Case 7:02-cv-00796-UWC Document 1 Filed 03/29/02 Page 1 of 5

F=H r-,....
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT · I I., ;". ! J

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALA~~IR 29

WESTERN DIVISION

Ii Ali/0: S2

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY]

U;.p. 0i:) .0. OF

i

iUe r :~'OURT
M;\BAMA

~cJ

COMMISSION,

]

]

Plaintiff,

]

CV-02-C-0796_W

]

vs.

] CIVIL ACTION #

]

RYDER/ATE, Inc.

] COMPLAINT

]

Defendant.

]

] JURY TRIAL DEMAND

]

NATURE OF THE ACTION This is an action brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of sex, and to make whole Pamelia Smoot, an individual who was aggrieved by the unlawful practices. The Defendant discriminated against Pamelia Smoot by subjecting her to 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 §§ 703(a)(1), 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) and § 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981 A.
2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful herein were committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.
I

Case 7:02-cv-00796-UWC Document 1 Filed 03/29/02 Page 2 of 5
PARTIES 3. The Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "Commission"), is an 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) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1). 4. At all relevant times, the Defendant, Ryder/ATE, Inc., (the "Employer"), has
continuously been a corporation doing business in the State of Alabama, and has continuously had at least fifteen employees.
5. At all relevant times, the Defendant Employer has continuously been and is now an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of § 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, Pamelia Smoot filed a charge with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by the Defendant Employer. The Commission issued a decision on May 31, 2000, in which it found reasonable cause to believe that Ms. Smoot had been sexually harassed. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled. 7. The Defendant Employer engaged in unlawful employment practices at its work sites in Alabama in violation of § 703(a)(1) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1), through the actions of one its supervisors, Alfonso Pollard. Starting in the fall of 1998 and continuing until 1999, Pollard sexually harassed Pamelia Smoot by subjecting her to offensive sexual comments and inappropriate touching of her private body parts. 8. As a result of the aforementioned sexual harassment, Ms. Smoot was

Case 7:02-cv-00796-UWC Document 1 Filed 03/29/02 Page 3 of 5
forced to transfer to a lower paying job in order to avoid Mr. Pollard's unpleasant and offensive conduct. Ms. Smoot was also forced to take leave time from work as a result of the emotional distress she experienced.
9. The Defendant Employer admits that the sexual harassment was reported to its General Manager in January of 1999. However, no action was taken in regard to that report. It was not until July of 1999 when a second report was made that the Defendant took any action in regard to the sexual harassment.
10. The Defendant failed to take prompt and effective action to prevent and to remedy the hostile and harassing environment created by Mr. Pollard.
11 . The effect of the practices complained of above has been to deprive Pamelia Smoot of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect her status as an employee.
12. The unlawful employment practices complained of above were intentional. 13. The unlawful employment practices complained of above were done with malice or reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Pamelia Smoot.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining the Defendant employer, its officers, successors, assigns and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in any employment practices which discriminate on the basis of sex. B. Order Defendant Employer to institute and carry out policies, practices and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for all employees, and which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices.

Case 7:02-cv-00796-UWC Document 1 Filed 03/29/02 Page 4 of 5
C. Order the Defendant Employerto make whole Pamelia Smoot 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 Pamelia Smoot by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses, in amounts to be determined at trial.
E. Order Defendant Employer to make whole Pamelia Smoot, by providing compensation for non-pecuniary losses, including emotional pain, suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, and humiliation, in amounts to be determined at trial.
F. Order Defendant Employer to pay punitive damages to Pamelia Smoot in an amount to be determined at trial for its malicious or reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Ms. Smoot.
G. Award Ms. Smoot reasonable attorney' fees. H. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper. I. Award the Commission its costs in this action.
JURY TRIAL DEMAND The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised in this complaint involving intentional violations of Title VII.
Respectfully submitted, Nicholas M. INZEO Acting Deputy General Counsel GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Deputy General Counsel

Case 7:02-cv-00796-UWC Document 1 Filed 03/29/02 Page 5 of 5
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
1801 "L" Street, Northwest Washington, DC 20507
MILD ED BYRD Supervisory Trial Attorney
NAOMI HILTON ARCHER Senior Trial Attorney EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION 1130 22nd Street, South, Suite 2000 Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone Number: 205/731-1381

 
 Case 7:02-cv-00796-UWC Document 27 Filed 09/09/03 Page 1 of 4
r- !!. .. e_[)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 113 SEP - 9

WESTERN DIVISION

v

AM

8: 32

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff, PAMELlA SMOOT, Intervenor-Plaintiff, vs.
FIRST TRANSIT, INC. f/k/a RYDER/ATE, INC., Defendant.

)

)

)

)

Civil Action Number:

)

CV-02-C-0796-W

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CONSENT DECREE

On March 29, 2002, the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

("EEOC") filed suit in this Court against First Transit, Inc., f/kla Ryder/ATE, Inc. ("First Transit"

or "Ryder/ATE"). The EEOC's Complaint alleged First Transit had discriminated against Pamelia

Smoot in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and the Civil Rights

Act of 1991.

Specifically, the EEOC alleged that Ryder/ATE, a predecessor company subsequently

acquired by First Transit, had subjected Pamelia Smoot to sexual and sex-based harassment through

the actions and conduct of one of its supervisors and that Ryder/ATE had failed to take prompt remedial action to eliminate this conduct after it became aware of the behavior. The EEOC also

alleged that Pamelia Smoot was forced to transfer to a lower paying job in order to avoid the offensive behavior and conduct of the supervisor.

Case 7:02-cv-00796-UWC Document 27 Filed 09/09/03 Page 2 of 4
On July 10, 2002, Pamelia Smoot filed a motion to intervene in this lawsuit. This court granted the motion on July 22,2002, and Pamelia Smoot filed an intervenor's complaint on July 23, 2002. Discovery was conducted between all parties.
The EEOC, First Transit and Pamelia Smoot have conferred and have advised the Court that they desire to resolve the instant controversy through the entry ofthis Consent Decree and to avoid the burden, expense, delay and uncertainties of further litigation.
Now, therefore, without trial or adj udication ofany issue offact or law raised by the EEOC's Complaint, it is the finding of this Court that:
1) This Court has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter ofthis action under Title VII ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.c. 2000e et seq., 28 U.S.C. § § 451, 1331, 1337, 1343, and 1345.
2) This Consent Decree conforms with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and is not in derogation of the rights and privileges of any person.
3) The provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and the Civil Rights Act of 1991, will be carried out by the implementation of this Decree and this Decree is entered into pursuant to said statutes and laws.
4) Nothing in this Consent Decree or in its negotiation or execution shall be deemed to be an acknowledgment or admission of any kind by First Transit or Ryder/ATE that it discriminated against Pamelia Smoot or at any time, place or in any manner whatsoever violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq., or that it has violated any other state or federal law or that it has violated any other theory ofliability raised in the lawsuit or demands of any of the parties.
5) By resolving this matter, First Transit does not admit liability as to the EEOC, Pamelia 2

Case 7:02-cv-00796-UWC Document 27 Filed 09/09/03 Page 3 of 4
Smoot, or any other employee or former employee of RyderlATE or First Transit. 6) Through a separate agreement entered into between Pamelia Smoot and First Transit (or
its agent), First Transit has agreed to pay a total of Eighty-Five Thousand Dollars ( $85,000.00) to Pamelia Smoot in resolution of all claims which she may have against First Transit, including the claims arising out of EEOC Charge of Discrimination Number 130-AO-0162 and EEOC Charge of Discrimination Number 130-A30-0700 (both of which were filed by Pamelia Smoot). Ms. Smoot has agreed to provide a release to First Transit in exchange for this payment.
7) Within ten (10) days after receipt ofPamelia Smoot's original signed release, First Transit shall forward the following to Debra Hawes Crook, Senior Trial Attorney, EEOC, Birmingham District Office, 1130 220d Street South, Suite 2000, Birmingham, AL, 35205: 1) a copy ofthe check mailed to Pamelia Smoot and Daniel Lemley; and 2) documentation of delivery of the check.
8) As part of this resolution, First Transit also agrees to reinstate Pamelia Smoot to her position as fixed route operator, with seniority, effective August 18, 2003. Ms. Smoot agrees to report to work on August 18, 2003 at 9:00 a.m. Furthermore, Pamelia Smoot recognizes and acknowledges that, pursuant to the Department of Transportation regulations, given her lengthy absence from work, she will need re-certification and re-training. Accordingly, Ms. Smoot recognizes that on her first day, she will have to submit to a physical examination and a drug screen and that she will also need to complete retraining before she can resume driving.
9) In reliance upon the representations and promises made in paragraphs 1 through 8 above, as well as the provisions and promises contained in the separate Settlement Agreement entered into between First Transit and Pamelia Smoot, the EEOC agrees to settle this case through the entry of this Consent Decree.
10) This Consent Decree resolves all matters alleged by the EEOC and Pamelia Smoot in 3

Case 7:02-cv-00796-UWC Document 27 Filed 09/09/03 Page 4 of 4

Civil Action No. CV-02-C-0796-W, now pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Western Division, including all claims arising out of EEOC Charge of Discrimination Number 130-AO-0162 and EEOC Charge of Discrimination 130-A30-0700.
11) The parties agree that this Consent Decree may be entered without Findings of Fact or Conclusions of Law being made. No waiver, modification, or amendment of any provision of this Consent Decree shall be effective unless made in writing, approved by all parties to this Consent Decree and approved or ordered by the Court.
12) All parties shall each bear its own costs and attorneys fees.

rrier (OR 0023546)

, ~Regional tomey,

~

,supevm;;z /1 :tJA-t /(2 All Mildred Byrd (LA 3741

~a Hawes Crook (ASB-6862R69D)

Senior Trial Attorney

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Ridge Park Place 1130 220d Street South, Suite 2000 Birmingham, AL 35205-2881

ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT
~~. e=i<.. l (~
Abdul KaHon Bradley Arant Rose & White, LLP One Federal Place 1819 Fifth Avenue North Birmingham, AL 35203

U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE 4

 
 Case 7:02-cv-00796-UWC Document 18 Filed 10/10/02 Page 1 of 6

F l_ ED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

f

FOR THE NO~~~~~~I~~~~76~F ALABAM~ OCT to PH ~: 20

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY]

COMMISSION,

]

]

Plaintiff,

]

]

and

J

]

PAMEllA SMOOT,

]

]

Plaintiff Intervener,

]

vs.

]

]

FIRST TRANSIT, INC., flk/a

]

RYDER/ATE, INC.

]

J

Defendant.

]

]

---------------------------]

U.S. Ol~)i b:tC f COURT N.D. OF J\Lt~8AHA
CIVIL ACTION # CV-02-C-0796-W AMENDED COMPLAINT JURY TRIAL DEMAND

NATURE OF THE ACTION This is an action brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of sex, and to make whole Pamelia Smoot, an individual who was aggrieved by the unlawful practices. The Defendant discriminated against Pamelia Smoot by subjecting her to 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 §§ 703(a)(1), 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) and § 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981A.
(Y;-

Case 7:02-cv-00796-UWC Document 18 Filed 10/10/02 Page 2 of 6

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

within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Northern District of

Alabama.

PARTIES

3.

The Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the

"Commission"), is an 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) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1).

4. At all relevant times, the Defendant, First Transit, Inc., flk/a Ryder/ATE,

Inc., (the "Employer"), has continuously been a corporation doing business in the State of

Alabama, and has continuously had at least fifteen employees.

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

is now an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of §

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, Pamelia Smoot filed a charge with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by the Defendant Employer. The Commission issued a decision on May 31, 2000, in which it found reasonable cause to believe that Ms. Smoot had been sexually harassed. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled. 7. The Defendant Employer engaged in unlawful employment practices at its work sites in Alabama in violation of § 703(a)(1) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1), through the actions of one its supervisors, Alfonso Pollard. Starting in the fall of 1998 and

Case 7:02-cv-00796-UWC Document 18 Filed 10/10/02 Page 3 of 6
continuing until 1999, Pollard sexually harassed Pamelia Smoot by subjecting her to offensive sexual comments and inappropriate touching of her private body parts.
8. As a result of the aforementioned sexual harassment, Ms. Smoot was forced to transfer to a lower paying job in order to avoid Mr. Pollard's unpleasant and offensive conduct. Ms. Smoot was also forced to take leave time from work as a result of the emotional distress she experienced.
9. The Defendant Employer admits that the sexual harassment was reported to its General Manager in January of 1999. However, no action was taken in regard to that report. It was not until July of 1999 when a second report was made that the Defendant took any action in regard to the sexual harassment.
10. The Defendant failed to take prompt and effective action to prevent and to remedy the hostile and harassing environment created by Mr. Pollard.
11 . The effect of the practices complained of above has been to deprive Pamelia Smoot of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect her status as an employee.
12. The unlawful employment practices complained of above were intentional. 13. The unlawful employment practices complained of above were done with malice or reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Pamelia Smoot.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining the Defendant employer, its officers, successors, assigns and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in any employment practices which discriminate on the basis of sex.

Case 7:02-cv-00796-UWC Document 18 Filed 10/10/02 Page 4 of 6
B. Order Defendant Employer to institute and carry out policies, practices and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for all employees, and which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices.
C. Order the Defendant Employer to make whole Pamelia Smoot 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 Pamelia Smoot by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses, in amounts to be determined at trial.
E. Order Defendant Employer to make whole Pamelia Smoot, by providing compensation for non-pecuniary losses, including emotional pain, suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, and humiliation, in amounts to be determined at trial.
F. Order Defendant Employer to pay punitive damages to Pamelia Smoot in an amount to be determined at trial for its malicious or reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Ms. Smoot.
G. Award Ms. Smoot reasonable attorney' fees. H. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper. I. Award the Commission its costs in this action.
JURY TRIAL DEMAND The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised in this complaint involving intentional violations of Title VII.

Case 7:02-cv-00796-UWC Document 18 Filed 10/10/02 Page 5 of 6
Respectfully submitted, Nicholas M.INZEO Acting Deputy General Counsel GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Deputy General Counsel EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION 1801 "L" Street, Northwest Washington, DC 20507
~~¥
Supervisory Trial Attorney
~/~ , ~AWES CROOK
Senior Trial Attorney EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION 1130 22nd Street, South, Suite 2000 Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone Number: 205/731-1380

Case 7:02-cv-00796-UWC Document 18 Filed 10/10/02 Page 6 of 6
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I have served Plaintiffs Amended Complaint to the persons listed below, by placing a copy of same in the United States Mail, properly addressed and postage prepaid.
Abdul K. Kallon Counsel for Defendant Bradley Arant Rose & White LLP 2001 - Park Place, Suite 1400 Birmingham, Alabama 35203-2736 Daniel C. Lemley Attorney for Plaintiff Intervener Andres and Lemley, LLC 2711 - Sixth Street Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35401
DONE THIS THE jO-tP- day of O~ ,2002.
DEBRA HAWES CROOK Attorney for Plaintiff, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

 
 Case 7:02-cv-00796-UWC Document 9 Filed 07/23/02 Page 1 of 17

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA .. \2. \5 WESTERN DIVISION 02 JUl 23 Pn .

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )

'\il\.'!~\a',,~)~'\/t"A\,ILCA\.BCAQ""U"RA1

COMMISSION

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

vs.

) CIVIL ACTION NUMBER:

)

CV-02-C-0796-W

)

RYDER/ATE, INC.;

)

Now known as

)

FIRST TRANSIT, INC.,

)

a DELAWARE CORPORATION;

)

RYDER CAPITAL SERVICES

)

CORPORATION,

)

a DELAWARE CORPORATION;

)

)

)

Defendants,

)

I. INTERVENER'S COMPLAINT

COMES now, PlaintiffIntervener, Pamelia Smoot, by and through her attorney of

record, Daniel C. Lemley, and alleges as follows:

1. The above entitled civil action was commenced by the EEOC and Plaintiff

Intervener, Pamelia Smoot, files this Intervener's Complaint pursuant to the provisions of

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 USC Sec 2000e et seq

(hereinafter Title VII), 42 U.S.C. 1981b, to recover actual damages, statutory damages,

punitive damages, injunctive relief and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

2. This Court had jurisdiction of the subject of this action pursuant to 28

USC Sec 1331, 1343, and 42 USC Sec 2000e-5(f).

Case 7:02-cv-00796-UWC Document 9 Filed 07/23/02 Page 2 of 17
3. Plaintiff Intervener has filed a motion to intervene pursuant to said Title VII, and rule 24 of the FRCP. Plaintiff Intervener has previously filed a Bankruptcy petition in the Northern District of Alabama, Southern Division, Case number BK 0106446-TBB-7, and has received approval from the Bankruptcy Court to represent the Plaintiff Intervener in this matter.
II. PARTIES; PARTICIPANTS 4. Plaintiff Intervener Pamelia Smoot (hereinafter known as Plaintiff Pamelia Smoot) is a female African-American citizen of the United States over the age of nineteen years, residing in Birmingham, Jefferson County, Alabama. For all times relevant to this action, Plaintiff was an employee within the meaning of Section 701 (f) of Title VII, 42 U.S:c. Sec. 2000e(f). 5. Defendants Ryder/ATE, Inc. now known as First Transit, Inc and Ryder Capital Services Corporation, both foreign corporations (hereinafter Ryder), authorized to do business and/or actually doing business in the State of Alabama. Ryder had over 500 employees during times relevant to this action. Ryder was in the business of providing transportation services in the Jefferson County, Alabama area. 6. W. Kenneth Gordon (hereinafter known as Gordon) was a male manager for Defendants Ryder at its Birmingham, Alabama facility during all times relevant to this action. He supervised both PlaintiffPamelia Smoot and Defendants Alphonso Pollard. 7. Alphonso Pollard (hereinafter known as Pollard) is a male supervisor for Defendants Ryder at its Birmingham, Alabama facility at all times relevant to this action.
2

Case 7:02-cv-00796-UWC Document 9 Filed 07/23/02 Page 3 of 17
Pollard was the direct supervisor of Plaintiff Pamelia Smoot at all times relevant to this action.
8. Raymond Taylor (hereinafter known as Taylor) was a male manager for Ryder at its Birmingham, Alabama facility during all times relevant to this action. He supervised both Plaintiff Pamelia Smoot and Alphonso Pollard.
III. ALLEGATIONS OF FACT 9. Plaintiff, Pamelia Smoot, was hired by Defendants Ryder as a Para Transit Driver (hereinafter VIP) in December of 1997. A Para Transit Driver has primary routes for riders who have physical limitations. Pamelia Smoot eventually wished to be moved up to a Fixed Route Driver. Fixed Route Drivers receive more pay and is a promotion. 10. In Plaintiff Pamelia Smoot's job as a VIP driver Pollard was a supervisor for Ryder with authority over PlaintiffPamelia Smoot but was not PlaintiffPamelia Smoot's direct supervisor. Pollard began inappropriate unsolicited acts and statements with a sexual connotation directed at PlaintiffPamelia Smoot within a month of Ms. Smoot's hiring. 11. Pollard directed these sexually inappropriate acts only toward female workers and did not treat female workers the same as male workers. 12. Pollard began his sexually inappropriate conduct in January 1998 by making sexually explicit remarks to Plaintiff Pamelia Smoot or directed to Plaintiff Pamelia Smoot. These comments were made almost on a daily basis for nearly a year. 13. Pollard escalated his verbal sexual harassment to physical touching of Plaintiff Pamelia Smoot beginning October 1998. This sexual harassment occurred continuously on almost a daily basis.
3

Case 7:02-cv-00796-UWC Document 9 Filed 07/23/02 Page 4 of 17
14. After an incident of sexual harassment Plaintiff Pamelia Smoot made a report to one of Pollard's supervisors, Gordon, in January 1999. In spring 1999, Plaintiff Pamelia Smoot reported Pollard's sexual harassment to Taylor.
15. Neither Gordon nor Taylor took any action to deal with Pollard's actions other than informally speak to Pollard.
16. In January and February of 1999, PlaintiffPamelia Smoot became personally aware of Pollard's sexual contact on the job with females on a work release program that performed cleaning services at Ryder on the weekends. Plaintiff Pamelia Smoot personally observed an incident at Ryder where one ofthe work release females vocally complained of her performance of sexual services for which Pollard had not paid.
17. From late February until April 1999 PlaintiffPamelia Smoot was on medical leave. Upon the return of Plaintiff Pamelia Smoot to work in April 1999, Pollard again began his sexual harassment of Plaintiff Pamelia Smoot. This harassment came in the form of sexual comments from Pollard to Plaintiff Pamelia Smoot.
18. In May 1999 Plaintiff Pamelia Smoot, received and opportunity to be promoted from her VIP route to a Fixed Driver Route. As a Fixed Driver Route employee Plaintiff Pamelia Smoot would be directly supervised by Pollard. The Fixed Route Driver position would pay PlaintiffPamelia Smoot at a higher rate and would be considered a promotion.
19. In June 1999 during ajob interview between PlaintiffPamelia Smoot and Pollard directly related to the position of Fixed Route Driver Pollard took a pen and stroked the breast of Plaintiff Pamelia Smoot. Plaintiff Pamelia Smoot struck the hand of Pollard with enough force to knock the pen from Pollard's hand.
4

Case 7:02-cv-00796-UWC Document 9 Filed 07/23/02 Page 5 of 17
20. A few days after the incident where Pollard stroked PlaintiffPamelia Smoot's breast with his pen in an attempt of Pollard to make sexual favors a condition of Plaintiff Pamelia Smoot's job promotion to Fixed Route Driver, Pollard told Plaintiff Pamelia Smoot he was "still waiting."
21. Another job related meeting between Plaintiff Pamelia Smoot and Pollard was scheduled.
22. PlaintiffPamelia Smoot was fearful, depressed, and angry due to Pollard's acts and the work environment created by Pollard's sexual harassment. PlaintiffPamelia Smoot was also fearful and depressed due to the lack of success and follow up on her previous report to Gordon. Based on these and other factors associated with a person victimized by sexual harassment and sexual assault Plaintiff Pamelia Smoot sought the help of her Union Representative. The Union Representative accompanied Plaintiff Pamelia Smoot to the meeting with Plaintiff Pamelia Smoot and Pollard.
23. After this meeting Plaintiff Pamelia Smoot again reported the sexual harassment to Gordon and other supervisory employees of Ryder. Gordon and these other supervisory employees of Ryder acknowledged the previous report of Plaintiff Pamelia Smoot and the lack of action on this previous report. It was discovered that Plaintiff Pamelia Smoot had not received her employee's handbook outlining the companies "policy" on reporting and handling sexual harassment complaints. It was also discovered Plaintiff Pamelia Smoot had not received a sexual harassment training.
24. Ryder's response to PlaintiffPamelia Smoot's sexual harassment and report of sexual harassment was to call for a meeting with Ryder's supervisors with Plaintiff Pamelia Smoot and her Union Representative. At that meeting Plaintiff Pamelia
5

Case 7:02-cv-00796-UWC Document 9 Filed 07/23/02 Page 6 of 17
Smoot was informed of Pollard's discharge and lectured and reprimanded for her (Plaintiff Pamelia Smoot's) "bad language".
25. Based on the quid pro quo sexual harassment, hostile work environment, and sexual assault of Plaintiff Pamelia Smoot by her supervisor Pollard, the failure to appropriately timely and adequately investigate sexual harassment complaints of Plaintiff Pamelia Smoot by Pollard by Gordon or Ryder, retaliation by Gordon and Ryder against Plaintiff Pamelia Smoot for her reporting of sexual harassment, Plaintiff Pamelia Smoot filed an EEOC complaint on October 8, 1999 with the Birmingham Alabama Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (hereinafter EEOC) office. The complaint was signed as received by the Birmingham Alabama EEOC office October 12, 1999. (Copy attached as exhibit "A")
26. The Birmingham Alabama EEOC office conducted a full and complete investigation and issued a "Determination" in June 2000 finding in favor of Plaintiff Pamelia Smoot. (Copy attached as exhibit "B"), Conciliation efforts by the Birmingham Alabama EEOC office were terminated August 31, 2000. The EEOC retained jurisdiction and filed a complaint against Ryder.
27. Ryder failed to establish and implement an effective sexual harassment policy and grievance procedure designed to prevent sexual harassment and of which PlaintiffPamelia Smoot could have availed herself to report unlawful behavior to a Ryder official. Plaintiff Pamelia Smoot was not given sexual harassment training or an employee handbook containing Ryder's sexual harassment policy. When Plaintiff Pamelia Smoot reported the sexual harassment to Gordon and Taylor they did not follow Ryder's own policy. Plaintiff avers said Defendants' discriminatory conduct as aforesaid
6

Case 7:02-cv-00796-UWC Document 9 Filed 07/23/02 Page 7 of 17
was knowing, intentional, malicious, with reckless indifference and/or negligent in violation of her federally protected rights of the PlaintiffPamelia Smoot. As a result of the Defendants' knowing, intentional, malicious, with reckless indifference and/or negligent discriminatory conduct in violation of the Federally protected rights, Plaintiff Pamelia Smoot has suffered emotional distress, lost wages, humiliation, impairment of self esteem, impairment of personal aspirations, anger and other forms of mental anguish.
28. Ryder's, Taylor's and Gordon's retaliation directed toward Plaintiff Pamelia Smoot was related to her reporting of sexual harassment, and constituted knowing, intentional, malicious, with reckless indifference and/or negligent discriminatory conduct in violation of the Federally protected rights of the Plaintiff Pamelia Smoot.
IV. CLAIM ONE-RETALIATION UNDER TITLE VII 29. This is a claim to redress unlawful employment practices on the basis of
retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 4i
V.S.c. sections 2000e et seq., and the Civil Rights Act of 1991,42 U.S.C. Sec. 1981a. 30. PlaintiffPamelia Smoot adopts and realleges Paragraphs 1-28 above, as if
set out in full herein. 31. Plaintiff Pamelia Smoot filed a timely charge of retaliation with the
Birmingham Alabama office of the EEOC against Defendants on October 8, 1999. The Birmingham EEOC issued a finding in favor of Plaintiff Pamelia Smoot in June 2000. The Birmingham EEOC retained jurisdiction and filed a complaint against Defendants on March 29, 2002. PlaintiffPamelia Smoot filed a motion to intervene under Title VII and Rule 24 of the FRCP.
7

Case 7:02-cv-00796-UWC Document 9 Filed 07/23/02 Page 8 of 17
32. The conduct of the Defendants as set forth above constitutes violations of Plaintiff Pamelia Smoot's rights guaranteed by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.c. Sections 2000e et seq., and particularly PlaintiffPamelia Smoot's right not to be discriminated or retaliated against on the basis of making a charge which alleges unlawful employment practices. 42 U.S.c. Sec 2000e-3(a). Said Defendants' conduct was knowing, intentional, malicious, with reckless indifference and/or negligent discriminatory conduct in violation of the Federally protected rights of the Plaintiff Pamelia Smoot.
WHEREFORE, PlaintiffPamelia Smoot demands jUdgment against Defendants for declaratory and injunctive relief; lost wages and other lost employment benefits to which Plaintiff Pamelia Smoot would have been entitled but for the wrongful actions complained of herein; compensatory and punitive damages; and costs and reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sections 1981a, 1988 and 2000e-5(k).
V. CLAIM TWO-DIFFERENTIAL TERMS UNDER TITLE VII 33. This is a claim to redress unlawful employment practices on the basis of sex in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. Sections 2000e et seq., and the Civil Rights Act of 1991,42 U.S.C. Sec 1981a. 34. PlaintiffPamelia Smoot adopts and realleges Paragraphs 1-28 above, as if set out in full herein. 35. PlaintiffPamelia Smoot filed a timely charge of differential terms specifically quid pro quo sexual harassment and hostile work environment with the Birmingham Alabama office of the EEOC against Defendants on October 8, 1999. The Birmingham EEOC issued a finding in favor of Plaintiff Pamelia Smoot in June 2000.
8

Case 7:02-cv-00796-UWC Document 9 Filed 07/23/02 Page 9 of 17
The Birmingham EEOC retained jurisdiction and filed a complaint against Defendants. PlaintiffPamelia Smoot filed a motion to intervene under Title VII and Rule 24 of the FRCP.
36. The conduct of the Defendants as set forth above created a hostile working environment pervaded by impermissible sex discrimination. Defendants' conduct also amounted to quid pro quo sexual harassment. The conduct of the Defendants was so severe and pervasive that it altered the conditions or terms of employment of Plaintiff Pamelia Smoot and created an abusive working environment. The conduct of the Defendants amounted to an explicit or implicit condition of Plaintiff Pamelia Smoot's employment that she submitted to Defendants' unwanted and unlawful sexual advances based on her sex in order to receive or retain tangible employment benefits. These actions constitute violations of Plaintiff Pamelia Smoot's rights guaranteed by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.c. Sections 2000e et seq., in particular Plaintiff Pamelia Smoot's right not to be discriminated against on the basis of sex with respect to compensation, terms and conditions and privileges of employment, 42 U.S.c. Sec 2000e-2(a)(l), and the right not to be limited, segregated or classified in any way on the basis of sex. 42 U.S.C. Sec 2000e-2(a)(2).
WHEREFORE, PlaintiffPamelia Smoot demands judgment against Defendants for declaratory and injunctive relief; lost wages and other lost employment benefits to which Plaintiff Pamelia Smoot would have been entitled but for the wrongful actions complained of herein; compensatory and punitive damages; and costs and reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to 42 U.S.c. Sections 1981a, 1988 and 2000e-5(k).
9

Case 7:02-cv-00796-UWC Document 9 Filed 07/23/02 Page 10 of 17
VI. CLAIM THREE DENIAL OF OPPORTUNITY TO BE ABLE TO ACCEPT A PROMOTION UNDER TITLE VII
37. This is a claim to redress unlawful employment practices on the basis of sex in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.c.
Sections 2000e et seq., and the Civil Rights Act of 1991,42 U.S.c. Sec 1981a. 38. PlaintiffPamelia Smoot adopts and realleges Paragraphs 1-28 above, as if
set out in full herein. 39. The conduct of the Defendants as set forth above created a hostile working
environment pervaded by impermissible sex discrimination. Defendants' conduct amounted to quid pro quo sexual harassment. Defendants' actions also amounted to retaliation. Because of these actions by the Defendants, PlaintiffPamelia Smoot was unable to emotionally accept a promotion to Fixed Route Driver for a substantial period of time. These actions constitute violations of Plaintiff Pamelia Smoot's rights guaranteed by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. Sections 2000e et seq., in particular PlaintiffPamelia Smoot's right not to be discriminated against on the basis of sex with respect to compensation, terms and conditions and privileges of employment, 42 U.S.c. Sec 2000e-2(a)(l), and the right not to be limited, segregated or classified in any way on the basis of sex. 42 u.s.c. Sec 2000e-2(a)(2).
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Pamelia Smoot demands judgment against Defendants for declaratory and injunctive relief; lost wages and other lost employment benefits to which Plaintiff Pamelia Smoot would ha~e been entitled but for the wrongful actions
10

Case 7:02-cv-00796-UWC Document 9 Filed 07/23/02 Page 11 of 17
complained of herein; compensatory and punitive damages; and costs and reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sections 1981a, 1988 and 2000e-5(k).
Daniel C. Lemley, LEM003 Attorney for Plaintiff Intervener Pamelia Smoot VII. JURY DEMAND PlaintiffPamelia Smoot hereby demands a trial by struck jury.

OF COUNSEL Andres and Lemley, LLC 2711 Sixth Street Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35401 (205) 345-3551, Fax (205) 345-0375 lemley@uronramp.net
PLAINTIFF/INTERVENER'S ADDRESS Pamelia Smooth c/o Andres and Lemley, LLC 27 I 1 Sixth Street Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35401

Daniel C. Lemley, Lem003 Attorney for Plaintiff Intervener Pamelia Smoot

DEFENDANTS' ADDRESSES
RYDER/ATE, INC. Now known as FIRST TRANSIT, INC. The Corporation Company 2000 Interstate Park Drive, Suite 204 Montgomery, AL 36109
II

Case 7:02-cv-00796-UWC Document 9 Filed 07/23/02 Page 12 of 17
RYDER CAPITAL SERVICES CORPORATION The Corporation Company 2000 Interstate Park Drive, Suite 204 Montgomery, AL 36109
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I have this 8th day of July, 2002, served a copy of the foregoing complaint upon all counsel for the EEOC as listed below by placing a copy of the same in the United States mail, properly addressed, first class postage pre-paid.

Hon. Charles E. Guerrier Regional Attorney for the EEOC 1130 22nd Street South, Suite 2000 Birmingham, AL 35205
Hon. Mildred Byrd Supervisory Trial Attorney 1130 22nd Street South, Suite 2000 Birmingham, AL 35205
Hon. Debra Crook Senior Trial Attorney 1130 22nd Street South, Suite 2000 Birmingham, AL 35205
Hon. Abdul KaHon, Attorney at Law Bradley, Arant, Rose and White P.O. Box 830709 Birmingham, AL 35283-0709

aniel C. Lemley Attorney for Plaintiff Intervener Pamelia Smoot

12

. ,

EYhchJi {( Case 7:02-cv-00796-UWC Document 9 Filed 07f/i2J3J/02

.CHARGE OF DISCRIMINATION

AGENCY

TNs form is afflICted bv the Privacy Act of 1974; See Privacy Act Statement befo,e

, 0 FEPA

completing this form.

GJ EEOC

Page 13 of 17 CHARGE NUMBER

and EEOC

NAME(lndicate Mr., Ms.• Mrs.)

S((l(e or foClIi A MC • il tiny HOME TELEPHONE (Include Area Code)

Ms. Pamelia Smoot

205-425-3152

STREET ADDRESS
135 Fox Hollies Blvd.

CITY. STATE AND ZIP CODE
Bessemer r Alabama 35025

DA TE OF BIRTH
07/18/1964

NAMED IS THE EMPLOYER, LABOR ORGANIZATION, EMPLOYMENT AGENCY, APPRENTICESHIP COMMITTEE, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT AGENCY WHO DISCRIMINATED AGAINST ME (If more than one list below.)

NAME
Ryder/ATE Inc.

NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES, MEMBERS
Hundreds

Ta.EPHON.e IJru:JmJ,e Ar.n_CodtfJ
205-521-0180

STREET ADDRESS
3105 8th Avenue North

CITY, STATE AND ZIP CODE
Birmingham, AL 35202

COUNTY
Jefferson

NAME

TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include Area Code)

STREET ADDRESS

CITY, STATE AND ZIP CODE

COUNTY

CAUSE OF DISCRIMINATION BASED ON (Check appropriate box(esJJ

DRACE

0

[ll] RETALIATION

I I COLOR XX SEX

0

D RELIGION

AGE

D NATIONAL

D

D DISABILITY

OTHER (Specify/

ORIGIN

DATE DISCRIMINATION TOOK PLACE

EARLIEST (ADEA/EPAJ

LA TEST (ALL)

January 1998 Oct. 6, 1993
I I XX CONTINUING ACTION

THE PARTICULARS ARE (If addirional paper is needed. attach extra sheer(s)}:
I was hired in December 1997 as a VIP driver. Alfonzo Pollard was the super-
visor over different bus driv~rs. He was not my direct supervisor but a general
supervisor over bus drivers including me. I did not receive a handbook or

any training about what to do if I was sexually harassed.

In January 1998 Mr. Pollard began sexually harassing me by making sexually

explicit comments to me. This occurred on almost a daily basis for nearly a

year. Then, in October 1998, Mr. Pollard touched me between my legs. I

immediately responded by pushing him and telling him to keep his hands off me.

He said "excuse me" in a mocking tone of voice and he smirked at me. In Nov. 1998, Mr. Pollard took the antenna of his radio and rubbed it along the creas~

Jf my buttocks. He did this in the break. room at work. I immediately struck

lim and informed him to leave me alone. In January 1999 Mr. Pollard put his

; want this charge filed with both the EEOC and the State or local Agency. NOTARY· (When necessary for State and Local Requirements)

f any. I will advise the agencies if I change my address or telephone

'lumber and I will cooparate fully with them in the processing of my ~harge in accordance with their procedures.

I swear or affirm that I have read the above charge and that it is true
to the best of my knowledge. information and belief.

oC?,'~~o<;« C~'bY'Y\\uovd:-f- 10/7/ declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

~::r::LAI~o-K

tt I 1st. D '7 1 \, ,~~ Party ISignll'ur~J

SUBSCRIBED AND SWOAN TO BEFORE ME THIS DATE

C,9

:F=OC FORM 5 (' 0/94)

Case 7:02-cv-00796-UWC Document 9 Filed 07/23/02 Page 14 of 17
'" continued from form'"
arm around me and squeezed my bottom. I immediately turned around and struck him with such force that his radio even fell. At that point, I reported this to one of his supervisors. Apparently, this supervisor spoke to Mr. Pollard because the comments and touching ceased temporarily after this report. However, the supervisor person whom I reported to, a Mr. Gordon, took no further appropriate action to deal with Mr. Pollard's harassing conduct. During the next month, on weekends, I received direct personal information about Mr. Pollard having sexual contact with female work release inmates who were employed by another company at Ryder for cleaning. On one occasion I even heard one of the work release ladies complain about performing sexual acts for Mr. Pollard when he did not follow through with his end of the bargain. At some point in February 1999, I was out for surgery. I returned in April 1999. Mr. Pollard almost immediately renewed his verbal sexual harassment of me. In May 1999 I was given an opportunity to move from my VIP route to a fixed driver route. Mr. Pollard would be supervising me directly in that capacity. In June 1999 during a direct interview with Mr. Pollard, he took his pen and stroked me on the breast while I was alone in his office going over matters required of me in my employment. I struck his hand so hard that I knocked the pen out of his hand. A few days later Mr. Pollard stated that he was "still waiting." I was in great fear. This caused me great stress and sadness. During this period of time I was depressed, fearful, concerned, and angry.
Based on the failure to properly investigate and follow through on my previous report of sexual harassment, I was not sure as to the exact procedure I should follow in order to correctly have this investigated. At some point I would have been forced to be alone again with Mr. Pollard to go over my routes. Based on my fear and apprehension of his previous continuing sexual harassment for almost 2 years, I consulted my union representative and explained to him briefly about what was going on and I asked him to come in with me during this interview with Mr. Pollard. After this interview the union representative confronted Mr. Pollard with his sexual harassment. He indicated that he had done nothing wrong and didn't know what she was talking about. I then continued to make reports to other supervising authorities. They acknowledged my previous report and the lack of action on my previous report. It was also discovered during this time that I had never received an employee handbook. It was also discovered during this time that I had never received any sexual harassment reporting training. In spite of my reports, Mr. Pollard was not immediately suspended. There were significant delays in the investigation in dealing with Mr. Pollard concerning this matter.
After an investigation was conducted by my attorney, Daniel C. Lemley, and he reported some of the actions of Mr. Pollard and some ofthe witnesses concerning Mr. Pollard's actions, including the relations that he had with the work-release ladies, it was only at that point that Mr. Pollard was suspended and subsequently apparently terminated for his acts.
Because of this long-term sexual harassment by a supervisor, I have suffered great and grave emotional distress, pain and difficulties. I have lived in fear for many, many months. The investigation was non-existent and when it began was poorly handled, until the participation by legal counsel for Ryder-Max. I withdrew my request for a fixed driver route and remained in the VIP driver status because of my fear of Mr. Pollard, even though the fixed driver route would
~lUlS

· ..

Case 7:02-cv-00796-UWC Document 9 Filed 07/23/02 Page 15 of 17

have offered more pay.

Subsequent to her numerous reports, including giving specific information concerning Mr.

Pollard's dealings with work release ladies, he was apparently discharged. I was called into a

meeting with supervisors of the company and my union representatives. At the meeting, I was

informed of Mr. Pollard's discharge but then lectured on what they called my "poor language".

feel that I have been subject to a pattern of sexual harassment that took place over a period of

almost two years. I believe I was forced to take negative job actions, including turning down a

chance to obtain a fixed driver route, because of Mr. Pollard's continual harassment and the

resulting fear and emotional stress I experienced. There was an absolute failure to adequately

investigate my allegations. There was a failure to adequately or properly train me as to how to

report sexual harassment. There was a hostile working environment in which I was forced to

work. For my courage and willingness to come forward, leading to the discovery of the

information necessary for Mr. Pollard's discharge, I was "rewarded" by being lectured on my

"bad language."

.

Case 7:02-cv-00796-UWC Document 9 Filed 07/23/02 Page 16 of 17
'~" .. 1'-

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Birmingham District Office

1900 3rd Avenue, North, Suite 101

Birmingham, AL 35203-2397

PH: (205) 731-1359

TOO: (205) 731-0175

FAX: (205) 731-2101

Pamelia Smoot 135 Fox Hollies Blvd. Bessemer, Al 35025

Charge No. 130 AO 0162 Charging Party

Ryder!ATE, Inc. 3105 81h Avenue North
Birmingham, Al 35202

Respondent

DETERMINATION

Under the authority vested in me by the Commission, I issue the following determination as to the merits of the subject charge, filed under Title VII ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.

All requirements for coverage have been met. Charging Party, a black female bus driver, alleges that she has been subjected to sexual harassment because of her female gender, forced to decline a higher paying job because of sexual harassment, and disciplined in retaliation for reporting sexual harassment. Charging Party contends that Respondent took no action on her report of sexual harassment which was made in January 1999 and as a result, she was forced to decline an opportunity for advancement in June 1999, which placed her under the direct supervision of the alleged harasser. Charging Party asserts that it was not until August 1999 that Respondent took some action against the alleged harasser.

Respondent denies the allegations made by the Charging Party. Respondent represents that in January 1999 a report of sexual harassment was brought to the attention of the General Manager who arranged a meeting with the Charging Party. During the meeting, Respondent contends that Charging Party was asked if she wanted to file a complaint and her answer was "no". Respondent represents that in July 1999 Charging Party reported to the General Manager that she was being sexually harassed by a male supervisor. Respondent further represents that it immediately began an investigation. Respondent asserts that the alleged harasser was suspended without pay pending the outcome of the investigation and on the basis of the findings, he was subsequently terminated.

Record evidence supports Charging Party's allegation of sexual harassment. Respondent admits that the first report of sexual harassment of the Charging Party was brought to the attention of the General Manager in January 1999. Although Respondent contends that Charging Party stated that she did not want to file a complaint concerning the matter, a review of Respondent's sexual harassment policy indicates that reports of sexual harassment are to be investigated whether the victim wants the matter investigated or not. There is no evidence to indicate that Respondent took any action prior to the second report in July 1999.

Accordingly, I have determined that the evidence obtained during the investigation establishes reasonable cause to believe that Charging Party has been discriminated against by having been subjected to sexual harassment because of her female gender, as alleged.

With respect to Charging Party's allegation that due to Respondent's failure to take action on her report

Case 7:02-cv-00796-UWC Document 9 Filed 07/23/02 Page 17 of 17
.' .... ,. , ,t'
of sexual harassment in January 1999, she had to decline an advancement opportunity which would have put her under the direct supervision of the alleged harasser, Respondent asserts that Charging Party provided a statement which indicated that she declined the position for personal and family commitment. Charging Party testified that the opportunity for advancement became available in May 1999. Charging Party requested to be transferred back to her old position in June 1999. Although required to do so by its sexual harassment policy, there is no evidence to indicate that Respondent took any action on Charging Party's January 1999 report of sexual harassment, as of June 1999.
Accordingly, I have determined that Respondent's failure to take appropriate action on Charging Party's report of sexual harassment, forced her to decline an advancement opportunity, as alleged.
With respect to Charging Party's allegation of having been disciplined in retaliation for reporting sexual harassment, evidence indicates that Charging Party was given a written warning by the General Manager on October 1, 1999. The warning advised Charging Party that during the investigation of her sexual harassment complaint, it came to Respondent's attention that Charging Party had used profane language (profanity, comments of a sexual nature).
Since Respondent's disciplinary warning to Charging Party indicated that it was a result of the investigation of Charging Party's sexual harassment complaint, I have determined that reasonable cause exist to believe that Charging Party was disciplined in retaliation for reporting sexual harassment, as alleged.
This determination is final. When the Commission finds that violations have occurred, it attempts to eliminate unlawful practices by informal methods of conciliation. Therefore, I invite the parties to join with the Commission in reaching ajust resolution of this matter. Disclosure of information obtained by the Commission during the conciliation process will be made only in accordance with the Commission's Procedural Regulations (29 CPR Part 1601.26).
Ifthe Respondent wishes to accept this invitation to participate in conciliation efforts, it may do so at this time by proposing terms for a conciliation agreement. The proposal should be provided to the Commission's representative within 14 days of the date of this determination. The remedies for violations of the statutes we enforce are designed to make the identified victims whole and to provide corrective and preventive relief. These remedies may include, as appropriate, an agreement by the Respondent to not engage in unlawful employment practices, placement of identified victims in positions they would have held but for discriminatory actions, back pay, restoration of lost benefits, injunctive relief, compensatory and/or punitive damages, and notice to employees ofthe violation and the resolution of the claim.
Should the Respondent have further questions regarding the conciliation process or the conciliation terms it would like to propose, we encourage it to contact the assigned Commission representative, Roy L. Jackson at (205) 731-1029. Should there be no response from the Respondent in 14 days, we may conclude that further conciliation efforts would be futile or nonproductive.
On Behalf of the Commission:

Date

Cynthia G. Pierre

District Director

 
 Case: 7:02-cv-796 As of: 04/09/2010 09:22 PM CDT 1 of 4
U.S. District Court Northern District of Alabama (Western) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 7:02−cv−00796−UWC

CLOSED

EEOC v. Ryder/ATE, Inc, et al Assigned to: Judge U W Clemon Demand: $0 Cause: 42:2000 Job Discrimination (Sex)
Plaintiff
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Date Filed: 03/29/2002 Date Terminated: 07/31/2003 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by Charles Guerrier EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Ridge Park Place, Suite 2000 1130 22nd Street South Birmingham, AL 35205 205−212−2044 Fax: 205−212−2041 Email: charles.guerrier@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Debra Hawes Crook EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Ridge Park Place, Suite 2000 1130 22nd Street, South Birmingham, AL 35205 205−212−2064 Fax: 205−212−2105 Email: debra.crook@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gwendolyn Young Reams EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 1801 L Street NW Washington, DC 20507 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mildred Byrd EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Ridge Park Place, Suite 2000 1130 22nd Street South Birmingham, AL 35205 205−212−2054 Fax: 205−212−2041 Email: Mildred.Byrd@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Naomi Hilton Archer EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 1130 22nd Street, South, Suite 2000 Birmingham, AL 35205 205−212−2053 Fax: 205−212−2041 Email: naomi.archer@eeoc.gov TERMINATED: 06/20/2002 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 7:02-cv-796 As of: 04/09/2010 09:22 PM CDT 2 of 4
Nicholas M Inzeo EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 1801 L Street NW Washington, DC 20507 1−202−663−4639 fax Fax: 1−202−663−4639 fax ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Ryder/ATE, Inc TERMINATED: 10/10/2002
Intervenor Plaintiff Pamelia Smoot

represented by Abdul K Kallon BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP P O Box 830709 Birmingham, AL 35283−0709 205−521−8000 Fax: 205−488−6294 Email: akallon@babc.com TERMINATED: 10/10/2002 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel C Lemley ANDRES &LEMLEY LLC 2711 6th Street Tuscaloosa, AL 35401 205−345−3551 Fax: 205−345−0375 Email: lemley@andresandlemley.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
First Transit, Inc. formerly known as Ryder/Ate, Inc

represented by Abdul K Kallon (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 03/29/2002 05/22/2002 05/30/2002
05/31/2002 06/20/2002
07/10/2002
07/16/2002
07/22/2002

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT filed Fee N/A (DWC) (Entered: 03/29/2002)
2 WAIVER of Service of Summons by dft filed (DWC) (Entered: 05/23/2002)
3 ANSWER by dft w/appear by atty(s) Abdul K Kallon filed cs (DWC) (Entered: 05/31/2002)
DOCKET modification (utility event) setting rpt ddl (DWC) (Entered: 05/31/2002)
4 SUBSTITUTION of counsel on behalf of EEOC Debra Hawes Crook replacing attorney Naomi Hilton Archer for EEOC filed cs (DWC) (Entered: 06/20/2002)
5 MOTION by movant Pamelia Smoot to intervene w/intv cmp atta filed cs (DWC) (Entered: 07/10/2002)
6 Report of Parties (form 35) of compliance with FRCP 26 filed (DWC) (Entered: 07/16/2002)
8 5 − ORDER granting motion to intervene [5−1] Pamelia Smoot ( by Chief Judge U W. Clemon ) entered cm (DWC) (Entered: 07/23/2002)

Case: 7:02-cv-796 As of: 04/09/2010 09:22 PM CDT 3 of 4

07/23/2002
07/23/2002 07/23/2002 07/23/2002 07/25/2002 07/26/2002 08/13/2002 08/13/2002 08/15/2002 08/30/2002 09/10/2002 09/13/2002 10/10/2002
02/03/2003
02/03/2003 02/10/2003
07/22/2003 07/23/2003
07/31/2003
08/22/2003 08/29/2003

7 ORDER (Scheduling) that the dates agreed to by the parties in their Planning Meeting are ADOPTED &binding on the parties by Chief Judge U W. Clemon entered cm (DWC) (Entered: 07/23/2002)
9 INTERVENOR complaint w/exhs atta filed cs (DWC) (Entered: 07/23/2002)
10 REQUEST of intvp Pamelia Smoot for service by certified mail filed (DWC) (Entered: 07/23/2002)
SUMMONS and intv complaint issued mailed certified mail (DWC) (Entered: 07/23/2002)
11 SUMMONS and complaint returned executed: upon dft Ryder/ATE, Inc on 7/24/02 filed (DWC) (Entered: 07/25/2002)
12 NOTICE filed by intvp Pamelia Smoot that The Corporation Co is not the registered agent Ryder/Ate, Inc (DWC) (Entered: 07/26/2002)
13 REQUEST of pla for service by certified mail to dft RYDER/ATE INC fka First Transit Inc, CSC−Lawyers Inc Svc filed (DWC) (Entered: 08/13/2002)
ALIAS SUMMONS and complaint issued to dft RYDER/ATE INC fka First Transit Inc, CSC−Lawyers Inc Svc (DWC) (Entered: 08/13/2002)
14 SUMMONS and complaint returned executed: upon dft Ryder/ATE, Inc/CSC−Lawyers Inc Svcs on 8/14/02 filed (DWC) (Entered: 08/15/2002)
15 MOTION by plaintiff EEOC for leave to amend complaint with exhibit attached filed cs (KSS) Modified on 08/30/2002 (Entered: 08/30/2002)
16 15 − ORDER granting motion for leave to amend complaint [15−1] ( by Chief Judge U W. Clemon ) entered cm (DWC) (Entered: 09/11/2002)
17 ANSWER to intervener's complaint by defendant Ryder/ATE, Inc filed cs (MAA) (Entered: 09/13/2002)
18 AMENDED complaint filed by pla &invp Pamelia Smoot [9−1], [1−1]; jury demand terming dft Ryder/ATE, Inc; adding dft First Transit, Inc. filed cs (DWC) (Entered: 10/10/2002)
19 MOTION by parties to amend the court's Scheduling Order by adopting the Amended Report of Parties Planning Meeting filed cs (DWC) (Entered: 02/04/2003)
20 AMENDED Report of Parties (form 35) of compliance with FRCP 26 filed (DWC) (Entered: 02/04/2003)
21 19 − ORDER granting motion to amend the court's Scheduling Order by adopting the Amended Report of Parties Planning Meeting [19−1] no further extensions( by Chief Judge U W. Clemon ) entered cm (MAA) (Entered: 02/11/2003)
22 MOTION by dft First Transit, Inc. to extend discovery ddl to 9/30/03 &dispositive motions ddl to 10/31/03 filed cs (DWC) (Entered: 07/22/2003)
23 22 − ORDER granting motion to extend discovery ddl to 9/30/03 &dispositive motions ddl to 10/31/03 [22−1] ; Discovery cutoff 9/30/03 ; dispositive motions ddl 10/31/03 ( by Chief Judge U W. Clemon ) entered cm (DWC) (Entered: 07/24/2003)
24 ORDER based upon the parties' representation that settlement has been reached dismissing case w/o prej under the conditions established; ea party to bear its own costs filed ( by Chief Judge U W. Clemon ) cm (DWC) (Entered: 07/31/2003)
25 MOTION by intvp Pamelia Smoot to amend 7/31/03 Dismissal Order filed cs (DWC) (Entered: 08/22/2003)
26 ORDER granting motion to amend 7/31/03 Dismissal Order [25−1]; this action shall be dismissed w/prej upon the final approval of the settlement by the Bankruptcy Judge &signing of the Release by the Trustee filed ( by Chief Judge U W. Clemon ) cm (DWC) (Entered: 08/29/2003)

Case: 7:02-cv-796 As of: 04/09/2010 09:22 PM CDT 4 of 4

09/09/2003

27 ORDER (Consent Decree) by consent of the parties, this Consent Decree resolves all matters alleged by the EEOC &Pamelia Smoot in this civil action, including all claims arising out of EEOC Charge of Discrimination No 130−A0−0162 &EEOC Charge of Discrimination 130−A30−0700; all parties shall ea bear its onw costs &attys fees filed ( by Chief Judge U W. Clemon ) cm (DWC) (Entered: 09/09/2003)