1 Mary Jo O'Neill, AZ Bar No. 005924 Sally C. Shanley, AZ Bar No. 012251
2 P. David Lopez, DC Bar No. 426463 Valerie L. Meyer, CA Bar No. 228586
3 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Phoenix District Office
4 3300 North Central Avenue, Suite 690 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2504
5 Telephone: (602) 640-5016 Fax: (602) 640-5009
6 Email: patrick.lopez@eeoc.gov valerie.meyer@eeoc.gov
7

8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

10

PRESCOTT DIVISION

11

12 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

13 OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

14

Plaintiff,

15

vs.

16 NAVAJO HEALTH FOUNDATION--

17 SAGE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, INC.,

18

Defendant.

) Case No.: ) ) COMPLAINT ) ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

19

20

NATURE OF THE ACTION

21

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

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

23 and/or national origin and retaliation, and to provide appropriate relief to Drs. Syed

24 Ahmed, Mohammad Ilyas, Mehr N. Iqbal, Zaffar Iqbal, Majaz A. Khan, Debra Meness,

25 Nariel Offomah, and Miriam E. Rodriguez-Padilla, who were adversely affected by such

26 practices as described with particularity below. The Commission alleges that Defendant 27 Navajo Health Foundation/Sage Memorial Hospital, Inc. paid Drs. Ilyas, M. Iqbal, Z.

28 Iqbal, Khan, Meness, Offomah, and Rodriguez-Padilla less than it paid a white, Anglo

Case 3:06-cv-02125-DGC Document 1 -1F- iled 09/05/2006 Page 1 of 6

1 comparator due to their race and/or national origin. When these physicians and Dr.

2 Ahmed complained of discrimination to Defendant’s Board of Directors and filed charges

3 alleging discrimination with the Commission, the eight physicians experienced retaliation

4 in the form of threats from and comments by Defendant’s Directors.

5

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

6

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

7 1337, 1343 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Section

8 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §

9 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3) ("Title VII") and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42

10 U.S.C. § 1981a.

11

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

12 the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, Prescott

13 Division.

14

PARTIES

15

3. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the

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

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

18 bring this action by Section 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) and

19 (3).

20

4. At all relevant times, Defendant, Navajo Health Foundation/Sage Memorial

21 Hospital, Inc. (the "Employer"), an Arizona corporation, has continuously been doing

22 business in the State of Arizona and the City of Ganado, and has continuously had at least

23 15 employees.

24

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

25 employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections

26 701(b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(b), (g) and (h).

27

28

Case 3:06-cv-02125-DGC Document 1 -2F- iled 09/05/2006 Page 2 of 6

1

STATEMENT OF CLAIMS

2

6. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Drs. Syed

3 Ahmed, Mohammad Ilyas, Mehr N. Iqbal, Zaffar Iqbal, Majaz A. Khan, Debra Meness,

4 Nariel Offomah, and Miriam E. Rodriguez-Padilla filed charges with the Commission

5 alleging violations of Title VII by Defendant Employer. All conditions precedent to the

6 institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled.

7

FIRST CLAIM: WAGE DISCRIMINATION

8

7. Since at least November 2002, Defendant Employer has engaged in

9 unlawful employment practices at its Ganado, Arizona facility, in violation of Section

10 703(a)(1) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). These practices include paying, on the

11 basis of race and/or national origin, a white, Anglo physician with less experience an

12 annualized wage several thousand dollars greater than the annualized wage paid to each

13 of Drs. Mohammad Ilyas, Mehr N. Iqbal, Zaffar Iqbal, Majaz A. Khan, Debra Meness,

14 Nariel Offomah, and Miriam E. Rodriguez-Padilla. All seven physicians are non-White

15 and/or non-Anglo, and their races and national origins are as follows: Dr. Ilyas,

16 Asian/Pakistani; Dr. M. Iqbal, Asian/East Indian; Dr. Z. Iqbal, Asian/East Indian; Dr.

17 Khan, Asian/Pakistani; Dr. Meness, Native American; Dr. Offomah, Black/Nigerian; and

18 Dr. Rodriguez-Padilla, Hispanic/Puerto Rican.

19

SECOND CLAIM: RETALIATION

20

8. Since at least October 2004, Defendant Employer has engaged in unlawful

21 employment practices at its Ganado, Arizona facility, in violation of Section 704(a) of

22 Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a). These practices include retaliation against Drs. Syed

23 Ahmed, Mohammad Ilyas, Mehr N. Iqbal, Zaffar Iqbal, Majaz A. Khan, Debra Meness,

24 Nariel Offomah, and Miriam E. Rodriguez-Padilla for their opposition to unlawful

25 employment practices such as wage discrimination. When these physicians complained

26 of discrimination to Defendant’s Board of Directors and filed charges alleging

27 discrimination with the Commission, they experienced retaliation including threats from

28 and comments by Defendant’s Directors.

Case 3:06-cv-02125-DGC Document 1 -3F- iled 09/05/2006 Page 3 of 6

1

9. The effect of the practices complained of in paragraphs 7 and 8 above has

2 been to deprive Drs. Syed Ahmed, Mohammad Ilyas, Mehr N. Iqbal, Zaffar Iqbal, Majaz

3 A. Khan, Debra Meness, Nariel Offomah, and Miriam E. Rodriguez-Padilla of equal

4 employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees,

5 because of their non-White, non-Anglo races and/or national origins.

6

10. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs 7 and 8

7 above were intentional.

8

11. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs 7 and 8

9 above were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected

10 rights of Drs. Syed Ahmed, Mohammad Ilyas, Mehr N. Iqbal, Zaffar Iqbal, Majaz A.

11 Khan, Debra Meness, Nariel Offomah, and Miriam E. Rodriguez-Padilla.

12

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

13

Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court:

14

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

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

16 engaging in wage discrimination, retaliation, and any other employment practice which

17 discriminates on the basis of race and/or national origin or opposition to unlawful

18 employment practices.

19

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

20 programs which provide equal employment opportunities for non-White and/or non-

21 Anglo individuals, and which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful

22 employment practices.

23

C. Order Defendant Employer to make whole Drs. Syed Ahmed, Mohammad

24 Ilyas, Mehr N. Iqbal, Zaffar Iqbal, Majaz A. Khan, Debra Meness, Nariel Offomah, and

25 Miriam E. Rodriguez-Padilla, by providing appropriate backpay with prejudgment

26 interest, in amounts to be determined at trial, and other affirmative relief necessary to

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

28 issuance of a written apology.

Case 3:06-cv-02125-DGC Document 1 -4F- iled 09/05/2006 Page 4 of 6

1

D. Order Defendant Employer to make whole Drs. Syed Ahmed, Mohammad

2 Ilyas, Mehr N. Iqbal, Zaffar Iqbal, Majaz A. Khan, Debra Meness, Nariel Offomah, and 3 Miriam E. Rodriguez-Padilla, by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary

4 losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described in paragraphs 7 and 8

5 above, including job search and relocation expenses, in amounts to be determined at trial.

6

E. Order Defendant Employer to make whole Drs. Syed Ahmed, Mohammad

7 Ilyas, Mehr N. Iqbal, Zaffar Iqbal, Majaz A. Khan, Debra Meness, Nariel Offomah, and 8 Miriam E. Rodriguez-Padilla, by providing compensation for past and future

9 nonpecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices complained of in paragraphs 7

10 and 8 above, including emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of

11 life, and humiliation, in amounts to be determined at trial.

12

F. Order Defendant Employer to pay punitive damages for its malicious

13 and/or reckless conduct described in paragraphs 7 and 8 above, in amounts to be

14 determined at trial.

15

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

16 public interest.

17

H. Award the Commission its costs of this action.

18

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

19

The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its

20 complaint.

21

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 5th day of September, 2006.

22

RONALD S. COOPER

23

General Counsel

24

GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS

25

Associate General Counsel

26

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

27

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

1801 L Street, NW

28

Washington, DC 20507

Case 3:06-cv-02125-DGC Document 1 -5F- iled 09/05/2006 Page 5 of 6

1

2

s/ Mary Jo O’Neill

MARY JO O’NEILL

3

Regional Attorney

4

s/ Sally C. Shanley

5

Supervisory Trial Attorney

6

s/ P. David Lopez

7

Trial Attorney

8

s/ Valerie L. Meyer

9

Trial Attorney

10

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

11

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

12

Phoenix District Office

3300 N. Central Ave.

13

Suite 690

14

Phoenix, Arizona 85012

15

Attorneys for Plaintiff

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Case 3:06-cv-02125-DGC Document 1 -6F- iled 09/05/2006 Page 6 of 6

 
 1 WO

2

3

4

5

6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8

9

10 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,
11 Plaintiff,
12 vs.
13
14 Navajo Health Foundation–Sage Memorial Hospital, Inc.,
15 Defendant.
16
17

) No. CV-06-2125-PCT-DGC ) ) ORDER ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

18

19

Defendant has filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant

20 to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Dkt. #25. Plaintiff has responded

21 and Defendant has replied. Dkt. ##27, 32. The Court will grant Defendant’s motion.1

22 I. Background.

23

Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a complaint against

24 Defendant Navajo Health Foundation-Sage Memorial Hospital, Inc. (“Sage Hospital”).

25 Plaintiff brought this action pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.

26

27

1Defendant’s request for oral argument is denied because the parties have thoroughly

discussed the law and evidence and oral argument will not aid the Court’s decision. See 28 Mahon v. Credit Bur. of Placer County, Inc., 171 F.3d 1197, 1200 (9th Cir. 1999).

1 § 2000e et seq. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant discriminated against several employees

2 based on their race and national origin. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant retaliated

3 against the employees after they complained and filed EEOC charges. Plaintiff seeks to

4 correct these alleged unlawful employment actions and to secure appropriate relief for the

5 aggrieved parties. Dkt. #1.

6 II. Rule 12(b)(1) Standard.

7

A Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss may assert a lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

8 Thornhill Publ’g Co. v. Gen. Tel. & Elecs., 594 F.2d 730, 733 (9th Cir. 1979). In resolving

9 such a motion, the Court is not limited to the allegations in the pleadings. The Court

10 “may consider the evidence presented with respect to the jurisdictional issue and rule on that

11 issue, resolving factual disputes if necessary.” Id. The parties’ memoranda in this case cite

12 factual materials that will be addressed below.

13 III. Analysis.

14

“Title VII prohibits employers from engaging in discriminatory practices. Congress,

15 however, exempted ‘Indian tribes’ from the scope of the definition of ‘employer’ as used in

16 Title VII.” Pink v. Modoc Indian Health Project, Inc., 157 F.3d 1185, 1188 (9th Cir. 1998)

17 (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b)). The purpose of this “tribal exemption, like the purpose of

18 sovereign immunity itself, [is] to promote the ability of Indian tribes to control their own

19 enterprises.” Id. (citing Dille v. Council of Energy Res. Tribes, 801 F.2d 373, 375-76 (10th

20 Cir. 1986)); see 110 Cong. Rec. 13702 (1964) (statement of Sen. Mundt).

21

Defendant argues that it falls within the “Indian tribe” exemption from Title VII and

22 that the Court therefore lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Dkt. #25. In determining whether

23 Defendant is a “tribe” under Title VII, the Court “must keep in mind the . . . ‘settled principle

24 of statutory construction that statutes passed for the benefit of dependent Indian tribes are to

25 be liberally construed, with doubtful expressions being resolved in favor of the Indians.’”

26 Giedosh v. Little Wound Sch. Bd., Inc., 995 F. Supp. 1052, 1056 (D.S.D. 1997) (quoting

27 Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation v. World Eng’g, P.C., 467 U.S. 138,

28 149 (1984)).

- 2 -

1

The Court concludes that Sage Hospital, like the Modoc Indian Health Project in Pink,

2 serves as an arm of a sovereign Indian tribe and therefore falls within the scope of Title VII’s

3 “tribe” exemption. In Pink, a former employee of the Modoc Indian Health Project

4 (“Modoc”) brought suit against Modoc for alleged violations of Title VII. Modoc was a non-

5 profit corporation created by two federally recognized Indian tribes. Modoc was organized

6 to provide health services to tribal members pursuant to the Indian Self-Determination and

7 Education Assistance Act (“ISDEAA”), Pub. L. No. 93-638, 88 Stat. 2004 (1975) (codified

8 as amended at 25 U.S.C. § 450 et seq.). The district court dismissed the suit for lack of

9 subject matter jurisdiction. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, concluding that Modoc was a tribe

10 for purposes of Title VII because it was organized to control a collective tribal enterprise and

11 its board of directors consisted of two representatives from each tribe. Pink, 157 F.3d at

12 1188 (citing Dille, 801 F.2d at 375-76).

13

Sage Hospital, like Modoc, is controlled by a federally recognized Indian tribe, the

14 Navajo Nation. The Navajo Nation includes political subdivisions called “chapters.”

15 2 N.N.C. § 1; 26 N.N.C. §2(6). Under the Navajo Nation Code, chapters are considered to

16 be the Navajo Nation itself and therefore enjoy sovereign immunity. 1 N.N.C. §§ 552(E),

17 553(A). Sage Hospital was formed by eight Navajo chapters to serve the medical needs of

18 their members. The hospital’s board of directors includes one representative from each of

19 the eight chapters. The directors must be enrolled members of the Navajo Nation and voting

20 members of the chapters they represent. Dkt. #26 at 7-12.

21

Plaintiff does not dispute that Sage Hospital is wholly owned and controlled by

22 members of the Navajo Nation. See Dkt. #25-4 at 16; Dkt. #28-2 Ex. 9. Plaintiff instead

23 argues that this fact does not show that Sage Hospital is controlled by the Navajo Nation.

24 But Plaintiff presents no legal authority in support of this argument. See Dkt. #27 at 6.

25 Because the hospital has been formed by eight political subdivisions of the Navajo Nation,

26 and those eight chapters select and are represented by members of the hospital’s board of

27 directors, the Court finds that the Navajo Nation exercises sufficient control over the hospital

28 to render it a tribal entity for purposes of Title VII. See Pink, 157 F.3d at 1188; Hagen v.

- 3 -

1 Sisseton-Wahpeton Cmty. Coll., 205 F.3d 1040, 1042-43 (8th Cir. 2000) (college served as

2 an arm of the tribe where its board of trustees consisted of one enrolled member from each

3 of the tribe’s seven districts); see also Dille, 801 F.2d at 376 (“Because the council is entirely

4 comprised of the member tribes and the decisions of the council are made by the designated

5 representatives of those tribes, [the council] falls directly within the scope of the Indian tribe

6 exemption that Congress included in Title VII.”); compare Myrick v. Devils Lake Sioux Mfg.

7 Corp., 718 F. Supp. 753, 753-55 (D.N.D. 1989) (defendant corporation was not a tribal entity

8 where the tribe owned 51% of the defendant and a Delaware corporation owned the other

9 49%).2

10

Sage Hospital is a “tribal organization” within the meaning of the ISDEAA. The

11 statute defines the term “tribal organization” as the recognized governing body of an Indian

12 tribe or “any legally established organization of Indians which is controlled, sanctioned, or

13 chartered by such governing body[.]” 25 U.S.C. § 450b(l). Sage Hospital is a legally

14 established organization of Indians recognized by the Navajo Nation. Dkt. #25-4 at 3.

15 Indeed, the Navajo Nation Council has identified Sage Hospital as a “tribal organization” in

16 formal resolutions and has authorized the hospital to enter into contracts to provide health

17 services to tribe members pursuant to the ISDEAA. Id. at 1-5.

18

Sage Hospital’s status as a “tribal organization” under the ISDEAA supports the

19 conclusion that the hospital serves as an arm of the Navajo Nation and therefore falls within

20 the scope of the Title VII “tribe” exemption. See id. at 1187-88. “Congress sought to

21 achieve essentially the same goal when it enacted the ISDEAA as when it excluded ‘tribes’

22 from the operation of Title VII. Both the ISDEAA and the Title VII ‘tribe’ exemption

23

24 2Plaintiff argues that the hospital is not controlled by the Navajo Nation because, prior
25 to 2006, two members of the ten-member board were selected by the other board members
26 and were not required to be enrolled members of the tribe. Dkt. #27 at 6-7. The Court does not find this fact significant. Plaintiff presents no evidence that the two board members
27 selected in this manner were not Navajo. And even if they were not, the board still would
28 have been under the control of the 80% of board members selected by and representing the eight Navajo Nation chapters that formed the hospital.

- 4 -

1 attempt to aid tribal entities in their efforts to conduct their own affairs and economic

2 activities with as much autonomy as possible.” Pink, 157 F.3d at 1188-89 (citing Dille, 801

3 F.2d at 374).

4

Plaintiff makes precisely the opposite argument – that the ISDEAA and Title VII have

5 nothing to do with each other and that the hospital’s status as a tribal organization for

6 purposes of ISDEAA therefore says nothing about the applicability of the Title VII

7 exemption. In support, Plaintiff quotes language from Dawavendewa v. Salt River Project

8 Agric. Improvement & Power Dist., 154 F.3d 1117, 1123 (9th Cir. 1998), that appears to be

9 directly contrary to the language quoted above from Pink. The court in Dawavendewa stated

10 that “whatever Congress decided to do with respect to amending the [ISDEAA] in 1994 has

11 little if anything to do with what it intended when it drafted Title VII thirty years earlier.”

12 Id. at 1123. Pink stated that Congress sought to achieve “essentially the same goal when it

13 enacted the ISDEAA as when it excluded ‘tribes’ from the operation of Title VII.” Pink, 157

14 F.3d at 1188-89. For two reasons, the Court chooses to follow Pink’s interpretation of the

15 ISDEAA. First, the decision in Dawavendewa concerned the Indian preference exemption

16 found in 42 U.S.C. §2000e-2(i), a provision not at issue in this case. Pink, on the other hand,

17 concerned the “Indian tribe” exemption at issue here, as found in 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b).

18 Second, other courts have reached the same conclusion as Pink with respect to the intent of

19 the ISDEAA and Title VII. See Dille, 801 F.2d at 374.

20

Plaintiff’s reliance on NLRB v. Chapa De Indian Health Program, Inc., 316 F.3d 995

21 (9th Cir. 2003), is also misplaced. None of Chapa-De’s board of directors were tribal

22 members and nearly half of Chapa-De’s patients and employees were non-Indians. Id. at

23 997. Sage Hospital, by contrast, is controlled exclusively by tribal members, 99% of its

24 patients are Navajo Indians, and 75% of its employees are Native American. Dkt. #25-4 at 3.

25 This case is closer to Pink than Chapa De. See Smith v. Salish Kootenai Coll., 434 F.3d

26 1127, 1135 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (concluding that college where board of directors was

27 selected by tribe, college was treated under tribal law as a tribal corporation, most students

28 were Native American, and the college favored Native Americans in hiring was closer to

- 5 -

1 Pink than Chapa De); Dillon v. Yankton Sioux Tribe Housing Auth., 144 F.3d 581, 583 (8th

2 Cir. 1998) (holding that a housing authority established by a tribal council pursuant to its

3 powers of self-government was a “tribal agency” immune from Title VII suits); see also

4 EEOC v. Karuk Tribe Housing Auth., 260 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2001) (finding the

5 ADEA inapplicable to Indian tribes and holding that a housing authority “function[ed] as an

6 arm of the tribal government and in a governmental role” where 99% of the housing units

7 were occupied by Indian families and 83% of the employees were Indians).

8

The Court finds Plaintiff’s other arguments unpersuasive. “[T]he fact that [Sage

9 Hospital] is incorporated as a nonprofit corporation under [Arizona] law does not affect its

10 status as an ‘Indian tribe.’” Giedosh, 995 F. Supp. at 1059; see Duke, 199 F.3d at 1125

11 (“[T]he mere organization of . . . an entity under state law does not preclude its

12 characterization as a tribal organization as well.”); Smith, 434 F.3d at 1134-35 (holding that

13 a college incorporated under state law was a “tribal entity or an arm of the tribe”). Similarly,

14 the fact that the hospital is located on reservation land owned by a private entity is not

15 relevant given the other facts in this case. See Pink, 157 F.3d at 1189 (“Modoc did not lose

16 its exemption simply because it performed the self-determination contract for health services

17 off the reservation.”); Dille, 801 F.2d at 374-76 (finding tribal consortium exempt under Title

18 VII even though the plaintiffs were employees in the group’s Denver office). Finally, the

19 fact that two of Defendant’s employees have made statements inconsistent with its present

20 position does not alter the facts addressed in this order or control the Court’s legal analysis.

21 IV. Conclusion.

22

As this Circuit recognized in Pink, “there are entities that are sufficiently identified

23 with the tribe that they may be considered to be ‘tribal.’” Id. (citing Pink, 157 F.3d at 1187-

24 88). Sage Hospital is such an entity, and therefore is entitled to the exemption found in 42

25 U.S.C. § 2000e(b). The Court will dismiss this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

26

IT IS ORDERED:

27

1. Defendant Navajo Health Foundation–Sage Memorial Hospital, Inc.’s motion

28

to dismiss (Dkt. #25) is granted.

- 6 -

1

2. The Clerk shall terminate this action.

2

DATED this 6th day of September, 2007.

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 7 -

 
 CM/ECF - azd

https://ecf.azd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?836033827430535-L_56...

U.S. District Court DISTRICT OF ARIZONA (Prescott Division) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:06-cv-02125-DGC

CLOSED, STD

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Navajo Health Foundation-Sage Memorial Hospital Inc Assigned to: Judge David G Campbell Cause: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

Date Filed: 09/05/2006 Date Terminated: 09/07/2007 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

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

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

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

1 of 5

3/4/2008 2:48 PM

CM/ECF - azd

https://ecf.azd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?836033827430535-L_56...

V.
Defendant
Navajo Health Foundation-Sage Memorial Hospital Inc

Valerie Leigh Meyer US EEOC 3300 N Central Ave Ste 690 Phoenix, AZ 85012-2504 602-640-4988 Fax: 602-640-5009 Email: valerie.meyer@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michelle Tamara Deutsch EEOC 3300 N Central Ave Ste 690 Phoenix, AZ 85012 602-640-4773 Email: michelle.deutsch@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David Robert Jordan Jordan & Rosebrough PC 101 W Aztec Ave Ste A Gallup, NM 87305-1744 505-722-9121 Fax: 505-722-9490 Email: david@jrlawyers.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 09/05/2006 09/05/2006
09/06/2006 12/05/2006

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Meyer, Valerie) (Entered: 09/05/2006)
2 This case has been assigned to the Honorable David G Campbell. All future pleadings or documents should bear the correct case number: CV06-2125-PHX-DGC. Notice of Availability of Magistrate Judge to Exercise Jurisdiction form attached. (HIH) (Entered: 09/06/2006)
3 Summons Issued as to Navajo Health Foundation-Sage Memorial Hospital Inc. (HIH) (Entered: 09/06/2006)
4 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Navajo Health Foundation-Sage Memorial Hospital Inc served on 11/28/2006, answer due 12/18/2006. (Lopez, P) (Entered: 12/05/2006)

2 of 5

3/4/2008 2:48 PM

CM/ECF - azd

https://ecf.azd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?836033827430535-L_56...

12/18/2006 12/18/2006 12/27/2006 01/08/2007 01/18/2007 01/18/2007 01/19/2007
01/24/2007 02/21/2007 02/28/2007 03/02/2007 03/29/2007 03/30/2007 04/02/2007 04/03/2007 04/18/2007

5 Defendant's ANSWER to Complaint by Navajo Health Foundation-Sage Memorial Hospital Inc.(Jordan, David) (Entered: 12/18/2006)
6 ORDER re Rule 16 Scheduling Conference set for 1/19/2007 04:00 PM in Courtroom 603, 401 West Washington Street, Phoenix, AZ 85003 before Judge David G Campbell. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 12/18/06. (NVJ) (Entered: 12/18/2006)
7 NOTICE of Appearance by Michelle Tamara Deutsch on behalf of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Deutsch, Michelle) (Entered: 12/27/2006)
8 REPORT of Joint Case Management by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Deutsch, Michelle) (Entered: 01/08/2007)
9 Notice re Initial Rule 26(a)(1) Disclosure Statement by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Deutsch, Michelle) (Entered: 01/18/2007)
10 Notice re Notice of Service of Initial Rule 26(a)(1) Disclosure Statement by Navajo Health Foundation-Sage Memorial Hospital Inc (Jordan, David) (Entered: 01/18/2007)
11 Minute Entry. Proceedings held before Judge David G Campbell. Appearances: Michelle Deutsch and Valerie Meyer for pla; David Jordan for dft. Scheduling Conference held on 1/19/2007. Order to follow. (Court Reporter Liz Lemke.) This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (LMR, ) (Entered: 01/23/2007)
12 CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER. Discovery re jurisdiction due by 5/31/2007; motions on subject matter jurisdiction due by 6/29/2007. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 1/24/07. (NVJ) (Entered: 01/24/2007)
13 Notice re Service of First Set of Discovery to Defendant by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Deutsch, Michelle) (Entered: 02/21/2007)
14 NOTICE of Deposition of Defendant According to Rule 30(b)(6), filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Lopez, P) (Entered: 02/28/2007)
15 Notice re Service of Request for Rule 30(b)(5) Documents by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Lopez, P) (Entered: 03/02/2007)
16 Notice re Notice of Service of Discovery Responses by Navajo Health Foundation-Sage Memorial Hospital Inc (Jordan, David) (Entered: 03/29/2007)
17 AMENDED DOCUMENT by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Amendment to 14 Notice of Deposition of Defendant According to Rule 30(b)(6). (Lopez, P) (Entered: 03/30/2007)
18 NOTICE of Deposition of Rule 30(b)(6), filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Lopez, P) (Entered: 04/02/2007)
19 Notice re Notice of Service of Defendant's Response to Request for Production of Documents Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(b)(5) by Navajo Health Foundation-Sage Memorial Hospital Inc (Jordan, David) (Entered: 04/03/2007)
20 Notice re Service of Second Set of Requests for Documents by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Deutsch, Michelle) (Entered: 04/18/2007)

3 of 5

3/4/2008 2:48 PM

CM/ECF - azd

https://ecf.azd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?836033827430535-L_56...

05/03/2007 05/14/2007 05/24/2007
05/24/2007 06/29/2007 06/29/2007 08/02/2007 08/02/2007
08/20/2007 08/21/2007 08/22/2007 08/23/2007 09/07/2007 09/07/2007

21 Notice re From Non-Party to Court Regarding Potential Scheduling Conflict by Alamo Rent-A-Car LLC, ANC Rental Corporation (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Francis, Carrie) (Entered: 05/03/2007)
22 NOTICE of Deposition of Ferlin Clark, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Deutsch, Michelle) (Entered: 05/14/2007)
23 ORDER. The Court held a conference call with the parties and agreed that one deposition may be taken beyond the discovery cut-off date of May 31, 2007. This change will not alter the June 29, 2007 due date for the jurisdictional motion, as set in the Court's Case Management Order. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 5-24-07. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (DGC) (Entered: 05/24/2007)
24 NOTICE of Deposition of Ferlin Clark, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Deutsch, Michelle) (Entered: 05/24/2007)
25 MOTION to Dismiss Case by Navajo Health Foundation-Sage Memorial Hospital Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit Exhibit C, Part 1# 4 Exhibit Exhibit C, Part 2)(Jordan, David) (Entered: 06/29/2007)
26 AFFIDAVIT of Lauren Bernally-Long re 25 MOTION to Dismiss Case by Defendant Navajo Health Foundation-Sage Memorial Hospital Inc. (Jordan, David) (Entered: 06/29/2007)
27 RESPONSE in Opposition re 25 MOTION to Dismiss Case filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Meyer, Valerie) (Entered: 08/02/2007)
28 STATEMENT of of Facts in Support of Opposition to Motion to Dismiss re 27 Response in Opposition to Motion by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit List and Exhibits 1-10# 2 Exhibit 11-15# 3 Exhibit 16-20)(Meyer, Valerie) (Entered: 08/02/2007)
29 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time Defendant's Reply to Motion to Dismiss by Navajo Health Foundation-Sage Memorial Hospital Inc. (Jordan, David) (Entered: 08/20/2007)
30 MOTION for Extension of Time in Defendant's Reply to Motion to Dismiss by Navajo Health Foundation-Sage Memorial Hospital Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Order for Extension of Time)(Jordan, David) (Entered: 08/21/2007)
31 ORDER finding as moot 29 Motion for Extension of Time; granting 30 Motion for Extension of Time. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 8/22/2007.(NVJ) (Entered: 08/22/2007)
32 REPLY in Support re 25 MOTION to Dismiss Case filed by Navajo Health Foundation-Sage Memorial Hospital Inc. (Jordan, David) (Entered: 08/23/2007)
33 ORDER granting Defendant's 25 Motion to Dismiss; Clerk shall terminate this action. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 9/6/07.(REW, ) (Entered: 09/07/2007)
34 CLERK'S JUDGMENT. Pursuant to the Court's order of September 7, 2007, granting Defendants Motion to Dismiss, judgment is entered in favor of Defendant. Plaintiff shall take nothing by way of the Complaint. The Complaint and this action are hereby dismissed.(REW, ) (Entered: 09/07/2007)

4 of 5

3/4/2008 2:48 PM

CM/ECF - azd

https://ecf.azd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?836033827430535-L_56...

11/06/2007 11/06/2007 11/07/2007 11/07/2007 11/08/2007 11/27/2007 01/23/2008

35 NOTICE OF APPEAL to 9th Circuit, as to 34 Clerk's Judgment, 33 Order on Motion to Dismiss Case by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Meyer, Valerie) (Entered: 11/06/2007)
36 Representation Statement by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 35 Notice of Appeal (Meyer, Valerie) (Entered: 11/06/2007)
37 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION AND ORDER FORM by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for proceedings held on None before Judge Campbell, re 35 Notice of Appeal (Meyer, Valerie) (Entered: 11/07/2007)
38 Notice of Appeal Notification Form; Notice of Appeal and copy of docket sheet transmitted to Ninth Circuit and all parties re 35 Notice of Appeal (LAD) (Entered: 11/07/2007)
CADS Sent re 35 Notice of Appeal : Civil Appeals Docketing Statement sent to 9th Circuit on this date. (REW, ) (Entered: 11/08/2007)
39 CERTIFICATE OF RECORD TRANSMITTED TO 9TH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS re 35 Notice of Appeal (REW, ) (Entered: 11/28/2007)
40 MANDATE of 9th Circuit (Certified Copy), case number 07-17057, as to 35 Notice of Appeal filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Appellant's motion for voluntary dismissal of the case under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b) is granted. Appeal is DISMISSED.(ESL) (Entered: 01/23/2008)

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

03/04/2008 13:48:42

PACER Login:

wu0079 Client Code:

Description:

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

Billable Pages: 3

Cost:

eeoc 3:06-cv-02125-DGC 0.24

5 of 5

3/4/2008 2:48 PM

 
 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FILED
JAN '.8' 2008
CATHY A CkrrERsOll, CI.EIlK
U.s COURT OF APPEAlS

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
NAVAlO HEALTH FOUNDATIONSAGE .MEMORIAL HOSPITAL INC.,
Defendant - Appellee.

No. 07-17057
D.C. No. CV-06-0212S-DGC District of Arizona, Phoenix
ORDER

Appellant's motion for voluntary dismissal of the case under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b) is granted.
A certified copy of this order sent to the district court shall act as and for the mandate of this court.

ATRUE COPY ATTEST CATHY CATTERSON Clerk of Court
bY:_ _~---=:::"'---:7~-
This oertification does onstitute the ~".,date of the court.
---------'

For the Court:
MOLLY C. DWYER Acting Clerk of the Court
•
Lorela Bragaq Deputy Clerk
Ninth Circuit Rule 27-7/Advisory Note to Rule 27 and Ninth Circuit Rule 27-10

pro 1.14.08