1 WILLIAM R. TAMAYO, #084965(CA)

JONATHAN T. PECK, #12303 (VA)

2 SANYA P. HILL, #18739 (WA)

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

3

COMMISSION

San Francisco District Office

4 901 Market Street, Suite 500

San Francisco, California 94103

5 Telephone: (415) 356-5235

Facsimile : (415) 356-5046

6

7 Attorneys for Plaintiff

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10

11

12 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )

COMMISSION,

)

13

)

)

14

Plaintiff,

)

)

15

v.

)

)

16

)

THE ACADEMY OF ART COLLEGE )

17 FOUNDATION,

)

)

18

)

Defendant.

)

19

)

CIVIL ACTION NO.
C O M P L A I N T Civil Rights - Employment Discrimination JURY TRIAL DEMAND

20

NATURE OF THE ACTION

21

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

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

23 appropriate relief to Charging Party David T. Banks and class members, other black employees

24 of the defendant, who were adversely affected by such practices. The Commission alleges that

25 the defendant discriminated against Mr. Banks and other black employees by subjecting them to

26 a racially hostile work environment and ultimately discharging Mr. Banks, based on racially

27 discriminatory practices unlawful by Title VII.

28 / / /

COMPLAINT
1

1

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2

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

3 1343, and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Sections 706 (f) (1) and (3)

4 of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§2000e-5 (f) (1) and (3)

5 (“Title VII”) and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. §1981a.

6

2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed in the City and

7 County of San Francisco, California, which is within the jurisdiction of the United States

8 District Court for the Northern District of California.

9

PARTIES

10

3. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the “Commission”), is

11 the agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation, and

12 enforcement of Title VII and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Sections 706 (f) (1)

13 and (3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§2000e-5 (1) and (3).

14

4. At all relevant times, Defendant, Academy of Art College (the “Employer”) has

15 continuously been doing business in the State of California and in the City and County of San

16 Francisco, California, and has continuously employed at least fifteen employees.

17

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

18 engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 701(b), (g), and (h) of

19 Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-(b), (g), and (h),

20

STATEMENT OF CLAIMS

21

6. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, David T. Banks filed

22 a Charge of Discrimination with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by Defendant

23 Employer. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled.

24

7. Since at least September 11, 2000, Defendant Employer has engaged in unlawful

25 employment practices at its San Francisco, California campus in violation of Section 703 (a) of

26 Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-3 (a). These practices include subjecting Mr. Banks and class

27 members to a racially hostile environment and discharging Mr. Banks based on racially

28 discriminatory practices made unlawful by Title VII.

COMPLAINT
2

1

8. The effect of the practices complained of above has been to deprive Mr. Banks

2 and the class members of equal employment opportunities and to otherwise adversely affect their

3 employment status as employees because of their race.

4

9. The unlawful employment practices complained of above were intentional.

5

10. The unlawful employment practices complained of above were and are done with

6 malice and/or reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Mr. Banks and class

7 members.

8

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

9

WHEREFORE, the Commission respectfully request that this Court:

10

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

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

12 racial discrimination and any other employment practices which discriminate on the basis of race.

13

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

14 programs which provide equal employment opportunities for their black employees and which

15 eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices.

16

C. Order Defendant Employer to make whole Mr. Banks and class members by

17 providing appropriate compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the

18 unlawful employment practices described above, in amounts to be determined at trial, and other

19 affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices,

20

D. Order Defendant Employer to make whole Mr. Banks and class members by

21 providing compensation for past and future non-pecuniary losses caused by the above unlawful

22 conduct described above, including pain and suffering, emotional distress, indignity, loss of

23 enjoyment of life, loss of self-esteem, and humiliation, in amounts to be determined at trial.

24

E. Order Defendant Employer to pay Mr. Banks and class members punitive

25 damages for its malicious and reckless conduct described above, in amounts to be determined at

26 trial.

27 / / /

28

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

COMPLAINT
3

1 interest.

2

G. Award the Commission its costs of this action.

3

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

4

The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of facts by its complaints.

5

Respectfully submitted,

6

ERIC S. DREIBAND

General Counsel

7

JAMES L. LEE

8

Deputy General Counsel

9

GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS

Associate General Counsel

10

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

11

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Office of the General Counsel

12

1801 "L" Street NW

Washington, D.C. 20507

13

14

15 DATED: September 16

, 2003

WILLIAM R. TAMAYO Regional Attorney

17 DATED: September 18

, 2003

JONATHAN T. PECK Supervisory Trial Attorney

19 DATED: September 20 21 22 23

, 2003

SANYA P. HILL Senior Trial Attorney
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION San Francisco District Office 901 Market Street, Suite 500 San Francisco, California 94103-1735

24

Attorneys for Plaintiff

25

26

27

28

COMPLAINT
4

 
 1 WILLIAM R. TAMAYO, # 084965 (CA)

JONATHAN T. PECK, #12303 (VA)

2 SANYA HILL MAXION # 18739 (WA)

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

3

COMMISSION

San Francisco District Office

4 350 The Embarcadero, Suite 500

San Francisco, California 94105-1260

5 Telephone: (415) 625-5650

6 Attorneys for Plaintiff

7

8

9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11

12 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )

COMMISSION,

)

13

)

)

14

Plaintiff,

)

)

15 v.

)

)

16 STEPHENS INSTITU TE d/b/a

)

ACADEMY OF ART COLLEGE

)

17

)

)

18

Defendant.

)

)

19

CIVIL ACTION NO. C03-4383-MEJ
A M E N D E D C O M P L A I N T Civil Rights - Employment Discrimination JURY TRIAL DEMAND

20

21

NATURE OF THE ACTION

22

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

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

24 appropriate relief to Charging Party David T. Banks and other black employees of the defendant,

25 who were adversely affected by such practices. The Commission alleges that the defendant

26 discriminated against Mr. Banks and other black employees by subjecting them to a racially hostile

27 work environm ent and discharging the Mr. Banks because of his race.

28

COMPLAINT
1

1

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2

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

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

4 VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U .S.C. §§2000e -5 (f) (1) and (3) (“Title VII”).

5 and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. §1981a.

6

2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed in the City and

7 County of San Francisco, California, which is within the jurisdiction of the United States District

8 Court for the Northern District of California.

9

10

PARTIES

11

3. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Comm ission ( the “Comission”), is the

12 agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation, and

13 enforcement of Title VII and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Sections 706 (f) (1) and

14 (3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§2000e-5 (1) and (3).

15

4. At all relevant times, Defendant, Stephens Institute d/b/a Academy of Art College

16 (the “Employer”) has continuously been doing business in the State of California and in the City and

17 County of San Francisco, California, and has continuously employed at least fifteen employees.

18

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

19 engaged in an industry affecting com merce within the meaning of Section 701(b), (g), and (h) of

20 Title VII, 42 U .S.C. §2000e-(b), (g), and (h).

21
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS
22
6. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, David T. Banks filed a
23
Charge of Discrimination with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by Defendant
24
Em ployer. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled.
25
7. Since at least September 11, 2000, Defendant Employer has engaged in unlaw ful
26
employment practices at its San Francisco, California campus in violation of Section 703 (a) of Title
27
VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-3 (a). These practices include subjecting Mr. Banks and other black
28
employees to a racially hostile work environment and discharging Mr. Banks because of his race.

COMPLAINT
2

1

8. The effect of the practices complained of above has been to deprive Mr. Banks and

2 other black employees of equal employment opportunities and to otherwise adversely affect their

3 employment status as employees because of their race.

4

9. The unlawful employment practices complained of above were intentional.

5

10. The unlawful employment practices complained of above were and are done with

6 malice and/or reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Mr. Banks and other black

7 employees.

8
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
9
WHEREFORE, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court:
10
A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant Employer, its officers, successors,
11
assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in racial
12
discrimination and any other employment practices which discriminate on the basis of race.
13
B. Order Defendant Employer to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs
14
which provide equal employm ent opportunities for their black employees and which eradicate the
15
effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices.
16
C. Order Defendant Employer to make whole Mr. Banks and other black employees by
17
providing appropriate compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful
18
employment practices described above, in amounts to be determined at trial, and other affirmative
19
relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices.
20
D. Order Defendant Employer to make whole Mr. Banks and other black employees
21
by providing compensation for past and future non-pecuniary losses caused by the above unlawful
22
conduct described above, including pain and suffering, emotional distress, indignity, loss of
23
enjoyment of life, loss of self-esteem, and humiliation, in amounts to be determined at trial.
24
E. Order Defendant Em ployer to pay M r. Banks and other black employees punitive
25
damages for its malicious and reckless conduct described above, in amounts to be determined at trial.
26
F. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public
27
interest.
28
G. Award the Comm ission its costs of this action.

COMPLAINT
3

1
JURY TRIAL DEMAND
2
The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its complaint.
3

4

5

Respectfully submitted,

6

ERIC S. DREIBAND

General Counsel

7

JAMES L. LEE

8

Deputy General Counsel

9

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

COMMISSION

10

1801 L Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 10507

11

12

/s/

13 DATED: Novem ber _25___, 2003

WILLIAM R. TAMAYO

14

Regional Attorney

15

16

/s/

DATED: Novem ber _25___, 2003

17

JONATHAN T. PECK

Supervisory Trial Attorney

18

19

/s/

20 DATED: Novem ber _25___, 2003

SANYA P. HILL MAXION

21

Senior Trial Attorney

22

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

COMMISSION

23

San Francisco District Office

350 The Embarcadero, Suite 500

24

San Francisco, California 94105-1260

25

26

27

28

COMPLAINT
4

 
 1 WILLIAM R. TAMAYO, # 084965 (CA)

JONATHAN T. PECK, #12303 (VA)

2 SANYA HILL MAXION # 18739 (WA)

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

3

COMMISSION

San Francisco District Office

4 350 The Embarcadero, Suite 500

San Francisco, California 94105-1260

5 Telephone: (415) 625-5650

6 Attorneys for Plaintiff

7

8

9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11

12 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )

COMMISSION,

)

13

)

)

14

Plaintiff,

)

)

15 v.

)

)

16 STEPHENS INSTITU TE d/b/a

)

ACADEMY OF ART COLLEGE

)

17

)

)

18

Defendant.

)

)

19

CIVIL ACTION NO. C-03-4383-PJH
SECOND A M E N D E D C O M P L A I N T Civil Rights - Employment Discrimination JURY TRIAL DEMAND

20

21

NATURE OF THE ACTION

22

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

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

24 appropriate relief to Charging Party David T. Banks, Oscar Jordan, Taa Willis and Hayes Cam pbell

25 and other black em ployees of the defendant who may be determ ined through the discovery process,

26 who were adversely affected by such practices. The Commission alleges that the defendant

27 discriminated against Mr. Banks, Mr. Jordan, Mr. Willis and Mr. Campbell and other black

28 employees who may be determined through the discovery process by subjecting them to a racially

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

C-03-4383-PJH

1

1 hostile work environment and discharging Mr. Banks because of his race.

2

3

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4

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

5 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Sections 706 (f) (1) and (3) of Title

6 VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§2000e -5 (f) (1) and (3) (“Title VII”).

7 and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. §1981a.

8

2. The employm ent practices alleged to be unlawful were com mitted in the City and

9 County of San Francisco, California, which is within the jurisdiction of the United States District

10 Court for the Northern District of California.

11

12

PARTIES

13

3. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ( the “Comission”), is the

14 agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation, and

15 enforcement of Title VII and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Sections 706 (f) (1) and

16 (3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§2000e-5 (1) and (3).

17

4. At all relevant times, Defendant, Stephens Institute d/b/a Academy of Art College

18 (the “Employer”) has continuously been doing business in the State of California and in the City and

19 County of San Francisco, California, and has continuously employed at least fifteen employees.

20

5. At all relevant times, Defendant Em ployer has continuously been an employer

21 engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 701(b), (g), and (h) of

22 Title 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, David T. Banks filed a
25
Charge of Discrimination with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by Defendant
26
Em ployer. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled.
27
7. Since at least September 11, 2000, Defendant Employer has engaged in unlawful
28
employment practices at its San Francisco, California campus in violation of Section 703 (a) of Title

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

C-03-4383-PJH

2

1 VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-2 (a), by subjecting Mr. Banks, Mr. Jordan, Mr. Willis and Mr. Campbell and

2 other black employees who may be determined through the discovery process to a racially hostile

3 work environment and discharging Mr. Banks because of his race.

4

8. The effect of the practices complained of above has been to deprive Mr. Banks, Mr.

5 Jordan, Mr. Willis and Mr. Campbell and other black employees who may be determined through

6 the discovery process of equal employment opportunities and to otherwise adversely affect their

7 employment status as employees because of their race.

8

9. The unlawful employment practices complained of above were intentional.

9

10. The unlawful employment practices complained of above were and are done with

10 malice and/or reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Mr. Banks, Mr. Jordan, Mr.

11 Willis, Mr. Campbell and other black employees who may be determined by the discovery process.

12
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
13
WHEREFORE, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court:
14
A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant Employer, its officers, successors,
15
assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in racial
16
discrimination and any other employment practices which discriminate on the basis of race.
17
B. Order Defendant Employer to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs
18
which provide equal employment opportunities for their black em ployees and which eradicate the
19
effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices.
20
C. Order Defendant Employer to make whole Mr. Banks by providing appropriate back
21
pay with prejudgment interest in amounts to be determined at trial, and other affirmative relief
22
necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices, including but not limited to
23
front pay.
24
D. Order Defendant Em ployer to make whole Mr. Banks, Mr. Jordan, Mr. Willis and M r.
25
Cam pbell and other black employees w ho may be determined by the discovery process by providing
26
appropriate compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful
27
employment practices described above, in amounts to be determined at trial, and other affirmative
28
relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices.

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

C-03-4383-PJH

3

1

E. Order Defendant Employer to make whole Mr. Banks, Mr. Jordan, Mr. Willis and Mr.

2 Cam pbell and other black employees who may be determined by the discovery process by providing

3 compensation for past and future non-pecuniary losses caused by the above unlawful conduct

4 described above, including pain and suffering, emotional distress, indignity, loss of enjoyment of

5 life, loss of self-esteem, and humiliation, in amounts to be determined at trial.

6

F. Order Defendant Employer to pay Mr. Banks, Mr. Jordan, Mr. Willis, Mr. Cam pbell

7 and other black employees who may be determined through the discovery process punitive damages

8 for its malicious and reckless conduct described above, in amounts to be determined at trial.

9

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

10 interest.

11

H. Award the Comm ission its costs of this action.

12
JURY TRIAL DEMAND
13
The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its complaint.
14

15

16

Respectfully submitted,

17

ERIC S. DREIBAND

General Counsel

18

JAMES L. LEE

19

Deputy General Counsel

20

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

COMMISSION

21

1801 L Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 10507

22

23 24 DATED : March __4__, 2004 25

/s/
WILLIAM R. TAMAYO Regional Attorney

26

27
DATED : March __3___, 2004
28

/s/
JONATHAN T. PECK Supervisory Trial Attorney

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

C-03-4383-PJH

4

1 2 3
DATED : March ___4__, 2004
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

/s/
SANYA P. HILL MAXION Senior Trial Attorney
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
San Francisco District Office 350 The Embarcadero, Suite 500 San Francisco, California 94105-1260

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

C-03-4383-PJH

5

 
 Case 3:03-cv-04383-PJH Document 21 Filed 01/29/2004 Page 1 of 4

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

NOT FOR CITATION

7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9

10

11
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT 12 OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

13

Plaintiff,

No. C 03-4383 PJH

14

v.

ORDER RE MOTION TO DISMISS

15 STEPHENS INSTITUTE d/b/a ACADEMY OF ART COLLEGE,
16 Defendant.
17 ___________________________/

18

Before the court is the motion of defendant Stephens Institute d/b/a Academy of Art

19 College (“Academy of Art”), for an order dismissing the first amended complaint pursuant to

20 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, and alternative motion

21 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e) for a more definite statement. Having read

22 the parties’ papers and carefully considered their arguments and the relevant legal authority,

23 and good cause appearing, the court hereby rules as follows.

24

David T. Banks (“Banks”) was discharged from his employment with the Academy of

25 Art in May 2001, and filed an administrative charge with the EEOC on August 15, 2001.

26 Banks, who is African-American, asserted in the charge that he was hired by the Academy of

27 Art in September 2000, that he and other African-American employees were treated

28 differently than the non-African-American employees in the terms and conditions of their

Case 3:03-cv-04383-PJH Document 21 Filed 01/29/2004 Page 2 of 4

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 employment, and were subjected to a hostile work environment because of their race. Banks

2 also charged that he complained of discriminatory and disparate treatment to his supervisors,

3 but that no action was taken. He asserted that he and other African-American employees

4 were discriminated against because of their race and in retaliation for engaging in protected

5 activity.

6

The EEOC investigated the claim, and issued a determination on July 29, 2002. The

7 EEOC found that the evidence and documentation established that the Academy of Art had

8 harassed Banks and “a class of Blacks” based on their race, and discharged Banks because

9 of his race. The EEOC was unable to conclude that the evidence established a violation of

10 Title VII with regard to Banks’ allegations of disparate wages, terms, and conditions of

11 employment, and of discharge based on retaliation for engaging in protected activity; or with

12 regard to the claim of discharge of African-Americans as a class.

13

The EEOC filed this action on September 29, 2003, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-

14 5(f)(1) (“Civil action by Commission”), alleging that the Academy of Art had discriminated

15 against David T. Banks and other African-American employees. The EEOC filed a first

16 amended complaint “FAC”) on November 25, 2003. The Academy of Art responded with the

17 present motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, and alternative motion for a more definite

18 statement.

19

The Academy of Art contends that the FAC contains no facts, but instead merely

20 pleads conclusory allegations, and that it should be dismissed for failure to state a claim.

21 The FAC alleges that the Academy of Art “engaged in unlawful employment practices at its

22 San Francisco, California campus in violation of Section 703(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C.

23 § 2000e-3(a),” and that “[t]hese practices include subjecting Mr. Banks and other black

24 employees to a racially hostile work environment and discharging Mr. Banks because of his

25 race.” FAC ¶ 7.

26

The Academy of Art argues that the FAC fails to state a claim for violation of 42 U.S.C

27 § 2000e-3(a) (unlawful for employer to retaliate against employee for opposing unlawful

28 employment practices or for filing charge of discrimination) because the EEOC does not

2

Case 3:03-cv-04383-PJH Document 21 Filed 01/29/2004 Page 3 of 4

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 allege that the unlawful employment practices that Banks and other unidentified African-

2 American employees were subjected to were in retaliation for opposing unlawful employment

3 practices or for filing a charge of discrimination.

4

The Academy of Art also contends that it cannot frame a responsive pleading in the

5 absence of a more definite statement, because the FAC is so vague and ambiguous.

6 Specifically, the Academy of Art asserts that the FAC fails to identify the “other black

7 employees” who were allegedly discriminated against, fails to identify the allegedly unlawful

8 practices committed by the Academy of Art, fails to identify the ways in which the work

9 environment was allegedly racially hostile, and fails to allege any facts indicating that any

10 employee opposed an unlawful practice and was retaliated against as a result.

11

The EEOC responds that the reference to § 2000e-3(a) in the FAC was a

12 typographical error, and that its intent was to refer to § 2000e-2(a) (unlawful for employer to

13 discriminate against employee with respect to compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges

14 of employment because of employee’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin). The

15 EEOC contends that the Academy of Art should have known that the reference was to

16 § 2000e-2(a) because the FAC also cites to § 703(a) of Title VII, which corresponds to

17 § 2000e-2(a).

18

With regard to the motion for a more definite statement, the EEOC responds that the

19 FAC satisfies the notice pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, and

20 asserts that the Academy of Art is attempting to seek factual detail that is more properly

21 obtained through the initial disclosure and discovery process. The EEOC also contends that

22 the Academy of Art and its counsel were advised of the nature of the allegations in this case

23 as a result of the EEOC’s administrative investigation of Banks’ charge, and when the EEOC

24 issued its finding of reasonable cause.

25

The court finds that the motion should be GRANTED as follows. The Rule 12(b)(6)

26 motion should be granted because, regardless of what the EEOC believes the Academy of

27 Art “should have known,” the fact is that the FAC alleges a violation of § 2000e-3, not

28 § 2000e-2. Thus, the complaint should be amended to clarify that it pleads a claim under

3

Case 3:03-cv-04383-PJH Document 21 Filed 01/29/2004 Page 4 of 4

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 § 2000e-2(a).1

2

With regard to the Rule 12(e) motion, the court agrees with the Academy of Art that the

3 EEOC should identify the “other black employees” who were allegedly discriminated against.

4 The court does not agree that the FAC is deficient because it does not plead in detail the

5 ways in which the work environment was hostile. However, to the extent that the EEOC

6 intends to assert claims of “unlawful employment practices” other than the claim of hostile

7 environment (as to Banks and the “other black employees”) and the claim of discriminatory

8 discharge (as to Banks), the amended complaint should so state.

9

In accordance with the foregoing, the EEOC shall, no later than March 5, 2004, file a

10 second amended complaint, clarifying the causes of action, and the alleged unlawful

11 employment practices (as explained above), and identifying the alleged victims of the unlawful

12 employment practices.

13

The date for the hearing on this motion, previously set for Wednesday, February 11,

14 2004, is hereby VACATED.

15

16 IT IS SO ORDERED.

17 Dated: January 29, 2004 18 19

/s PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON United States District Judge

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1 As the EEOC did not find reasonable cause to believe that Banks’ charge of retaliatory

27

discharge was true, the court concludes that the EEOC did not intend to allege a claim of retaliation in the present action. However, were the EEOC to allege a claim of retaliation, the

28

second amended complaint should plead, in a separate cause of action, facts stating the elements of a violation of § 2000e-3(a).

4

 
 Case 3:03-cv-04383-PJH Document 48 Filed 02/22/2005 Page 1 of 11

1

WILLIAM R. TAMAYO· #084965 (CA) JONATHAN T. PECK - #12303 (VA)

2

SANYA P. HILL MAXION· #18739(WA) MARCIA L. MITCHELL - #18122 (WA)

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

3

COMMISSION

San Francisco District Office 4 350 The Embarcadero, Suite 500

San Francisco, California 94105

5 . Telel'hone: (415) 625-5651"

FaCSImile: (415) 625-5657 6

Attorneys for PlaintifIU.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

7 OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

8 JENNIFERJ. WALT-4II02026 (CA) KRISTIN E. HUTCHINS-4I184429 (CA)
9 LmLER MENDELSON A Professional Corporatign
10 650 California Street, 20 Floor San Francisco, CA 94108-2693
11 Tel"l'hone: (415) 433-1940 Facs1lllile: (415) 743-6611
12 Attorneys for Defendant THE STEPHENS INSTITUTE dba THE ACADEMY OF ART UNIVERSITY
13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
14 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
15

16

17

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

) ) CIVIL ACTION NO.

) CIY. C-03-4383 PJH

18

PlaintitT

)

v.

)

19

STEPHENS INSTITUTE d/b/a THE

) )

CONS

EQNnTd

DECREE ~~

20

ACADEMY OF ART COLLEGE,

)

)

21

Defendant.

~ E-fmng

22

)

)

23

)

24 25 26 1. 27

I. INTRODUCTION The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") filed this action alleging that the Stephens Institute dba The Academy of Art University (''the Academy")

28

subjected David Banks, Oscar Jordan, Hayes Campbell and Taa Willis, all African-

CONSENT DECREE
C-OJ-4383·PJH

Case 3:03-cv-04383-PJH Document 48 Filed 02/22/2005 Page 2 of 11

1

Americans, to a racially hostile work environment based on their race, African-American.

2
3 2.

The lawsuit also alleged that the Academy discharged David Banks due to his race. The Academy contends that no unlawful discrimination, harassment or retaliation of any sort

4
5 3.
6

occurred. The EEOC and the Academy want to conclude fully and finally all claims arising out of the above action without the expenditure of further resources and expenses in contested

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

litigation. They enter into this Consent Decree to further the objectives of equal employment opportunity as set forth in Title VII.
II. NON-ADMISSION OF LIABILITY
This Consent Decree is not an adjudication or finding on the merits of this case and shall not be construed as an admission of a violation of Title VII or any other statute by the Academy.
m. PURPOSE OF THE DECREE
The parties have entered into this Consent Decree in order to achieve the following purposes:
a. To ensure the maintenance and support of policies and procedures that prohibit the Academy from discriminating against, harassing, or retaliating against employees on the basis of race.
b. To ensure that the Academy maintains and supports a policy and enforcement program to effectively prevent discrimination based upon race.
c. To compensate David Banks, Taa Willis, Oscar Jordan and Hayes Campbell for damages allegedly suffered in connection with the alleged discrimination by the Academy.
d. To avoid the time, expense and uncertainty of further litigation.
IV. DEFINITION OF TERMS "Claimants" refers to David Banks, the individual who filed the charge of discrimination leading to the instant action, and Taa Willis, Oscar Jordan and Hayes Campbel~ similarly
situated individuals who the EEOC contends are entitled to recover monetary relief pursuant

CONSENT DECREE
C.Q~313-PJH

2

Case 3:03-cv-04383-PJH Document 48 Filed 02/22/2005 Page 3 of 11

I 2 3 4 5 7. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 8. 13 14 IS 16 17 18 9. 19 10. 20 21 II. 22 12. 23 13. 24 25 26 14. 27 28

to this Consent Decree. It is expressly agreed by all parties that no other individuals are entitled to any monetary relief under the terms of this Consent Decree or stemming from the Complaint filed in this lawsuit.
V. GENERAL PROVISIONS This Consent Decree is intended to and does effectuate the full, final, and complete resolution of all allegations of unlawful employment practices and discrimination arising from or relating to the original discrimination charge of discrimination, EEOC Charge Number 370AI1063 ("the Charge") and the Complaint filed in EEOC v. Stephens Institute dba The Academy ofArt College, Civil Case No.C-03-4383-PJH ("the Complaint"), pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as well as any claims that could have been brought as part of the Charge and/or Complaint. This Consent Decree in no way affects the EEOC's right to process, in accordance with stsndard Commission procedures, charges filed by individuals against Defendant alleging violations of federal employment discrimination statutes. Charges include those pending as of the effective date of this Consent Decree and filed in the future. Processing includes the administrative investigation of a charge, conciliation, and commencement of a civil action based upon a charge. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of and the parties to this action. This Consent Decree constitutes a full resolution ofthe Complaint and the underlying charge of discrimination filed with the EEOC. This Consent Decree shall become effective upon its entry by the Court. Each party shall bear its own costs and attorney fees. The Court bas reviewed the terms of this Consent Decree in light of the pleadings, the record herein, and the applicable law, and now approves the Consent Decree in its entirety.
VI. MONETARY RELIEF In settlement of the EEOC's claims ofunIawful harassment and discriminatory discharge alleged in the Complaint or related to this lawsuit, the Academy agrees to pay the gross sum

CONSENT DECREE

3

C-43"383-PJH

Case 3:03-cv-04383-PJH Document 48 Filed 02/22/2005 Page 4 of 11

I

of One Hundred Ten Thousand Dollars and No Cents ($110,000.00) (''the Settlement Sum").

2

The EEOC will infonn the Academy how the Settlement Sum shall be apportioned between

3

the Claimants no later than thirty (30) days after entry of this Consent Decree.

4 15. Payment to the Claimants shall be made no later than forty-five (45) days after entry of this

5

Consent Decree. The monetary relief shall be issued in checks drafted in each of the

6

Claimants' names and delivered to the EEOC for distribution. The Academy shall make

7

payment to the Claimants in the fonn of a business check, cashier's check or certified check.

S

The Academy also will issue an IRS Fonn 1099 for each of the checks issued pursuant to this

9

paragraph.

10

a. The Academy will mail the copies of the IRS Fonn 1099 to Marcia Mitchell,

11

Senior Trial Attorney for the EEOC, at 350 The Embarcadero, San Francisco,

12

CA 94105 simultaneously with the mailing of the checks.

13

b. Payment of monetary relief to the Claimants shall be contingent on the

14

execution of a general release of all claims by all Claimants and the expiration

15

of the seven-day revocation period contained in that release without any

16

revocation of the release.

17

VII. GENERAL INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

18 16. Discrimillfltory Harassment: Consistent with Section 703 of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-2,

19

the Academy, its officers, agents, managers (including supervisory employees), successors

20

. and assigns, and all those in active concert or participation with them, will make every

21

reasonable effort to comply with all requirements of Title VII with respect to providing a

22

work environment free from discrimination and harassment on the basis ofrace and free from

23

any action, policy or practice that is intended to or known to them to have the effect of

24

harassing or intimidating any employees on the basis of race or creating, facilitating or

25

permitting the existence of a work environment that is hostile to employees based on their

26

race.

27 17. Retllliation: Consistent with Section 704 ofTitie VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-3, the Academy, its 28

CONSENT DECREE C.e3-43I3-PIH

4

Case 3:03-cv-04383-PJH Document 48 Filed 02/22/2005 Page 5 of 11

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

officers, agents, managers (including supervisory employees), successors or assigns, and all
those in active concert or participation with them, agree not to engage in, implement or
permit any action, policy or practice with the purpose of retaliating against any of the
Claimants or any person who was identified as a possible claimant or witness in this action
because they opposed any practice of harassment or other discriminatory acts on the basis of
race made unlawful under Title VII; filed a Charge of Discrimination alleging any such
practice; or testified or participated in any manner in any investigation (including, without
limitation, any internal investigation undertaken by the Academy), proceeding or hearing in
connection with this case.
VII. SPECIFIC INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
The Academy affirms the fo1I0wing "Statement of Zero-Tolerance Policy and Equality Objectives":
The Academy is frrmly committed to maintaining a zero-tolerance policy concerning discriminatory harassment and retaliation against mdividuals who report harassment in the company's workplace; to swiftly and frrmly responding to any acts of harassment and retaliation of which the company becomes aware; to implementing a disciplinary system that is deSigned to strongly deter future acts of harassment or retaliation; and to actively monitoring its workplace in order to ensure tolerance, respect and dignity for all people. This paragraph does not create any contractual or common law causes of action or other
rights that would not otherwise exist under statute. In order to accomplish the objectives embodied in the Statement of Zero-Tolerance Policy
and Equality Objectives and this Consent Decree, the Academy shall review its existing
policies, procedures and practices to ensure compliance with the standards set forth below. EEO and Harassment Policies a. The Academy's equal employment opportunity ("EEO") and harassment
policies shall: (i) include defmitions of discriminatory harassment, with specific reference to harassment based on race (ii) include examples to
supplement the definitions of harassment based on race; (iii) provide for
substantial discipline and/or corrective action for incidents of discriminatory

CONSENT DECREE C-03-4383-PJH

5

Case 3:03-cv-04383-PJH Document 48 Filed 02/22/2005 Page 6 of 11

I

harassment; (iv) include strong non-retaliation language with examples to

2

supplement the definition of retaliation, (v) provide for substantial discipline

3

for incidents of retaliation; (vi) provide that complaints of harassment and/or

4

retaliation will be accepted irrespective of whether they are made verbally or

5

in writing; (vii) explain that Defendant will conduct a prompt and thorough

6

investigation after a complaint is made or received and will take remedial

7

action upon conclusion of an investigation; and (viii) indicate that, promptly

8

upon the conclusion of the investigation of a complaint, Defendant will

9

communicate to the complaining party the results of the investigation and the

10

remedial actions taken or proposed, if any. If any revisions to the Academy's

11

existing policies are necessary in order to conform to the requirements set

12

forth above, the necessary revisions shall be made within forty-five (45) days

13

after entry of this Consent Decree.

14

b. The Academy shall effectively disseminate policies that comply with the

15

requirements of subsection a, above, by:

16

i.

distributing copies to all current employees within 10 days of

17

its adoption;

18

ii. Giving a copy of the policy to and reviewing the policy with all

19

new employees upon each employee's hire.

20

c. The Academy will submit a copy of its EEO and harassment policies to EEOC

21

at the same time it submits its verification ofcompletion of training pursuant

22

to Section IX.

23

Compillint Procedures

24

d. The Academy's complaint procedure shall encourage employees to come

25

forward with complaints about violations of its harassment policy. As part of

26

the policy, the Academy shall provide its employees with convenient,

27

confidential and reliable mechanisms for reporting incidents of harassment

28

CONSENT DECREE

6

C-tJ.4383.PJH

Case 3:03-cv-04383-PJH Document 48 Filed 02/22/2005 Page 7 of 11

I

and retaliation. The Academy's complaint procedure and harassment policy

2

shall notify employees that they can lodge a complaint with their immediate

3

supervisor or the Director of Human Resources and shall provide the name

4

and telephone numbers for the Director of Human Resources. Contact

5

information for the Director of Human Resources also shall be continuously

6

posted in a prominent place at all of the Academy's business locations.

7

e. The Academy will submit a copy of its complaint procedures to the EEOC at

8

the same time it submits its verification of completion of training pursuant to

9

Section IX.

10

Supervisor Accountability.

11

f.

The Academy agrees that it shall impose appropriate discipline - up to and

12

including termination, suspension without pay, or demotion - upon any

13

supervisor or manager who the Academy determines has engaged in

14

harassment or has knowingly permitted any such conduct to occur in his or

IS

her work area or among employees under his or her supervision, or who the

16

Academy determines has retaliated against any person who complains or

17

participates in any investigation or proceeding concerning any such

18

harassment.

19

g. The Academy shall communicate this policy to all current supervisors and·

20

ruanagers within sixty (60) days after entry of this Consent Decree, and

21

thereafter on an annual basis.

22

h. The Academy shal1 communicate this policy to new supervisors and managers

23

at the time they are hired or promoted to supervisor/ruanager.

24

i.

The Academy agrees that it shal1 advise al1 managers and supervisors of their

25

duty to actively monitor their work areas to ensure employee compliance with

26

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

27

harassment and/or retaliation of which they become aware to the Director of

28

CONSENT DECREE C-O:H313-PJH

7

Case 3:03-cv-04383-PJH Document 48 Filed 02/22/2005 Page 8 of 11

I

Human Resources.

2

Harassment Training

3

j.

Within six (6) months of entry of this Consent Decree, the Academy will

4

ensure that all of its employees, including supervisors and managers, have

5

received the applicable level of training, as set forth below:

6

i.

All employees shall undergo anti-harassment training as part of

7

their new-hire orientation. Such training shall consist of (I)

8

watching two videos, one on sexual harassment and the other

9

on diversity and workplace harassment in general, and (2)

10

participating in a question-and-answer session covering the

11

videos, the Academy policies, and the Academy's employee

12

handbook. Existing employees who have already viewed the

13

harassment video and engaged in the related question-and-

14

answer session as of entry of this Consent Decree shall only be

15

required to view the video on diversity.

16

ii. All non-managerial employees shall be required to take annual

17

on-line, interactive "refresher" course covering equal

18

employment opportunity and workplace harassment (or a

19

course with substantially similar content). The refresher

20

training shall be provided and completed twelve (12) to fifteen

21

(15) months after completion of the training provided pursuant

22

to the preceding paragraph.

23

iii. In addition to receiving the training described in subsections (i)

24

and (ii) above, managers and supervisors shall be required to

25

participate annually in a three-hour live training entitled

26

"Managing Within the Law" (or a course with substantially

27

similar content) and to take an on-line, interactive course on

28

CONSENT DECREE
C-03-4J83~PJH

8

Case 3:03-cv-04383-PJH Document 48 Filed 02/22/2005 Page 9 of 11

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
CONSENT DECREE C-03-4313-PJH

equal employment opportunity and workplace harassment or managers or a course with substantially similar content}. Those managers and supervisors who participated in and completed the "Managing Within The Law" program on October 29, 2004 will not be required to repeat the trsining. iv. Managers and supervisors with responsibility for hiring and termination must also take an on-line, interactive course covering lawful hiring and termination of employees. This training will be completed within six months. v. Managers and supervisors shall also be required to take an annual on-line, interactive "refresher" course on equal employment opportunity and workplace harassment for managers (or a course with substantially similar content). The refresher training shall be provided and completed twelve (12) to fifteen (15) months after completion of the trsining required by subsections (iii) and (iv) above. vi. The cost of the training described above shall be borne by the Academy. vii. The Academy will retain records documenting when all live trsining provided pursuant to this section was completed. The records will identify the employees who attended the trsining. The Academy also will retain records reflecting the identities of all employees who received video or on-line trsining and the date(s) of completion of the training. The Academy will provide copies of these records to the EEOC with the reports required by Paragraphs 22 and 23 below.
9

Case 3:03-cv-04383-PJH Document 48 Filed 02/22/2005 Page 10 of 11

1 2 20. 3
4
5 6 7 21. 8

VID. EMPLOYMENT REFERENCES The Academy shall not disclose any information or make references to any charges of discrimination or this lawsuit in responding to employment reference requests for information about any of the Claimants. However, in order for this provision to apply, the Claimants must direct all persons seeking references to the Director of Human Resources.
IX. REPORTING Six (6) months after entry of this Consent Decree and again every six months thereafter for the effective term of this Consent Decree, the Academy will submit reports to the EEOC

9

summarizing any complaints of racial harassment received by the Academy during the

10

preceding six-month period. The reports will include the identities of the complainant(s)

11

unless the complainant requests confidentiality and the alleged harasser(s) and a summary of

12

action taken in response to the complaint. In cases where the complainant has requested

13

confidentiality, the Academy may refer to the complainant by a unique numerical identifier,

14

but must still include the identity of the alleged harasser and a summary of action taken in

15

response to the complaint) in its report to the EEOC. The Academy will attach copies of the

16 17 22.

corresponding written records. Within six (6) months of the entry of this Consent Decree, the Academy will send the EEOC

18 19 20 23.

a statement verifying its compliance with the Harassment Training provisions of Paragraph 19. The Academy shall submit a final report to the EEOC thirty (30) days before this Consent

21

Decree expires containing a statement verifying its compliance with the terms of this Consent

22

Decree.

23

X. RETENTION OF JURISDICTION AND EXPIRATION OF CONSENT DECREE

24 24. This Consent Decree shall terminate two (2) years from the date of entry by the Court, unless

25

the EEOC petitions this Court for an extension of the Decree because of noncompliance by

26

the Academy. If EEOC determines that the Academy has not complied with the Consent

27

Decree, EEOC will provide written notification of the alleged breach to the Academy and

28

CONSENT DECREE

10

C-03~83-PJH

Case 3:03-cv-04383-PJH Document 48 Filed 02/22/2005 Page 11 of 11

I

will not petition the Court for an enforcement hearing sooner than forty-five (45) days after

2

providing written notification. Following the written notice the parties shall make good faith

3

efforts to resolve the issue. If the parties are unable to informally resolve the issue, the

4

Academy shall be permitted to file a response to the EEOC's petition no later than fourteen

5

(14) days before the enforcement hearing. At the enforcement hearing the Court shall

6

consider the papers submitted by the parties as well as any additional evidence or argument

7

they may present at the hearing. If the Court finds the Academy to be in substantial violation

8

of the terms of this Consent Decree, the Court may extend this Consent Decree.

9 25. This Court shall retain jurisdiction over this action for the purposes of enforcing the

10

provisions of this Consent Decree. This Consent Decree shall expire by its own terms at the

II

end of two (2) years without further action by the parties.

12

13

Respectfully submitted,

2/'1 14 DATED:

,2005

IS

16

~~
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION \)

2./ 17 DATED: 1\ ,2005 18

-cJl,,, \(0-
THAN'PECK

up .sory Trial Attorney

19

. . EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

20 DATED: 0111\ ,2005
21

U-- O~MoCM.l~Il\SM(SI;.T~IO~L~

.or Trial Attorney

22

. . EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

COMMISSION

2-~i, 23

24 DATED:

2005

ERJ

25

LER

E N

orney for Defendant

26 APPROVED AND SO ORDERED:
27
28 U.S. District Court Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton

CONSENT DECREE

11

C-G3"'3I1J.PIH

IT Id!DERED
V~~M'~
.-"!ruted,stru.es OiBtr~clge 2 m

Date

 
 Case: 4:03-cv-4383 As of: 12/02/2018 04:52 PM PST 1 of 5
ADRMOP,CLOSED,E−Filing,ENETERM
U.S. District Court California Northern District (Oakland) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:03−cv−04383−PJH

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Academy of Art Date Filed: 09/29/2003

College

Date Terminated: 02/22/2005

Assigned to: Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton

Jury Demand: Plaintiff

Cause: 42:1981 Civil Rights

Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs

Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by Jonathan T. Peck U.S. EEOC 450 Golden Gate Ave POB 36025 San Francisco, CA 94102 415−522−3425 Fax: 415−625−5657 Email: Jonathan.Peck@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sanya P. Hill Maxion U.S. EEOC 350 The Embarcadero Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94105−1260 (415) 625−5650 Fax: 415−625−5657 Email: sanya.hill@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William Robert Tamayo U.S. EEOC 450 Golden Gate Ave POB 36025 San Francisco, CA 94102 415−522−3425 Fax: 415−625−5657 Email: william.tamayo@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marcia L. Mitchell U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Comm'n 350 The Embarcadero Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94105−1687 (415) 625−5651 Fax: 415−625−5657 Email: marcia.mitchell@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sanya P. Hill Maxion (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant

Case: 4:03-cv-4383 As of: 12/02/2018 04:52 PM PST 2 of 5

Academy of Art College TERMINATED: 12/02/2003

Defendant
Stephens Institute doing business as Academy of Art College

represented by Jennifer Joan Walt Littler Mendelson, P.C. 650 California Street, 20th Fl. San Francisco, CA 94108 (415) 433−1940 Email: jjwalt@littler.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kristin E. Hutchins Littler Mendelson, P.C. 333 Bush Street, 34th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 (415) 439−6296 Email: khutchins@littler.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 09/29/2003 09/29/2003
09/29/2003 10/23/2003 12/02/2003 12/02/2003 12/18/2003 12/23/2003 12/23/2003 12/23/2003 12/31/2003 01/06/2004

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT /issued summons against Academy of Art College (). Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (ga, COURT STAFF) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/2/2003 (ga, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/30/2003)
2 ADR SCHEDULING ORDER: Case Management Statement due by 1/22/2004. Case Management Conference set for 1/29/2004 at 10:00 AM.. Signed by Judge Maria−Elena James on 9/29/03. (Attachments: # 1 Standing Order # (2) Consent/Decline Form)(ga, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/30/2003)
CASE DESIGNATED for Electronic Filing. (ga, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/30/2003)
3 NOTICE of Change of Address by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (ga, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/24/2003)
4 AMENDED COMPLAINT against Stephens Institute dba Academy of Art College. Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (ga, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/2/2003) (Entered: 12/03/2003)
Summons Issued as to Stephens Institute. (ga, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/2/2003) (Entered: 12/03/2003)
5 AMENDED COMPLAINT against Stephens Institute. Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Hill, Sanya) (Filed on 12/18/2003) (Entered: 12/18/2003)
6 MOTION to Dismiss AND/OR FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT filed by Stephens Institute. Motion Hearing set for 1/29/2004 10:00 AM. (Walt, Jennifer) (Filed on 12/23/2003) (Entered: 12/23/2003)
7 Proposed Order re 6 GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS AND/OR FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT by Stephens Institute. (Walt, Jennifer) (Filed on 12/23/2003) (Entered: 12/23/2003)
8 Declination to Proceed Before a U.S. Magistrate Judge by Stephens Institute REQUEST FOR REASSIGNMENT. (Walt, Jennifer) (Filed on 12/23/2003) (Entered: 12/23/2003)
9 CLERK'S NOTICE of Impending Reassignment to U.S. District Judge (bjt, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/31/2003) (Entered: 12/31/2003)
10 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Proof of Service) (Hill, Sanya) (Filed on 1/6/2004) (Entered: 01/06/2004)

Case: 4:03-cv-4383 As of: 12/02/2018 04:52 PM PST 3 of 5

01/07/2004 01/07/2004 01/07/2004
01/15/2004 01/20/2004 01/21/2004 01/21/2004
01/23/2004 01/23/2004 01/26/2004
01/26/2004 01/29/2004 02/06/2004 03/05/2004 03/05/2004 03/29/2004

11 STIPULATION Re: New Case Schedule Dates; Order Thereon by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Hill, Sanya) (Filed on 1/7/2004) (Entered: 01/07/2004)
12 Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Dismissal for Failure to State a Claim and/or Motion for a More Definite Statement filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Hill, Sanya) (Filed on 1/7/2004) (Entered: 01/07/2004)
13 Declaration of Sanya P. Hill Maxion in Support of 12 Plaintiff EEOC's Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Dismissal for Failure to State a Claim and/or Motion for a More Definite Statement filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A − EEOC's Charge of Discrimination# 2 Exhibit Exhibit B − Walt's Letter July 19, 2002# 3 Exhibit Exhibit C − EEOC's Letter of Determination)(Related document(s) 12 ) (Hill, Sanya) (Filed on 1/7/2004) (Entered: 01/07/2004)
14 Reply Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion to Dismiss and/or for More Definite Statement (F.R.C.P. 12(b)(6), 12(e)) filed by Stephens Institute. (Walt, Jennifer) (Filed on 1/15/2004) (Entered: 01/15/2004)
15 ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton for all further proceedings. Judge Maria−Elena James no longer assigned to case. Signed by Executive Committee on 1/20/04. (as, ) (Filed on 1/20/2004) (Entered: 01/20/2004)
16 MOTION to Dismiss ; Defendant's Re−Notice of Motion to Dismiss and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion to Dismiss and/or for More Definite Statement (F.R.C.P. 12(b)(6), 12(e)) filed by Stephens Institute. Motion Hearing set for 2/4/2004 09:00 AM. (Walt, Jennifer) (Filed on 1/21/2004) (Entered: 01/21/2004)
17 Reply Memorandum re 16 MOTION to Dismiss ; Defendant's Re−Notice of Motion to Dismiss and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion to Dismiss and/or for More Definite Statement (F.R.C.P. 12(b)(6), 12(e)) of Points and Authorities filed by Stephens Institute. (Walt, Jennifer) (Filed on 1/21/2004) (Entered: 01/21/2004)
18 MOTION to Dismiss ; Defendant's Re−Notice of Motion, Motion and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion to Dismiss and/or for More Definite Statement (F.R.C.P. 12(b)(6), 12(e)) filed by Stephens Institute. Motion Hearing set for 2/11/2004 09:00 AM. (Walt, Jennifer) (Filed on 1/23/2004) (Entered: 01/23/2004)
19 Reply Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Renoticed Motion to Dismiss and/or for More Definite Statement (F.R.C.P. 12(b)(6), 12(e)) filed by Stephens Institute. (Walt, Jennifer) (Filed on 1/23/2004) (Entered: 01/23/2004)
20 ORDER SETTING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE: the case having been reassigned to the Honorable Phyllis J. Hamilton a Case Management Conference will be held on 2/19/04 at 2:30 P.M. A Joint Case Management Conference Statement shall be filed by 2/12/04. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 1/26/04. (lm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/26/2004) (Entered: 01/26/2004)
Set/Reset Hearings: Initial Case Management Conference set for 2/19/2004 02:30 PM. (lm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/26/2004) (Entered: 01/26/2004)
21 ORDER by Judge Hamilton granting 6 16 18 Motion to Dismiss. Amended complaint due 3/5/2004. (pjhlc1, ) (Filed on 1/29/2004) (Entered: 01/29/2004)
22 NOTICE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (LETTER) Confirming the Rescheduling of Case Management Conference to 4/22/04 (Hill, Sanya) (Filed on 2/6/2004) (Entered: 02/06/2004)
23 AMENDED COMPLAINT (Second) against Academy of Art College, Stephens Institute. Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Hill, Sanya) (Filed on 3/5/2004) (Entered: 03/05/2004)
Summons Issued as to Stephens Institute. (fb, Court Staff) (Filed on 3/5/2004) (Entered: 03/08/2004)
24 ANSWER to Amended Complaint (Second) by Stephens Institute. (Walt, Jennifer) (Filed on 3/29/2004) (Entered: 03/29/2004)

Case: 4:03-cv-4383 As of: 12/02/2018 04:52 PM PST 4 of 5

04/15/2004 04/16/2004 04/23/2004
04/23/2004 04/26/2004 04/28/2004 05/04/2004 05/07/2004 05/12/2004 05/14/2004 05/18/2004
05/18/2004 05/18/2004 06/08/2004 06/23/2004 07/12/2004 07/20/2004

25 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Hill, Sanya) (Filed on 4/15/2004) (Entered: 04/15/2004)
26 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT (Amended) filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Hill, Sanya) (Filed on 4/16/2004) (Entered: 04/16/2004)
27 Minute Entry: Case Management Conference held on 4/22/2004 before Phyllis J. Hamilton. Case Management Conference−−−HELD. Discovery Limitations: Interrogatories − 25 per claimant, Depositions − 20 per side, and Admission Requests − 25 per claimant. The parties agreed to be referred to ENE Program, which will be completed in 90 days. Case referred to ADR for ENE to be completed in 90 days.PRETRIAL SCHEDULE:Discovery Cutoff: 5/11/05Expert Disclosure: 4/27/05Expert Discovery Cutoff: 6/10/05Motions heard by: 7/6/05Pretrial Conference: 10/6/05 at 2:30 P.M.Jury Trial: 10/31/05 at 8:30 A.M. (20 days)Order to be prepared by the Court(Court Reporter: Not Reported)(lm, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 4/23/2004) (Entered: 04/23/2004)
28 CASE MANAGEMENT & PRETRIAL ORDER: Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 4/23/04. (lm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/23/2004) (Entered: 04/23/2004)
Set/Reset Hearings: Jury Trial set for 10/31/2005 08:30 AM. Pretrial Conference set for 10/6/2005 02:30 PM. (lm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/26/2004) (Entered: 04/26/2004)
29 NOTICE by Stephens Institute of Correction Re: Length of Jury Trial (Hutchins, Kristin) (Filed on 4/28/2004) (Entered: 04/28/2004)
30 LETTER dated 5/4/04 to Clerk from Jennifer J. Walt of Littler Mendelson re Request for Clarification of Trial Schedule by Stephens Institute (Walt, Jennifer) (Filed on 5/4/2004) Modified on 5/5/2004 (fb, Court Staff). (Entered: 05/04/2004)
31 Letter & ORDER: (Trial Length) Changed to 20 days. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 5/6/04. (lm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/7/2004) (Entered: 05/07/2004)
32 ADR Clerk's Notice Appointing Lynne C. Hermle as ENE Evaluator dated 5/12/2004. (af, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/12/2004) (Entered: 05/12/2004)
Pre ENE phone conference−−Evaluator hopes to conduct call before 5/25/2004. (af, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/14/2004) (Entered: 05/14/2004)
33 OBJECTIONS to Appointment of ENE Evaluator, Lynne C. Hermle re 32 by Sanya Hill Maxion attorney for Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (cc: Lynne C. Hermle, Jennifer J. Walt). ADR Unit to appoint another Evaluator as soon as possible. (af, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/18/2004) (Entered: 05/18/2004)
34 ADR Clerk's Notice of Removal of Evaluator, Lynne C. Hermle, dated 5/18/2004. ADR Unit will appoint another Evaluator as soon as possible. (af, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/18/2004) (Entered: 05/18/2004)
35 OBJECTIONS to ENE Evaluator (Objection Letter re: ENE Evaluator) by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Hill, Sanya) (Filed on 5/18/2004) (Entered: 05/18/2004)
36 OBJECTIONS to ENE Evaluator (Objection Letter re: ENE Evaluator by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Hill, Sanya) (Filed on 6/8/2004) (Entered: 06/08/2004)
37 ADR Clerk's Notice Appointing Judith Droz Keyes as ENE Evaluator dated 6/23/2004. (af, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/23/2004) (Entered: 06/23/2004)
38 Letter to parties dated 7/9/2004 from Judith Droz Keyes, confirming her appointment, stating disclosure, and availability for the pre−session telephone conference. (af, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/12/2004) (Entered: 07/12/2004)
Pre ENE phone conference scheduled on Thursday, July 22, 2004 at 11:00 AM. (af, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/20/2004) (Entered: 07/23/2004)

Case: 4:03-cv-4383 As of: 12/02/2018 04:52 PM PST 5 of 5

08/02/2004
08/02/2004 08/02/2004 08/13/2004
08/17/2004 08/18/2004 09/07/2004
09/20/2004 09/20/2004 10/04/2004 10/06/2004 02/09/2005 02/14/2005 02/22/2005

39 ***FILED IN ERROR. PLEASE SEE DOCKET #40*** ADR Clerk's Notice scheduling mediation session on Wednesday, August 25, 2004, in the offices of Morrison & Foerster, 425 Market St., San Francisco. Start time to be determined by Mediator. Mediation statements due by August 16, 2004. (af, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/2/2004) Modified on 8/13/2004 (af, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/02/2004)
Set/Reset Hearings: ENE Hearing set for 8/25/2004. (af, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/2/2004) Modified on 8/13/2004 (af, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/02/2004)
Set/Reset Hearings: ENE Hearing set for 8/25/2004 09:00 AM. (af, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/2/2004) (Entered: 09/07/2004)
40 CORRECTION OF DOCKET # 39 .ADR Clerk's Notice setting ENE SESSION for Wednesday, August 25, 2004 at the law offices of Morrison and Foerster, 425 Market Street, San Francisco, CA. ENE statements exchanged and received by Evaluator not later than Monday, August 16, 2004. (af, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/13/2004) (Entered: 08/13/2004)
41 NOTICE of Appearance by Marcia L. Mitchell (Mitchell, Marcia) (Filed on 8/17/2004) (Entered: 08/17/2004)
Pre ENE phone conference−−Evaluator would like to conduct a 15−minute telephone conference call on Thursday, August 19, 2004. Evaluator's office will call parties to arrange this call. (af, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/18/2004) (Entered: 08/18/2004)
42 CERTIFICATION OF ENE Session held on 8/25/2004, case did not settle, another session scheduled for a date to be set in late September 2004. ADR process continuing. Filed by Evaluator, Judith Droz Keyes, dated 9/2/2004. (af, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/7/2004) (Entered: 09/07/2004)
43 Letter to parties dated 9/17/2004 from Evaluator, Judith Droz Keyes,. (af, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/20/2004) (Entered: 09/20/2004)
Set/Reset Hearings: Further ENE Hearing set for 9/28/2004 09:30 AM. (af, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/20/2004) (Entered: 09/20/2004)
44 CERTIFICATION OF ENE Session (further) held on 9/28/2004, case fully settled, ADR process completed. Filed by Evaluator, Judith Droz Keyes, dated 9/29/2004. (af, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/4/2004) (Entered: 10/04/2004)
45 Letter from Sanya Hill Maxion, Sr. Trial Attorney. (Hill, Sanya) (Filed on 10/6/2004) (Entered: 10/06/2004)
46 Letter from Kristin E. Hutchins. (Hutchins, Kristin) (Filed on 2/9/2005) (Entered: 02/09/2005)
47 NOTICE by Stephens Institute Consent Decree (Hutchins, Kristin) (Filed on 2/14/2005) (Entered: 02/14/2005)
48 CONSENT DECREE and ORDER: Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 2/22/05. (lm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/22/2005) (Entered: 02/22/2005)