it must be supported by proof of `actual imposition on co-workers or disruption of the work routine.'" Tooley v. Martin0907 Marietta Corp., 648 F.2d 1239, 1243 (9th Cir.1981) (quoting Burns v. Southern Pac. Transp. Co., 589 F.2d 403, 406-07 (9th Cir.1978)).
Alamo suggests that permitting Ms. Nur to wear a head covering at the rental counter would result in an undue hardship, concluding simply that "any deviation from [Alamo's] carefully cultivated image is a definite burden." [Doc. # 55, p. 11]. Without supplying any indication of the cost it would have incurred by permitting Ms. Nur to wear a head covering at the rental counter, Alamo simply assumes the question of cost and argues that "the actual issue to be decided [by the jury] is the magnitude of the burden." [Id.]. The record provides no material factual basis for Alamo's conclusions about the cost of "any deviation" from the uniform policy.

Alamo fails to support its assertion of undue burden with anything other than speculation, which is not a basis to establish a genuine issue of material fact. Victor Bellavia testified that it would not have cost Alamo any money to allow Ms. Nur to wear a head scarf while serving customers. [PSOF Ex. B (Bellavia Dep.), p. 63. ll. 20-25]. Mr. Bellavia did state that allowing Ms. Nur to wear a head covering might have affected the efficiency of Alamo's operations by opening the door for other employees to violate the company uniform policy. [Id., p. 64, ll. 4-23]. Bellavia stated that "[t]he only burden I see is other people wanting to break the uniform policy." [Id., p. 67, ll. 1-2]. However, Mr. Bellavia did not believe that allowing Ms. Nur to wear a head covering at the rental counter would affect the impression she would make on customers, or would it negatively impact customer expectations concerning the level of service or quality of the product they would receive, or otherwise create any type of negative expectations with customers. [Id., p. 67, ll. 1-8, 23-25; p. 68, ll. 1-14]. At Bellavia's deposition, EEOC counsel read Alamo's answer to Interrogatory No. 6, which caused the following colloquy:

Q: If you'll look at the first paragraph, the last sentence of the answer, it says, "Deviations from the uniform policy could tarnish Alamo's image and result in undue hardship on the company." Did I read that correctly?

A: That's what it says.

Q: Okay. Now, you're the city manager, obviously; right?

A: Yes.

Q: Okay. As city manager, can you tell me how a deviation from the uniform policy to allow Ms. Nur to wear her head covering with customers during Ramadan will tarnish Alamo's image?

A: No.

Q: Can you tell me how it would result in any type of undue hardship to the company?

A: No.

[Id., p. 69, ll.15-25; p. 70, ll.1-6].

Heather Phillips testified at deposition in relevant part, as follows:

Q: Would it be fair to state that it would not have cost the company any money if you permitted Ms. Nur to wear a scarf at the counter?

1016

*1016 A: I don't0907I don't know if it would. It possibly could.

Q: Did you believe at the time that Ms. Nur was told that she could not wear a scarf at the counter that it would cost the company money?

A: Potentially.

Q: Why is that?

A: Once again, if we allow one person to deviate from the company policy, then we would need to allow everybody to deviate from the policy.

. . . . .

Q: Now, is it your testimony, then, that permitting Ms. Nur an accommodation might have cost the company money?

A: Yes.

Q: But you're not certain that it would have cost any money?

A: Correct.

. . . . .
Q: Do you believe that it would cost any money up front to permit Ms. Nur to wear a scarf as an accommodation?
. . . . .
A: Up front, no.
. . . . .
Q: So you did not believe there would be any out-of-pocket expenses at that time to permit Ms. Nur to wear a scarf at the counter?
A: Up front, no.
Q: Okay. But your concern was that it may affect the image with the customers and cost the company money?
A: Correct.
. . . . .
Q: Other than the customer image, were there any other hardships that you believed would occur if you permitted Ms, Nur to wear the scarf at the counter?
A: No.
Q: Would it be fair to state, then, that your concern with respect to Ms. Nur wearing the scarf was that all the other employees would then also want to deviate from the customer policy, the dress policy?
. . . . .
A: That was0907yes.
Q: And your concern wasn't with respect to Ms, Nur, per se, but it was with respect to opening the flood gate; correct?
A: That's correct.
[PSOF Ex. C (Phillips Dep.), p. 64, 1. 25; p. 65, ll. 1-12; p. 66, 1. 25; p. 67, ll. 1-8, 12-14, 18-25; p. 68, ll 1, 3; p. 69, ll. 8-15, 17-22].
The Ninth Circuit has echoed the Sixth Circuit's "skepticism" about "`hypothetical hardships' based on assumptions about accommodations which have never been put into practice." Anderson, 589 F.2d at 402 (quoting McDaniel v. Essex Int'l, Inc., 571 F.2d 338, 343 (6th Cir.1978) and Draper v. U.S. Pipe & Foundry Co., 527 F.2d 515, 520 (6th Cir.1975)). Although Mr. Bellavia and Ms. Phillips concluded that accommodating Ms. Nur's request to wear a head covering at the rental counter might have imposed a cost on Alamo because it would have opened the floodgates to others violating the uniform policy, Alamo has not supplied any basis for concluding that those opinions were anything other than pure speculation. Additionally, Bellavia's and Phillips's conclusion was based on a faulty understanding of Title VII's protections against discrimination based on religious beliefs, that is, that accommodating Ms. Nur's religious beliefs would have required Alamo to forego enforcement of the uniform policy against any employee ("[o]nce again, if we allow one person to deviate from the company policy, then we would need to allow everybody to deviate from the policy."). Under this faulty reasoning, virtually no accommodation could overcome the undue hardship test. Cf. Anderson, 589 F.2d at 402 1017 ("`If relief under *1017 Title VII can be denied merely because the majority group of employees, who have not suffered discrimination, will be unhappy about it, there will be little hope of correcting the wrongs to which the Act is directed.'") (quoting Franks v. Bowman, 424 U.S. 747, 775, 96 S.Ct. 1251, 47 L.Ed.2d 444 (1976)). Because

"[u]ndue hardship cannot be proved by assumptions nor by opinions based on hypothetical facts[,]" Anderson, 589 F.2d at 402, and the factual dispute Alamo asserts is grounded only in assumptions and opinion based on a hypothetical scenario, Alamo has not raised a material factual issue concerning undue burden.
V. CONCLUSION
Alamo has not presented genuine issues of material fact concerning either EEOC's prima facie case of religious discrimination or Alamo's burden to show that it offered to reasonably accommodate Ms. Nur's religious beliefs or that it could not accommodate those beliefs without undue hardship. Summary judgment has been granted in favor of EEOC on the question of liability.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Motion For Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. # 49) is GRANTED.
[1] The Court did not schedule oral argument on Plaintiff's Motion because the parties submitted memoranda thoroughly discussing the law and evidence in support of their positions, and oral argument would not have aided the Court's decision. See Mahon v. Credit Bur. of Placer County, Inc., 171 F.3d 1197, 1200 (9th Cir.1999), modified, No. 97-017298, 1999 U.S.App. LEXIS 8016; Partridge v. Reich, 141 F.3d 920, 926 (9th Cir.1998).
[2] Ms. Nur testified she approached Mr. Bellavia two weeks prior to the beginning of Ramadan to request she be allowed to wear a head scarf at work during the holiday. [Doc. # 50, Ex. A (Nur Dep.), p. 26, I. 21 to p. 28, 1. 7]. Mr. Bellavia testified that Ms. Nur approached him with the request on November 20, 2001, after the Ramadan holiday had begun. [Id., Ex. B (Bellavia Dep.), Ex. 1].
[3] Plaintiff contends that Alamo allowed her to cover her head during Ramadan in both 1999 and 2000. [PSOF, Ex. F 6]. Alamo counters that Plaintiff was asked to remove her head covering during Ramadan in 2000, and that she did so without comment. [DCSOF 116 (Resp.)].
[4] The evidence established that there were no reasonable exceptions to Alamo's dress policy; in fact, there were no exceptions. See Alamo's Answer To Interrogatory No. 6 discussed at 13-15 herein.
Save trees - read court opinions online on Google Scholar.

 
 CM/ECF - azd

https://ecf.azd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?583508697930405-L_56...

U.S. District Court DISTRICT OF ARIZONA (Phoenix Division) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:02-cv-01908-ROS

CLOSED, STD

EEOC v. Alamo Rent-A-Car, et al Assigned to: Judge Roslyn O Silver Demand: $0 Case in other court: Ninth Circuit, 07-16269
Ninth Circuit, 07-17035 Cause: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

Date Filed: 09/27/2002 Date Terminated: 06/11/2007 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by Mary Joleen O'Neill EEOC 3300 N Central Ave Ste 690 Phoenix, Az 85012-1848 602-640-5044 Fax: 602-640-5009 Email: mary.oneill@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

P David Lopez EEOC 3300 N Central Ave Ste 600 Phoenix, AZ 85012-1848 602-640-5016 Fax: 602-640-5009 Email: patrick.lopez@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sally Clifford Shanley EEOC 3300 N Central Ave Suite 690 Phoenix, AZ 85012-1848 602-640-5007 Fax: 602-640-5009 Email: sally.shanley@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

1 of 16

3/19/2008 1:56 PM

CM/ECF - azd
Movant Bilan Nur Defendant Alamo Rent-A-Car
2 of 16

https://ecf.azd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?583508697930405-L_56...
C Emanuel Smith EEOC 3300 N Central Ave Ste 690 Phoenix, AZ 85012-1848 602-640-5033 Fax: 602-640-5009 Email: emanuel.smith@eeoc.gov TERMINATED: 05/19/2006
Michelle G Marshall EEOC 3300 N Central Ave Ste 690 Phoenix, AZ 85012-1848 602-640-5020 Fax: 602-640-5009 Email: michelle.marshall@eeoc.gov TERMINATED: 04/18/2007
Valerie Leigh Meyer US EEOC 3300 N Central Ave Ste 690 Phoenix, AZ 85012-2504 602-640-4988 Fax: 602-640-5009 Email: valerie.meyer@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Thomas Andrew Vierling Vierling Law Offices 852 N 6th Ave Phoenix, AZ 85003-0001 (602)234-2151 Fax: (602)274-7202 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lonnie James Williams Quarles & Brady LLP 1 Renaissance Sq 2 N Central Ave Phoenix, AZ 85004-2391 602-229-5300 Fax: 602-420-5001
3/19/2008 1:56 PM

CM/ECF - azd

https://ecf.azd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?583508697930405-L_56...

Defendant ANC Rental Corporation

Email: lwilliams@quarles.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephanie J Quincy Sherman & Howard LLC 1850 N Central Ave Ste 500 Phoenix, AZ 85004-5500 602-636-2000 Fax: 602-234-7979 Email: squincy@sah.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carrie Marie Francis Quarles & Brady LLP 1 Renaisance Sq 2 N Central Ave Phoenix, AZ 85004-2391 602-229-5728 Fax: 602-420-5028 Email: cfrancis@quarles.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lonnie James Williams (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephanie J Quincy (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carrie Marie Francis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 09/27/2002 10/07/2002
10/07/2002

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT FILED (LSP) (Entered: 09/27/2002)
2 RETURN OF SERVICE EXECUTED summons/complaint upon dft Alamo Rent-A-Car on 9/30/02 in Phoenix, AZ (DMT) (Entered: 10/09/2002)
3 RETURN OF SERVICE EXECUTED summons/complaint upon dft ANC Rental Corp on 9/30/02 in Phoenix, AZ (DMT) (Entered: 10/09/2002)

3 of 16

3/19/2008 1:56 PM

CM/ECF - azd

https://ecf.azd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?583508697930405-L_56...

10/17/2002 10/23/2002 11/19/2002 12/03/2002 12/12/2002 04/01/2003 04/09/2003 04/14/2003 05/09/2003 05/14/2003 05/23/2003
05/30/2003 06/02/2003
06/02/2003

4 MOTION to extend time to answer the Complaint (thru 11/19/02) by dfts [4-1] (MAP) (Entered: 10/22/2002)
5 ORDER by Judge Roslyn O. Silver granting motion to extend time until 11/19/02 to answer the Complaint by dfts [4-1] (cc: all counsel) (KMG) (Entered: 10/23/2002)
6 Case stayed as to dfts NOTICE of Automatic Stay by dfts Alamo Rent-A-Car and ANC Rental Corp of filing bankruptcy Chapter 11 (former emp) (Entered: 11/22/2002)
7 RESPONSE (Notice of Position) by pla EEOC to Alamo's NOTICE of Automatic Stay of filing Chapter 11 bankruptcy [6-1], [6-2] (former emp) (Entered: 12/09/2002)
8 ANSWER and affirmative defenses to complaint [1-1] by dfts Alamo Rent-A-Car and ANC Rental Corp (former emp) (Entered: 12/13/2002)
9 NOTICE OF PREPAREEDNESS FOR AND MOTION for scheduling of Rule 16 conference by pla [9-1] (CMM) (Entered: 04/03/2003)
10 ORDER SETTING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE by Judge Roslyn O. Silver ; prel scheduling conf set for 9:00 5/23/03 (cc: all counsel) (CMM) (Entered: 04/09/2003)
11 ORDER by Judge Roslyn O. Silver that the automatic stay is vacated re [6-1], [6-2] NOTICE of Automatic Stay by dfts Alamo Rent-A-Car and ANC Rental Corp of filing bankruptcy Chapter 11 is vacated (cc: all counsel) (CMM) (Entered: 04/14/2003)
12 PROPOSED CASE MGT PLAN by pla, dfts (CMM) (Entered: 05/12/2003)
13 NOTICE of service of discovery by pla - first request for production of documents and first set of non-uniform interrogatories. (CMM) (Entered: 05/16/2003)
14 MINUTE ENTRY before Judge Roslyn O. Silver. Crt Rptr: David Lee. Appearances: P. David Lopez for Plaintiff and Lonnie Williams for Defendant. This is the time set for Rule 16 Conference. Court and counsel discuss the status of the case. Counsel are to resolve the issue of whether ANC Rental Corp. should be a party defendant by no later than June 6, 2003 and notify the Court of the status of that issue. IT IS ORDERED that counsel submit the proposed Rule 16 Scheduling Order by no later than May 30, 2003. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED referring this case to Magistrate Judge Virginia A. Mathis for setting of a settlement conference. Counsel are directed to contact Judge Mathis' office to schedule the settlement conference. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED finding the motion for scheduling of Rule 16 conference by pla [9-1] moot. [cc: ROS, VAM] [14-2] (SJF) (Entered: 05/23/2003)
16 NOTICE of compliance of initial disclosure statement pursuant to FRCivP 26(a) by dfts (CMM) (Entered: 06/02/2003)
15 NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE AND SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT ORDER by Mag Judge Virginia A. Mathis ; settlement conference set for 1:30 7/8/03 , before Mag Judge Virginia A. Mathis ; at least 5 court days before the conference parties shall lodge with the magistrate judge a settlement conference statement, which should not be filed with the clerk of court. (cc: all counsel,ros) (CMM) (Entered: 06/02/2003)
17 NOTICE of compliance of initial disclosure statement pursuant to FRCivP 26(a) by pla (CMM) (Entered: 06/03/2003)

4 of 16

3/19/2008 1:56 PM

CM/ECF - azd

https://ecf.azd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?583508697930405-L_56...

06/04/2003
06/17/2003 06/20/2003 06/24/2003 06/25/2003 07/07/2003
07/30/2003 08/13/2003 08/13/2003 08/13/2003 08/13/2003 09/08/2003 09/08/2003 09/08/2003 09/11/2003 09/23/2003

18 RULE 16 SCHEDULING ORDER by Judge Roslyn O. Silver ; discovery due 3/19/04 ; dispositive motions due 4/30/04 (cc: all counsel) re: order (scheduling) [18-1] (CMM) (Entered: 06/04/2003)
19 Transcript Designation and Ordering Form by pla EEOC re hearing held 5/23/03 (former emp) (Entered: 06/19/2003)
20 STIPULATION to extend time to answer pla's discovery (to 7/18/03) by pla, dfts (LAD) (Entered: 06/24/2003)
22 STIPULATION to Continue Settlement Conference by pla, dft (KMG) (Entered: 06/26/2003)
21 ORDER by Judge Roslyn O. Silver granting stipulation to extend time to answer pla's discovery to 7/18/03 by pla, dfts (cc: all counsel) (CMM) (Entered: 06/25/2003)
23 ORDER by Mag Judge Virginia A. Mathis ; settlement conference reset for 9:30 7/30/03 , before Mag Judge Virginia A. Mathis Settlement conserence statements shall be provided no later than 7/28/03 (cc: all counsel) (CMM) (Entered: 07/07/2003)
24 MINUTE ENTRY before Mag Judge Virginia A. Mathis. ; settlement conference held, no settlement reached [24-2] (CMM) (Entered: 08/01/2003)
25 NOTICE by pla OF TAKING DEPO OF LaShanda Brown on the following date(s): 8/22/03 at 3:30 pm (CMM) (Entered: 08/15/2003)
26 NOTICE by pla OF TAKING DEPO OF Victor Bellavia on the following date(s): 8/22/03 at 9:#0 am (CMM) (Entered: 08/15/2003)
27 NOTICE by pla OF TAKING DEPO OF Sal Vargas on the following date(s): 8/22/03 at 1:30 pm (CMM) (Entered: 08/15/2003)
28 NOTICE by pla OF TAKING DEPO OF Heather Phillips on the following date(s): 8/25/03 at 10:00 am (CMM) (Entered: 08/15/2003)
29 First Amended NOTICE by pla OF TAKING DEPO OF Victor Bellavia on the following date(s): 9/18/03 (SAT) (Entered: 09/10/2003)
30 First Amended NOTICE by pla OF TAKING DEPO OF LaShunda Brown on the following date(s): 9/18/03 (SAT) (Entered: 09/10/2003)
31 First Amended NOTICE by pla OF TAKING DEPO OF Sal Vargas on the following date(s): 9/19/03 (SAT) (Entered: 09/10/2003)
32 NOTICE of service of discovery by pla - second reqeust for production of documents. (CMM) (Entered: 09/15/2003)
33 MINUTE ORDER: The Court has received and reviewed the First Notice of Discovery and Settlement. On Court's motion, IT IS ORDERED setting an Interim Rule 16 Conference/Status Hearing on March 26, 2004 at 11:00 a.m. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that counsel file a joint status memo by March 19, 2004 which sets out the status of the case, the status of any settlement negotiations, and whether counsel anticipate filing a dispositive motion. (cc: all counsel) [33-2] (SJF) (Entered: 09/23/2003)

5 of 16

3/19/2008 1:56 PM

CM/ECF - azd

https://ecf.azd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?583508697930405-L_56...

10/16/2003 10/24/2003 11/06/2003 11/19/2003 12/05/2003 02/23/2004
02/25/2004 03/11/2004 03/12/2004 03/17/2004 03/19/2004 03/19/2004 03/23/2004
03/24/2004
04/16/2004
04/30/2004
04/30/2004

34 SECOND AMENDED NOTICE by pla OF TAKING DEPO OF Sal Vargas on the following date(s): 10/24/03 at 1:00 pm (CMM) (Entered: 10/20/2003)
35 FIRST AMENDED NOTICE by pla OF TAKING DEPO OF Heather Phillips on the following date(s): 10/31/03 at 10:00 am (CMM) (Entered: 10/28/2003)
36 SECOND AMENDED NOTICE by pla OF TAKING DEPO OF Heather Phillips on the following date(s): 11/7/03 at 10:00 am (CMM) (Entered: 11/06/2003)
37 THIRD AMENDED NOTICE by pla EEOC OF TAKING DEPO OF Sal Vargas on the following date(s): 11/20/03 (MAP) (Entered: 11/19/2003)
38 FOURTH AMENDED NOTICE by pla EEOC OF TAKING DEPO OF Sal VArgas on the following date(s): 12/10/03 (MAP) (Entered: 12/08/2003)
40 NOTICE of service of discovery by pla - first request for admissions to dfts, second set of non-uniform interrogatories, and third request for production of documents and tangible things. (CMM) (Entered: 02/26/2004)
39 NOTICE of service of discovery by pla EEOC . (MAP) (Entered: 02/26/2004)
41 NOTICE by pla OF TAKING DEPO OF Kelly Buick on the following date(s): 3/17/04 at 8:30 am (CMM) (Entered: 03/12/2004)
42 MOTION fow two-week extension of discovery deadline (until 4/2/04) by pla [42-1] (first request) (CMM) (Entered: 03/15/2004)
43 STIPULATION re January 24, 2002 letter from Teresa Tafalous to the EEOC by pla, dfts (CMM) (Entered: 03/19/2004)
44 JOINT STATUS REPORT by pla, dfts (CMM) (Entered: 03/23/2004)
45 NOTICE of service of third supplemental disclosure statement pursuant to FRCivP 26(a) by pla (CMM) (Entered: 03/23/2004)
46 MINUTE ORDER: The Court has been informed, in the most recent status report, that counsel intend to file a dispositive motion; therefore, status hearing set March 26, 2004 is vacated. (cc: all counsel) [46-2] (SJF) (Entered: 03/23/2004)
47 ORDER by Judge Stephen M McNamee for Roslyn O. Silver stipulation re January 24, 2002 letter from Teresa Tafalous to the EEOC by pla, dfts. Parties shall not contest the authenticity of the 1/24/02 letter from Teresa Tafalous or the authority of Ms Tafalous to submit exhibit to EEOC on behalf of dfts (cc: all counsel) (DMT) (Entered: 03/24/2004)
48 NOTICE by dfts of change of address for counsel Lonnie J. Williams, Jr: Quarles & Brady Streich Lang LLP, One Renaissance Square, Two North Central Avenue, Phoenix, AZ 85004-2391, 602.229.5300 (CMM) (Entered: 04/21/2004)
49 MOTION for partial summary judgment re religious discrimination in violation of Title VII of the civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by pla [49-1] (CMM) (Entered: 05/05/2004)
50 STATEMENT OF FACTS by pla re motion for partial summary judgment re religious discrimination in violation of Title VII of the civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by pla [49-1] [49-1] (CMM) (Entered: 05/05/2004)

6 of 16

3/19/2008 1:56 PM

CM/ECF - azd

https://ecf.azd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?583508697930405-L_56...

05/07/2004 05/13/2004 05/19/2004 06/17/2004 06/18/2004 06/18/2004 07/06/2004 07/08/2004 07/20/2004 03/31/2005 05/19/2006 05/26/2006 06/30/2006 06/30/2006 06/30/2006

51 ORDER by Judge Roslyn O. Silver granting motion fow two-week extension of discovery deadline (until 4/2/04) by pla [42-1] (first request) (cc: all counsel) (MAP) (Entered: 05/07/2004)
52 STIPULATION for extension of time until 6/18/04 for dfts to respond to pla motion for summary judgment by pla, dfts (CMM) (Entered: 05/19/2004)
53 ORDER by Judge Roslyn O. Silver granting stipulation for extension of time until 6/18/04 for dfts to respond to pla motion for summary judgment by pla, dfts (cc: all counsel) (CMM) (Entered: 05/19/2004)
54 NOTICE OF FILING ORIGINAL SIGNED AFFIDAVIT of Bilan Nur in support of statement of facts re motion for summary judgment [50-1] by pla (CMM) (Entered: 06/18/2004)
55 RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION by dfts to motion for partial summary judgment re religious discrimination in violation of Title VII of the civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by pla [49-1] (CMM) (Entered: 06/21/2004)
56 CONTROVERTING STATEMENT OF FACTS by dfts in opposition to pla motion for summary judgment [55-1] (CMM) (Entered: 06/21/2004)
57 STIPULATION for extension of time until 7/20/04 for pla to reply to motion for partial summary judgment by pla, dfts (CMM) Modified on 07/06/2004 (Entered: 07/06/2004)
58 ORDER by Judge Roslyn O. Silver granting stipulation for extension of time until 7/20/04 for pla to reply to motion for partial summary judgment by pla, dfts (cc: all counsel) (CMM) (Entered: 07/08/2004)
59 REPLY by pla to response to motion for partial summary judgment re religious discrimination in violation of Title VII of the civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by pla [49-1] (CMM) (Entered: 07/21/2004)
60 ORDER by Judge Roslyn O. Silver granting motion for partial summary judgment re religious discrimination in violation of Title VII of the civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by pla [49-1] (cc: all counsel) (CMM) (Entered: 04/04/2005)
61 NOTICE of Attorney Substitution by Sally Clifford Shanley (Shanley, Sally) (Entered: 05/19/2006)
62 ORDER granting 49 MOTION for partial summary judgment re religious discrimination in violation of Title VII of the civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by pla. Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 05/26/06. (KCS) (Entered: 05/26/2006)
63 First MOTION for Extension of Time TO FILE PROPOSED JOINT PRETRIAL ORDER by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1)(Shanley, Sally) (Entered: 06/30/2006)
64 NOTICE of Attorney Substitution by Carrie Marie Francis (Francis, Carrie) (Entered: 06/30/2006)
65 RESPONSE to Motion re 63 First MOTION for Extension of Time TO FILE PROPOSED JOINT PRETRIAL ORDER filed by Alamo Rent-A-Car, ANC Rental Corp. (Francis, Carrie) (Entered: 06/30/2006)

7 of 16

3/19/2008 1:56 PM

CM/ECF - azd

https://ecf.azd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?583508697930405-L_56...

07/07/2006 07/12/2006
07/13/2006
07/19/2006
08/14/2006 08/18/2006 08/24/2006 08/24/2006 08/24/2006 08/24/2006 08/24/2006 08/24/2006 08/24/2006 08/24/2006 08/24/2006

66 ORDER granting 63 Motion for Extension of Time. The parties shall file the Proposed Joint Pretrial Order by August 24, 2006. Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 07/07/06. (KCS) (Entered: 07/07/2006)
67 ORDER re 65 RESPONSE to Pla's Unopposed Motion re 63 for Extension of Time TO FILE PROPOSED JOINT PRETRIAL ORDER, Dfts seek extensions, with they contend are unopposed, for additional filings. The parties shall file a stipulation and proposed amended Rule 16 Order, after which time the Court will consider Dfts' request. Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 7/12/06. (KMG, ) (Entered: 07/12/2006)
68 Joint MOTION to Continue Time to File Motions in Limine, Joint Statement of the Case, Jury Instructions, Verdict Form, Proposed Voir Dire, and Trial Memorandum by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Shanley, Sally) (Entered: 07/13/2006)
69 ORDER granting the parties' 68 Motion to Continue; ORDERED that the parties file the motions in limine, joint stipulated voir dire, joint stipulated verdict forms, joint statement of the case, jury instructions and a trial memorandum by 8/24/06. Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 7/19/2006. (LAD) (Entered: 07/19/2006)
70 NOTICE of Appearance by Michelle G Marshall on behalf of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Marshall, Michelle) (Entered: 08/14/2006)
71 Notice re Service of Fourth Supplemental Disclosure Statement by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Lopez, P) (Entered: 08/18/2006)
72 MOTION in Limine re: Plaintiff's Lost Wages/Benefits and Compensatory Damages by Alamo Rent-A-Car, ANC Rental Corp. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit a-c# 2 Exhibit d-f)(Francis, Carrie) (Entered: 08/24/2006)
73 Notice re Errata by Alamo Rent-A-Car, ANC Rental Corp re 72 MOTION in Limine re: Plaintiff's Lost Wages/Benefits and Compensatory Damages (Attachments: # 1 Errata documents)(Francis, Carrie) (Entered: 08/24/2006)
74 TRIAL BRIEF Defendant's Trial Memorandum of Law by Alamo Rent-A-Car, ANC Rental Corp. (Francis, Carrie) (Entered: 08/24/2006)
75 Proposed Jury Instructions by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Alamo Rent-A-Car, ANC Rental Corp. (Lopez, P) (Entered: 08/24/2006)
76 Proposed Voir Dire by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Alamo Rent-A-Car, ANC Rental Corp. (Lopez, P) (Entered: 08/24/2006)
77 STATEMENT of the Case (Joint) by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Defendants Alamo Rent-A-Car, ANC Rental Corp. (Lopez, P) (Entered: 08/24/2006)
78 Notice of Filing Proposed Pretrial Order filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Alamo Rent-A-Car, ANC Rental Corp (Lopez, P) (Entered: 08/24/2006)
79 Notice re Joint Form of Verdict by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Alamo Rent-A-Car, ANC Rental Corp (Lopez, P) (Entered: 08/24/2006)
80 Notice re Joint Juror Questionnaire by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Alamo Rent-A-Car, ANC Rental Corp (Lopez, P) (Entered: 08/24/2006)

8 of 16

3/19/2008 1:56 PM

CM/ECF - azd

https://ecf.azd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?583508697930405-L_56...

08/24/2006 08/24/2006 08/24/2006 08/24/2006 08/24/2006 09/11/2006 09/11/2006 09/11/2006 09/11/2006 09/11/2006
12/18/2006
01/05/2007 02/09/2007 02/14/2007
02/23/2007

81 MOTION in Limine re: Work Performance by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Lopez, P) (Entered: 08/24/2006)
82 MOTION in Limine re: Back Pay by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Lopez, P) (Entered: 08/24/2006)
83 MOTION in Limine re: Bankruptcy by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Lopez, P) (Entered: 08/24/2006)
84 TRIAL BRIEF by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Lopez, P) (Entered: 08/24/2006)
85 MOTION in Limine re: Not Revisiting Liability by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A and B)(Lopez, P) (Entered: 08/24/2006)
86 RESPONSE in Opposition re 81 MOTION in Limine re: Work Performance filed by Alamo Rent-A-Car, ANC Rental Corp. (Francis, Carrie) (Entered: 09/11/2006)
87 RESPONSE in Opposition re 82 MOTION in Limine re: Back Pay filed by Alamo Rent-A-Car, ANC Rental Corp. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Francis, Carrie) (Entered: 09/11/2006)
88 RESPONSE in Opposition re 85 MOTION in Limine re: Not Revisiting Liability filed by Alamo Rent-A-Car, ANC Rental Corp. (Francis, Carrie) (Entered: 09/11/2006)
89 RESPONSE to Motion re 83 MOTION in Limine re: Bankruptcy filed by Alamo Rent-A-Car. (Williams, Lonnie) (Entered: 09/11/2006)
90 RESPONSE to Motion re 72 MOTION in Limine re: Plaintiff's Lost Wages/Benefits and Compensatory Damages filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit List# 2 Exhibits A thru D# 3 Exhibits E to F# 4 Exhibit G# 5 Exhibits H to J)(Lopez, P) (Entered: 09/11/2006)
91 ORDER - A Pretrial Conference is set for 1/11/2007 at 1:30 P.M. IT IS ORDERED this hearing is VACATED AND RESET to 2/16/2007 at 1:30 P.M. in Courtroom 604, 401 West Washington Street, Phoenix, AZ 85003 before Judge Roslyn O Silver. Document deadlines remain in accordance with the new hearing date. Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 12/18/2006. (ROS, ) (Entered: 12/18/2006)
92 Notice re Law Firm Name Change by Alamo Rent-A-Car (Williams, Lonnie) (Entered: 01/05/2007)
93 MOTION for Reconsideration re Court Order Dated May 26, 2006, Granting Partial Summary Judgment to Plaintiff by Alamo Rent-A-Car, ANC Rental Corp. (Francis, Carrie) (Entered: 02/09/2007)
94 ORDER - A Final Pretrial Conference is set for 2/16/2007 at 1:30 P.M. IT IS ORDERED this hearing is VACATED AND RESET to 3/16/2007 at 1:30 P.M. in Courtroom 604, 401 West Washington Street, Phoenix, AZ 85003 before Judge Roslyn O Silver. Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 02/14/2007. (ROS, ) (Entered: 02/14/2007)
95 MOTION for Extension of Time for Pretrial Conference by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Lopez, P) (Entered: 02/23/2007)

9 of 16

3/19/2008 1:56 PM

CM/ECF - azd

https://ecf.azd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?583508697930405-L_56...

02/27/2007 04/18/2007 04/20/2007
04/27/2007
04/27/2007 05/02/2007 05/02/2007 05/02/2007 05/03/2007 05/07/2007
05/07/2007 05/08/2007
05/08/2007

96 ORDER granting 95 Motion for Extension of Time to set Pretrial Conference to a later date. Pretrial Conference has been reset to 4/27/2007 at 01:30 PM before Judge Roslyn O Silver. Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 02/26/07.(ESL) (Entered: 02/27/2007)
97 NOTICE of Attorney Substitution by Valerie Leigh Meyer (Meyer, Valerie) (Entered: 04/18/2007)
98 ORDER - A Final Pretrial Conference is set for 4/27/2007 at 1:30 P.M. IT IS ORDERED this hearing is VACATED AND RESET to 5/10/2007 at 1:30 P.M. in Courtroom 604, 401 West Washington Street, Phoenix, AZ 85003 before Judge Roslyn O Silver. Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 04/20/2007. (ROS, ) (Entered: 04/20/2007)
99 ORDER - A Jury Trial is set for 5/22/2007 at 8:30 AM before Judge Roslyn O Silver. Counsel are to submit a Joint Statement of the case and file their Juror Questionaires no later than 5/2/2007 at 12:00 P.M. Each side shall submit five additional juror questions for a total of ten. Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 04/27/2007. (ROS, ) (Entered: 04/27/2007)
100 ORDER - A Status Conference is set for 5/14/2007 at 2:30 PM in Courtroom 604, 401 West Washington Street, Phoenix, AZ 85003 before Judge Roslyn O Silver to review Juror Questionaires. Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 04/27/2007. (ROS, ) (Entered: 04/27/2007)
101 Notice re Court's April 27, 2007 Order by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Lopez, P) (Entered: 05/02/2007)
102 MOTION to Vacate Trial Date by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Lopez, P) (Entered: 05/02/2007)
103 REQUEST re: For Determination of Alamo's Motion for Reconsideration by Defendant Alamo Rent-A-Car. (Francis, Carrie) (Entered: 05/02/2007)
104 OBJECTION re 102 MOTION to Vacate Trial Date by Defendant Alamo Rent-A-Car filed by Alamo Rent-A-Car. (Francis, Carrie) (Entered: 05/03/2007)
105 ORDER Pla's Motion to Vacate 102 is Granted. FURTHER ORDERED that a status conference is set for May 22, 2007 at 9:00 a.m. FURTHER ORDERED that trial is set for May 29, 2007 at 8:30 a.m. FURTHER ORDERED that Dft's Motion for Reconsideration 93 is Denied. Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 5/7/07.(KMG) (Entered: 05/07/2007)
106 NOTICE of Deposition of Salvador Vargas, filed by ANC Rental Corporation. (Francis, Carrie) (Entered: 05/07/2007)
107 ORDER - Counsel are to submit additional juror questions, (five each or ten total joint), by 12:00 P.M. today, 5/8/07. In addition, a brief statement of the case shall be filed no later than 12:00 P.M. today, 5/8/07. All are to be filed electronically with the court and emailed to chambers mailbox by 12:00 P.M. 5/8/07. Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 05/08/2007. (ROS, ) (Entered: 05/08/2007)
108 Proposed Voir Dire by ANC Rental Corporation. (Francis, Carrie) (Entered: 05/08/2007)

10 of 16

3/19/2008 1:56 PM

CM/ECF - azd

https://ecf.azd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?583508697930405-L_56...

05/08/2007 05/10/2007
05/11/2007 05/11/2007 05/15/2007
05/15/2007 05/15/2007 05/16/2007 05/17/2007
05/22/2007 05/22/2007 05/22/2007 05/23/2007 05/24/2007

109 Notice re Submission of Proposed Jury Questions by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Lopez, P) (Entered: 05/08/2007)
111 Minute Entry. Proceedings held before Judge Roslyn O Silver: Final Pretrial Conference held on 5/10/2007. The Court rules on pending motions in limine. Order to follow. IT IS ORDERED affirming the status hearing re juror questionnaires set for 5/22/07 at 9:00 a.m. and the trial date set for 5/29/07 at 8:30 a.m. (Court Reporter Elaine Cropper.)(KFZ) (Entered: 05/11/2007)
110 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION AND ORDER FORM by Alamo Rent-A-Car for proceedings held on 5/10/2007 before Judge Roslyn Silver. (Francis, Carrie) (Entered: 05/11/2007)
112 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION AND ORDER FORM by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for proceedings held on 5/10/2007 before Judge Roslyn O. Silver. (Meyer, Valerie) (Entered: 05/11/2007)
113 ORDER - A Status Conference is set for 5/22/2007 at 9:00 A.M. to review Juror Questionaires in this case. IT IS ORDERED this hearing is VACATED AND RESET to 5/24/2007 at 9:00 A.M. before Judge Roslyn O Silver. Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 05/15/2007. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (ROS, ) (Entered: 05/15/2007)
114 RESPONSE in Opposition to Subpoena and Civil Subpoena Duces Tecum. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit)(ESL) (Entered: 05/16/2007)
115 MOTION to Quash Subpoena and Civil Subpoena Duces Tecum, MOTION to issue Protective Order by Bilan Nur. (Note: response and motion was filed as 114 one document. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit)(ESL) (Entered: 05/16/2007)
116 TRANSCRIPT of Final Pretrial Conference Proceedings held on 5/10/07 before Judge Roslyn O Silver. Court Reporter: Elaine Cropper. (BAS, ) (Entered: 05/16/2007)
117 ORDER denying 72 Motion in Limine re: Plaintiffs Lost Wages; granting 81 Plaintiff's Motion in Limine re: Work Performance; denying 82 Plaintiff's Motion in Limine re: Back Pay; denying 83 Plaintiff's Motion in Limine re: Bankruptcy; granting 85 Plaintiff's Motion in Limine re: Not Revisiting Liability. Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 05/17/07.(ESL) (Entered: 05/17/2007)
118 Notice re Filing Supplemental Jury Instructions by Alamo Rent-A-Car (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Francis, Carrie) (Entered: 05/22/2007)
119 Notice re Filing of Supplemental Jury Instructions by Alamo Rent-A-Car (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Francis, Carrie) (Entered: 05/22/2007)
120 Notice re Filing of Supplemental Jury Instruction by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Proposed Jury Instruction)(Lopez, P) (Entered: 05/22/2007)
121 ORDER granting 115 Motion to Quash and Issue Protective Order. Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 05/22/07.(ESL) (Entered: 05/23/2007)
122 Minute Entry. Proceedings held before Judge Roslyn O Silver: Status Conference held on 5/24/2007. IT IS ORDERED sealing the transcript of proceedings as it relates to discussion re juror questionnaires until further order of the Court. (Court Reporter

11 of 16

3/19/2008 1:56 PM

CM/ECF - azd

https://ecf.azd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?583508697930405-L_56...

05/29/2007 05/30/2007 05/30/2007 05/31/2007
06/01/2007
06/01/2007 06/01/2007 06/01/2007 06/01/2007 06/01/2007 06/01/2007 06/01/2007 06/01/2007 06/01/2007 06/01/2007 06/11/2007
06/11/2007

Elaine Cropper.)(KFZ) (Entered: 05/29/2007)
123 Minute Entry. Proceedings held before Judge Roslyn O Silver: Jury Trial begun on 5/29/2007 (Day 1). (Court Reporter Elaine Cropper.)(KFZ) (Entered: 05/30/2007)
124 Proposed Jury Instructions by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-D)(Meyer, Valerie) (Entered: 05/30/2007)
125 Minute Entry. Proceedings held before Judge Roslyn O Silver: Jury Trial held on 5/30/2007 (Day 2). (Court Reporter Elaine Cropper.)(KFZ) (Entered: 05/31/2007)
126 Minute Entry. Proceedings held before Judge Roslyn O Silver: Jury Trial held on 5/31/2007 (Day 3). (Court Reporter Elaine Cropper.)(KFZ) Modified on 6/12/2007. The following information was omitted from the docket text: Defendants' Rule 50 motion denied. Plaintiff's Rule 50 motion denied. Defendant's Renewed Rule 50 motion denied. Defendant's Motion for Mistrial denied. (REW, ). (Entered: 06/05/2007)
127 Minute Entry. Proceedings held before Judge Roslyn O Silver: Jury Trial completed on 6/1/2007 (Day 4). (Court Reporter Elaine Cropper/David German.)(KFZ) (Entered: 06/05/2007)
128 Witness List by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (ESL) (Entered: 06/07/2007)
129 Witness List by Alamo Rent-A-Car, ANC Rental Corporation. (ESL) (Entered: 06/07/2007)
130 Exhibit List by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.. (ESL) (Entered: 06/07/2007)
131 Exhibit List by Alamo Rent-A-Car, ANC Rental Corporation.. (ESL) (Entered: 06/07/2007)
132 Final Jury Instructions. (ESL) (Entered: 06/07/2007)
133 Sealed Jury Question (MAP) (Entered: 06/08/2007)
134 Sealed Jury Question (MAP) (Entered: 06/08/2007)
135 Sealed Jury Question (MAP) (Entered: 06/08/2007)
136 Sealed Verdict Form (MAP) (Entered: 06/08/2007)
137 Sealed Jury Verdict (MAP) Modified on 6/11/2007 (APJ, ). TEXT MODIFIED TO REFLECT CORRECT NATURE OF ENTRY. (Entered: 06/08/2007)
138 NOTICE OF CORRECTION BY THE CLERK re 137 Sealed Document. Description of deficiency: Incorrect docket text entered. Follow up by Clerks Office: Text modified to reflect correct nature of filing: Sealed Jury Verdict. Court use only: map. (APJ, ) (Entered: 06/11/2007)
139 JUDGMENT that the Jury having found in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants as follows: Lost Wages, subject to her duty to mitigate: $21,640.00;Compensatory Damages: $16,000.00; Punitive Damages: $250,000.00(MAP) (Entered: 06/11/2007)

12 of 16

3/19/2008 1:56 PM

CM/ECF - azd

https://ecf.azd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?583508697930405-L_56...

06/11/2007 06/12/2007
06/25/2007 06/25/2007 06/29/2007 06/29/2007 06/29/2007 07/02/2007 07/03/2007 07/05/2007 07/05/2007 07/09/2007 07/13/2007 07/18/2007 07/18/2007

140 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Thomas Vierling. Reason for return: Thomas Vierling. Document number 123 & 125; re-mailed to 852 N 6th Avenue Phoenix, AZ 85003. (LSP) (Entered: 06/12/2007)
141 NOTICE OF CORRECTION BY THE CLERK re 126 Minute Entry. Description of deficiency: The following information was omitted from the Docket Text: Defendants' Rule 50 Motion denied. Plaintiff's Rule 50 Motion denied. Defendant's Renewed Rule 50 Motion denied. Defendant's Motion for Mistrial denied. Follow up by Clerk's Office: The deficiency indicated above has been addressed by the Clerk. Court use only: n/a. (REW, ) (Entered: 06/12/2007)
142 APPLICATION/NOTICE of BILL OF COSTS by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1)(Lopez, P) (Entered: 06/25/2007)
143 MOTION to Amend/Correct re Judgment and for Injunctive Relief by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1-6)(Lopez, P) (Entered: 06/25/2007)
144 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION AND ORDER FORM by Alamo Rent-A-Car for trial proceedings held on 5/29/07 through 6/1/07 before Judge Roslyn O Silver. (BAS, ) (Entered: 06/29/2007)
145 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION AND ORDER FORM by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for trial proceedings held on 5/29/07 through 6/1/07 before Judge Roslyn O Silver. (BAS, ) (Entered: 06/29/2007)
146 TRANSCRIPT of Trial Proceedings held on 5/29/07 before Judge Roslyn O Silver. Court Reporter: Elaine Cropper. (BAS, ) (Entered: 06/29/2007)
147 TRANSCRIPT of Jury Trial Day 2 Proceedings held on 5/30/07 before Judge Roslyn O Silver. Court Reporter: Elaine Cropper. (BAS, ) (Entered: 07/03/2007)
148 TRANSCRIPT of Jury Trial Day 3 Proceedings held on 5/31/07 before Judge Roslyn O Silver. Court Reporter: Elaine Cropper. (BAS, ) (Entered: 07/03/2007)
149 NOTICE OF APPEAL to 9th Circuit, by Alamo Rent-A-Car, ANC Rental Corporation. Filing fee received: $ 455.00, receipt number 1322399. (Attachments: # 1 Representation Statement# 2 Docket Report)(Francis, Carrie) (Entered: 07/05/2007)
150 OBJECTION re 142 Bill of Costs - Application/Notice by Defendants Alamo Rent-A-Car, ANC Rental Corporation. (Francis, Carrie) (Entered: 07/05/2007)
151 Notice of Appeal Notification Form; Notice of Appeal and copy of docket sheet transmitted to Ninth Circuit and all parties re 149 Notice of Appeal. (ESL) (Entered: 07/09/2007)
152 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to respond/reply to motion to amend the judgment by Alamo Rent-A-Car, ANC Rental Corporation. (Francis, Carrie) (Entered: 07/13/2007)
153 Ninth Circuit Case Number 07-16269 for 149 Notice of Appeal. (ESL) (Entered: 07/18/2007)
154 MOTION for Requiring Alamo to Post a Supersedeas Bond by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1)(Lopez, P) (Entered: 07/18/2007)

13 of 16

3/19/2008 1:56 PM

CM/ECF - azd

https://ecf.azd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?583508697930405-L_56...

07/19/2007 07/26/2007 07/27/2007 07/31/2007 07/31/2007 08/10/2007
08/14/2007 08/15/2007 08/17/2007 08/28/2007
08/28/2007

155 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Thomas Vierling. Reason for return: Attempted Not Known. Document number 122. Remailed to correct address. (ESL) (Entered: 07/20/2007)
156 ORDER granting Joint 152 Motion for Extension of Time. Defendant shall have until 07/27/07 to file a Response to the EEOC's Motion to Amend Judgment, and the EEOC will have until 08/17/07 to file a Reply. Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 07/26/07.(ESL) (Entered: 07/26/2007)
157 OBJECTION re 143 MOTION to Amend/Correct re Judgment and for Injunctive Relief by Defendants Alamo Rent-A-Car, ANC Rental Corporation filed by Alamo Rent-A-Car, ANC Rental Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-D)(Francis, Carrie) (Entered: 07/27/2007)
158 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time of Deadline for Opposition Regarding EEOC's Motion Requiring Supersedeas Bond by Alamo Rent-A-Car, ANC Rental Corporation. (Francis, Carrie) (Entered: 07/31/2007)
159 ORDER granting dfts 158 Motion for Extension of Time. Dfts have until August 15, 2007 to respond to the EEOC's Motion to Require Alamo to Post a Supersedeas Bond 154 . Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 7/31/07.(KMG) (Entered: 07/31/2007)
160 ORDER of 9th Circuit case number 07-16269, as to 149 Notice of Appeal filed by ANC Rental Corporation, Alamo Rent-A-Car. That the Appellee's unopposed motion to stay his appeal is granted. The notice of appeal is ineffective until entry of the order disposing of the last such motion outstanding in the District Court. (ESL) (Entered: 08/10/2007)
161 STIPULATION (Joint) to Withdraw Plaintiff EEOC's Motion to Require Alamo to Post a Supersedeas Bond by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Alamo Rent-A-Car, ANC Rental Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Lopez, P) (Entered: 08/14/2007)
162 ORDER that Pla's 154 Motion to Require Alamo to Post a Supersedeas Bond is DENIED without prejudice. Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 08/15/07.(ESL) (Entered: 08/15/2007)
163 REPLY to Response to Motion re 143 MOTION to Amend/Correct re Judgment and for Injunctive Relief filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Lopez, P) (Entered: 08/17/2007)
164 ORDER that Pla's 143 Motion to Amend the Judgment and for Equitble Relief is GRANTED with respect to the award of pre-judgment interest and DENIED with respect to all other requested relief. The 139 Jgm shall be amended and changed to: the Jury having found in favor of Pla against Dfts as follows: Compensatory Damages: $16,000 and Punitive Damages: $250,000. The Court having found in favor of Pla against Dfts as follows: Back Pay: $21,640 and Pre-Judgment Interest: $4,510. Signed by Judge Roslyn O Silver on 08/28/07. (ESL) (Entered: 08/28/2007)
165 AMENDED JUDGMENT pursuant to the Order dated 08/28/07 amending the judgment as follows: that the Jury having found in favor of Plaintiff against Defendants as follows: Compensatory Damages: $16,000.00 and Punitive Damages: $250,000.00. Back Pay: $21,640.00 and Pre-Judgment Interest: $4,510.00.(ESL) (Entered: 08/28/2007)

14 of 16

3/19/2008 1:56 PM

CM/ECF - azd

https://ecf.azd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?583508697930405-L_56...

09/06/2007 09/06/2007 09/11/2007 09/12/2007 09/13/2007 09/14/2007 09/20/2007 10/29/2007 10/29/2007
10/31/2007 11/20/2007 11/30/2007 12/21/2007
12/21/2007

166 AMENDED NOTICE OF APPEAL Regarding Amended Judgment by Alamo Rent-A-Car, ANC Rental Corporation (Francis, Carrie) Modified on 9/7/2007 (ESL). (Entered: 09/06/2007)
169 AMENDED NOTICE OF APPEAL to 9th Circuit by Alamo Rent-A-Car, ANC Rental Corporation. (THIS IS A DUPLICATE ENTRY OF 166 TO USE THE CORRECT EVENT FOR SYSTEM PURPOSES)(ESL) (Entered: 09/13/2007)
167 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION AND ORDER FORM by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for proceedings held on 06/01/2007 before Judge Roslyn O. Silver, re 149 Notice of Appeal (Lopez, P) (Entered: 09/11/2007)
168 Taxation of Costs in amount of $ 3,501.21 against Defendant.Signed by Chief Deputy Michael O'Brien on 9/12/07. (AMS, ) (Entered: 09/12/2007)
170 Notice of Appeal Notification Form; Notice of Appeal and copy of docket sheet transmitted to Ninth Circuit and all parties re 166 , 169 Notice of Appeal - Amended (ESL) (Entered: 09/13/2007)
171 TRANSCRIPT of Jury Trial Day 4 Proceedings held on 6/1/07 before Judge Roslyn O Silver. Court Reporter: Elaine Cropper. (BAS, ) (Entered: 09/17/2007)
172 Appeal Document by Alamo Rent-A-Car, ANC Rental Corporation Items To Be Included In Record On Appeal (Francis, Carrie) (Entered: 09/20/2007)
173 Notice of Appeal by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Lopez, P) Modified on 10/31/2007 INCORRECT EVENT SELECTED (ESL). (Entered: 10/29/2007)
174 NOTICE OF APPEAL to 9th Circuit, as to 164 Order on Motion to Amend and Final 165 Amended Judgment, by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (due to incorrect event used at 173 notice of appeal was entered again using the correct event for system purposes) (ESL) (Entered: 10/31/2007)
175 Notice of Appeal Notification Form; Notice of Appeal and copy of docket sheet transmitted to Ninth Circuit and all parties re 174 Notice of Appeal, (ESL) (Entered: 10/31/2007)
176 Ninth Circuit Case Number 07-17035 for 174 Notice of Appeal,. (ESL) (Entered: 11/20/2007)
177 SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENT JgmPtyText by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Lopez, P) (Entered: 11/30/2007)
178 MANDATE of 9th Circuit (Certified Copy), case number 07-16269, as to 149 Notice of Appeal filed by ANC Rental Corporation, Alamo Rent-A-Car. The stipulation to dismiss the appeal is granted. The costs shall be allocated pursuant to the stipulation. (ESL) (Entered: 12/21/2007)
179 MANDATE of 9th Circuit (Certified Copy), case number 07-17035, as to 174 Notice of Appeal, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The stipulation to dismiss the appeal is granted. The costs shall be allocated pursuant to the stipulation. (ESL) (Entered: 12/21/2007)

15 of 16

3/19/2008 1:56 PM

CM/ECF - azd

https://ecf.azd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?583508697930405-L_56...

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

03/19/2008 11:56:10

PACER Login:

wu0079

Client Code:

Description:

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

Billable Pages: 10

Cost:

eeoc 2:02-cv-01908-ROS 0.80

16 of 16

3/19/2008 1:56 PM

 
 EEOC SUES ALAMO CAR RENTAL FOR RELIGIOUS BIAS

http://www.eeoc.gov/press/9-30-02-f.html

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE September 30, 2002

CONTACT: Mary Jo O'Neill Regional Attorney (602) 640-5044

C. Emanuel Smith Supervisory Trial Attorney (602) 640-5033

TTY:

David Lopez Trial Attorney (602) 640-5016 (602) 640-5072

EEOC SUES ALAMO CAR RENTAL FOR RELIGIOUS BIAS

Post-9/11 Backlash Suit Say Muslim Employee Prevented from Wearing Head Scarf
PHOENIX - The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) today announced the filing of a post-9/11 backlash discrimination lawsuit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 against Alamo Car Rental, owned and operated by Ft. Lauderdale-based Alamo Rent-A-Car LLC and ANC Rental Corporation. The religious bias suit was filed by the federal agency's Phoenix District Office on behalf of a Muslim employee who was denied a workplace accommodation for her sincerely held Islamic religious beliefs and practices.
The suit (EEOC v Alamo Rent -A-Car, LLC; ANC Rental Corporation, CIV 02 1908 PHX ROS) states that Bilan Nur, a customer service representative who had worked for Alamo since 1999, sought permission to cover her head with a scarf during the holy month of Ramadan, consistent with her religious tenets. Alamo had previously permitted Ms. Nur to wear a head covering during Ramadan in 1999 and 2000. However, during December 2001, Alamo refused to permit Ms. Nur to observe her religious beliefs. Instead, Alamo told Ms. Nur that the company dress code prohibited wearing a scarf. Notwithstanding this representation, Alamo had no such policy. Alamo subsequently disciplined, suspended, and terminated Ms. Nur for failure to remove her head scarf.
"This lawsuit serves as stark reminder to employers that the sincerely held religious beliefs and practices of employees cannot be disregarded with impunity," said Mary Jo O'Neill, acting regional attorney of the EEOC's Phoenix District Office. "Employers have a legal obligation to accommodate the religious practices and beliefs of their employees unless it would create an undue hardship on their business operations."
Charles Burtner, director of the agency's Phoenix office, added: "Our investigation concluded that the requested accommodation could have and should have been provided by Alamo. Employers should know that the EEOC will vigorously defend an employee's right to abide by their sincerely held religious beliefs in the workplace."
The lawsuit seek monetary relief, including back pay with prejudgment interest and compensatory and punitive damages. The Commission is also seeking an injunction prohibiting future discrimination and any other curative relief to prevent Alamo from engaging in any further discriminatory practices. The EEOC filed suit only after exhausting its conciliation efforts to reach voluntary pre-litigation settlements.
In addition to enforcing Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on sex, race, color, religion, or national origin, the Commission enforces Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities in the private sector; the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967; the Equal Pay Act of 1963; the Civil Rights Act of 1991; and the provisions of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 which prohibit discrimination affecting people with disabilities in the federal sector. Further information about the Commission is available on the Agency's web site at www.eeoc.gov.

This page was last modified on September 30, 2002.

1 of 2

6/6/2007 3:12 PM

EEOC SUES ALAMO CAR RENTAL FOR RELIGIOUS BIAS Return to Home Page

http://www.eeoc.gov/press/9-30-02-f.html

2 of 2

6/6/2007 3:12 PM

 
 Phoenix Jury Awards $287,640 to Fired Muslim Woman in EEOC Relig...

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE JUNE 4, 2007

CONTACT: Mary Jo O'Neill Regional Attorney Telephone: (602) 640-5044
Sally Shanley Supervisory Trial Attorney Telephone: (602) 640-5032
David Lopez, Trial Attorney Telephone: (602) 640-5016
Valerie Meyer, Trial Attorney Telephone: (602) 640-4988 TTY: (602) 640-5072

http://www.eeoc.gov/press/6-4-07.html

PHOENIX JURY AWARDS $287,640 TO FIRED MUSLIM WOMAN IN EEOC RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION LAWSUIT
Alamo Car Rental Fired Young Muslim Woman After 9/11 Attacks for Wearing Head Scarf During Ramadan, Agency Charged
PHOENIX � A Phoenix jury has awarded more than $287,000 in a religious discrimination suit against Alamo Car Rental brought by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today. The EEOC had charged Alamo committed post-9/11 backlash discrimination based on religion when it fired a Somali customer sales representative in December 2001 for refusing to remove her head scarf during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan.
Alamo will pay $21,640 in back pay, $16,000 in compensatory damages, and $250,000 in punitive damages to Bilan Nur. According to the EEOC�s lawsuit (CIV 02-1908-PHX-ROS in U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona), Alamo refused to permit Nur to continue to cover her head, as she had done in previous years, even if she wore an approved Alamo-logo scarf. The jury also heard evidence that, although wearing a head scarf did not violate the company�s dress policy, Alamo fired Nur in December, 2001, only eight days before Ramadan was over, and declared her ineligible for rehire. The jury reached its verdict after also hearing testimony about the damages Nur, who was 22 years old at the time, suffered as a result of being fired.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from discriminating against individuals because of their religion in hiring, firing, and other terms and conditions of employment. Employers must reasonably accommodate employees' sincerely held religious beliefs or practices unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the employer.
In the first post-9/11 backlash case brought by the EEOC�s Phoenix District Office, Judge Roslyn Silver took the unusual step of finding the religious discrimination so clear-cut, based on the pleadings, that the question of whether Alamo had violated the law did not need to be resolved by a jury. In the subsequent trial, which began on May 29, the jury was only asked to decide the amount of monetary damages to which Nur was entitled.
�For nearly six years, Alamo has continued to deny that it violated the law when it refused to accommodate Ms. Nur�s religious beliefs and fired her,� said Mary Jo O�Neill, regional attorney for the EEOC Phoenix District Office. �Judge Silver had already disagreed with Alamo, as did the jury with its award today. Title VII protects people of all religious beliefs, and no one should ever have to sacrifice her religious beliefs in order to keep a job.�
According to EEOC Phoenix District Director Chester Bailey, �Employers need to remember that Title VII protects the religious practices and beliefs of all employees regardless of the nature of their faith.�
EEOC trial attorney David Lopez, who tried this case with Valerie Meyer, said after the verdict, �Bilan Nur is truly a remarkable woman. A refugee from war-torn Somalia when she came to this country as a young woman, Ms. Nur viewed America as the country that offered her hope, safety, and equality. With the jury�s findings today, Ms. Nur has been reassured that, even after 9/11, Americans still believe in justice for all people. Ms. Nur and the EEOC are both very pleased with today�s results. We hope this verdict sends a message to the community that this community will not accept religious intolerance in the workplace.�
The EEOC is the federal government agency that enforces the nation�s anti-discrimination laws in the workplace based on race, color, sex (including sexual harassment and pregnancy), religion, national origin, retaliation, age and disability. Further information about the Commission is available on the agency �s web site at www.eeoc.gov.
This page was last modified on June 4, 2007.
Return to Home Page

1 of 1

6/6/2007 3:13 PM

 
 ---~-------

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FI LED
DEC 17 20~I
CATHY A. CATTERSON, ClERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff - Appellee,

No. 07-16269
D.C. No. CV-02-01908-ROS' District of Arizona, Phoenix

v.

ALAMO RENT-A-CAR LLC; et aI.,

ORDER

Defendants - Appellants.

The stipulation to dismiss the appeal under Federal Rules of Appellate

Procedure 42(b) is granted. The costs shall be allocated pursuant to the

stipulation. A certified copy ofthis order shall act as and for the mandate ofthis

court.

For the Court:

A TRUE COPY

CATHY A .. CAUI;RSON

Clerk~ OfCOl;JFt

_ ATTEsr~

~ ~~'

~ - --'---- -~-----..:::"-

CATHY A. CATTERSON Clerk ofthe Court
"~t~iJJe/s. :San£toLs Deputy Clerk Ninth Circuit Rule 27-7/Advisory Note to Rule 27 and Ninth Circuit 27-10

Pro 12.10

 
 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FILED

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

No. 07-17035

DEC f 7 20QI
CATHY ACATTERsoN, C!£RK
U.S. COURT OF APPEAlS

Plaintiff - Appellant,

D.C. No. CV-02-01908-ROS District of Arizona, Phoenix

ALAMO RENT-A-CAR LLC; et aI., Defendants - Appellees.

ORDER

The stipulation to dismiss the appeal under Federal Rules of Appellate

Procedure 42(b) is granted. The costs shall be allocated pursuant to the
-
stipulation. A certified copy of this order shall act as and for the mandate of this

court.

-- For the Court:

- -

----'"'-

~-.-----

CATHY A. CATTERSON Clerk of the Court

Pro 12.10

~;:; ~
Deputy Clerk Ninth Circuit Rule 27-7/Advisory Note to Rule 27
and Ninth Circuit 27-10