Case 2:05-cv-00460-JES-SPC Document 1 Filed 09/29/2005 Page 1 of 6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FT. MYERS DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

)

COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

GARGIULO, INC.,

)

)

Defendant.

)

)

------------------------------~)

CIVIL ACTION NO.
COMPLAINT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED INJUNCTIVE RELIEF SOUGHT

NATURE OF THE ACTION

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

Civil Rights Act of 1991 to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of sex

and retaliation, and to provide appropriate relief to Solange Macelin ("Ms. Macelin"),

Viergela Jean-Francois ("Ms. Jean-Francois"), Carmelia Pierre ("Ms. Pierre"), Changolia

Julien ("Ms. Julien"), Loundy Saint-Hilaire ("Ms. Saint-Hilaire") and any other similarly

situated individuals who were adversely affected by such practices. As stated with greater

particularity in paragraph seven below, the Commission alleges that Ms. Mace1in, Ms.

Jean-Francois, Ms. Pierre, Ms. Julien, Ms. Saint-Hilaire, and other similarly situated

individuals were sexually harassed and retaliated against at Defendant's place of business

in Immokalee, Florida. Ms. Macelin, Ms. Jean-Francois, Ms. Pierre, Ms. Julien, Ms.

Saint-Hilaire and other similarly situated individuals were forced to endure unwelcome

sexual comments andlor physical contact because of their sex, which created a hostile

work environment. Furthermore, Ms. Macelin, Ms. Jean-Francois, Ms. Pierre, Ms.

Case 2:05-cv-00460-JES-SPC Document 1 Filed 09/29/2005 Page 2 of 6

Julien, Ms. Saint-Hilaire, and other similarly situated individuals were retaliated against

for rejecting the sexual harassment andlor complaining to management about the sexual

harassment.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

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

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

706(1)(1) and (3) of of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.

§ 2000e-5(1)(I) and (3) ("Title VII") and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991,42

U.S.C. §1981a.

2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed within

the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Ft.

Myers Division.

PARTIES

3. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the

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

administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title VII, and is expressly authorized to

bring this action by 06(1)(1) and (3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5(1)(I) and (3).

4. At all relevant times, Defendant, Gargiulo, Inc. (the "Employer"), has

continuously been a Delaware corporation doing business in the State of Florida and the

City of Immokalee, and has continuously had at least 15 employees.

2

Case 2:05-cv-00460-JES-SPC Document 1 Filed 09/29/2005 Page 3 of 6
5. At all relevant times, Defendant Employer has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701(b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(b), (g) and (h).
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 6. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Ms. Macelin, Ms. Jean-Francois, Ms. Pierre, Ms. Julien, and Ms. Saint-Hilaire filed charges with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by Defendant Employer. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled. 7. Since at least November 2003, Defendant Employer has engaged in unlawful employment practices at its Immokalee facility, in violation of Section 703(a)(1) and 704(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§2000e-2(a) and 2000(e)-3(a). a. Specifically, Ms. Macelin, Ms. Jean-Francois, Ms. Pierre, Ms. Julien, Ms.
Saint-Hilaire, and any other similarly situated individuals were subjected to unwelcome physical and verbal conduct of a sexual nature by their supervisor, Sony Constan, which was sufficiently severe and pervasive to constitute an intimidating hostile and offensive work environment. The sexual conduct included physical conduct and sexually offensive remarks of a personal nature. b. Ms. Macelin, Ms. Jean-Francois, Ms. Pierre, Ms. Julien, and Ms. SaintHilaire and any other similarly situated individuals were retaliated against for rejecting and/or complaining about the sexual harassment. The retaliation was in the form of suspensions without pay, failure to rehire
3

Case 2:05-cv-00460-JES-SPC Document 1 Filed 09/29/2005 Page 4 of 6
and/or subjecting Ms. Macelin, Ms. Jean-Francois, Ms. Pierre, Ms. Julien, Ms. Saint-Hilaire and any other similarly situated individuals to adverse work conditions. 8. The effect of the practices complained of in paragraph seven above has been to deprive Ms. Macelin, Ms. Jean-Francois, Ms. Pierre, Ms. Julien, and Ms. SaintHilaire and any other similarly situated individuals of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as an employee because of their sex and because of retaliation. 9. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph seven above were intentional. 10. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph seven above were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Ms. Macelin, Ms. Jean-Francois, Ms. Pierre, Ms. Julien, and Ms. Saint-Hilaire and any other similarly situated individuals.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant Employer, its officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in sexual harassment or retaliation and any other employment practice which discriminates on the basis of sex and retaliation. B. Order Defendant Employer to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for victims of sexual
4

Case 2:05-cv-00460-JES-SPC Document 1 Filed 09/29/2005 Page 5 of 6
harassment and retaliation, and which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices.
C. Order Defendant Employer to make whole Ms. Mace1in, Ms. JeanFrancois, Ms. Pierre, Ms. Julien, and Ms. Saint-Hilaire and any other similarly situated individuals, by providing appropriate backpay with prejudgment interest, in amounts to be determined at trial, and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices.
D. Order Defendant Employer to make whole Ms. Macelin, Ms. JeanFrancois, Ms. Pierre, Ms. Julien, and Ms. Saint-Hilaire and any other similarly situated individuals, by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described in paragraph seven above, in amounts to be determined at trial.
E. Order Defendant Employer to make whole Ms. Macelin, Ms. JeanFrancois, Ms. Pierre, Ms. Julien, and Ms. Saint-Hilaire and any other similarly situated individuals, by providing compensation for past and future nonpecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices complained of in paragraph seven above, including emotional pain, suffering and inconvenience, in amounts to determined at trial.
F. Order Defendant Employer to pay Ms. Macelin, Ms. Jean-Francois, Ms. Pierre, Ms. Julien, Ms. Saint-Hilaire and any other similarly situated individuals punitive damages for its malicious and reckless conduct described in paragraph seven above, in amounts to be determined at trial.
5

Case 2:05-cv-00460-JES-SPC Document 1 Filed 09/29/2005 Page 6 of 6
G. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public interest.
H. Award the Commission its costs of this action. JURY TRIAL DEMAND
The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its complaint.
JAMES L. LEE Deputy General Counsel GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel
T al Attorney Florida Bar No. 0158305 UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower, Suite 2700 Two Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131 Tel. (305) 530-6006 Direct Tel. (305) 536-6001 Main Fax (305) 536-4494 E-mail:muslima.lewis@eeoc.gov
6

 
 Case 2:05-cv-00460-JES-SPC Document 22 Filed 01/11/2006 Page 1 of 11

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FT. MYERS DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )

COMMISSION

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

and

)

)

VIERGELA JEAN-FRANCOIS, CHANGOLIA )

JULIEN, SOLANGE MARCELIN, CARMELIA)

PIERRE, AND LOUNDY SAINT-HILAIRE )

)

Plaintiff

)

Intervenors,

)

)

v.

)

)

GARGIULO, INC.,

)

)

Defendant.

)

/

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:05-cv-460-Ft.M-29-SPC

COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF NATURE OF THE CASE
This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 and the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, Chapter 760, Florida Statutes, to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of sex and retaliation, and to provide appropriate relief to Viergela Jean-Francois (“Ms. Jean-Francois”), Carmelia Pierre (“Ms. Pierre”), Changolia Julien (“Ms. Julien”), Solange Marcelin (“Ms. Marcelin”) and Loundy SaintHilaire. As stated with greater particularity in paragraphs 12, 13, 18 and 19 below, the Plaintiffs/Intervenors allege that they were sexually harassed and retaliated against at the Defendant’s place of business in Immokalee, Florida. The Plaintiffs/Intervenors were forced to

1

Case 2:05-cv-00460-JES-SPC Document 22 Filed 01/11/2006 Page 2 of 11
endure unwelcome sexual comments and/or physical contact because of their sex, which created a hostile work environment. Furthermore, the Plaintiff/Intervenors were retaliated against for rejecting the sexual harassment and/or complaining to management about the sexual harassment.
PARTIES 1. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“the Commission”), is the agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation, and enforcement of Title VII. 2. Plaintiffs/Intervenors Ms. Marcelin, Ms. Jean-Francois, Ms. Pierre, Ms. Saint-Hilaire, Ms. Julien, at all relevent times, were employees of Defendant at their Immokalee, Florida within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. §2000e(f) and aggrieved persons within the meaning of F.S.A. §760.02. 3. At all relevant times, Defendant, Gargiulo, Inc. (the “Employer”) has continuously been a Delaware corporation doing business in the State of Florida and the City of Immokalee, and has continuously had a least 15 employees. 4. At all relevant times, Defendant employer has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of the Sections 701(b)(g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(b), (g), and (h).
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 5. The jurisdiction of this is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 451, 1331, 1337, 1343, and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Section 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3) (“Title VII”) and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. §1981a. This Court also has
2

Case 2:05-cv-00460-JES-SPC Document 22 Filed 01/11/2006 Page 3 of 11
supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims brought pursuant to the Florida Civil Rights Act, Chapter 760, Florida Statutes.
6. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed within the jurisdiction of the United States Court for the Middle District of Florida, Ft. Myers Division.
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT 7. All conditions precedent to bringing this action have been performed or occurred.
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS
COUNT I (SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN VIOLATION OF TITLE VII) 8. Plaintiffs, hereby, incorporate paragraphs 1 through 7 of this complaint as if fully set forth herein. 9. This is a claim against the company, Gargiulo, Inc. for sexual harassment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, as amended. 10. Since at least November 2003, Defendant Employer has engaged in unlawful employment practices at its Immokalee facility, in violation of Section 703(a)(1) and 704(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§2000e-2(a) and 2000e-3(a). 11. Sony Constance (hereafter “Constance”) was employed by Defendant Gargiulo, Inc. since at least 2003 and, on information and belief, he held the position of manager/supervisor of the tomato packing house from at least 2003 to present. 12. In this position as supervisor, Constance subjected Ms. Marcelin, Ms. Jean-Francois, Ms. Pierre, Ms. Saint-Hilaire, Ms. Julien, and any other similarly situated individuals, to
3

Case 2:05-cv-00460-JES-SPC Document 22 Filed 01/11/2006 Page 4 of 11
unwelcome physical and verbal conduct of a sexual nature. This conduct was sufficiently severe and pervasive to constitute an intimidating hostile and offensive work environment.
13. Among other activities, Constance subjected Ms. Marcelin, Ms. Jean-Francois, Ms. Pierre, Ms. Saint-Hilaire, and Ms. Julien to unwelcome and offensive remarks of a sexual and personal nature. In addition, his conduct extended to physical conduct of a sexual nature.
14. The effect of the conduct complained of in paragraphs 12 and 13 above have been to deprive the Plaintiffs of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely effect their status as an employee because of their sex. This unlawful conduct resulted in emotional pain and suffering, embarrassment, and humiliation to the Plaintiffs/Intervenors.
15. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs 12 and 13 above were intentional.
16. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs 12 and 13 above were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of the Plaintiffs.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against the Defendant for lost wages and benefits, compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorney’s fees and costs, injunctive relief and any other such relief that the Court deems proper.
COUNT II (UNLAWFUL RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF TITLE VII) 17. Plaintiffs, hereby, incorporate paragraphs 1 through 16 of this complaint as if fully set forth herein. 18. This claim against Defendant Gargiulo, Inc. is for unlawful retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-3(a).
4

Case 2:05-cv-00460-JES-SPC Document 22 Filed 01/11/2006 Page 5 of 11
19. The Plaintiffs and any other similarly situated individuals were retaliated against for rejecting and/or complaining about the sexual harassment. The retaliation was in the form of suspensions without pay, failure to rehire, and or subjecting Ms. Marcelin, Ms. Jean-Francois, Ms. Pierre, Ms. Julien, Ms. Saint-Hilaire and any other similarly situated individuals to adverse work conditions.
20. The effect of the conduct complained in paragraphs 18 and 19 above have been to deprive the Plaintiffs of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely effect their status as an employee in retaliation for their opposition to unlawful employment practices. This unlawful conduct resulted in economic harm, emotional pain and suffering, embarrassment, and humiliation to the Plaintiffs/Intervenors.
21. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs 18 and 19 above were intentional.
22. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs 18 and 19 above were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of the Plaintiffs.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against the Defendant for lost wages and benefits, compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorney’s fees and costs, injunctive relief and any other such relief that the Court deems proper.
COUNT III (SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN VIOLATION OF THE FLORIDA CIVIL RIGHTS ACT,
CHAPTER 760, FLORIDA STATUTES) 23. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 22 of this complaint as if fully set forth herein.
5

Case 2:05-cv-00460-JES-SPC Document 22 Filed 01/11/2006 Page 6 of 11
24. This claim is a claim against the Defendant Gargiulo, Inc. for sexual harassment in violation of The Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, Chapter 760, Florida Statutes.
25. At all relevant times, Defendant Gargiulo, Inc. was an “employer” and the Plaintiffs were “employees” within the meaning of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, Chapter 760, Florida Statutes. At all relevant times, Defendant employed fifteen (15) or more employees.
26. Plaintiffs reallege Paragraphs 12 and 13 above. 27. The effect of the conduct complained of in Paragraphs 12 and 13 has been to deprive the Plaintiffs of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely effect their status as an employee because of their sex. In addition, the Plaintiffs have suffered emotional pain and suffering, humiliation and embarrassment because of this unlawful conduct. 28. The unlawful employment practices complained of in Paragraphs 12 and 13 above were intentional. 29. The unlawful employment practices complained of in Paragraphs 12 and 13 above were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of the Plaintiffs. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against the Defendant for lost wages and benefits, compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorney’s fees and costs, injunctive relief and any other such relief that the Court deems proper.
COUNT IV (UNLAWFUL RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF THE FLORIDA CIVIL RIGHTS
ACT, CHAPTER 760, FLORIDA STATUTES) 30. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 29 of this complaint as if fully set forth herein.
6

Case 2:05-cv-00460-JES-SPC Document 22 Filed 01/11/2006 Page 7 of 11
31. This claim is a claim against the Defendant Gargiulo, Inc. for unlawful retaliation in violation of The Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, Chapter 760, Florida Statutes.
32. At all relevant times, Defendant Gargiulo, Inc. was an “employer” and the Plaintiffs were “employees” within the meaning of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, Chapter 760, Florida Statutes. At all relevant times, Defendant employed fifteen (15) or more employees.
33. Plaintiffs reallege Paragraphs 18 and 19 above. 34. The effect of the conduct complained of in Paragraphs 18 and 19 has been to deprive the Plaintiffs of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely effect their status as an employee in retaliation for their opposition to unlawful employment practices. In addition, the Plaintiffs have suffered emotional pain and suffering, humiliation and embarrassment because of this unlawful conduct. 35. The unlawful employment practices complained of in Paragraphs 18 and 19 above were intentional. 36. The unlawful employment practices complained of in Paragraphs 18 and 19 above were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of the Plaintiffs. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against the Defendant for lost wages and benefits, compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorney’s fees and costs, injunctive relief and any other such relief that the Court deems proper.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF FOR COUNTS I THROUGH IV WHEREFORE, with respect to Counts I, II, III, and IV set forth above, Ms. Marcelin, Ms. Jean-Francois, Ms. Saint-Hilaire, Ms. Pierre and Ms. Julien respectfully request that this Court:
7

Case 2:05-cv-00460-JES-SPC Document 22 Filed 01/11/2006 Page 8 of 11
A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant, its officers, successors, assigns and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in sexual harassment or retaliation and any other employment practice which discriminates ion the basis of sex and retaliation.
B. Order Defendant Employer to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for victims of sexual harassment and retaliation, and which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices.
C. Order Defendant Employer to make whole Ms. Marcelin, Ms. Jean-Francois, Ms. Pierre, Ms. Julien, and Ms. Saint-Hilaire and any other similarly situated individuals, by providing appropriate backpay with prejudgment interest, in amounts to be determined at trial, and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices.
D. Order Defendant Employer to make whole Ms. Marcelin, Ms. Jean-Francois, Ms. Pierre, Ms. Julien, and Ms. Saint-Hilaire and any other similarly situated individuals, by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting form the unlawful employment practices described in paragraph seven above, in amounts to be determined at trial.
E. Order Defendant Employer to make whole Ms. Marcelin, Ms. Jean-Francois, Ms. Pierre, Ms. Julien, Ms. Saint-Hilaire and any other similarly situated individuals punitive damages for its malicious and reckless conduct described above, in amounts to be determined at trial.
8

Case 2:05-cv-00460-JES-SPC Document 22 Filed 01/11/2006 Page 9 of 11

F. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public interest.
G. Award Ms. Marcelin, Ms. Jean-Francois, Ms. Pierre, Ms. Julien, Ms. Saint-Hilaire all attorney’s fees and costs incurred in this matter.

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

The Intervenor/Plaintiffs request a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its

complaint.

Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Mónica Ramírez Mónica Ramírez Florida Bar No. 0711861

Florida Legal Services, Inc.

Migrant Farmworker Justice Project

508 Lucerne Ave.

Lake Worth, FL 33460

Telephone: 561-582-3921

Facsimile: 561-582-4884

Email:

monica@floridalegal.org

Attorney for Intervenors/Plaintiffs Solange Marcelin, Changolia Julien, Loundy Saint-Hilaire, and Carmelia Pierre

and
Jason L. Gunter Florida Bar No. 0134694 Webb, Scarmozzino, Gunter, P.A. 1617 Hendry Street, 3rd Floor Ft. Myers, FL 33901 Phone: 239-334-1600 Fax: 239-334-7979 Email: jason@wsglawyers.com

9

Case 2:05-cv-00460-JES-SPC Document 22 Filed 01/11/2006 Page 10 of 11 Attorney for Intervenor/Plaintiff Viergela Jean-Francois
10

Case 2:05-cv-00460-JES-SPC Document 22 Filed 01/11/2006 Page 11 of 11 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on the 11th day of January, 2006, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court by using the CM/ECF systm, which will send a notice of electronic filing to the following: John M. Hament, Esq., and Lorraine Maass Hultman, Esq., Kunkel Miller & Hament, 235 N. Orange Avenue, Suite 200, Sarasota, FL 34236, Attorneys for Defendant, James L. Lee, Esq., Gwendolyn Young Reams, Esq., Delner Franklin-Thomaas, Esq., and Muslima Lewis, Esq., U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Miami District Office, One Biscayne Tower, Suite 2700, Two Biscayne Boulevard, Miami, FL 33131, Attorneys for EEOC, and Jason L. Gunter, Esq., Webb, Scarmozzino, Gunter, P.A., 1617 Hendry St., 3rd Fl., Ft. Myers, FL 33901, Attorney for Plaintiff Jean-Francois.
By: /s/ Mónica Ramírez Mónica Ramírez, Esq.
11

 
 Case 2:05-cv-00460-JES-SPC Document 24 Filed 01/23/2006 Page 1 of 10

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FT. MYERS DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )

COMMISSION

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

and

)

)

VIERGELA JEAN-FRANCOIS, CHANGOLIA )

JULIEN, SOLANGE MARCELIN, CARMELIA)

PIERRE, AND LOUNDY SAINT-HILAIRE )

)

Plaintiff

)

Intervenors,

)

)

v.

)

)

GARGIULO, INC.,

)

)

Defendant.

)

/

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:05-cv-460-Ft.M-29-SPC

AMENDED COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
NATURE OF THE CASE This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 and the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, Chapter 760, Florida Statutes, to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of sex and retaliation, and to provide appropriate relief to Viergela Jean-Francois (“Ms. Jean-Francois”), Carmelia Pierre (“Ms. Pierre”), Changolia Julien (“Ms. Julien”), Solange Marcelin (“Ms. Marcelin”) and Loundy SaintHilaire. As stated with greater particularity in paragraphs 11, 12, and 17 below, the Plaintiffs/Intervenors allege that they were sexually harassed and retaliated against at the Defendant’s place of business in Immokalee, Florida. The Plaintiffs/Intervenors were forced to

1

Case 2:05-cv-00460-JES-SPC Document 24 Filed 01/23/2006 Page 2 of 10
endure unwelcome sexual comments and/or physical contact because of their sex, which created a hostile work environment. Furthermore, the Plaintiff/Intervenors were retaliated against for rejecting the sexual harassment and/or complaining to management about the sexual harassment.
PARTIES 1. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“the Commission”), is the agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation, and enforcement of Title VII. 2. Plaintiffs/Intervenors Ms. Marcelin, Ms. Jean-Francois, Ms. Pierre, Ms. Saint-Hilaire, Ms. Julien, at all relevant times, were employees of Defendant at their Immokalee, Florida within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. §2000e(f) and aggrieved persons within the meaning of F.S.A. §760.02. 3. At all relevant times, Defendant, Gargiulo, Inc. (the “Employer”) has continuously been a Delaware corporation doing business in the State of Florida and the City of Immokalee, and has continuously had a least 15 employees. 4. At all relevant times, Defendant employer has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of the Sections 701(b)(g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(b), (g), and (h).
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 5. The jurisdiction of this is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 451, 1331, 1337, 1343, and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Section 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3) (“Title VII”) and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. §1981a. This Court also has
2

Case 2:05-cv-00460-JES-SPC Document 24 Filed 01/23/2006 Page 3 of 10
supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims brought pursuant to the Florida Civil Rights Act, Chapter 760, Florida Statutes.
6. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed within the jurisdiction of the United States Court for the Middle District of Florida, Ft. Myers Division.
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT 7. All conditions precedent to bringing this action have been performed or occurred.
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS
COUNT I (SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN VIOLATION OF TITLE VII) 8. This is a claim against the company, Gargiulo, Inc. for sexual harassment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, as amended. 9. Since at least November 2003, Defendant Employer has engaged in unlawful employment practices at its Immokalee facility, in violation of Section 703(a)(1) and 704(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§2000e-2(a) and 2000e-3(a). 10. Sony Constant (hereafter “Constant”) was employed by Defendant Gargiulo, Inc. since at least 2003 and, on information and belief, he held the position of manager/supervisor of the tomato packing house from at least 2003 to present. 11. In this position as supervisor, Constant subjected Ms. Marcelin, Ms. Jean-Francois, Ms. Pierre, Ms. Saint-Hilaire, Ms. Julien, and any other similarly situated individuals, to unwelcome physical and verbal conduct of a sexual nature. This conduct was sufficiently severe and pervasive to constitute an intimidating hostile and offensive work environment.
3

Case 2:05-cv-00460-JES-SPC Document 24 Filed 01/23/2006 Page 4 of 10
12. Among other activities, Constant subjected Ms. Marcelin, Ms. Jean-Francois, Ms. Pierre, Ms. Saint-Hilaire, and Ms. Julien to unwelcome and offensive remarks of a sexual and personal nature. In addition, his conduct extended to physical conduct of a sexual nature.
13. The effect of the conduct complained of in paragraphs 11 and 12 above have been to deprive the Plaintiffs of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely effect their status as an employee because of their sex. This unlawful conduct resulted in emotional pain and suffering, embarrassment, and humiliation to the Plaintiffs/Intervenors.
14. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs 11 and 12 above were intentional.
15. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs 11 and 12 above were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of the Plaintiffs.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against the Defendant for lost wages and benefits, compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorney’s fees and costs, injunctive relief and any other such relief that the Court deems proper.
COUNT II (UNLAWFUL RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF TITLE VII) 16. This claim against Defendant Gargiulo, Inc. is for unlawful retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-3(a). 17. The Plaintiffs and any other similarly situated individuals were retaliated against for rejecting and/or complaining about the sexual harassment. The retaliation was in the form of suspensions without pay, failure to rehire, firing and/or subjecting Ms. Marcelin, Ms. Jean-
4

Case 2:05-cv-00460-JES-SPC Document 24 Filed 01/23/2006 Page 5 of 10
Francois, Ms. Pierre, Ms. Julien, Ms. Saint-Hilaire and any other similarly situated individuals to adverse work conditions.
18. The effect of the conduct complained in paragraph 17 has been to deprive the Plaintiffs of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely effect their status as an employee in retaliation for their opposition to unlawful employment practices. This unlawful conduct resulted in economic harm, emotional pain and suffering, embarrassment, and humiliation to the Plaintiffs/Intervenors.
19. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 17 were intentional. 20. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 17 were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of the Plaintiffs.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against the Defendant for lost wages and benefits, compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorney’s fees and costs, injunctive relief and any other such relief that the Court deems proper.
COUNT III (SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN VIOLATION OF THE FLORIDA CIVIL RIGHTS ACT,
CHAPTER 760, FLORIDA STATUTES) 21. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference Paragraphs 10 through 12 of this complaint as if fully set forth herein. 22. This claim is a claim against the Defendant Gargiulo, Inc. for sexual harassment in violation of The Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, Chapter 760, Florida Statutes. 23. At all relevant times, Defendant Gargiulo, Inc. was an “employer” and the Plaintiffs were “employees” within the meaning of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, Chapter 760, Florida Statutes. At all relevant times, Defendant employed fifteen (15) or more employees.
5

Case 2:05-cv-00460-JES-SPC Document 24 Filed 01/23/2006 Page 6 of 10
24. Plaintiffs reallege Paragraphs 11 and 12 above. 25. The effect of the conduct complained of in Paragraphs 11 and 12 has been to deprive the Plaintiffs of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely effect their status as an employee because of their sex. In addition, the Plaintiffs have suffered emotional pain and suffering, humiliation and embarrassment because of this unlawful conduct. 26. The unlawful employment practices complained of in Paragraphs 11 and 12 above were intentional. 27. The unlawful employment practices complained of in Paragraphs 11 and 12 above were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of the Plaintiffs. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against the Defendant for lost wages and benefits, compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorney’s fees and costs, injunctive relief and any other such relief that the Court deems proper.
COUNT IV (UNLAWFUL RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF THE FLORIDA CIVIL RIGHTS
ACT, CHAPTER 760, FLORIDA STATUTES) 28. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference Paragraph 17 of this complaint as if fully set forth herein. 29. This claim is a claim against the Defendant Gargiulo, Inc. for unlawful retaliation in violation of The Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, Chapter 760, Florida Statutes. 30. At all relevant times, Defendant Gargiulo, Inc. was an “employer” and the Plaintiffs were “employees” within the meaning of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, Chapter 760, Florida Statutes. At all relevant times, Defendant employed fifteen (15) or more employees.
6

Case 2:05-cv-00460-JES-SPC Document 24 Filed 01/23/2006 Page 7 of 10
31. Plaintiffs reallege Paragraph 17 above. 32. The effect of the conduct complained of in Paragraph 17 has been to deprive the Plaintiffs of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely effect their status as an employee in retaliation for their opposition to unlawful employment practices. In addition, the Plaintiffs have suffered emotional pain and suffering, humiliation and embarrassment because of this unlawful conduct. 33. The unlawful employment practices complained of in Paragraph 17 above were intentional. 34. The unlawful employment practices complained of in Paragraph 17 above were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of the Plaintiffs. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against the Defendant for lost wages and benefits, compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorney’s fees and costs, injunctive relief and any other such relief that the Court deems proper.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF FOR COUNTS I THROUGH IV WHEREFORE, with respect to Counts I, II, III, and IV set forth above, Ms. Marcelin, Ms. Jean-Francois, Ms. Saint-Hilaire, Ms. Pierre and Ms. Julien respectfully request that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant, its officers, successors, assigns
and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in sexual harassment or retaliation and any other employment practice which discriminates ion the basis of sex and retaliation. B. Order Defendant Employer to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for victims of sexual
7

Case 2:05-cv-00460-JES-SPC Document 24 Filed 01/23/2006 Page 8 of 10
harassment and retaliation, and which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices. C. Order Defendant Employer to make whole Ms. Marcelin, Ms. Jean-Francois, Ms. Pierre, Ms. Julien, and Ms. Saint-Hilaire and any other similarly situated individuals, by providing appropriate back pay with prejudgment interest, in amounts to be determined at trial, and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices. D. Order Defendant Employer to make whole Ms. Marcelin, Ms. Jean-Francois, Ms. Pierre, Ms. Julien, and Ms. Saint-Hilaire and any other similarly situated individuals, by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting form the unlawful employment practices described in paragraph seven above, in amounts to be determined at trial. E. Order Defendant Employer to make whole Ms. Marcelin, Ms. Jean-Francois, Ms. Pierre, Ms. Julien, Ms. Saint-Hilaire and any other similarly situated individuals punitive damages for its malicious and reckless conduct described above, in amounts to be determined at trial. F. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public interest. G. Award Ms. Marcelin, Ms. Jean-Francois, Ms. Pierre, Ms. Julien, Ms. Saint-Hilaire all attorney’s fees and costs incurred in this matter.
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
8

Case 2:05-cv-00460-JES-SPC Document 24 Filed 01/23/2006 Page 9 of 10

The Intervenors/Plaintiffs request a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its

complaint.

Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Mónica Ramírez Mónica Ramírez Florida Bar No. 0711861

Florida Legal Services, Inc.

Migrant Farmworker Justice Project

508 Lucerne Ave.

Lake Worth, FL 33460

Telephone: 561-582-3921

Facsimile: 561-582-4884

Email:

monica@floridalegal.org

Attorney for Intervenors/Plaintiffs Solange Marcelin, Changolia Julien, Loundy Saint-Hilaire, and Carmelia Pierre

and

Jason L. Gunter

Florida Bar No. 0134694

Webb, Scarmozzino, Gunter, P.A.

1617 Hendry Street, 3rd Floor

Ft. Myers, FL 33901

Phone:

239-334-1600

Fax: 239-334-7979

Email: jason@wsglawyers.com

Attorney for Intervenor/Plaintiff Viergela Jean-Francois

9

Case 2:05-cv-00460-JES-SPC Document 24 Filed 01/23/2006 Page 10 of 10
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the 23rd day of January, 2006, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court by using the CM/ECF systm, which will send a notice of electronic filing to the following: John M. Hament, Esq., and Lorraine Maass Hultman, Esq., Kunkel Miller & Hament, 235 N. Orange Avenue, Suite 200, Sarasota, FL 34236, Attorneys for Defendant, James L. Lee, Esq., Gwendolyn Young Reams, Esq., Delner Franklin-Thomaas, Esq., and Muslima Lewis, Esq., U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Miami District Office, One Biscayne Tower, Suite 2700, Two Biscayne Boulevard, Miami, FL 33131, Attorney for EEOC, and Jason L. Gunter, Esq., Webb, Scarmozzino, Gunter, P.A., 1617 Hendry St., 3rd Fl., Ft. Myers, FL 33901, Attorney for Plaintiff Jean-Francois.
Respectfully submitted, By: /s/ Mónica Ramírez
Mónica Ramírez Florida Bar No. 0711861
10

 
 Case 2:05-cv-00460-JES-SPC Document 40 Filed 03/22/2006 Page 1 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT COMMISSION,

OPPORTUNITY

Plaintiff,

VIERGELA JEAN-FRANCOIS, CHANGOLIA JULIEN, CARMELIA PIERRE, LOUNDY SAINT-HILAIRE, and SOLANGE MARCELIN,

Intervenors,

vs.

Case No. 2:05-cv-460-FtM-29SPC

GARGIULO, INC.,

Defendant. ___________________________________

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to

Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint and Supporting Memorandum of Law

(Doc. #11) filed on December 2, 2005. Plaintiff Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission (plaintiff or the EEOC) filed its Response

on December 19, 2005. (Doc. #17). Because of several pleading

deficiencies, the motion to dismiss will be granted, with leave to

amend.

I.

In deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the Court must

accept all factual allegations in a complaint as true and take them

in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Christopher v.

Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 406 (2002); Hill v. White, 321 F.3d 1334,

Case 2:05-cv-00460-JES-SPC Document 40 Filed 03/22/2006 Page 2 of 6
1335 (11th Cir. 2003). A complaint should not be dismissed unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts that would entitle the plaintiff to relief. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957) (footnote omitted); Marsh v. Butler County, Ala., 268 F.3d 1014, 1022 (11th Cir. 2001)(en banc). To satisfy the pleading requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8, a complaint must simply give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff’s claims are and the grounds upon which they rest. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002). Specifically, Rule 8(a)(2) requires that a pleading contain a “short and plain statement of the claim” that shows that the pleader is entitled to relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Rule 10(b) requires that the allegations of a claim “shall be made in numbered paragraphs, the contents of each of which shall be limited as far as practicable to a statement of a single set of circumstances . . . [and][e]ach claim found upon a separate transaction or occurrence . . . shall be stated in a separate count.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b). The Court need not accept unsupported conclusions of law or of mixed law and fact in a complaint. Marsh, 268 F.3d at 1036 n.16. While the federal pleading burden is not great, it nonetheless requires fair notice of the claim and the grounds upon which the claim rests. Dura Pharm., Inc. V. Broudo, 125 S. Ct. 1627, 1634 (2005). “The failure to identify claims with sufficient clarity to enable the defendant to frame a responsive pleading constitutes a ‘shotgun pleading.’”
-2-

Case 2:05-cv-00460-JES-SPC Document 40 Filed 03/22/2006 Page 3 of 6
Beckwith v. Bellsouth Telecommunications Inc., 146 Fed. Appx. 368, 372 (11th Cir. 2005) (citing Byrne v. Nezhat, 261 F.3d 1075, 1129-30 (11th Cir. 2001).
II. Defendant contends that the Motion should be granted based on two grounds: (1) the Complaint is a shotgun pleading, and/or (2) plaintiff failed to state any claim under Title VII. Additionally, while defendant concedes that plaintiff alleges the first two elements of the five-prong standard for a sexual harassment claim under Title VII, defendant argues that the Complaint lacks allegations relating to the last three elements. Defendant also contends that “[the] Complaint alleges none of [the] elements [for a retaliation claim], although the Plaintiff does describe actions to which someone may have been subjected, and states the legal conclusion that it was ‘retaliation’ but again, there are no facts to support that legal conclusion.” (Doc. #11, p. 10). Defendant further asserts that the retaliation claim makes no “distinction as to which of the individuals alleged suffered which actions. This commingling of the wrongful actions and people affected eliminates the ability to state a claim for retaliation.” (Id.). Paragraph 7 sets forth the claim(s) by five former employees against their former corporate employer. Paragraph 7a attempts to state a claim for a hostile work environment based on sexual harassment, while paragraph 7b attempts to state a claim of retaliation. The elements of each such cause of action are well
-3-

Case 2:05-cv-00460-JES-SPC Document 40 Filed 03/22/2006 Page 4 of 6
established. To establish a hostile work environment claim based upon sexual harassment, a plaintiff must show: (1) that she belongs to a protected group; (2) that she has been subject to unwelcome sexual harassment, such as sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other conduct of a sexual nature; (3) that the harassment was based on the sex of the plaintiff; (4) that the harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the terms and conditions of employment and create a discriminatorily abusive working environment; and (5) a basis for holding the employer liable. Hulsey v. Pride Restaurants, LLC, 367 F3.d 1238, 1244 (11th Cir. 2004). See also Pennsylvania State Police v. Suder, 542 U.S. 129 (2004); Mendoza v. Borden, Inc., 195 F.3d 1238, 1245 (11th Cir. 1999). To establish a prima facie case of retaliation under Title VII, the plaintiff must show that: (1) she engaged in statutorily protected activity; (2) she suffered an adverse employment action; and (3) there is some causal relation between the two events. Lipphardt v. Durango Steakhouse of Brandon, 267 F.3d 1183, 1186-87 (11th Cir. 2001); Johnson v. Booker T. Washington Broadcasting Serv., Inc., 234 F.3d 501, 507 (11th Cir. 2000).
The Court finds that separation of the sexual harassment claim and the retaliation claim into separate counts will facilitate the clear presentation of the case under Rule 10. Additionally, the
-4-

Case 2:05-cv-00460-JES-SPC Document 40 Filed 03/22/2006 Page 5 of 6
Court finds that the Complaint may not refer to “similarly situated individuals” since it is not a purported class action complaint.
Moreover, paragraph 1 of the Complaint asserts that the action is “authorized and instituted pursuant to” Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981a. While a hostile work environment claim may be brought under both Title VII and § 1981, Shields v. Fort James Corp., 305 F.3d 1280, 1282 (11th Cir. 2002), the § 1981 claim can only be based on race. Sections 1981 and 1981a relate to race discrimination, and there are no facts alleged in the Complaint which would support any of the required elements. Harry v. Marchant, 237 F.3d 1315, 1322 (11th Cir. 2001).
With respect to the sexual harassment claim, plaintiff provides meager factual allegations; nonetheless, these allegations are sufficient to state a Title VII claim for a hostile work environment. However, plaintiff cannot simply lump its individual assertions together in a group pleading, unless it is plaintiff’s contention that the identical events apply to all five individuals.
Additionally, with respect to the retaliation claim, the Court finds that the Complaint provides no facts for the last two elements of the retaliation claim. The Court is further concerned that the Complaint makes no distinction as to what retaliatory conduct applies to which former employee. Since leave to amend the Complaint will be provided, plaintiff should cure this deficiency in the amended pleading.
Accordingly, it is now
-5-

Case 2:05-cv-00460-JES-SPC Document 40 Filed 03/22/2006 Page 6 of 6 ORDERED: Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. #11)
is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The Court dismisses the Complaint without prejudice, and plaintiff may amend its Complaint within ELEVEN (11) DAYS of this Order.
DONE AND ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this 22nd day of March, 2006.
Copies: Counsel of record
-6-

 
 Case 2:05-cv-00460-JES-SPC Document 47 Filed 04/24/2006 Page 1 of 11

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FT. MYERS DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

)

COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

GARGIULO, INC.,

)

)

Defendant.

)

)

__________________________________________)

CIVIL ACTION NO: 2:05-CV-460-FTM-29-SPC
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF SOUGHT

PLAINTIFF EEOC’S AMENDED COMPLAINT

NATURE OF THE ACTION

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

Civil Rights Act of 1991 to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of sex

and retaliation, and to provide appropriate relief to Solange Marcelin (“Ms. Marcelin”),

Viergela Jean-Francois (“Ms. Jean-Francois”), Carmelia Pierre (“Ms. Pierre”), Changolia

Julien (“Ms. Julien”), Loundy Saint-Hilaire (“Ms. Saint-Hilaire”) and any other similarly

situated individuals who were adversely affected by such practices. As stated with greater

particularity below, the Commission alleges that Ms. Marcelin, Ms. Jean-Francois, Ms.

Pierre, Ms. Julien, Ms. Saint-Hilaire, and other similarly situated individuals were

discriminated against on the basis of their sex, subjected to a sexually hostile work

environment, and retaliated against at Defendant’s place of business in Immokalee,

Florida for rejecting their supervisor’s unwelcome sexual advances and/or for

complaining to management about the sexual harassment.

Case 2:05-cv-00460-JES-SPC Document 47 Filed 04/24/2006 Page 2 of 11
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 451, 1331, 1337, 1343 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Section 706(f)(1) and (3) of of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3) (“Title VII”) and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. §1981a. 2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Ft. Myers Division.
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the “Commission”), is the agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title VII, and is expressly authorized to bring this action by 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5(f)(1) and (3). 4. At all relevant times, Defendant, Gargiulo, Inc. (the “Employer”), has continuously been a Delaware corporation doing business in the State of Florida and the City of Immokalee, and has continuously had at least 15 employees. 5. At all relevant times, Defendant Employer has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701(b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(b), (g) and (h).
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT 6. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Ms. Marcelin,

Case 2:05-cv-00460-JES-SPC Document 47 Filed 04/24/2006 Page 3 of 11
Ms. Jean-Francois, Ms. Pierre, Ms. Julien, and Ms. Saint-Hilaire filed charges with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by Defendant Employer.
7. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled.
COUNT I: SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF TITLE VII
8. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations in paragraphs 1-7 by reference 9. This is a civil action for sex discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)
of Title VII. 10. Solange Marcelin was employed by Defendant at its Immokalee, Florida facility as a tomato grader for nine seasons beginning in 1994. 11. Viergela Jean-Francois was employed by Defendant at its Immokalee, Florida facility as a tomato grader for four seasons beginning in 2000. 12. Loundy Saint-Hilaire was employed by Defendant at its Immokalee, Florida facility as a tomato grader for three seasons beginning in 2001. 13. Changolia Julien was employed by Defendant at its Immokalee, Florida facility as a tomato grader for three seasons beginning in 2001. 14. Carmellia Pierre was employed by Defendant at its Immokalee, Florida facility as a tomato grader for two seasons beginning in 2002. 15. Since at least November 2003, Defendant Employer has engaged in unlawful employment practices at its Immokalee facility, in violation of Section 703(a)(1) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-2(a).
3

Case 2:05-cv-00460-JES-SPC Document 47 Filed 04/24/2006 Page 4 of 11
16. Specifically, Defendant subjected Ms. Marcelin, Ms. Jean-Francois, Ms. Saint-Hilaire, Ms. Julien and Ms. Pierre and any other similarly situated individuals to sexual discrimination in the form of sexual harassment and a hostile work environment.
17. Defendant employed Sony Constant at its Immokalee facility. 18. Since at least November of 2003, Sony Constant was the immediate supervisor of Ms. Marcelin, Ms. Jean-Francois, Ms. Saint-Hilaire, Ms. Julien and Ms. Pierre and any other similarly situated individuals. 19. While acting in a supervisory capacity for the Defendant, Sony Constant subjected Ms. Marcelin, Ms. Jean-Francois, Ms. Saint-Hilaire, Ms. Julien and Ms. Pierre and any other similarly situated individuals to unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature including but not limited to: repeated unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sex, sexual propositions, offensive sexual remarks, and physical contact with their bodies; such as pressing his genitals against their buttocks and grabbing their buttocks. 20. The unwelcome physical and verbal conduct of a sexual nature Ms. Marcelin, Ms. Jean-Francois, Ms. Saint-Hilaire, Ms. Julien and Ms. Pierre and any other similarly situated individuals were subjected to by Sony Constant was sufficiently severe and pervasive to constitute an intimidating hostile and offensive work environment. 21. The unwelcome physical and verbal conduct of a sexual nature Ms. Marcelin, Ms. Jean-Francois, Ms. Saint-Hilaire, Ms. Julien and Ms. Pierre and any other similarly situated individuals were subjected to by Sony Constant resulted in tangible employment actions being taken against them. 22. Ms. Marcelin, Ms. Jean-Francois, Ms. Saint-Hilaire, Ms. Julien and Ms.
4

Case 2:05-cv-00460-JES-SPC Document 47 Filed 04/24/2006 Page 5 of 11
Pierre and any other similarly situated individuals rejected Sony Constant’s sexual advances and propositions and as a result were 1) suspended without pay; 2) were subjected to adverse terms and conditions of employment in the form of unfavorable seating assignments; 3) were threatened with job termination; and/or 4) were terminated; and/or 5) were not re-hired by the Defendant for the Fall 2004 Season.
23. The effect of the practices complained of in paragraphs 15-23 above has been to deprive Ms. Marcelin, Ms. Jean-Francois, Ms. Saint-Hilaire, Ms. Julien and Ms. Pierre and any other similarly situated individuals of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as an employee because of their sex.
24. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs 15-23 above were intentional.
25. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs 15-23 above were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Ms. Marcelin, Ms. Jean-Francois, Ms. Saint-Hilaire, Ms. Julien and Ms. Pierre and any other similarly situated individuals.
COUNT II: RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF TITLE VII 26. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations in paragraphs 1-26 by reference. 27. This is a civil action for retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a) of Title VII. 28. Ms. Jean-Francois engaged in protected activity by rejecting supervisor Sony Constant’s sexual advances. Defendant retaliated against Ms. Jean-Francois for
5

Case 2:05-cv-00460-JES-SPC Document 47 Filed 04/24/2006 Page 6 of 11
rejecting Sony Constant’s sexual advances by suspending her without pay, subjecting her to unfavorable seating assignments, and failing to re-hire her for the 2004 season.
29. Ms. Pierre engaged in protected activity by rejecting supervisor Sony Constant’s sexual advances. Defendant retaliated against Ms. Pierre for rejecting Sony Constant’s sexual advances by suspending her without pay, subjecting her to unfavorable seating assignments, and terminating her employment on or about March 26, 2004 by refusing to allow her to come back to work after sick leave.
30. Ms. Saint-Hilaire engaged in protected activity by rejecting supervisor Sony Constant’s sexual advances. Defendant retaliated against Ms. Saint-Hilaire for rejecting Sony Constant’s sexual advances by suspending her without pay, subjecting her to unfavorable seating assignments, and failing to re-hire her for the 2004 season.
31. Ms. Marcelin engaged in protected activity by rejecting supervisor Sony Constant’s sexual advances. Defendant retaliated against Ms. Marcelin for rejecting Sony Constant’s sexual advances by suspending her without pay, subjecting her to unfavorable seating assignments, terminating her employment and failing to re-hire her for the 2004 season.
32. In 2004, Ms. Marcelin engaged in additional protected activity by complaining about supervisor Sony Constant’s sexual advances on more than one occasion to Flor Garcia, Diana Trevino, and packing house manager Joe Black. Shortly after her complaints, Defendant retaliated against Ms. Marcelin by terminating her employment on or about March 3, 2004.
33. After she was terminated, Ms. Marcelin nonetheless reapplied to work for
6

Case 2:05-cv-00460-JES-SPC Document 47 Filed 04/24/2006 Page 7 of 11
Defendant for the Fall 2004 season. Defendant further retaliated against Ms. Marcelin for her complaint by failing to re-hire her for the Fall 2004 season.
34. Ms. Julien engaged in protected activity by rejecting supervisor Sony Constant’s sexual advances. Defendant retaliated against Ms. Julien for rejecting Sony Constant’s sexual advances by suspending her without pay, subjecting her to unfavorable seating assignments, and terminating her employment.
35. Ms. Julien engaged in additional protected activity by complaining about supervisor Sony Constant’s sexual advances and Constant’s retaliatory actions of suspending her without pay to packing house manager Joe Black. After the first complaint, Joe Black allowed Ms. Julien to return to work. About a month thereafter, Constant’s sexual advances and retaliatory actions towards Ms. Julien resumed and she again complained to Joe Black and also complained to Lorraine Hatchet. Shortly thereafter, Defendant retaliated against Ms. Julien by terminating her employment on or about April 16, 2004.
36. Defendant retaliated against other similarly situated individuals for rejecting Sony Constant’s sexual advances and/or in retaliation for their complaints regarding sexual harassment.
37. The effect of the practices complained of in paragraphs 28-36 above has been to deprive Ms. Marcelin, Ms. Jean-Francois, Ms. Saint-Hilaire, Ms. Julien and Ms. Pierre and any other similarly situated individuals of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as an employee because of their sex.
38. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs 28-36
7

Case 2:05-cv-00460-JES-SPC Document 47 Filed 04/24/2006 Page 8 of 11
above were intentional. 39. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs 28-36
above were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Ms. Marcelin, Ms. Jean-Francois, Ms. Saint-Hilaire, Ms. Julien and Ms. Pierre and any other similarly situated individuals.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant Employer, its officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in sexual harassment or retaliation and any other employment practice which discriminates on the basis of sex and retaliation. B. Order Defendant Employer to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for victims of sexual harassment and retaliation, and which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices. C. Order Defendant Employer to make whole Ms. Marcelin, Ms. JeanFrancois, Ms. Pierre, Ms. Julien, and Ms. Saint-Hilaire and any other similarly situated individuals, by providing appropriate backpay with prejudgment interest, in amounts to be determined at trial, and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices. D. Order Defendant Employer to make whole Ms. Marcelin, Ms. JeanFrancois, Ms. Pierre, Ms. Julien, and Ms. Saint-Hilaire and any other similarly situated
8

Case 2:05-cv-00460-JES-SPC Document 47 Filed 04/24/2006 Page 9 of 11
individuals, by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described in paragraph seven above, in amounts to be determined at trial.
E. Order Defendant Employer to make whole Ms. Marcelin, Ms. JeanFrancois, Ms. Pierre, Ms. Julien, and Ms. Saint-Hilaire and any other similarly situated individuals, by providing compensation for past and future nonpecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices complained of in paragraph seven above, including emotional pain, suffering and inconvenience, in amounts to determined at trial.
F. Order Defendant Employer to pay Ms. Marcelin, Ms. Jean-Francois, Ms. Pierre, Ms. Julien, Ms. Saint-Hilaire and any other similarly situated individuals punitive damages for its malicious and reckless conduct described in paragraph seven above, in amounts to be determined at trial.
G. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public interest.
H. Award the Commission its costs of this action. JURY TRIAL DEMAND
The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its complaint.
JAMES L. LEE Deputy General Counsel GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel DELNER FRANKLIN-THOMAS Regional Attorney
9

Case 2:05-cv-00460-JES-SPC Document 47 Filed 04/24/2006 Page 10 of 11
s/ Carla J. Von Greiff CARLA J. VON GREIFF Florida Bar No. 0110566 Senior Trial Attorney EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 501 East Polk Street, Suite 1000 Tampa, Florida 33602 Tel: (813) 202-7903 Tel: (813) 202-2310 Fax (813) 228-2045
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on April 24th, 2006 I electronically filed the
foregoing with the Clerk of Court by using CM/ECF system which will send a notice of
electronic filing to the following:
Lorraine M. Hultman Kunkel Miller & Hament Orange Professional Centre 235 N. Orange Ave., Suite 200 Sarasota, FL 34236 Attorney for Defendant
Jason L. Gunter, Esq. Webb, Scarmozzino & Gunter, P.A. 1617 Hendry St., Third Floor Ft. Myers, FL 33901 Attorney for Viergela Jean-Francois
Monica Ann Ramirez, Esq. Rhonda Brownstein, Esq. Southern Poverty Law Center Immigrant Justice Project 400 Washington Ave. Montgomery, AL 36104
Gregory Scott Schell, Esq. 10

Case 2:05-cv-00460-JES-SPC Document 47 Filed 04/24/2006 Page 11 of 11 Migrant Farmworker Justice Project 508 Lucerne Ave. Lake Worth, FL 33460-3819 Attorneys for Changolia Julien, Carmelia Pierre, Loundy Saint-Hilaire, and Solange Marcelin s/ Carla J. Von Greiff Carla J. Von Greiff
11

 
 Case 2:05-cv-00460-JES-SPC Document 59 Filed 10/17/2006 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

VIERGELA JEAN-FRANCOIS, CHANGOLIA JULIEN, CARMELIA PIERRE, LOUNDY SAINT-HILAIRE, and SOLANGE MARCELIN,

Intervenors,

-vs-

Case No. 2:05-cv-460-FtM-29SPC

GARGIULO, INC.,

Defendant. ______________________________________
ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on The Plaintiff United States Equal Opportunity

Commission (EEOC) and the Plaintiff Intervenor’s Joint Motion to Quash or Modify Subpoenas

Duces Tecum (Doc. #58) filed on October 16, 2006. In this instance, the Plaintiff’s jointly move to

quash the subpoenas issued to the Intervenors’ subsequent employers. Pursuant to the Federal Rules,

a subpoena shall be quashed and/or modified if it: fails to allow reasonable time for compliance;

requires a nonparty to travel to a place more than 100 miles from the place where that person resides,

is employed, or regularly transacts business in person; requires the disclosure of privileged or other

protected matter; or subjects a person to undue burden. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(3)(A).

Initially, the Court must determine whether the EEOC and the Intervenors have standing to

quash the third party subpoenas. Generally, it is the person to whom a subpoena is directed who has

standing to seek a motion to quash. Butterworth v. Jones Chemicals, Inc., 1993 WL 388645 *2

Case 2:05-cv-00460-JES-SPC Document 59 Filed 10/17/2006 Page 2 of 3
(M.D. Fla.); See also Brown v. Braddick, 595 F.2d 961, 967 (5th Cir. 1979) (holding that a motion to quash may only be brought by the witness; the parties do not have standing to bring a motion to quash on behalf of a witness). However, a party has standing to challenge a subpoena to a non-party if the party alleges a personal right or privilege with respect to the subpoena. Auto-Owners Insurance Co. v. Southeast Floating Docks, Inc., 231 F.R.D. 426, 429 (M.D. Fla. 2005). It is clear that the Intervenors’ personnel files contain privileged and confidential information sufficient to give the Plaintiffs standing in this matter. Maxwell v. Health Center of Lake City, Inc., 2006 WL 1627020 * 3 (M.D. Fla. June 6, 2006) (holding that personnel files and record are confidential in nature).
The Court must now address whether or not the subpoenas are overbroad. Courts have held that while some documents in a Plaintiff’s personnel file may reasonably lead to admissible evidence, blanket requests for a Plaintiff’s entire personnel files are overly broad. Id. The Plaintiff concedes that the Plaintiffs’ wage and hourly records are relevant to back pay, damages, and mitigation issues and therefore, does not object to the subpoenas in regard to those specific items. The Plaintiffs do however, object to the hour and wage records subpoenaed from Seaside Farms regarding the Plaintiff Loundy Saint-Claire. Saint-Claire was employed by Seaside prior to her employment with the Defendant. The Plaintiffs argue that her wage and hourly records are irrelevant. Courts have quashed subpoenas requesting wage and hour records from prior employers as irrelevant. See Id. (citing Graham v Casey’s General Stores, 206 F.R.D. 251, 255 (S.D. IN. 2002) (quashing subpoenas after a finding that the Defendant’s reasoning was defective when arguing that her prior wage history was relevant to the plaintiff’s discrimination claim because it would establish damages). Therefore, the Court finds good cause to grant the Motion to Quash the subpoena issued to Seaside Farms.
-2-

Case 2:05-cv-00460-JES-SPC Document 59 Filed 10/17/2006 Page 3 of 3
Having reviewed the Motion, the Court finds good cause to modify the subpoenas allowing only the production of the Plaintiffs’ subsequent wage and hour records.
Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: The Plaintiff United States Equal Opportunity Commission and the Plaintiff Intervenor’s Joint Motion to Quash or Modify Subpoenas Duces Tecum (Doc. #58) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. (1) The Plaintiff United States Equal Opportunity Commission and the Plaintiff Intervenor’s Joint Motion to Quash is DENIED. (2) Plaintiff United States Equal Opportunity Commission and the Plaintiff Intervenor’s Joint Motion to Modify the Subpoena Duces Tecum is GRANTED. The subpoenas are modified to request time cards, and other time records, payroll and wage records. The subpoenas are otherwise quashed. (3) The subpoena addressed to Seaside Farms requesting the records of the Plaintiff Loundy Saint-Claire is hereby QUASHED. (4) Any records and/or personnel files produced prior to this Order must be returned to the third party. DONE AND ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this 17th day of October, 2006.
Copies: All Parties of Record
-3-

 
 Case 2:05-cv-00460-JES-SPC Document 70 Filed 01/22/2007 Page 1 of 7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION

UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

)

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

VIERGELA JEAN-FRANCOIS, CHANGOLIA )

JULIEN, CARMELIA PIERRE, LOUNDY

)

SAINT-HILAIRE, and SOLANGE MARCELIN )

)

Plaintiff- Intervenors,

)

)

v.

)

)

GARGIULO, INC.,

)

)

)

Defendant.

)

__________________________________________ /

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 2:05-CV-460-FTM-29SPC

CONSENT DECREE

1. This Consent Decree (the “Decree”) is made and entered into by and between Plaintiff,

the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (hereinafter referred to as the “Commission” or

"EEOC"); Plaintiff-Intervenors, Viergela Jean-Francois, Changolia Julien, Carmelia Pierre, Loundy

St. Hilaire and Solange Marcelin (hereinafter referred to collectively as Plaintiff-Intervenors); and

Defendant, Gargiulo, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as the “Company or “Defendant”). The

Commission, Plaintiff-Intervenors and Gargiulo, Inc. are collectively referred to herein as “the

Parties.”

2. On September 29, 2005, EEOC initiated this action by filing its Complaint in the

United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Civil Action 2:05-CV-460-FTM-

1

Case 2:05-cv-00460-JES-SPC Document 70 Filed 01/22/2007 Page 2 of 7
29SPC, and an Amended Complaint, based upon charges filed by Viergela Jean- Francois (EEOC Charge No. 150-2005-01674), Changolia Julien (EEOC Charge No.150-2005-00268), Carmelia Pierre (EEOC Charge No.150-2005-00264), Loundy St. Hilaire (EEOC Charge No.150-200501431), and Solange Marcelin (EEOC Charge No. 150-2005-00262). EEOC’s Amended Complaint alleges that Defendant violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, including but not limited to, amendments authorized by the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e et seq. (“Title VII”) by subjecting Ms. Jean-Francois, Ms. Julien, Ms. Pierre, Ms. St. Hilaire, Ms. Marcelin and other similarly situated individuals to sexual harassment by their supervisor, and to retaliation for rejecting their supervisor’s unwelcome sexual advances and/or complaining to other management about it. Defendant denies all the allegations.
3. On December 8, 2005, Ms. Jean-Francois, Ms. Julien, Ms. Pierre, Ms. St. Hilaire and Ms. Marcelin were permitted to intervene in this action and filed a Complaint on January 11, 2006 alleging claims of sexual harassment and retaliation under Title VII and under the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, Section 760.01 et. seq., Fla. Stat. (1997) (“FCRA”). On January 3, 2006, PlaintiffIntervenors filed an Amended Complaint alleging claims of sexual harassment and retaliation under Title VII and the FCRA.
4. In the interests of resolving this matter, to avoid the costs of litigation and as a result of having engaged in comprehensive settlement negotiations, the Parties have agreed that this action should be finally resolved by entry of this Decree. This Decree is final and binding upon the Parties, their successors, affiliates and assigns. Defendant is not admitting any liability for the allegations in Plaintiff EEOC or Plaintiff Intervenors’ Complaint.
5. The Parties agree that this Decree resolves all claims alleged against the Defendant
2

Case 2:05-cv-00460-JES-SPC Document 70 Filed 01/22/2007 Page 3 of 7
in EEOC Charge Numbers: 150-2005-01674, 150-2005-00268, 150-2005-00264, 150-2005-01431, 150-2005-00262; and the Complaints and Amended Complaints filed by Plaintiff EEOC and Plaintiff Intervenors in this action.
6. NOW, THEREFORE, the Court having carefully examined the terms and provisions of this Decree, and based on the pleadings filed by the parties, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED THAT:
JURISDICTION 7. This Court has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this action and over the Parties for the purposes of entering and enforcing this Decree. 8. No party shall contest jurisdiction of this federal court to enforce this Decree and its terms or the right of the EEOC to seek enforcement in the event Defendant breaches any of the terms of this Decree.
GENERAL PROVISIONS 9. Defendant, its officers, employees, and its successors, affiliates and assigns agree not to engage in conduct which violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by adversely affecting the terms and conditions of any individual’s employment because of their gender, and agree not to retaliate against any employee who opposes any of Defendant’s practices which the employee believes to be unlawful employment discrimination, who files a charge of discrimination with the EEOC alleging violation(s) of such statute; who cooperates with the EEOC in the investigation and/or prosecution of any charge of discrimination; or who cooperated in the investigation or prosecution of this case.
DISCRIMINATION POLICY AND TRAINING
3

Case 2:05-cv-00460-JES-SPC Document 70 Filed 01/22/2007 Page 4 of 7
10. Defendant will adopt a written policy against sexual harassment and retaliation by February 28, 2007 to be submitted to the EEOC for review and approval. Such policy will include a reporting procedure that provides Haitian and Hispanic employees with a Creole and Spanish language interpreter through which employees can report any complaints they may have arising under the policy.
11. Defendant agrees that all of its employees and managers in Immokalee and Naples will be provided a complete copy of its policy against sexual harassment and retaliation within thirty (30) days of the adoption of the policy. Defendant also agrees that all new employees shall be given a copy of its policy against sexual harassment and retaliation within their first ten days after their employment.
12. In order to further ensure the effective implementation of Defendant’s antidiscrimination policy, Defendant agrees to conduct a training session for all of its employees at the Immokalee and Naples packinghouse annually for the duration of this Decree. During this training session, Defendant agrees that it will describe and explain to Defendant’s employees for that season the laws covered by Defendant’s policy against sexual harassment and retaliation and the reporting procedure established under the policy. The training will be conducted by an individual selected by Defendant’s counsel, who will notify to the EEOC the name of the person selected to do the training.
13. In order to further ensure the effective implementation of Defendant’s antidiscrimination policy, Defendant will also conduct a two (2) hour annual training for all of its Immokalee and Naples packinghouse managers and supervisory personnel with specific emphasis on recognizing harassment, on acts that could constitute retaliation, and on the proper procedure to be followed if they become aware of harassment in the workplace or if they receive complaints of
4

Case 2:05-cv-00460-JES-SPC Document 70 Filed 01/22/2007 Page 5 of 7
discrimination. Defendant agrees to provide the EEOC, at least two weeks notice before it conducts its training session(s), with the date(s) and location(s) of the training and the identification of the training materials to be used at the training session. The training will be conducted by an individual selected by Defendant’s counsel, who will notify to the EEOC the name of the person selected to do the training.
14. Defendant agrees that the training described in paragraph 13 shall be conducted within sixty (60) days of the entry of this Decree. The training should thereafter take place annually in the same format, by December 30, for the duration of this Decree. Defendant further agrees that the discrimination policy and training materials utilized for the training described in paragraph 13 shall be presented to and explained to all new managers and supervisors in Immokalee and Naples packinghouse, who did not attend the annual training, within thirty (30) days of being placed in a management or supervisory position.
POSTING 15. Defendant will post a laminated 11 x 14 copy of the Notice, attached as Exhibit A, in Immokalee and Naples packinghouse, no later than thirty (30) days after the entry of this Decree. Specifically, the Defendant will post copies of Exhibit A in both an English (attached), Spanish and Creole version. Said notice shall be posted for the duration of this Decree in a conspicuous location accessible to all employees such as an employee bulletin board or break/lunch room.
MONITORING 16. Defendant will retain all employment and/or investigative records relating in any way to any complaint or allegation of harassment for the duration of this Decree and as required under federal law.
5

Case 2:05-cv-00460-JES-SPC Document 70 Filed 01/22/2007 Page 6 of 7
17. Defendant will certify to the EEOC semi-annually throughout the duration of this Decree that it is in compliance with all aspects of this Decree. The first such certification will be due no later than June 30, 2007. With each certification Defendant will further provide the EEOC with the name, address, and phone number of any person who alleges they have been harassed while working for Defendant during the preceding six month period. Defendant will also state the actions taken in response to each such allegation and provide any and all documentation associated with such complaint. The certifications required to be submitted to the EEOC pursuant to this Consent Decree shall be mailed with the notation GARGIULO, INC. MONITORING to: United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Attention: Office of the Regional Attorney, 1 Biscayne Tower, Suite 2700, 2 South Biscayne Boulevard, Miami, Fl 33131.
MONETARY RELIEF 18. Defendant agrees to pay a total amount of $ 215,000.00 to resolve this litigation. The payments referenced herein shall issue within fifteen (15) calendar days of the Court’s execution of this Decree and be distributed as set forth below in Exhibit B attached hereto. 19. If Defendant fails to tender the above-mentioned payments as set forth in paragraph 18 above and Exhibit B, then Defendant shall pay interest on the defaulted payment at the rate calculated pursuant to 26 U.S.C. Section 6621(b) until the same is paid, and bear any additional costs incurred by the EEOC caused by the non-compliance or delay of the Defendant.
ENFORCEMENT OF DECREE 20. The Commission shall have independent authority to seek the judicial enforcement of any aspect, term or provision of this Decree.
6

Case 2:05-cv-00460-JES-SPC Document 70 Filed 01/22/2007 Page 7 of 7 COSTS
21. Each Party shall bear its own costs associated with this litigation. DURATION OF CONSENT DECREE
22. The duration of this Decree shall be three (3) years from the date of entry of the Decree.
23. The Court will take whatever measures necessary to effectuate the terms of this Decree.
SO ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED at Fort Myers, Florida, this 22nd day of January 2007.
7

Case 2:05-cv-00460-JES-SPC Document 70-2 Filed 01/22/2007 Page 1 of 1

Case 2:05-cv-00460-JES-SPC Document 70-3 Filed 01/22/2007 Page 1 of 2

Case 2:05-cv-00460-JES-SPC Document 70-3 Filed 01/22/2007 Page 2 of 2

 
 Case 2:05-cv-00460-JES-SPC Document 71 Filed 01/23/2007 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION

Page 1 of 13

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

V1ERGELA JEAN-FRANCOIS, CHANGOLIA JULIEN, CARMELIA PIERRE, LOUNDY SAINT-HILAIRE, and SOLANGE MARCELIN,

Intervenors,

-vsGARGIULO, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 2:05-cv-460-FtM-29SPC

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE
Decision by Court.
IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that pursuant to the Court's order entered on January 22, 2007, the parties' Joint Motion for Approval of Consent Decree (Doc. #68) is GRANTED. Judgment is entered adopting the Consent Decree (with exhibits), with the Court retaining jurisdiction over its enforcement.

Date: January 23,2007 c: All parties and counsel of record

SHERYL L. LOESCH, CLERK By: /s/ Janet Skipper, Deputy Clerk

Case 2:05-cv-00460-JES-SPC Document 71 Filed 01/23/2007 Page 2 of 13

CIVIL APPEALS JURISDICTION CHECKLIST

1.

Appealable Orders: Courts of Appeals have jurisdiction conferred and strictly limited by statute:

(a)

Appeals from fmal orders pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1291: Only fmal orders and jUdgments of district courts,

or final orders of bankruptcy courts which have been appealed to and fully resolved by a district court under 28

U.S.C. Section 158, generally are appealable. A fmal decision is one that "ends the litigation on the merits and

leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment." Pitney Bowes, Inc. V. Mestre, 701 F.2d 1365, 1368

(lith Cir. 1983). A magistrate judge's report and recommendation is not final and appealable until judgment

thereon is entered by a district court judge. 28 U.S.C. Section 636(c).

(b)

In cases involving multiple parties or multiple claims, a judgment as to fewer than all parties or all claims is not a

fmal, appealable decision unless the district court has certified the judgment for immediate review under

Fed. R. Civ.P. 54(b), Williams v. Bishop, 732 F.2d 885,885-86 (11th Cir. 1984). A judgment which resolves all

issues except matters, such as attorneys' fees and costs, that are collateral to the merits, is immediately appealable.

Budinich v. Becton Dickinson & Co., 486 U.S. 196,201, 108 S. Ct. 1717, 1721-22, 100 L.Ed.2d 178 (1988);

LaChance v. DuffY's Draft House, Inc., 146 F.3d 832, 837 (11th Cir. 1998).

(c)

Appeals pursuant to 28 U.S.c. Section 1292(a): Appeals are permitted from orders "granting, continuing,

modifying, refusing or dissolving injunctions or refusing to dissolve or modify injunctions..." and from

"[i]nterlocutory decrees...determining the rights and liabilities of parties to admiralty cases in which appeals from

final decrees are allowed." Interlocutory appeals from orders denying temporary restraining orders are not

permitted.

(d)

Appeals pursuant to 28 U.S.c. Section 1292(b) and FedR.App.P.5: The certification specified in 28 U.S.C.

Section 1292(b) must be obtained before a petition for permission to appeal is filed in the Court of Appeals. The

district court's denial of a motion for certification is not itself appealable.

(e)

Appeals pursuant to judicially created exceptions to the fmality rule: Limited exceptions are discussed in cases

including, but not limited to: Cohen V. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541,546,69 S.Ct. 1221,1225-26,93

L.Ed. 1528 (1949); Atlantic Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Blythe Eastman Paine Webber, Inc., 890 F. 2d 371, 376

(11th Cir. 1989); Gillespie v. United States Steel Corp., 379 U.S. 148, 157, 85 S. Ct. 308, 312, 13 L.Ed.2d 199

(1964).

2.

Time for Filing: The timely filing of a notice of appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional. Rinaldo v. Corbett, 256 F.3d 1276,

1278 (lith Cir. 2001). In civil cases, Fed.R.App.P.4(a) and (c) set the following time limits:

(a)

Fed.R.App.P. 4(aXl): A notice of appeal in compliance with the requirements set forth in Fed.R.App.P. 3 must be

filed in the district court within 30 days after the entry of the order or judgment appealed from. However, if the

United States or an officer or agency thereof is a party, the notice of appeal must be filed in the district court within

60 days after such entry. THE NOTICE MUST BE RECEIVED AND FILED IN THE DISTRICT COURT

NO LATER THAN THE LAST DAY OF THE APPEAL PERIOD - no additional days are provided for

mailing. Special filing provisions for inmates are discussed below.

(b)

FedR.App.P. 4(aX3): "If one party timely files a notice of appeal, any other party may file a notice of appeal

within 14 days after the date when the first notice was filed, or within the time otherwise prescribed by this Rule

4(a), whichever period ends later."

(c)

Fed.R.App.P.4(a)(4): If any party makes a timely motion in the district court under the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure of a type specified in this rule, the time for appeal for all parties runs from the date of entry of the order

disposing of the last such timely filed motion.

(d)

Fed.RApp.P.4(a)(5) and 4(a)(6): Under certain limited circumstances, the district court may extend the time to

file a notice of appeal. Under Rule 4(aX5), the time may be extended if a motion for an extension is filed within 30

days after expiration of the time otherwise provided to file a notice of appeal, upon a showing of excusable neglect

or good cause. Under Rule 4(a)(6), the time may be extended if the district court finds upon motion that a party did

not timely receive notice of the entry of the judgment or order, and that no party would be prejudiced by an

extension.

(e)

Fed.R.App.P.4(c): If an inmate confined to an institution files a notice of appeal in either a civil case or a criminal

case, the notice of appeal is timely if it is deposited in the institution's internal mail system on or before the last day

for filing. Timely filing may be shown by a declaration in compliance with 28 U.S.C. Section 1746 or a notarized

statement, either of which must set forth the date of deposit and state that first-class postage has been prepaid.

3.

Format of the notice of appeal: Form 1, Appendix of Forms to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, is a suitable

format. See also Fed.RApp.P. 3(c). A I[Q ~ notice of appeal must be signed by the appellant

-2-

Case 2:05-cv-00460-JES-SPC Document 71 Filed 01/23/2007 Page 3 of 13

4.

Effect of a notice of appeal: A district court loses jurisdiction (authority) to act after the filing of a timely notice of appeal,

except for actions in aid of appellate jurisdiction or to rule on a timely motion ofthe type specified in Fed.R.App.P. 4(aX4).

Rev.: 4/04

-3-

Case 2:05-cv-00460-JES-SPC Document 71 Filed 01/23/2007 Page 4 of 13 Case 2:05-cv-00460-JES-SPC Document 70 Filed 01/22/2007 Page 1 of 7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION

UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

)

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

)

)

P laintitI,

)

)

VIERGELA JEAN-FRANCOIS, CHANGOLIA )

JULIEN, CARMELIA PIERRE, LOUNDY

)

SAINT-HILAIRE, and SOLANGE MARCELIN )

)

Plaintiff- Intervenors,

)

)

~

)

)

GARGIULO, INC.,

)

)

)

Defendant.

)

---------------------------------- /

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 2:05-CV -460-FTM-29SPC

CONSENT DECREE

1. This Consent Decree (the "Decree") is made and entered into by and between Plaintiff,

the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (hereinafter referred to as the "Commission" or

"EEOC"); Plaintiff-Intervenors, Viergela Jean-Francois, Changolia Julien, Carmelia Pierre, Loundy

St. Hilaire and Solange Marcelin (hereinafter referred to collectively as Plaintiff-Intervenors); and

Defendant, Gargiulo, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as the "Company or "Defendant"). The

Commission, Plaintiff-Intervenors and Gargiulo, Inc. are collectively referred to herein as "the

Parties."

2. On September 29, 2005, EEOC initiated this action by filing its Complaint in the

United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Civil Action 2:05-CV-460-FTM-

1

Case 2:05-cv-00460-JES-SPC Document 71 Case 2:05-cv-00460-J ES-SPC Document 70

Filed 01/23/2007 Page 5 of 13 Filed 01/22/2007 Page 2 of 7

29SPC, and an Amended Complaint, based upon charges fIled by Viergela Jean- Francois (EEOC Charge No. 150-2005-01674), Changolia Julien (EEOC Charge No.150-2005-00268), Carmelia Pierre (EEOC Charge No. 150-2005-00264), Loundy St. Hilaire (EEOC Charge No.150-200501431), and Solange Marcelin (EEOC Charge No. 150-2005-00262). EEOC's Amended Complaint alleges that Defendant violated Title VII ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964, including but not limited to, amendments authorized by the Civil Rights Act of 1991,42 U.S.C. Section 2000e et seq. ("Title VII") by subjecting Ms. Jean-Francois, Ms. Julien, Ms. Pierre, Ms. St. Hilaire, Ms. Marcelin and other similarly situated individuals to sexual harassment by their supervisor, and to retaliation for rejecting their supervisor's unwelcome sexual advances and/or complaining to other management about it. Defendant denies all the allegations.
3. On December 8,2005, Ms. Jean-Francois, Ms. Julien, Ms. Pierre, Ms. St. Hilaire and Ms. Marcelin were permitted to intervene in this action and filed a Complaint on January 11, 2006 alleging claims ofsexual harassment and retaliation under Title VII and under the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, Section 760.01 et. seq., Fla. Stat. (1997) ("FCRA"). On January 3,2006, PlaintiffIntervenors filed an Amended Complaint alleging claims of sexual harassment and retaliation under Title VII and the FCRA.
4. In the interests ofresolving this matter, to avoid the costs oflitigation and as a result ofhaving engaged in comprehensive settlement negotiations, the Parties have agreed that this action should be finally resolved by entry ofthis Decree. This Decree is fmal and binding upon the Parties, their successors, affiliates and assigns. Defendant is not admitting any liability for the allegations in Plaintiff EEOC or Plaintiff Intervenors' Complaint.
5. The Parties agree that this Decree resolves all claims alleged against the Defendant
2

Case 2:05-cv-00460-JES-SPC Document 71 Filed 01/23/2007 Page 6 of 13 Case 2:05-cv-00460-JES-SPC Document 70 Filed 01/22/2007 Page 3 of 7
in EEOC Charge Numbers: 150-2005-01674, 150-2005-00268,150-2005-00264,150-2005-01431, 150-2005-00262; and the Complaints and Amended Complaints filed by PlaintiffEEOC and Plaintiff Intervenors in this action.
6. NOW, THEREFORE, the Court having carefully examined the terms and provisions ofthis Decree, and based on the pleadings filed by the parties, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED THAT:
JURISDICTION 7. This Court has jurisdiction ofthe subject matter ofthis action and over the Parties for the purposes of entering and enforcing this Decree. 8. No party shall contest jurisdiction ofthis federal court to enforce this Decree and its terms or the right ofthe EEOC to seek enforcement in the event Defendant breaches any ofthe terms ofthis Decree.
GENERAL PROVISIONS 9. Defendant, its officers, employees, and its successors, affiliates and assigns agree not to engage in conduct which violates Title VII ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964 by adversely affecting the terms and conditions of any individual's employment because oftheir gender, and agree not to retaliate against any employee who opposes any oIDefendant's practices which the employee believes to be unlawful employment discrimination, who files a charge of discrimination with the EEOC alleging violation(s) of such statute; who cooperates with the EEOC in the investigation andlor prosecution of any charge of discrimination; or who cooperated in the investigation or prosecution ofthis case.
DISCRIMINATION POLICY AND TRAINING
3

Case 2:05-cv-00460-JES-SPC Document 71 Filed 01/23/2007 Page 7 of 13 Case 2:05-cv-00460-JES-SPC Document 70 Filed 01/22/2007 Page 4 of 7
10. Defendant will adopt a written policy against sexual harassment and retaliation by February 28,2007 to be submitted to the EEOC for review and approval. Such policy will include a reporting procedure that provides Haitian and Hispanic employees with a Creole and Spanish language interpreter through which employees can report any complaints they may have arising under the policy.
11. Defendant agrees that all of its employees and managers in Immokalee and Naples will be provided a complete copy ofits policy against sexual harassment and retaliation within thirty (30) days ofthe adoption ofthe policy. Defendant also agrees that all new employees shall be given a copy of its policy against sexual harassment and retaliation within their first ten days after their employment.
12. In order to further ensure the effective implementation of Defendant's antidiscrimination policy, Defendant agrees to conduct a training session for all of its employees at the Immokalee and Naples packinghouse annually for the duration of this Decree. During this training session, Defendant agrees that it will describe and explain to Defendant's employees for that season the laws covered by Defendant's policy against sexual harassment and retaliation and the reporting procedure established under the policy. The training will be conducted by an individual selected by Defendant's counsel, who will notify to the EEOC the name ofthe person selected to do the training.
13. In order to further ensure the effective implementation of Defendant's antidiscrimination policy, Defendant will also conduct a two (2) hour annual training for all of its Immokalee and Naples packinghouse managers and supervisory personnel with specific emphasis on recognizing harassment, on acts that could constitute retaliation, and on the proper procedure to be followed if they become aware of harassment in the workplace or if they receive complaints of
4

Case 2:05-cv-00460-JES-SPC Document 71 Filed 01/23/2007 Page 8 of 13 Case 2:05-cv-00460-JES-SPC Document 70 Filed 01/22/2007 Page 5 of 7
discrimination. Defendant agrees to provide the EEOC, at least two weeks notice before it conducts its training session(s), with the date(s) and location(s) ofthe training and the identification of the training materials to be used at the training session. The training will be conducted by an individual selected by Defendant's counsel, who will notify to the EEOC the name ofthe person selected to do the training.
14. Defendant agrees that the training described in paragraph 13 shall be conducted within sixty (60) days ofthe entry ofthis Decree. The training should thereafter take place annually in the same format, by December 30, for the duration of this Decree. Defendant further agrees that the discrimination policy and training materials utilized for the training described in paragraph 13 shall be presented to and explained to all new managers and supervisors in Immokalee and Naples packinghouse, who did not attend the annual training, within thirty (30) days of being placed in a management or supervisory position.
POSTING 15. Defendant will post a laminated 11 x 14 copy ofthe Notice, attached as Exhibit A, in Immokalee and Naples packinghouse, no later than thirty (30) days after the entry ofthis Decree. Specifically, the Defendant will post copies ofExhibit A in both an English (attached), Spanish and Creole version. Said notice shall be posted for the duration ofthis Decree in a conspicuous location accessible to all employees such as an employee bulletin board or break/lunch room.
MONITORING 16. Defendant will retain all employment and/or investigative records relating in any way to any complaint or allegation of harassment for the duration of this Decree and as required under federal law.
5

Case 2:05-cv-00460-JES-SPC Document 71 Filed 01/23/2007 Page 9 of 13 Case 2:05-cv-00460-JES-SPC Document 70 Filed 01/22/2007 Page 6 of 7
17. Defendant will certify to the EEOC semi-annually throughout the duration of this Decree that it is in compliance with all aspects ofthis Decree. The fITst such certification will be due no later than June 30, 2007. With each certification Defendant will further provide the EEOC with the name, address, and phone number of any person who alleges they have been harassed while working for Defendant during the preceding six month period. Defendant will also state the actions taken in response to each such allegation and provide any and all documentation associated with such complaint. The certifications required to be submitted to the EEOC pursuant to this Consent Decree shall be mailed with the notation GARGIULO, INC. MONITORING to: United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Attention: Office of the Regional Attorney, 1 Biscayne Tower, Suite 2700, 2 South Biscayne Boulevard, Miami, FI33131.
MONETARY RELIEF 18. Defendant agrees to paya total amount of$ 215,000.00 to resolve this litigation. The payments referenced herein shall issue within fifteen (15) calendar days ofthe Court's execution of this Decree and be distributed as set forth below in Exhibit B attached hereto. 19. If Defendant fails to tender the above-mentioned payments as set forth in paragraph 18 above and Exhibit B, then Defendant shall pay interest on the defaulted payment at the rate calculated pursuant to 26 U.S.C. Section 6621(b) until the same is paid, and bear any additional costs incurred by the EEOC caused by the non-compliance or delay ofthe Defendant.
ENFORCEMENT OF DECREE 20. The Commission shall have independent authority to seek the judicial enforcement of any aspect, term or provision ofthis Decree.
6

Case 2:05-cv-00460-JES-SPC Document 71 Filed 01/23/2007 Page 10 of 13 Case 2:05-cv-00460-JES-SPC Document 70 Filed 01/22/2007 Page 7 of 7

COSTS 21. Each Party shall bear its own costs associated with this litigation.
DURATION OF CONSENT DECREE 22. The duration of this Decree shall be three (3) years from the date of entry of the Decree. 23. The Court will take whatever measures necessary to effectuate the terms of this Decree. SO ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED at Fort Myers, Florida, this 22nd day ofJanuary 2007.

"\ : ':

. .;.....:-:.:-:..

. . ,1.1i:~A:~>:~~:~~:~ £:{.i.LLM··/:;w..:'·'__

JOHN, E. STEEL~'

Un~'ted states District Judge

7

Case 2:05-cv-00460-JES-SPC Document 71 Filed 01/23/2007 Page 11 of 13 Case 2:05-cv-00460-JES-SPC Document 70-2 Filed 01/22/2007 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
POSTED PURSUANT TO A CONSENT DECREE BE'IWEEN THE UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION AND
'GARGIULO, INC.
This notice is being posted pursuant to a Consent Decree entered by the Court in U.S. EEOC et al. v. Gargiulo. Inc, Civil Action 2:05-CV-460-FfM-29SPC. Pursuant to the Consent Decree, Gargiulo, Inc. has agreed that it will not discriminate against employees in violation ofTitle VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"). Title VII protects individuals from employment discrimination because of their race, religion, color, national origin, or sex. Gargiulo, Inc. will not condone employment discrimination of any kind as set forth in federal anti-discrimination laws.
Furthennore, Gargiulo, Inc, assures its employees that it supports Title VII and will not take
any action against an individual because helshe has exerci sed his/her rights under the law to oppose
discriminatory acts or to file charges with the EEOC.
This notice shall remain posted for three (3) years D:om the date signed. Employees or applicants for employment who have questions about their rights under TitleVIIor any otherfederal anti-discrimination law may telephone the Miami District Office of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission at 1-800-669-4000.
S;gned this ,~T~ daYOf:Ii .2007.
PRESIDENT, GARGIlTLO, INC
DO NOT REMOVE BEFORE FEBRUARY 2010

Case 2:05-cv-00460-JES-SPC Document 71 Filed 01/23/2007 Page 12 of 13
Case 2:05-cv-00460-JES-SPC Document 70-3 Filed 01/22/2007 Page 1 of 2
EXHlBITB MONETARY DISTRIBUTION
In order to resolve EEOC et at. v. Gargiulo, Inc, Civil Action 2:05-CV-460-FfM-29SPC, Gargiulo, Inc. shall pay the total amount of $ 2is,000.00 to be distributed as follows:
(A) Defendant will pay ViergeLa Jean Francois $33,000,00, representing compensatory damages and punitive damages and will issue an I.R.S. fonn 1099 itemizing same.
(B) Defendant will pay Changolia Julien $33,000,00, representing compensatory damages and punitive damages and will issue ali I.R.S, form 1099 itemizing same.
(C) Defendant will payCarrneliaPieU'e $33,000.00, representing compensatory damages and punitive damages and will issue an I.R.S. fonn 1099 itemizing same.
CD) Defendant will pay Loundy St. Hilaire $33.000.00, representing compensatory
damages and punitive damages and will issue an LR. S. form 1099 itemizing. same.
(E) Defendant will pay Solange Marcelin $33.000.00, representing compensatory damages and punitive damages and will issue an I.R. S. fonn 1099 itemizing same
(F) Defendant will pay Marie Enet Louis $ 10,000.00, representing compensatory damages and punitive damages and will issue an I.R. S. fonn 1099 itemizing same.
(G) Defendant will pay Marie Nerostyl $2,500.00, representing compensatory damages and punitive damages and will issue an I.R.S. fOlro 1099 itemizing same.
(H) Defendant will pay Marie Casseus $2,500.00, representing compensatory damages and punitive damages and will issue an I.R.S. fonn. 1099 itemizing same.
(I) Defendant will pay the Southern Poverty Law Center $ 35,000.00, representing the
Intervenors' attorneys fees and will issue an I.R.S. form 1099 itemizing srune.
(1) The payments to the Plaintiff-Intervenors shall be made by check in their individual name and forwarded to Monica Ann Ramirez, Esq., Southern Poverty Law Center, Immigrant Justice Project, 400 Washington Ave., Montgomery, AL 36104 by certified mail with a return receipt requested.
(K) The payment to Marie Enet Louis, Marie Nerostyl and Marie Casseus shall be made by check in her individual name and forwarded to by certified mail with a return receipt requested to their last known addresses.

Case 2:05-cv-00460-JES-SPC Document 71 Filed 01/23/2007 Page 13 of 13 Case 2:05-cv-00460-JES-SPC Document 70-3 Filed 01/22/2007 Page 2 of 2
(L) A copy of the checks referenced above shall be forwarded to the attention of Carla Von Greift: Senior Trial Attorney, U.S. Equal Employment Opportl.1nityCommission, 501 East Polk Street, Suite 1000, Tampa, Florida 33611.
-

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION

EQUAL

EMPLOYMENT

COMMISSION,

OPPORTUNITY

Plaintiff,

VIERGELA JEAN-FRANCOIS, CHANGOLIA JULIEN, CARMELIA PIERRE, LOUNDY SAINT-HILAIRE, and SOLANGE MARCELIN,

Intervenors,

vs. GARGIULO, INC.,

Case No. 2:05-cv-460-FtM-29SPC Defendant.

ORDER - - -This matter comes before the Court on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss or for More Definite Statement and Supporting Memorandum of Law (Doc. #20) filed on January 9, 2006. Plaintiff intervenors filed their Complaint in Intervention for Damages and Injunctive Relief on January 11, 2006. (Doc. #22). Because the Complaint in Intervention was filed two days after the January 9 dispositive motion, defendant filed another motion which appears to be a duplicate of the January 9 dispositive motion on January 18, 2006. (Doc. #23). In both motions, defendant seeks to dismiss the Complaint in Intervention. Plaintiff intervenors then filed an Amended Complaint in Intervention for Damages and Injunctive Relief on January 23, 2006. (Doc. #24). Thus, defendant's January 9

Motion to Dismiss or for More Definite Statement (Doc. #20) was prematurely filed and will be terminated as moot, and defendant's January 18 Motion to Dismiss or for More Definite Statement (Doc. #23) will be denied as moot due to plaintiff intervenors' amended pleading.
Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: 1. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss or for More Definite Statement and Supporting Memorandum of Law (Doc. #20) is TERMINATED as moot. 2. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss or for More Definite Statement and Supporting Memorandum of Law (Doc. #23) is DENIED as moot. DONE AND ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this 24th day of January, 2006.

Copies: Counsel of record

JO E. STEEL
on~fed States District Judge

-2-

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FT. MYERS DIVISION

EQUIAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
v.
GARGIULO, INC.,
Defendant. ______________________________________

Case No. 2:05-cv-460-FtM-29SPC

RELATED CASE ORDER AND TRACK TWO NOTICE
It is hereby ORDERED that, no later than eleven days from the date of the filing of the complaint (or a copy of a notice of removal) in this Court, counsel and any pro se party shall comply with Local Rule 1.04(c), and shall file and serve a certification as to whether the instant action should be designated as a similar or successive case pursuant to Local Rule 1.04(a) or (b). The parties shall utilize the attached form NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF OTHER ACTIONS. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that, in accordance with Local Rule 3.05, this action is designated a Track Two case. All parties must comply with the requirements established in Local Rule 3.05 for Track Two cases. Counsel and any unrepresented party shall meet within sixty days after service of the complaint upon any defendant for the purpose of preparing and filing a Case Management Report. The parties shall utilize the attached CASE MANAGEMENT REPORT form. Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, a party may not seek discovery from any source before the meeting. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 (d); Local Rule 3.05(c)(2)(B). Plaintiff (or defendant in a removal case) is

responsible for serving a copy of this notice and order with attachments upon each party no later than eleven days after appearance of the party. October 4, 2005

JOHN E. STEELE John E. Steele
United States District Court Judge
DOUGLAS N. FRAZIER Douglas N. Frazier
United States Magistrate Judge

VIRGINIA M. HERNANDEZ COVINGTON Virginia M. Hernandez Covington United States District Court Judge
SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL Sheri Polster Chappell
United States Magistrate Judge

Attachments: Notice of Pendency of Other Actions [mandatory form] Case Management Report [mandatory form]
Note: A Magistrate Consent form, Local Rules and PacerNet can be found on the Court's website at http://www.flmd.uscourts.
Copies: All Parties of Record

-2-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FT. MYERS DIVISION

EQUIAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
v.
GARGIULO, INC.,
Defendant. ______________________________________

Case No. 2:05-cv-460-FtM-29SPC

NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF OTHER ACTIONS

In accordance with Local Rule 1.04(c), I certify that the instant action:

_____ IS

related to pending or closed civil or criminal case(s) previously filed in this Court, or any other Federal or State court, or administrative agency as indicated below: _______________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________

_____ IS NOT

related to any pending or closed civil or criminal case filed with this Court, or any other Federal or State court, or administrative agency.

I further certify that I will serve a copy of this NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF OTHER ACTIONS upon each party no later than eleven days after appearance of the party.

Dated:

_____________________________ [Counsel of Record or Pro Se Party]
[Address and Telephone]

_____________________________ [Counsel of Record or Pro Se Party]
[Address and Telephone]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FT. MYERS DIVISION

EQUIAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
v.
GARGIULO, INC.,
Defendant. ______________________________________

Case No. 2:05-cv-460-FtM-29SPC

CASE MANAGEMENT REPORT
The parties have agreed on the following dates and discovery plan pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(f) and Local Rule 3.05(c):

DEADLINE OR EVENT

Mandatory Initial Disclosures (pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(1) as amended effective December 1, 2000) [Court recommends 30 days after CMR meeting]

Certificate of Interested Persons and Corporate Disclosure Statement [each party who has not previously filed must file immediately]

Motions to Add Parties or to Amend Pleadings [Court recommends 1 - 2 months after CMR meeting]

Disclosure of Expert Reports

Plaintiff:

Defendant:

[Court recommends last exchange 6 months before trial and 1 - 2

months before discovery deadline to allow expert depositions]

AGREED DATE

-4-

DEADLINE OR EVENT

Discovery Deadline [Court recommends 5 months before trial to allow time for dispositive motions to be filed and decided; all discovery must be commenced in time to be completed before this date]

Dispositive Motions, Daubert, and Markman Motions [Court requires 4 months or more before trial term begins]

Meeting In Person to Prepare Joint Final Pretrial Statement [10 days before Joint Final Pretrial Statement]

Joint Final Pretrial Statement (Including a Single Set of Jointly-Proposed Jury Instructions and Verdict Form (with diskette), Voir Dire Questions, Witness Lists, Exhibit Lists with Objections on Approved Form)
[Court recommends 6 weeks before Final Pretrial Conference]

All Other Motions Including Motions In Limine, Trial Briefs [Court recommends 3 weeks before Final Pretrial Conference]

Final Pretrial Conference [Court will set a date that is approximately 3 weeks before trial]

Trial Term Begins [Local Rule 3.05 (c)(2)(E) sets goal of trial within 1 year of filing complaint in most Track Two cases, and within 2 years in all Track Two cases; trial term must not be less than 4 months after dispositive motions deadline (unless filing of such motions is waived); district judge trial terms begin on the first business day of each month; trials before magistrate judges will be set on a date certain after consultation with the parties]

Estimated Length of Trial [trial days]

Jury / Non-Jury

Mediation

Deadline: Mediator: Address:

Telephone:

[Absent arbitration, mediation is mandatory; Court recommends either 2 - 3 months after CMR meeting, or just after discovery deadline]

-5-

AGREED DATE

DEADLINE OR EVENT All Parties Consent to Proceed Before Magistrate Judge

AGREED DATE Yes____ No____
Likely to Agree in Future _____

I. Meeting of Parties in Person

Lead counsel must meet in person and not by telephone absent an order permitting otherwise.

Counsel will meet in the Middle District of Florida, unless counsel agree on a different location.

Pursuant to Local Rule 3.05(c)(2)(B) or (c)(3)(A),1 a meeting was held in person on

___________________ (date) at

(time) at

(place) and was attended by:

Name

Counsel for (if applicable)

II. Pre-Discovery Initial Disclosures of Core Information

A. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(1)(C) - (D) Disclosures

Local Rule 3.05(d) provides that these disclosures are mandatory in Track Two cases, and

optional in other cases unless otherwise ordered by the Court. Complete the following in all Track

Two cases and, when applicable, in Track Three Cases:

The parties ____ have exchanged ____ agree to exchange (check one)

information described in Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(1)(C) - (D)

on

by (check one)

(date).

Below is a description of information disclosed or scheduled for disclosure.

B. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(1)(A) - (B) Disclosures

1A copy of the Local Rules may be viewed at http://www.flmd.uscourts.gov.
-6-

Local Rule 3.05(d) provides that these disclosures are not mandatory except as stipulated by

the parties or otherwise ordered by the Court. Complete the following when applicable:

The parties ____have exchanged

agree to exchange (check one)

information referenced by Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(1)(A) - (B) on by (check one)

(date). Below is a description of information disclosed or scheduled for

disclosure.

III. Agreed Discovery Plan for Plaintiffs and Defendants

A. Certificate of Interested Persons and Corporate Disclosure Statement —

This Court has previously ordered each party, governmental party, intervenor, non-party movant, and Rule 69 garnishee to file and serve a Certificate of Interested Persons and Corporate Disclosure Statement using a mandatory form. No party may seek discovery from any source before filing and serving a Certificate of Interested Persons and Corporate Disclosure Statement. A motion, memorandum, response, or other paper — including emergency motion — is subject to being denied or stricken unless the filing party has previously filed and served its Certificate of Interested Persons and Corporate Disclosure Statement. Any party who has not already filed and served the required certificate is required to do so immediately.

Every party that has appeared in this action to date has filed and served a Certificate of Interested Persons and Corporate Disclosure Statement, which remains current:

_______ Yes

_______ No

Amended Certificate will be filed by ____________________ (party) on or before ____________________ (date).

-7-

B. Discovery Not Filed —
The parties shall not file discovery materials with the Clerk except as provided in Local Rule 3.03. The Court encourages the exchange of discovery requests on diskette. See Local Rule 3.03 (f). The parties further agree as follows:
C. Limits on Discovery —
Absent leave of Court, the parties may take no more than ten depositions per side (not per party). Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(a)(2)(A); Fed.R.Civ.P. 31(a)(2)(A); Local Rule 3.02(b). Absent leave of Court, the parties may serve no more than twenty-five interrogatories, including sub-parts. Fed.R.Civ.P. 33(a); Local Rule 3.03(a). The parties may agree by stipulation on other limits on discovery. The Court will consider the parties’ agreed dates, deadlines, and other limits in entering the scheduling order. Fed.R.Civ.P. 29. In addition to the deadlines in the above table, the parties have agreed to further limit discovery as follows:
1. Depositions
2. Interrogatories
3. Document Requests
4. Requests to Admit
5. Supplementation of Discovery
D. Discovery Deadline —
Each party shall timely serve discovery requests so that the rules allow for a response prior to the discovery deadline. The Court may deny as untimely all motions to compel filed after the discovery deadline. In addition, the parties agree as follows:
E. Disclosure of Expert Testimony —
On or before the dates set forth in the above table for the disclosure of expert reports, the parties agree to fully comply with Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(2) and 26(e). Expert testimony on direct examination at trial will be limited to the opinions, basis, reasons, data, and other information disclosed in the written expert report disclosed pursuant to this order. Failure to disclose such information may result in the exclusion of all or part of the testimony of the expert witness. The parties agree on the following additional matters pertaining to the disclosure of expert testimony:
-8-

F. Confidentiality Agreements —
Whether documents filed in a case may be filed under seal is a separate issue from whether the parties may agree that produced documents are confidential. The Court is a public forum, and disfavors motions to file under seal. The Court will permit the parties to file documents under seal only upon a finding of extraordinary circumstances and particularized need. See Brown v. Advantage Engineering, Inc., 960 F.2d 1013 (11th Cir. 1992); Wilson v. American Motors Corp., 759 F.2d 1568 (11th Cir. 1985). A party seeking to file a document under seal must file a motion to file under seal requesting such Court action, together with a memorandum of law in support. The motion, whether granted or denied, will remain in the public record.
The parties may reach their own agreement regarding the designation of materials as “confidential.” There is no need for the Court to endorse the confidentiality agreement. The Court discourages unnecessary stipulated motions for a protective order. The Court will enforce appropriate stipulated and signed confidentiality agreements. See Local Rule 4.15. Each confidentiality agreement or order shall provide, or shall be deemed to provide, that “no party shall file a document under seal without first having obtained an order granting leave to file under seal on a showing of particularized need.” With respect to confidentiality agreements, the parties agree as follows:

G. Other Matters Regarding Discovery —

IV. Settlement and Alternative Dispute Resolution.

A. Settlement —

The parties agree that settlement is

_____ likely ______ unlikely

(check one)

-9-

The parties request a settlement conference before a United States Magistrate

Judge.

yes

no

likely to request in future

B. Arbitration —

Local Rule 8.02(a) defines those civil cases that will be referred to arbitration

automatically. Does this case fall within the scope of Local Rule 8.02(a)?

yes

no

For cases not falling within the scope of Local Rule 8.02(a), the parties consent to

arbitration pursuant to Local Rules 8.02(a)(3) and 8.05(b):

yes

no

likely to agree in future

_______ Binding

________Non-Binding

In any civil case subject to arbitration, the Court may substitute mediation for

arbitration upon a determination that the case is susceptible to resolution through mediation. Local

Rule 8.02(b). The parties agree that this case is susceptible to resolution through mediation, and

therefore jointly request mediation in place of arbitration:

yes

no

likely to agree in future

C. Mediation —

Absent arbitration or a Court order to the contrary, the parties in every case will

participate in Court-annexed mediation as detailed in Chapter Nine of the Court’s Local Rules. The

parties have agreed on a mediator from the Court’s approved list of mediators as set forth in the table

above, and have agreed to the date stated in the table above as the last date for mediation. The list

-10-

of mediators is available from the Clerk, and is posted on the Court’s web site at http://www.flmd.uscourts.gov.
D. Other Alternative Dispute Resolution — The parties intend to pursue the following other methods of alternative dispute resolution:

Date: _____________________

Signature of Counsel (with information required by Local Rule 1.05(d)) and Signature of Unrepresented Parties.

____________________________________

_________________________________

____________________________________

_________________________________

____________________________________

_________________________________

____________________________________

_________________________________

____________________________________

_________________________________

-11-

 
 Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida -... https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?963467805486251-L_3...

U.S. District Court Middle District of Florida (Ft. Myers) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:05-cv-00460-JES-SPC

CLOSED

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Gargiulo, Inc. Assigned to: Judge John E. Steele Referred to: Magistrate Judge Sheri Polster Chappell Cause: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

Date Filed: 09/29/2005 Date Terminated: 01/23/2007 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by Carla Johanna Von Greiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Tampa Area Office 501 E. Polk St., Ste. 1000 Tampa, FL 33602 813/202-7903 Fax: 813/228-2045 Email: carla.vongreiff@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY

Intervenor Plaintiff Viergela Jean-Francois

Muslima Lewis American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Florida, Inc. Suite 340 4500 Biscayne Blvd Miami, FL 33137 786/363-2729 Fax: 786/363-1448 Email: mlewis@aclufl.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jason L. Gunter Webb, Scarmozzino & Gunter, PA 2nd Floor 2121 W First St Ft Myers, FL 33901 239/334-1600 Fax: 239/334-7979 Email: jason@wsglawyers.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

1 of 10

5/24/2007 1:25 PM

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida -... https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?963467805486251-L_3...

Intervenor Plaintiff Changolia Julien
Intervenor Plaintiff

Monica Ann Ramirez Southern Poverty Law Center 400 Washington Ave. Montgomery, AL 36104 334/956-8200 Fax: 334/956-8481 Email: monica.ramirez@splcenter.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Mary Catherine Bauer Southern Poverty Law Center 400 Washington Avenue Montgomery, Al 36104 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Monica Ann Ramirez Southern Poverty Law Center Immigrant Justice Project 400 Washington Ave. Montgomery, AL 36104 334/956-8200 Fax: 334/956-8481 Email: monica.ramirez@splcenter.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rhonda Brownstein Southern Poverty Law Center 400 Washington Ave. PO Box 2087 Montgomery, AL 36102-0287 334/956-8200 Email: rbrownstein@splcenter.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory Scott Schell Migrant Farmworker Justice Project 508 Lucerne Ave. Lake Worth, FL 33460-3819 561/582-3921 Fax: 561-582-4884 Email: Greg@Floridalegal.Org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

2 of 10

5/24/2007 1:25 PM

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida -... https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?963467805486251-L_3...

Solange Marcelin
Intervenor Plaintiff Carmelia Pierre
Intervenor Plaintiff Loundy Saint-Hilaire

represented by Mary Catherine Bauer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Monica Ann Ramirez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rhonda Brownstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory Scott Schell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Mary Catherine Bauer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Monica Ann Ramirez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rhonda Brownstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory Scott Schell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Mary Catherine Bauer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Monica Ann Ramirez (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

3 of 10

5/24/2007 1:25 PM

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida -... https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?963467805486251-L_3...

V. Defendant Gargiulo, Inc.
Mediator James B. Chaplin

Rhonda Brownstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gregory Scott Schell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lorraine M. Hultman Kunkel Miller & Hament Orange Professional Centre 235 N. Orange Ave., Suite 200 Sarasota, FL 34236 941/365-6006 Fax: 941-365-6209 Email: lori@laborattys.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by James B. Chaplin # Mediation, Inc. One Financial Plaza, C&S Bank Bldg. P.O. Box 4978 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33338-4978 954/764-1000 PRO SE

Date Filed 09/29/2005 10/03/2005 10/04/2005
10/04/2005
10/14/2005

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT against Gargiulo, Inc. ; jury demand ; injunctive relief sought, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.(slu) (Entered: 10/03/2005)
Summons issued as to Gargiulo, Inc.. (slu) (Entered: 10/03/2005)
2 RELATED CASE ORDER AND NOTICE of designation under Local Rule 3.05 - track 2. Notice of pendency of other actions due by 10/17/2005.Signed by Judge Sheri Polster Chappell on 10/4/2005. (LAG, ) (Entered: 10/04/2005)
3 INTERESTED PERSONS ORDER Certificate of interested persons and corporate disclosure statement due by 10/17/2005.Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 10/4/2005. (LAG, ) (Entered: 10/04/2005)
4 NOTICE of pendency of other actions re 2 order of compliance to Local Rule by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Related case(s): no (Lewis,

4 of 10

5/24/2007 1:25 PM

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida -... https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?963467805486251-L_3...

10/14/2005 11/18/2005 11/21/2005 11/23/2005 11/25/2005
11/25/2005 12/02/2005 12/03/2005
12/03/2005 12/05/2005 12/05/2005 12/08/2005
12/19/2005 01/06/2006

Muslima) (Entered: 10/14/2005)
5 CERTIFICATE of interested persons and corporate disclosure statement re 3 Interested persons order by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Lewis, Muslima) (Entered: 10/14/2005)
6 NOTICE of unavailability of counsel byGargiulo, Inc. from December 19, 2005 to December 28, 2005. (Hultman, Lorraine) (Entered: 11/18/2005)
9 RETURN of service executed on 11/3/05 by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission as to Gargiulo, Inc. (kma) (Entered: 11/25/2005)
7 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply by Gargiulo, Inc.. (Hultman, Lorraine) (Entered: 11/23/2005)
8 ORDER granting 7 the Defendant's Unopposed Motion to Enlarge Time. The Defendants shall have up to and including DECEMBER 2, 2005 to answer or otherwise plead to the Plaintiff's Complaint. Signed by Judge Sheri Polster Chappell on 11/25/2005. (lmh, ) (Entered: 11/25/2005)
10 INTERESTED PERSONS ORDER Certificate of interested persons and corporate disclosure statement due by 12/6/2005.Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 11/25/2005. (LAG, ) (Entered: 11/25/2005)
11 MOTION to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint and Supporting Memorandum of Law by Gargiulo, Inc.. (Hultman, Lorraine) (Entered: 12/02/2005)
12 Unopposed MOTION to intervene and Incorporated Memorandum of Law by Viergela Jean-Francois, Changolia Julien, Solange Marcelin, Carmelia Pierre, Loundy Saint-Hilaire. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Complaint in Intervention)(Ramirez, Monica) (Entered: 12/03/2005)
13 NOTICE by Viergela Jean-Francois, Changolia Julien, Solange Marcelin, Carmelia Pierre, Loundy Saint-Hilaire to Amend Certificate of Service (Ramirez, Monica) (Entered: 12/03/2005)
14 NOTICE of pendency of other actions re order of compliance to Local Rule by Gargiulo, Inc. Related case(s): no (Hultman, Lorraine) (Entered: 12/05/2005)
15 CERTIFICATE of interested persons and corporate disclosure statement by Gargiulo, Inc.. (Hultman, Lorraine) (Entered: 12/05/2005)
16 ORDER granting 12 the Intervenors Viergela Jean-Francois, Changolia Julien, Carmelia Pierre, Loundy Saint-Hilaire, and Solange Marcelin's Unopposed Motion to Intervene. The Clerk is directed to enter Viergela Jean-Francois, Changolia Julien, Carmelia Pierre, Loundy Saint-Hilaire, and Solange Marcelin as party Plaintiffs to the instant action and have the case caption revised to reflect their new status in this case. Signed by Judge Sheri Polster Chappell on 12/8/2005. (lmh, ) (Entered: 12/08/2005)
17 MEMORANDUM in opposition re 11 Motion to dismiss filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Lewis, Muslima) (Entered: 12/19/2005)
18 CERTIFICATE of interested persons and corporate disclosure statement by Changolia Julien, Solange Marcelin, Carmelia Pierre, Loundy Saint-Hilaire. (Ramirez, Monica) (Entered: 01/06/2006)

5 of 10

5/24/2007 1:25 PM

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida -... https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?963467805486251-L_3...

01/06/2006 01/09/2006 01/11/2006 01/11/2006 01/18/2006 01/23/2006 01/24/2006
01/27/2006 02/03/2006 02/06/2006 02/06/2006 02/06/2006 02/07/2006 02/07/2006 02/07/2006

19 NOTICE of pendency of other actions re order of compliance to Local Rule by Changolia Julien, Solange Marcelin, Carmelia Pierre, Loundy Saint-Hilaire Related case(s): No (Ramirez, Monica) (Entered: 01/06/2006)
20 MOTION to dismiss Plaintiff's Intervenor's Complaint or For More Definite Statement and Supporting Memorandum of Law by Gargiulo, Inc.. (Hultman, Lorraine) (Entered: 01/09/2006)
21 NOTICE by Viergela Jean-Francois, Changolia Julien, Solange Marcelin, Carmelia Pierre, Loundy Saint-Hilaire of Filing Complaint (Ramirez, Monica) (Entered: 01/11/2006)
22 Joint INTERVENOR'S COMPLAINT, filed by Changolia Julien, Solange Marcelin, Carmelia Pierre, Loundy Saint-Hilaire.(Ramirez, Monica) (Entered: 01/11/2006)
23 MOTION to dismiss Complaint in Intervention or for More Definite Statement and Supporting Memorandum of Law by Gargiulo, Inc.. (Hultman, Lorraine) (Entered: 01/18/2006)
24 AMENDED COMPLAINT In Intervention For Damages and Injunctive Relief against Gargiulo, Inc., filed by Changolia Julien, Solange Marcelin, Carmelia Pierre, Loundy Saint-Hilaire.(Ramirez, Monica) (Entered: 01/23/2006)
25 ORDER terminating as moot 20 defendant's Motion to Dismiss because the motion was prematurely filed; and denying as moot 23 defendant's Motion to Dismiss due to plaintiff intervenors' amended pleading. (See Order for details). Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 1/24/2006. (ATZ) (Entered: 01/24/2006)
26 NOTICE of change of address by Monica Ann Ramirez (Ramirez, Monica) (Entered: 01/27/2006)
27 NOTICE of Appearance by Jason L. Gunter on behalf of Viergela Jean-Francois (Gunter, Jason) (Entered: 02/03/2006)
28 Unopposed MOTION to Appear Telephonically at Case Management Conference by Gargiulo, Inc.. (Hultman, Lorraine) (Entered: 02/06/2006)
29 Unopposed MOTION to Appear Telephonically to Conduct Case Management Conference by all plaintiffs. (Lewis, Muslima) (Entered: 02/06/2006)
30 CERTIFICATE of interested persons and corporate disclosure statement Amended by Changolia Julien, Solange Marcelin, Carmelia Pierre, Loundy Saint-Hilaire. (Ramirez, Monica) (Entered: 02/06/2006)
31 CERTIFICATE of interested persons and corporate disclosure statement by Viergela Jean-Francois. (Gunter, Jason) (Entered: 02/07/2006)
32 NOTICE of pendency of other actions re order of compliance to Local Rule by Viergela Jean-Francois Related case(s): No (Gunter, Jason) (Entered: 02/07/2006)
33 Defendant's ANSWER to amended complaint in Intervention for Damages and Injunctive Relief by Gargiulo, Inc..(Hultman, Lorraine) (Entered: 02/07/2006)

6 of 10

5/24/2007 1:25 PM

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida -... https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?963467805486251-L_3...

02/08/2006
02/09/2006 02/22/2006 03/06/2006 03/13/2006 03/14/2006
03/22/2006 03/29/2006 03/30/2006 03/31/2006 04/03/2006 04/05/2006 04/10/2006

34 ORDER granting 28 the Defendant, Garguilo, Inc.'s Unopposed Motion to Attend Case Management Conference by Telephone. The Plaintiff and Plaintiff-Intervenors' Unopposed Motion to Conduct Case Management Conference Telephonically 29 is GRANTED. Signed by Judge Sheri Polster Chappell on 2/8/2006. (lmh, ) (Entered: 02/08/2006)
35 CASE MANAGEMENT REPORT. (Ramirez, Monica) (Entered: 02/09/2006)
36 CASE MANAGEMENT AND SCHEDULING ORDER. Signed by Judge Sheri Polster Chappell on 2/22/2006. (LAG, ) (Entered: 02/22/2006)
37 NOTICE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission of Selection of a Mediator (Brown, Jennifer) (Entered: 03/06/2006)
38 APPEARANCE of non-resident counsel and designation of local counsel by Gregory Scott Schell on behalf of Changolia Julien, Solange Marcelin, Carmelia Pierre, Loundy Saint-Hilaire. Local Counsel: Gregory S. Schell. Non-Resident Counsel: Rhonda Brownstein. (Schell, Gregory) (Entered: 03/13/2006)
39 ORDER granting the Appearance of Non-Resident Attorney 38. Rhonda Brownstein, Esq., of the Southern Poverty Law Center, 400 Washington Avenue, Montgomery, AL 36104, shall be admitted pro hac vice on behalf of the Plaintiffs-Intervenors Julien, Marcelin, Pierre and Saine-Hilaire. Signed by Judge Sheri Polster Chappell on 3/14/2006. (lmh, ) (Entered: 03/14/2006)
40 OPINION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 11 Motion to dismiss. The Court dismisses the Complaint without prejudice and plaintiff may amend its Complaint within 11 days of this Opinion and Order. Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 3/22/2006. (RKM) (Entered: 03/22/2006)
41 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Amended Complaint And Notice Regarding Court's Opinion and Order by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Von Greiff, Carla) (Entered: 03/29/2006)
42 ORDER granting 41 the Plaintiff EEOC's Motion for a Three (3) Week Extension of Time Until April 24, 2006 Within Which to File Its Amended Complaint and Notice Regarding Court's Opinion and Order. Signed by Judge Sheri Polster Chappell on 3/30/2006. (lmh, ) (Entered: 03/30/2006)
43 RESPONSE in opposition re 41 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Amended Complaint And Notice Regarding Court's Opinion and Order and Request that Court Amend Its Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion filed by Gargiulo, Inc.. (Hultman, Lorraine) (Entered: 03/31/2006)
44 NOTICE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission of Substitution of Counsel (Von Greiff, Carla) (Entered: 04/03/2006)
45 CERTIFICATE of interested persons and corporate disclosure statement Amended by Changolia Julien, Solange Marcelin, Carmelia Pierre, Loundy Saint-Hilaire. (Ramirez, Monica) (Entered: 04/05/2006)
46 NOTICE of unavailability of counsel byGargiulo, Inc. from June 13, 2006 to June 22, 2006. (Hultman, Lorraine) (Entered: 04/10/2006)

7 of 10

5/24/2007 1:25 PM

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida -... https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?963467805486251-L_3...

04/24/2006 04/24/2006 05/05/2006 06/12/2006
06/13/2006 06/21/2006 06/22/2006 07/25/2006 07/25/2006 07/25/2006 08/03/2006
10/12/2006

47 AMENDED COMPLAINT against Gargiulo, Inc., filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.(Von Greiff, Carla) (Entered: 04/24/2006)
48 MOTION for clarification and/or Reconsideration Regarding Certain Portions of the Court's March 22, 2006 Opinion and Order by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Von Greiff, Carla) (Entered: 04/24/2006)
49 ANSWER to amended complaint of Plaintiff EEOC by Gargiulo, Inc..(Hultman, Lorraine) (Entered: 05/05/2006)
50 ORDER directing defendant to file a response to 48 Plaintiff's Motion for Clarification and/or Reconsideration within TEN (10) DAYS of this Order. If no response is received, the Court will rule on the pending motion without the benefit of a response and without further notice. (See Order for details). Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 6/12/2006. (ATZ) (Entered: 06/12/2006)
51 RESPONSE to motion re 48 MOTION for clarification and/or Reconsideration Regarding Certain Portions of the Court's March 22, 2006 Opinion and Order filed by Gargiulo, Inc.. (Hultman, Lorraine) (Entered: 06/13/2006)
52 APPEARANCE of non-resident counsel and designation of local counsel by Monica Ann Ramirez on behalf of Changolia Julien, Solange Marcelin, Carmelia Pierre, Loundy Saint-Hilaire. Local Counsel: Gregory S. Schell. Non-Resident Counsel: Mary Catherine Bauer. (Ramirez, Monica) (Entered: 06/21/2006)
53 ORDER granting the Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice. See Order for Details. Signed by Judge Sheri Polster Chappell on 6/22/2006. (lmh, ) (Entered: 06/22/2006)
54 NOTICE of Appearance by Monica Ann Ramirez on behalf of Viergela Jean-Francois (Ramirez, Monica) (Entered: 07/25/2006)
55 CERTIFICATE of interested persons and corporate disclosure statement re 45 Certificate of interested persons and corporate disclosure statement Amended by Viergela Jean-Francois, Changolia Julien, Solange Marcelin, Carmelia Pierre, Loundy Saint-Hilaire. (Ramirez, Monica) (Entered: 07/25/2006)
56 NOTICE of Appearance by Monica Ann Ramirez on behalf of Viergela Jean-Francois, Changolia Julien, Solange Marcelin, Carmelia Pierre, Loundy Saint-Hilaire (Ramirez, Monica) (Entered: 07/25/2006)
57 ORDER denying 48 Plaintiff EEOC's Motion for Clarification and/or Reconsideration Regarding Certain Portions of the Court's March 22, 2006 Opinion and Order Granting and Denying in Part Defendant's Motion to Dismiss EEOC's Complaint. See Order for details. Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 8/3/2006. (ATZ) (Entered: 08/03/2006)
58 Joint MOTION to quash Or Modify Subpoenas Duces Tecum by Plaintiff Intervenors And by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit 3# 4 Exhibit 4# 5 Exhibit 5# 6 Exhibit 6, R.T. Tampa Franchise Order# 7 Exhibit 7, Dept. of Transportation Order# 8 Exhibit 8, SCI Funeral Services Order# 9 Exhibit 9, American Express Order# 10 Exhibit 10, City Of Waldo Order)(Von Greiff, Carla) (Entered: 10/12/2006)

8 of 10

5/24/2007 1:25 PM

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida -... https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?963467805486251-L_3...

10/17/2006
11/08/2006 11/08/2006 11/13/2006 12/04/2006 12/11/2006 12/13/2006
12/14/2006 12/18/2006 01/22/2007 01/22/2007
01/22/2007 01/23/2007

59 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 58 the Plaintiff United States Equal Opportunity Commission and the Plaintiff Intervenor's Joint Motion to Quash or Modify Subpoenas Duces Tecum. SEE ORDER FOR DETAILS. Signed by Judge Sheri Polster Chappell on 10/17/2006. (lmh, ) (Entered: 10/17/2006)
60 NOTICE of unavailability of counsel byEqual Employment Opportunity Commission from December 18, 2006 to January 2, 2007. (Von Greiff, Carla) (Entered: 11/08/2006)
61 NOTICE of unavailability of counsel byGargiulo, Inc. from 12/20/2006 to 01/05/2007. (Hultman, Lorraine) (Entered: 11/08/2006)
62 NOTICE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission of Scheduling Mediation (Von Greiff, Carla) (Entered: 11/13/2006)
63 NOTICE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Regarding Change of Date and Location of Mediation (Von Greiff, Carla) (Entered: 12/04/2006)
64 Joint MOTION to extend time to Designate Expert Witnesses And Exchange Expert Witness Reports by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Von Greiff, Carla) (Entered: 12/11/2006)
65 ORDER granting 64 the Joint Motion to Extend Time to Designate Expert Witnesses and Exchange Expert Witness Reports. The parties shall have up to and including FEBRUARY 8, 2007 to disclose their expert reports. Signed by Judge Sheri Polster Chappell on 12/12/2006. (lmh, ) (Entered: 12/13/2006)
66 NOTICE of Mediation by James B. Chaplin. (js) (Entered: 12/15/2006)
67 NOTICE of mediation by James B. Chaplin. (js) (Entered: 12/18/2006)
68 Joint MOTION Approval of Consent Decree by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Consent Decree)(Von Greiff, Carla) (Entered: 01/22/2007)
69 ORDER ADOPTING CONSENT DECREE granting 68 Motion for approval of consent decree. The Clerk shall enter judgment adopting the Consent Decree (to be entered contemporaneously with the entry of this Order) with the Court retaining jurisdiction over its enforcement and by attaching a copy of the Consent Decree to said judgment. The Clerk is further directed to close the case and terminate all deadlines as moot. Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 1/22/2007. (RKM) (Entered: 01/22/2007)
70 CONSENT DECREE Signed by Judge John E. Steele. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibit A; #(2) Exhibit B)(RKM) (Entered: 01/22/2007)
71 JUDGMENT (Signed by Deputy Clerk) (js) (Entered: 01/23/2007)

9 of 10

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt
05/24/2007 14:20:10

5/24/2007 1:25 PM

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida -... https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?963467805486251-L_3...

PACER Login:

hs0328

Client Code:

eeoc++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Description:

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

2:05-cv-00460-JES-SPC

Billable Pages:

6

Cost: 0.48

10 of 10

5/24/2007 1:25 PM