IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

(1) EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
¯ Plaintiff~

CIVIL ACTION NO.

,~,OM_PLAINT
(1)GARDNER MANAGEMENT GROUP, L.L.C., (2) GARDNER TANENBAUM GROUP, L.L.C., AND (3) G & G CONSTRUCTION,

Defendants.

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

NATURE OF THE ACTION This an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as mended, and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of I99t, to correct unt~wful employment practices on thebasis of sex and to provide relief to Misti Murphy, Teresa Myriek and other similarly situated females. The Commission alleges that Defendants, Gardner Management Group, L.L.C., Gardner Tanenbaum Cxroup, L.L.C., mid G & G Construc~on (hereafter "Defendants"), violated Title VII by subjecting Misti Murphy, Teresa Myrick and similarIy situated females, as a class, to a sexuatly hostile work environment based upon their sex, female, and by terminating their employment in retaliation for complaining of the harassment
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §451, t331, i337, 1343, 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Section 706(1)(f) and (3) of the

9’,(FV"

!)}flY"

Civil Pdghts Act of I964, as amended, (°°Title VII"), 42 U.S.C §2000e4(f) (1) and (3), and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991,42 U.S.C. § 1981A..
2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were and are now bekng committed within the jurisdiction of the United States Dislfict Court for the Westem District of Oklahoma.
PARTIES 3. Plaintifg Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("Commission"), is an agency of the United States of America charged with the adminis~ation, interpretation and enforcement of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Sections 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5(f)(I) and (3). 4. At all relevant times, Defendants have continuously been and are now doing business in the state of Oklahoma and the city of Oklahoma City and have continuously had at least fifteen employees. 5. At all relevant times, Defendants have continuously been employers engaged in an industry affecting commerce under Sections 701(b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e(b), (g) and
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 6, More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Misfi Mm’phy and Teresa Myfick filed charges with the Commission allegirtg violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, by the Defendants. AII conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been futfilIed.

7. Since at least February 2003, the Defendants have engaged in unlawful employment practices at their Oklahon~ City locations in Oklahoma, in violation of Section 70B(a) (1) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-2(a)(i) by subjecting Misti Murphy, Teresa Myrick and other similarly situated females, as a class, to a sexually hostile work environment, and in violation of Section (704)(a) of Tire VII, 42 U.$.C. § 2000e-3(a), by terminating Misti Murphy, Teresa Myrick and other similarly situated femaIes, as a class, from their employment iu retaliation for complaining of the harassment.
8. The result of the foregoing practices has been to deprive Misfi Murphy, Teresa Myfick and other similarly situated females, as a class, of equal employment opportunities because of their sex.
The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 7 above were intentional.
i0. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 7 above were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Misti Murphy, Teresa Myrick and oltaer similarly situated females, as a class.
~PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent in~uncfion enjoining the Defendants, their officers, successors, assigns, and nil persons in active concert or participation with them, from engaging in any employment practice which discriminates on the basis of sex, or which facilitates, condones or encourages employees to create a sexually hostile environment: B. Order the Defendants to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs
.3

which provide equal employment opportunities for Misti Murphy, Teresa Myrick and other similarly situated females, and eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful unemployment practices.
C. Order the Defendants to make whole Misti Murphy, Teresa Myrick and other similarly situated females by providing appropriate back pay with prejudgment interest in amounts to be determined at tfiat, front pay mad pecuniary damages, including out-of-pocket expenses, and other affirmative reIief necessary to eradicate the effects of the Defenders’ ualawfaI employment practices, including but not limited to rightful place reinstatement under terms and conditions which will permit Misti Murphy, Teresa Myrick and other similarly situated females to work free from discrimination.
D. Order the Defendants to make whole Misti Murphy, Teresa Myrick and other simiIarly situated females by providing compensation for past and future non-pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described in paragraph 7 above, including but not limited to, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, and loss of enjoyment of life, in amounts to be determined at trial.
E. Order the Defendmats to pay Misti Murphy, Teresa Myrick and other sqmitarly situated females punitive damages for their malicious conduct or reckless indifference described in paragraphs 7 and I0 above, in an amount to be determined at trial.
Grant such further relief as the Court deems aecessary and proper in the public interest
G. Award the Commission its costs in this action.
4

JIYR¥ TRIAL DEMAN.~
The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its Complaint.
Respectfully submitted,
JAMES L. LEE Deputy General Counsel
GWENDOLYN Y. REAMS Associat~ Oener~ Counsel
ROBERT A. CANINO Regional Attorney Oklahoma State Bar No. 0i I782
_s_/Toby~ Costas TOBY W. COSTAS Supervisory Trial Attorney Texas State Bar No. 04855720
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Dallas District Office 207 Houston Street, 3~ Floor DalIas, Texas 75202 TEL (214) 253-2760 FAX (214) 253-2749

 
 Case 5:05-cv-01148-C Document 34 Filed 02/23/2007 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff v.
GARDNER MANAGEMENT GROUP, L.L.C.; GARDNER TANENBAUM GROUP, L.L.C.; and G & G CONSTRUCTION,
Defendants

) ) ) ) ) Case No. CIV-05-1148-C ) ) ) ) ) ) )

O R D E R

Plaintiff filed the present action asserting the existence of a hostile work environment and retaliation. Plaintiffs identified five female employees as having been subject to improper working conditions. Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment alleging that one of the women, Ms. Myrick, could not establish a prima facie case. Plaintiff objects to Defendants’ motion arguing that Ms. Myrick has not brought a claim and Defendants are improperly attempting to analyze the claims in a piecemeal fashion.
As Plaintiff correctly notes, Ms. Myrick is not a party to this case. Rather, the action was brought by Plaintiff, a federal agency, seeking to vindicate the public interest in redressing discriminatory acts. See General Tel. Co. of the Nw., Inc. v. EEOC, 446 U.S. 318, 326 (1980) (“When the EEOC acts, albeit at the behest of and for the benefit of specific individuals, it acts also to vindicate the public interest in preventing employment discrimination.”). The EEOC does not act in a representative capacity, but may recover

Case 5:05-cv-01148-C Document 34 Filed 02/23/2007 Page 2 of 3
damages for an aggrieved person. Id. Further, as is the case here, the EEOC may seek injunctive relief to protect future parties from discriminatory actions. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e5(g). It is the fact that Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief that requires denial of Defendants’ motion. “During the liability phase of a lawsuit seeking injunctive relief, the EEOC need not necessarily make out a separate prima facie case of discrimination for each individual for whom it seeks relief.” EEOC v. United Parcel Service, 94 F.3d 314, 318 (7th Cir. 1996). Rather than focus on the alleged wrongdoing as it relates to each individual claimant, the Court must focus on the entire course of events and determine if an injunction is warranted. Because the Court will be required to consider Ms. Myrick’s story along with the stories of the other claimants in resolving the request for injunctive relief, it would waste judicial resources to, at this time, parse through evidence solely relating to Ms. Myrick.* While it may be that Plaintiff will be unable to recover damages based on the actions involving Ms. Myrick, the legal and factual questions surrounding that issue cannot be excised from the legal and factual issues necessary to resolve the injunctive relief issue. Accordingly, it would be inefficient to resolve the issue at this time. Indeed, it may well be that those issues cannot be resolved before trial, but must be considered pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 50.
* This includes the question of who was Ms. Myrick’s employer. Whether or not Plaintiff is entitled to an injunction against any, some, or all of the named Defendants can only be determined after consideration of all facts.
2

Case 5:05-cv-01148-C Document 34 Filed 02/23/2007 Page 3 of 3 For the reasons set forth more fully herein, Defendants’ Partial Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 27) is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED this 23rd day of February, 2007.
3

 
 Case 5:05-cv-01148-C Document 45 Filed 04/10/2007 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff v.
GARDNER MANAGEMENT GROUP, L.L.C.; GARDNER TANENBAUM GROUP, L.L.C.; and G & G CONSTRUCTION,
Defendants

) ) ) ) ) Case No. CIV-05-1148-C ) ) ) ) ) ) )

O R D E R

Before the Court are two discovery related motions filed by the parties. Defendants

filed a Motion to Compel seeking responses to Interrogatories and Requests for Production

served on Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Plaintiff in turn has filed

a motion seeking to quash Defendants’ attempt to depose Robert Hill, an investigator for

Plaintiff.

Defendants’ Motion to Compel sought documents related to any complaint, criticism,

and/or Congressional inquiry of the Oklahoma City branch of the EEOC regarding

investigations performed, investigative techniques utilized, investigators and case handling

and methods of evaluation, and any training manuals used by the office. Defendants argue

the discovery was necessary to provide evidence regarding the trustworthiness of the EEOC’s

determination that discrimination had occurred in this case. Defendants argue that Plaintiff

has indicated an intent to offer the Determinations of Discrimination at the trial of this matter

Case 5:05-cv-01148-C Document 45 Filed 04/10/2007 Page 2 of 3
and the requested discovery is necessary to argue the admissibility of those documents. Defendants also argue the documents are necessary to prepare for the deposition of Robert Hill, the EEOC investigator who interviewed the claimants. According to Defendants, Plaintiff has indicated it will call Mr. Hill as a witness and thus it is necessary to depose Mr. Hill, and to prepare for that deposition Defendants must be allowed to discover any background information about Mr. Hill that may exist.
In light of Plaintiff’s affirmative notice that it will not be offering the Determination of Discrimination, Defendants’ Motion to Compel is rendered moot and will be denied on that basis. Plaintiff has also stated that it will not be calling Mr. Hill as a witness and argues that therefore there is no need for Defendants to depose him. The mere fact that Plaintiff will not call Mr. Hill does not end the inquiry. First, nothing would prevent Defendants from listing Mr. Hill as a witness and certainly they would be entitled to depose him to determine whether he has relevant information. To the extent Plaintiff argues that Mr. Hill’s deposition should be prevented because of various privileges, the Court cannot determine the applicability of those privileges on the material before it. Certainly to the extent Plaintiff has produced copies of Mr. Hill’s notes, any claim of privilege of the contents of those notes has been waived. Consequently, Defendants may certainly question Mr. Hill about the contents of his notes. To the extent Plaintiff believes other questions raised during the deposition raise issues of privilege, Fed. R. Civ. P. 30 provides the appropriate mechanism for resolution.
2

Case 5:05-cv-01148-C Document 45 Filed 04/10/2007 Page 3 of 3 As set forth more fully herein, Defendants’ Motion to Compel Discovery (Dkt. No. 39) is DENIED as moot. Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s Motion to Quash Subpoena, Motion for Protective Order and Request for Expedited Hearing (Dkt. No. 37) is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED this 10th day of April, 2007.
3

 
 Case 5:05-cv-01148-C Document 54 Filed 04/26/2007 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff v.
GARDNER MANAGEMENT GROUP, L.L.C.; GARDNER TANENBAUM GROUP, L.L.C.; and G & G CONSTRUCTION,
Defendants

) ) ) ) ) Case No. CIV-05-1148-C ) ) ) ) ) ) )

O R D E R

Defendants filed a Motion to Compel Compliance with Subpoena Duces Tecum of

Investigator Robert Hill, and Request for Expedited Consideration, seeking to compel the

continuation of deposition and compliance with subpoena duces tecum directed at EEOC

Investigator Robert Hill. At the direction of the Court, Plaintiff filed an expedited response

and the matter is now at issue.

Defendants seek an order from the Court directing Plaintiff to comply with a subpoena

duces tecum served on Mr. Hill in conjunction with the notice to depose Mr. Hill. According

to Defendants, although Mr. Hill appeared for his deposition, it became apparent that

Plaintiff had failed to comply with the subpoena duces tecum. Defendants also seek an order

directing Mr. Hill to appear for a continuation of his deposition, arguing that due to the

failure to comply with the subpoena and the obstructionist tactics of Plaintiff’s counsel,

Defendants were unable to obtain necessary information from Mr. Hill.

Case 5:05-cv-01148-C Document 54 Filed 04/26/2007 Page 2 of 3
The Court has reviewed the material attached to Defendants’ motion, including the excerpts from the deposition of Mr. Hill. Based on that review, Defendants’ motion will be denied. As for the subpoena duces tecum, Plaintiff asserts that it has produced the requested information and Defendants have offered no evidence disproving that assertion. That the documents were not produced in the format preferred by Defendants does not establish that they were not produced. Indeed, the deposition excerpts from Mr. Hill make clear that when shown a document, he was able to answer questions about that document. That Defendants’ or Mr. Hill’s job would have been easier had the file been maintained as originally created by Mr. Hill does not mean that the requested materials were not produced.*
The Court does not find that Plaintiff’s counsel acted inappropriately during the deposition. Rather, the objections lodged were necessary to protect the privilege asserted. The Court’s April 10 Order did not address the privileges asserted by Plaintiff, finding the issue mooted by Plaintiff’s withdrawal of its administrative finding as evidence at trial. So it was not unreasonable for counsel to continue to assert those privileges. But again the Court finds it unnecessary to decide whether and what privileges exist, as the quality and/or extent of Plaintiff’s investigation is not relevant to determining whether the claimants were subject to a discriminatory work environment. Thus, much of the questioning of Mr. Hill by Defendants’ counsel sought information that lacked any relevance and would not be
* The Court notes that this is not an instance where the documents were produced in a disorganized fashion simply to impede discovery. Rather, it is clear that once the documents left Mr. Hill’s possession they were, in the normal course of business, reorganized.
2

Case 5:05-cv-01148-C Document 54 Filed 04/26/2007 Page 3 of 3 admissible at trial. Therefore, the Court sees no need to permit Defendants to continue expending the resources of the parties on a meaningless expedition.
For the reasons set forth herein, Defendants’ Motion to Compel Compliance with Subpoena Duces Tecum of Investigator Robert Hill (Dkt. No. 48) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 26th day of April, 2007.
3

 
 E.E.O.C. v. Gardner Management Group, L.L.C., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2007)

2007 WL 1672820 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma.
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff v.
GARDNER MANAGEMENT GROUP, L.L.C.; Gardner Tanenbaum Group, L.L.C.; and G & G
Construction, Defendants.
No. CIV-05-1148-C. | June 5, 2007.
Attorneys and Law Firms
Suzanne M. Anderson, Toby W. Costas, William C. Backhaus, EEOC, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff.
Curtis L. Smith, Susan F. Kane, Smith Rhodes Stewart & Elder PLLC, Oklahoma City, OK, for Defendants.
Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

ROBIN J. CAUTHRON, United States District Judge.
*1 Plaintiff filed the present action asserting the existence of a hostile work environment and retaliation. Plaintiff identified five female employees (“claimants”) as having been subjected to improper working conditions. Plaintiff filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment arguing the undisputed material facts demonstrate it is entitled to judgment on Defendants’ affirmative defenses of laches, unclean hands, equitable estoppel, whether administrative prerequisites were met and whether Plaintiff’s lawsuit is beyond the scope of the underlying charge. Defendants object in part. Defendants concede Plaintiff’s motion as to the defenses of laches, unclean hands and equitable estoppel.1 Defendants note that had Plaintiff asked, they would have voluntarily dropped the defenses. Defendants’ position does not reflect the better practice. Once Defendants determined the defenses were not meritorious, they should have withdrawn them. Such action would have eliminated the unnecessary expenditure of the parties’ and the Court’s resources.

1

Defendants’ attempt to qualify their concession on

Plaintiff’s not calling Mr. Hill as a witness or offering the determination letters as exhibits is not necessary. In its Response to Defendants’ Motion to Compel (Dkt. No. 42), Plaintiff unequivocally stated it would not call Mr. Hill as a witness and that the determination letters would not be offered. The Court’s rulings regarding the scope of discovery were premised in part on those representations. Absent strongly compelling circumstances, Plaintiff will not be permitted to change course this late in the day.

The only issue remaining is whether the administrative prerequisites were met to permit Plaintiff to press its claim of retaliation on behalf of “similarly situated females, as a class.”2 As Defendants correctly note, none of the letters of determination make a finding that the “similarly situated females, as a class” were subject to retaliation. Plaintiff does not challenge this position. Although the majority of the facts are undisputed, the issue may not be resolved at this stage. Initially, the Court notes the law is clear regarding the purpose of the determination letter and the limits on the breadth of the action that Plaintiff may pursue.

2

To the extent Plaintiff challenges the defense that parts

of the lawsuit are beyond the scope of the

administrative charge, the basis for that defense is

subsumed in the present one.

The Commission’s right to maintain suit is not without limitation, irrespective of the scope of its investigation. Thus, the Commission may not sue on a complaint broader in scope than the results of its investigation as contained in its reasonable cause determination. See EEOC v. National Cash Register, 405 F.Supp. 562, 566 (N.D.Ga.1975); EEOC v. E.I. DuPont [de Nemours and Co.], [373 F.Supp. 1321] supra at 1336 [ (D.Del.1974) ]. The determination of reasonable cause defines the framework for conciliation, and conciliation of all claims sought to be litigated must be attempted prior to suit thereon. EEOC v. Sherwood Medical Industries, 452 F.Supp. 678 (M.D.Fla.1978); EEOC v. Pierce & Stevens, 434 F.Supp. 1162 (W.D.N.Y.1977); EEOC v. Nat’l Cash Register, supra at 564-67.
In discussing the purpose and requirements of the reasonable cause determination, the court, in Sherwood Medical Industries, supra, observed:
“Because of the importance of the reasonable cause determination as a means of finally drawing
1

E.E.O.C. v. Gardner Management Group, L.L.C., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2007)

the investigation to a close, as an embodiment of the Commission’s legal conclusions from the evidence, as a means of notice to the respondent and as a device to frame the issues for conciliation, it seems evident that any and all of a respondent’s employment practices viewed by the Commission as probably discriminatory, must be explicitly included in the determination. That is, the Commission must make an express finding in the determination concerning each employment practice which it concludes to be violative of Title VII. The Courts which have addressed themselves to this question have so concluded.” 452 F.Supp. at 681-82. (citations omitted.)
*2 EEOC v. Crown Liquors of Broward, Inc., 503 F.Supp. 330, 333 (S.D.Fla.1980). The Eighth Circuit has also recognized this rule:
The original charge is sufficient to support EEOC action, including a civil suit, for any discrimination stated in the charge or developed during a reasonable investigation of the charge, so long as the additional allegations of discrimination are included in the reasonable cause determination and subject to a conciliation proceeding. [EEOC v.] Brookhaven [Bank & Trust Co.], 614 F.2d [1022] at 1025 [ (5th Cir.1980) ]; EEOC v.

General Elec. Co., 532 F.2d 359, 366 (4th Cir.1976) (footnote omitted).
EEOC v. Delight Wholesale Co., 973 F.2d 664, 668-69 (8th Cir.1992). The fact that the retaliation claims of the “similarly situated females, as a class” were not included in the determination letters is not dispositive. Rather, the question which must be answered has not been addressed by either party. That question is, whether or not the retaliation claims of the similarly situated females, as a class, were included in the conciliation process. If they were not, then Plaintiff may not pursue them here. If they were included then they may be presented to the jury regardless of their omission from the determination letters. The parties are directed to simultaneously submit additional evidence on this issue within 5 days of the date of this Order. Following those submissions, the Court will issue a final ruling on Plaintiff’s motion. As set forth more fully herein, Defendants’ affirmative defenses of laches, unclean hands, equitable estoppel are withdrawn. Plaintiff’s request for judgment on those claims is MOOT. As for the affirmative defense of whether administrative prerequisites were met, the issue is held in abeyance pending the parties’ additional evidentiary submissions as set forth herein.
IT IS SO ORDERED
	  

2

 
 Case 5:05-cv-01148-C Document 67 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 1 of 12

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )

COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

v.

)

)

GARDNER MANAGEMENT GROUP, L.L.C., )

GARDNER TANENBAUM GROUP,

)

L.L.C., AND G & G CONSTRUCTION,

)

)

Defendants.

)

__________________________________________)

CIVIL ACTION NO. CIV-05-1148-C

CONSENT DECREE

THIS CONSENT DECREE is made and entered into by and among the Plaintiff, Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) and the Defendants, Gardner Management Group,

L.L.C., Gardner Tanenbaum Group, L.L.C. and G & G Construction hereinafter collectively referred

to as (“G.T”) in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, with regard

to the EEOC’s Complaint filed on September 30, 2005 (“EEOC Complaint”), in Civil Action No.

CIV-0501148-C. This Complaint was based upon Charge of Discrimination Numbers 311-2004-

03558, 311-2005-00236, 311-2005-00386 and 311-2005-00375 filed by Teresa Myrick, Misty

Murphy, Amanda Bleakley and Rachelle Sharp Fuller, respectively, against G.T.

The above-referenced Complaint alleges that G.T. engaged in unlawful employment

practices at its Oklahoma City facilities, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as

amended (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e-2(a)(1) and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991,

by subjecting Misty Murphy, Teresa Myrick and similarly-situated females, as a class, to a sexually

hostile work environment based upon their sex, female, and by terminating their employment in

retaliation for complaining of the harassment. G.T. filed its Answer to the EEOC Complaint,

Case 5:05-cv-01148-C Document 67 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 2 of 12

denying the allegations contained in EEOC’s Complaint. The EEOC and G.T. agree to compromise and settle the differences embodied in the
Complaint and intend that the terms and conditions of the compromise and settlement be set forth in this Consent Decree ("Consent Decree").
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and agreements set forth herein, the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows, the Court finds appropriate and therefore, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that:
1. This Consent Decree resolves all issues raised in EEOC Charge Nos. 311-200403558, 311-2005-00236, 311-2005-00386 and 311-2005-00375. This Decree further resolves all issues in the Complaint filed by the EEOC in this civil action. The EEOC waives further claims and/or litigation on all issues raised in the above-referenced charges and Complaint. The EEOC does not waive processing charges other than the charges of discrimination specifically referenced above.
2. The parties agree that this Consent Decree does not constitute an admission by G.T. of any violation of Title VII. G.T. denies any violation of local, state or federal law, common or statutory, including but not limited to, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended or Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991.
3. G.T. agrees that it shall conduct all employment practices in a manner which does not subject any employee to discrimination as prohibited by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. G.T. further agrees that there shall be no retaliation against any employee because that person has opposed any practice made unlawful under Title VII, or has filed a charge of discrimination, or has given testimony, assistance, or has participated in any manner in any investigation, proceeding or hearing under Title VII.

CONSENT DECREE

2

Case 5:05-cv-01148-C Document 67 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 3 of 12

4. G.T. agrees to post the Sexual Harassment Policy appended hereto as Attachment "A" on the employee bulletin board at all of G.T. ’s work sites within ten (l0) days after the entry of the Consent Decree. G.T. also agrees to distribute this Sexual Harassment Policy to all of its employees working in G.T.’s facilities within thirty (30) days after the entry of the Consent Decree. G.T. will report to the EEOC that it has complied with this requirement within 30 days after posting and distributing the policy. The policy shall remain posted during the term of the Consent Decree.
5. For each year that the Consent Decree is in effect, G.T. agrees to conduct mandatory training for all employees, including all management employees (excluding Justin Gardner), advising them of the requirements and prohibitions of the federal anti-discrimination laws with a special emphasis on sexual harassment and retaliation. The training will inform the employees of the complaint procedure for individuals who believe they have experienced discrimination. The training will also advise the employees of the consequences of violating the federal antidiscrimination laws. The training shall be at least two (2) hours in duration and conducted by a trained and educated labor and employment lawyer or Human Resources professional. No less than 10 days before the training is conducted, Defendants agree to give written notice to the EEOC as to the date and location of the training, the name and qualifications of the person providing the training and the substance of the training. All materials used in conjunction with the training shall be forwarded to the EEOC. Within 20 days following the training, G.T. shall submit to the EEOC confirmation that the training was conducted, and a list of attendees, and a copy of all materials used in conjunction with the training.
6. No less than 30 days after the training is conducted, G.T. agrees to give written notice to the EEOC as to the date and location of the training, the name of the person providing the

CONSENT DECREE

3

Case 5:05-cv-01148-C Document 67 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 4 of 12

training and the substance of the training. 7. During the effective period of this Decree, G.T. shall, every six (6) months, provide
written notification to the EEOC’s Regional Attorney in its Dallas of any internal complaint of sexual harassment, made by any employee, including the name(s) of the employee(s), a description of the investigation of the complaint(s), the finding of the investigation and a description of action taken, or resolution of the complaint(s). In the event there are no complaints of sexual harassment, made by any employees during any six (6) month reporting period, G.T. shall provide written notification to the EEOC’s Regional Attorney in its Dallas District Office that no such complaints have been made.
8. G.T. agrees to remove from all personnel files of the Charging Parties, all documents, entries and references relating to: the facts and circumstances which led to the filing of the charges of discrimination; the charge itself; and the complaint filed by the EEOC in federal court based upon the charges.
9. G.T. agrees that it shall impose substantial discipline--up to and including termination, suspension without pay or demotion--upon any officer, supervisor, manager, assistant manager or person with any supervisory authority -- who engages in sexual harassment or sex-based harassment or permits any such conduct to occur in his or her work area or among employees under his or her supervision, or who retaliates against any person who complains or participates in any investigation or proceeding concerning any such conduct. G.T. shall communicate this policy to all of its officers, supervisors and managers.
G.T. agrees that it shall advise all officers, managers and supervisors of their duty to actively monitor their work areas to ensure employees’ compliance with the company’s sexual harassment

CONSENT DECREE

4

Case 5:05-cv-01148-C Document 67 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 5 of 12

policy, and to report any incidents and/or complaints of sexual harassment, sex-based harassment and/or retaliation of which they become aware to the persons charged with handling such complaints at Smith, Rhodes, Stewart & Elder, P.L.L.C. .
10. G.T. agrees to pay the gross amount of $145,000.00 to resolve all claims for damages claimed by EEOC and Teresa Myrick, Juliette Hulen, Misty Murphy, Kathy Logsdon and Rachelle Sharp Fuller in and for compensatory and all other damages, inclusive of costs and attorney fees. Myrick, Hulen, Murphy, Logsdon and Sharp Fuller will assume full responsibility to all state and federal taxing authorities for tax consequences, if any, including interest, sanctions or penalties regarding income or other taxes, arising out of the payment to them of the consideration set forth above and further agree to hold G.T. harmless for any such tax consequences. Within ten (10) days of the entry of this Consent Decree, EEOC will inform Mr. Curtis L. Smith to whom and in what amount to issue the checks. Within twenty-one (21) days of this notification, G.T. will issue the checks and mail them to the attention of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 207 S. Houston, Third Floor, Dallas, Texas 75202, Attention William C. Backhaus
11. G.T. agrees to report to the EEOC within 30 days of entry of this Consent Decree, regarding its compliance with the agreements set forth in paragraphs 2 through 10 above.
12. All reports to the EEOC required by the Consent Decree shall be sent to William C. Backhaus, Sr. Trial Attorney, EEOC, 207 S. Houston, Dallas, Texas 75201.
13. If G.T. fails to tender payment or otherwise fails to timely comply with the terms of paragraphs 10-11 above, G.T. shall:
a. Pay interest at the rate calculated pursuant to 26 U.S.C. Section 6621(b) on any untimely or unpaid amounts; and

CONSENT DECREE

5

Case 5:05-cv-01148-C Document 67 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 6 of 12
b. Bear any additional costs incurred by the EEOC caused by the noncompliance or delay of G.T.
14. Neither the EEOC, Charging Parties, nor Defemdamts, shall contest the validity of this Consent Decree nor the jurisdiction of the federal district court to enforce this Consent Decree and its terms or the right of either party to the Consent Decree to bring an enforcement action upon breach of any term of this Consent Decree by either such party. Nothing in this Decree shall be construed to preclude the EEOC from enforcing this Decree in the event that G.T. fails to perform the promises and representations contained herein. The EEOC shall be authorized to seek compliance with the Consent Decree through civil action in the United States District Court.
15. The parties to this Consent Decree agree to bear their own costs and attorney’s fees associated with the above-referenced Complaint.
16. The term of this Decree shall be for three (3) years from the effective date. The Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of this Decree until the expiration of the term of the Consent Decree.
SO ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED this 21st day of June, 2007.

CONSENT DECREE

6

Case 5:05-cv-01148-C Document 67 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 7 of 12

APPROVED AS TO FORM AND SUBSTANCE:

Respectfully Submitted: ON BEHALF OF THE EEOC:

/s/ Robert A. Canino ROBERT A. CANINO Regional Attorney Oklahoma State Bar No. 011782 (Signed copy of document bearing signature of Attorney is being maintained in the office of Filing Attorney)
SUZANNE M. ANDERSON Supervisory Trial Attorney Texas Bar No. 14009470
CONSENT DECREE

/s/ Curtis L. Smith CURTIS L. SMITH Bar No. OBA # 8323
SMITH RHODES STEWART & ELDER, P.L.L.C. Robinson Renaissance, Suite 820 119 N. Robinson Avenue
7

Case 5:05-cv-01148-C Document 67 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 8 of 12

WILLIAM C. BACKHAUS Senior Trial Attorney Trial Bar No. 1493850

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 (405) 236-8282 ( 405) 236-2828 (FAX)

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Dallas District Office 207 South Houston, 3rd Floor Dallas, Texas 75202 (214) 253-2742 (214) 253-2749 (FAX)

CONSENT DECREE

8

Case 5:05-cv-01148-C Document 67 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 9 of 12 Gardner Management’s Sexual Harassment Policy
SEXUAL HARASSMENT PROHIBITED

POLICY:

It is forbidden for any employee to be sexually harassed by anyone while at work. Sexually harassment, as defined in this policy, is considered unacceptable and will not be tolerated at Gardner Management.

DEFINITIONS: Sexual harassment can be defined as follows:

“Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitute sexual harassment when (1) submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual’s employment; (2) submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as a basis for employment decisions affecting such individual; or (3) such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with the individual’s work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment.”

Sexual harassment can include a wide range of unwanted behavior. Sexual harassment can result from conduct of a supervisor toward an employee who works for that supervisor but it can also

CONSENT DECREE

9

Case 5:05-cv-01148-C Document 67 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 10 of 12
involve one employee’s conduct toward another employee or a non-employee toward an employee. Sexual harassment can apply to conduct outside the workplace as well as on the job site if it is job related.
It is important to recognize that an occasional joke or curse word does not constitute sexual harassment. Sexual harassment is adverse or hostile conduct directed toward an employee because of their gender
Examples of actions which are considered sexual harassment include things such as:
! Unwelcome physical contact or physical harassment, for example, any unwanted touching or another person, impeding or blocking movement, or any physical interference with work or movement around the job site.
! Pervasive sexually explicit language or gestures or verbal harassment, for example, derogatory remarks or comments or slurs with regard to one’s sex or the repeated telling of sexual stories or jokes.
! A sexually hostile and offensive overall environment, including, for example, the repeated use of vulgar language or behavior, the presence of sexually explicit or derogatory photographs, posters, cartoons or drawings or similar conduct which is sexually hostile and offensive to a reasonable person.
ATTACHMENT A

Case 5:05-cv-01148-C Document 67 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 11 of 12
REPORTING HARASSMENT
Each employee is responsible for monitoring his or her conduct to avoid sexually harassing behavior toward others. Each supervisor is responsible for identifying and reporting harassing situations within his or her area of responsibility, but all employees must assist us in enforcing this policy by promptly reporting any harassing situations or incidents which they observe or experience.
Reports or complaints of sexual harassment should be submitted to your supervisor or manager, or any other company official. Regardless of what a supervisor or anyone else tells you, you should always feel free to call the main office with any complaints involving sexual harassment. All employees should be aware false accusations of sexual harassment have a serious effect on innocent persons. We will not tolerate retaliation against any employee for reporting harassing situations or incidents which he or she observes or experiences. Similarly, false reports of sexual harassment will not be tolerated.
All report and complaints of sexual harassment will be investigated. The facts will determine the response to each report or complaint. All information regarding any specific incident will be kept as confidential as possible. If a report or complaint of sexual harassment is proven, the person who has engaged in sexual harassment will disciplined in an appropriate manner. Such discipline may be immediate termination or some lesser penalty, depending on the situation. Supervisors may also be subject to discipline for failing to report incidents of sexual harassment in their areas of responsibilities of which they were aware prior to the investigation. ATTACHMENT A

Case 5:05-cv-01148-C Document 67 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 12 of 12

A person either alternatively, or in addition to reporting such an allegation to company officials, may contact the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for the purposes of filing a charge of employment discrimination. The address and telephone number of the U.S. EEOC office is 210 Park Avenue, Suite 1350, Oklahoma City, OK 73102; (405) 231-4911. Information about your rights and how to file a charge is available on the Internet at www.eeoc.gov.

RETALIATION: There shall be no retaliation against any employee because that person has opposed what they believe to be unlawful employment practices; or has filed a charge of discrimination, or has given testimony, assistance, or has participated in any manner in any investigation, proceeding or hearing under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Gardner Tanenbaum companies will not punish you for reporting discrimination simply because you have made a complaint under the above guidelines.

EXCEPTIONS: There are no exceptions to this policy.

__________________________ Date

_________________________________________ RICHARD TANENBAUM

ATTACHMENT A

 
 CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:okwd - Docket Report

https://ecf.okwd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?986948759315376-L_...

87BE, CLOSED, MEDIATION, _JL
U.S. District Court Western District of Oklahoma[LIVE] (Oklahoma City)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 5:05-cv-01148-C

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Gardner Management Group LLC et al Assigned to: Honorable Robin J. Cauthron Referred to: Mediator (Settlement) Cause: 42:2000 Job Discrimination (Sex)

Date Filed: 09/30/2005 Date Terminated: 06/21/2007 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by Suzanne M Anderson EEOC-DALLAS 207 S Houston Ave 3rd Fl Dallas, TX 75202 214-655-3332 Fax: 214-655-3331 Email: suzanne.anderson@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Toby W Costas EEOC-DALLAS 207 S Houston Ave 3rd Fl Dallas, TX 75202 214-253-2760 Fax: 214-253-2749 Email: TOBY.COSTAS@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William C Backhaus EEOC-DALLAS 207 S Houston Ave 3rd Fl Dallas, TX 75202 214-253-2742 Fax: 214-253-2749 Email: william.backhaus@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant

1 of 11

7/26/2007 11:05 AM

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:okwd - Docket Report
Gardner Management Group LLC
2 of 11

https://ecf.okwd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?986948759315376-L_...
represented by Adam W Childers Crowe & Dunlevy-OKC 20 N Broadway Ave Suite 1800 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 405-235-7741 Fax: 405-272-5956 Email: childera@crowedunlevy.com TERMINATED: 06/30/2006 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Curtis L Smith Smith Rhodes Stewart & Elder PLLC 119 N Robinson Ave Suite 820 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 405-236-8282 Fax: 405-236-2828 Email: clsmith@srselaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gayle L Barrett Crowe & Dunlevy-OKC 20 N Broadway Ave Suite 1800 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 405-235-7787 Fax: 405-272-5222 Email: barrettg@crowedunlevy.com TERMINATED: 06/30/2006 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kelly L Whitworth Smith Rhodes Stewart & Elder PLLC 119 N Robinson Ave Suite 820 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 405-236-8282 Fax: 405-236-2828 Email: kwhitworth@srselaw.com TERMINATED: 05/10/2007
Leonard Court Crowe & Dunlevy-OKC 20 N Broadway Ave Suite 1800 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 405-235-7706 Fax: 405-272-5232 Email: courtl@crowedunlevy.com
7/26/2007 11:05 AM

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:okwd - Docket Report
Defendant Gardner Tanenbaum Group LLC
3 of 11

https://ecf.okwd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?986948759315376-L_...
TERMINATED: 06/30/2006 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan F Kane Smith Rhodes Stewart & Elder PLLC 119 N Robinson Ave Suite 820 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 405-236-8282 Fax: 405-236-2828 Email: skane@srselaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tanya S Bryant Crowe & Dunlevy-OKC 20 N Broadway Ave Suite 1800 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 405-235-7700 Fax: 405-272-5222 Email: bryantt@crowedunlevy.com TERMINATED: 06/30/2006 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Adam W Childers (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2006 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Curtis L Smith (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gayle L Barrett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2006 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kelly L Whitworth (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/10/2007
Leonard Court (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2006 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan F Kane (See above for address)
7/26/2007 11:05 AM

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:okwd - Docket Report

https://ecf.okwd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?986948759315376-L_...

Defendant G&G Construction

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tanya S Bryant (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2006 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Adam W Childers (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2006 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Curtis L Smith (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gayle L Barrett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2006 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kelly L Whitworth (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/10/2007
Leonard Court (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2006 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan F Kane (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tanya S Bryant (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/30/2006 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 09/30/2005 09/30/2005

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT against Gardner Management Group LLC, Gardner Tanenbaum Group LLC, G & G Construction, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(nm, ) (Entered: 09/30/2005)
2 ENTRY of Appearance by Toby W Costas on behalf of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (nm, ) (Entered: 09/30/2005)

4 of 11

7/26/2007 11:05 AM

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:okwd - Docket Report

https://ecf.okwd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?986948759315376-L_...

09/30/2005 09/30/2005 09/30/2005 12/01/2005 12/01/2005 12/01/2005 12/02/2005 12/07/2005 01/13/2006 01/31/2006 02/01/2006
06/28/2006 06/30/2006

3 GENERAL ORDER 04-02 (April 15, 2004) Mandatory Electronic Case Filing. Signed by Judge Robin J. Cauthron on 4/15/2004. (nm, ) (Entered: 09/30/2005)
4 PRAECIPE for 3 Summons by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Costas, Toby) (Entered: 09/30/2005)
Summons Issued as to Gardner Management Group LLC, Gardner Tanenbaum Group LLC, G&G Construction. (nm, ) (Entered: 09/30/2005)
5 ENTRY of Appearance by Gayle L Barrett on behalf of all defendants (Barrett, Gayle) (Entered: 12/01/2005)
6 ENTRY of Appearance by Adam W Childers on behalf of Gardner Management Group LLC, Gardner Tanenbaum Group LLC, G&G Construction (Childers, Adam) (Entered: 12/01/2005)
7 ANSWER to Complaint by Gardner Management Group LLC, Gardner Tanenbaum Group LLC, G&G Construction.(Childers, Adam) (Entered: 12/01/2005)
8 ENTRY of Appearance by Tanya S Bryant on behalf of Gardner Management Group LLC, Gardner Tanenbaum Group LLC, G&G Construction (Bryant, Tanya) (Entered: 12/02/2005)
9 ENTRY of Appearance by Leonard Court on behalf of Gardner Management Group LLC, Gardner Tanenbaum Group LLC, G&G Construction (Court, Leonard) (Entered: 12/07/2005)
10 DOCKET: Scheduling Conference set for 2/1/2006 09:40 AM in Chambers before Honorable Robin J. Cauthron. Status Report due by noon 1/31/2006. (lg, ) (Entered: 01/13/2006)
11 JOINT STATUS REPORT AND DISCOVERY PLAN by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Defendants Gardner Management Group LLC, Gardner Tanenbaum Group LLC, G&G Construction. (Childers, Adam) (Entered: 01/31/2006)
12 SCHEDULING ORDER: Motions to join due 3/1/2006; Motions to amend due 3/1/2006; Pla witness list due 10/15/2006; Pla exhibit list due 10/15/2006; Dft witness list due 10 days t/a; Dft exhibit list due 10 days t/a; Motions in limine due 7 days prior to the pretrial rpt; Jury instructions due 7 days prior to the pretrial rpt; Voir dire requests due 7 days prior to the pretrial rpt; Trial briefs due 7 days prior to the pretrial rpt; Case Referred to Mediator ADR Completion Date due by 9/29/2006. Discovery due by 11/1/2006. Jury Trial set for 1/8/2007 09:00 AM in Courtroom #301 before Honorable Robin J. Cauthron. Motions due by 11/1/2006. Pretrial Report due by 1/1/2007.. At the direction of Judge Robin J. Cauthron on 2/1/2006. (nm, ) (Entered: 02/02/2006)
13 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney of Leonard Court, Gayle Barrett, Adam Childers, and Tanya Bryant by Gardner Management Group LLC, Gardner Tanenbaum Group LLC, G&G Construction. (Court, Leonard) (Entered: 06/28/2006)
14 ENTRY of Appearance by Curtis L Smith on behalf of Gardner Management Group LLC, Gardner Tanenbaum Group LLC, G&G Construction (Smith, Curtis)

5 of 11

7/26/2007 11:05 AM

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:okwd - Docket Report

https://ecf.okwd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?986948759315376-L_...

06/30/2006 06/30/2006 06/30/2006 07/05/2006 07/05/2006 07/07/2006 07/10/2006 07/10/2006 07/12/2006 07/12/2006 10/11/2006 11/29/2006 12/04/2006 12/04/2006 01/11/2007

(Entered: 06/30/2006)
15 ENTRY of Appearance by Susan F Kane on behalf of Gardner Management Group LLC, Gardner Tanenbaum Group LLC, G&G Construction (Kane, Susan) (Entered: 06/30/2006)
16 ENTRY of Appearance by Kelly L Whitworth on behalf of Gardner Management Group LLC, Gardner Tanenbaum Group LLC, G&G Construction (Whitworth, Kelly) (Entered: 06/30/2006)
17 ORDER granting 13 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Adam W Childers; Leonard Court; Gayle L Barrett and Tanya S Bryant terminated . Signed by Judge Robin J. Cauthron on 6/30/06. (lg, ) (Entered: 06/30/2006)
18 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Misti Murphy by Gardner Management Group LLC, Gardner Tanenbaum Group LLC, G&G Construction. (Smith, Curtis) (Entered: 07/05/2006)
19 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Teresa Myrick by Gardner Management Group LLC, Gardner Tanenbaum Group LLC, G&G Construction. (Smith, Curtis) (Entered: 07/05/2006)
20 JOINT MOTION for Extension of Time (To Extend Scheduling Order Dates) by Gardner Management Group LLC, Gardner Tanenbaum Group LLC, G&G Construction. (Smith, Curtis) (Entered: 07/07/2006)
21 ORDER granting 20 Joint Application for Extension of Scheduling . Signed by Judge Robin J. Cauthron on 7/10/06. (lg, ) (Entered: 07/10/2006)
Set/Reset internal utility event(lg, ) (Entered: 07/10/2006)
22 RETURN OF SERVICE - NON SUMMONS Subpoena Issued to Misti Murphy by Gardner Management Group LLC, Gardner Tanenbaum Group LLC, G&G Construction (Kane, Susan) (Entered: 07/12/2006)
23 RETURN OF SERVICE - NON SUMMONS Subpoena Issued to Teresa Myrick by Gardner Management Group LLC, Gardner Tanenbaum Group LLC, G&G Construction (Kane, Susan) (Entered: 07/12/2006)
24 ENTRY of Appearance by William C Backhaus on behalf of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Backhaus, William) (Entered: 10/11/2006)
25 JOINT MOTION for Extension of Time Scheduling Orders by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Backhaus, William) (Entered: 11/29/2006)
26 ORDER granting 25 Second Joint Motion for Extension of the Scheduling Order. Signed by Judge Robin J. Cauthron on 12/4/06. (lg, ) (Entered: 12/04/2006)
Internal Utility Event (lg, ) (Entered: 12/04/2006)
27 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment and Brief in Support by Gardner Management Group LLC, Gardner Tanenbaum Group LLC, G&G Construction. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1-Excerpts of Deposition of Teresa Myrick# 2 Exhibit 2 - Charge of Discrimination, Teresa Myrick# 3 Exhibit 3 - Complaint# 4 Exhibit 4 - Answer# 5 Exhibit 5 - Letter to Don Stevens from Paula Aduddell# 6 Exhibit

6 of 11

7/26/2007 11:05 AM

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:okwd - Docket Report

https://ecf.okwd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?986948759315376-L_...

01/29/2007
01/30/2007 02/02/2007 02/05/2007 02/06/2007 02/13/2007 02/23/2007 03/21/2007 03/21/2007 03/26/2007 03/26/2007

6 - Excerpts of Deposition of Mary Rachelle Sharp Fuller# 7 Exhibit 7 Nicolosi-Russo v. Program Brokerage)(Smith, Curtis) (Entered: 01/11/2007)
28 RESPONSE to Motion re 27 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment and Brief in Support filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1 Gardner Tanenbaum Organization# 2 Exhibit Exhibit 2-Charge of Discrimination Myrick# 3 Exhibit Exhibit 3-Depo Excerpts Teresa Myrick# 4 Exhibit Exhibit 3-Depo excerpts Continuance Teresa Myrick# 5 Exhibit Exhibit 4-Depo Excerpts Misti Murphy# 6 Exhibit Exhibit 5-Deposition Excerpts Juliete Hulen# 7 Exhibit Exhibit 6-Deposition Excerpts Kathy Logdson# 8 Exhibit Exhibit 7-Deposition Excerpts Rachelle Sharp Fuller)(Backhaus, William) (Entered: 01/29/2007)
29 MOTION for Leave to File Second Motion for Partial Summary Judgment by Gardner Management Group LLC, Gardner Tanenbaum Group LLC, G&G Construction. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - American Bank and Trust Co. v. Bond International Limited)(Kane, Susan) (Entered: 01/30/2007)
30 ORDER DENIED 29 Application to File Second Motion for Partial Summary Judgment w/o prejudice to refiling after the Court rules on the currently pending summary judgment motion. Signed by Judge Robin J. Cauthron on 2/2/2007. (nm, ) (Entered: 02/02/2007)
31 MOTION for Leave to File Reply Brief to Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' First Partial Motion for Summary Judgement by Gardner Management Group LLC, Gardner Tanenbaum Group LLC, G&G Construction. (Whitworth, Kelly) (Entered: 02/05/2007)
32 ORDER granting 31 Defendants' Application for Leave to File Reply Brief to Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' First Partial Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Robin J. Cauthron on 2/6/07. (lg, ) (Entered: 02/06/2007)
33 REPLY to Response to Motion re 27 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment and Brief in Support filed by Gardner Management Group LLC, Gardner Tanenbaum Group LLC, G&G Construction. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 Deposition of Teresa Myrick)(Whitworth, Kelly) (Entered: 02/13/2007)
34 ORDER denying 27 Defendants' Partial Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Robin J. Cauthron on 2/23/07. (lg, ) (Entered: 02/23/2007)
35 JOINT MOTION for Order To Release Parties From Court Ordered Mediation by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Backhaus, William) (Entered: 03/21/2007)
36 ORDER granting 35 Joint Motion to Release Parties from Court Ordered Mediation. Signed by Judge Robin J. Cauthron on 3/21/07. (lg, ) (Entered: 03/21/2007)
37 MOTION to Quash Subpoena, MOTION for Protective Order, MOTION to Expedite Hearing by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Backhaus, William) (Entered: 03/26/2007)
38 ORDER for Response re 37 MOTION to Quash Subpoena MOTION for Protective Order MOTION to Expedite Hearing filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Signed by Judge Robin J. Cauthron on 3/26/07. (lg, )

7 of 11

7/26/2007 11:05 AM

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:okwd - Docket Report

https://ecf.okwd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?986948759315376-L_...

03/30/2007
04/02/2007 04/04/2007
04/05/2007 04/05/2007 04/09/2007 04/10/2007 04/11/2007 04/20/2007 04/23/2007

(Entered: 03/26/2007)
39 MOTION to Compel Discovery and Brief in Support by Gardner Management Group LLC, Gardner Tanenbaum Group LLC, G&G Construction. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - Defendants Second Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents to Plaintiff# 2 Exhibit 2 - Plaintiff EEOC's Responses to Defendants Second Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents# 3 Exhibit 3 - Letter dated March 6, 2007 from counsel for Defendants to counsel for Plaintiff# 4 Exhibit 4 - Letter from Toby Costas to Adam Childers dated January 31, 2006# 5 Exhibit 5 - Letter from Paula Aduddell to Don Stevens dated December 13, 2004)(Smith, Curtis) (Entered: 03/30/2007)
40 ORDER for Response re 39 MOTION to Compel Discovery and Brief in Support filed by Gardner Tanenbaum Group LLC, Gardner Management Group LLC, G&G Construction. Signed by Judge Robin J. Cauthron on 4/2/07. (lg, ) (Entered: 04/02/2007)
41 RESPONSE to Motion re 37 MOTION to Quash Subpoena MOTION for Protective Order MOTION to Expedite Hearing filed by all defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit Exhibit 3# 4 Exhibit Exhibit 4# 5 Exhibit Exhibit 5# 6 Exhibit Exhibit 6# 7 Exhibit Exhibit 7# 8 Exhibit Exhibit 8# 9 Exhibit Exhibit 9# 10 Exhibit Exhibit 10# 11 Exhibit Exhibit 11# 12 Exhibit Exhibit 12)(Kane, Susan) (Entered: 04/04/2007)
42 RESPONSE in Opposition re 39 MOTION to Compel Discovery and Brief in Support filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Backhaus, William) (Entered: 04/05/2007)
43 JOINT MOTION for Extension of Time of Scheduling Order by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Backhaus, William) (Entered: 04/05/2007)
44 ORDER denying 43 Third Joint Motion for Extension of the Schedulng Order. Signed by Judge Robin J. Cauthron on 4/9/07. (lg, ) (Entered: 04/09/2007)
45 ORDER denying 37 Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Motion to Quash Subpoena, Motion for Protective Order and Request fo r Expedited Hearing with Brief in Support; denying as moot 39 Defendants' Motion to Compel Discovery. Signed by Judge Robin J. Cauthron on 4/10/07. (lg, ) (Entered: 04/10/2007)
46 Exhibit List / Witness List by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Backhaus, William) (Entered: 04/11/2007)
47 MOTION for Leave to File Second Motion for Partial Summary Judgment by Gardner Management Group LLC, Gardner Tanenbaum Group LLC, G&G Construction. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - Slip Copy - American Bank and Trust Co. v Bond International Limited)(Kane, Susan) (Entered: 04/20/2007)
48 MOTION to Compel Compliance with Subpoena Duces Tecum of EEOC Investigator Robert T. Hill, and Request for Expedited Consideration by all defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Notice of Video Deposition Subpoena Duces Tecum# 2 Exhibit 2 - Deposition of Robert T. Hill# 3 Exhibit 3 - Susan Kane letter to William Backhaus dated April 16, 2007# 4 Exhibit 4 - William

8 of 11

7/26/2007 11:05 AM

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:okwd - Docket Report

https://ecf.okwd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?986948759315376-L_...

04/23/2007 04/24/2007 04/25/2007 04/25/2007 04/25/2007
04/26/2007 04/26/2007 05/01/2007 05/01/2007
05/09/2007

Backhaus letter to Susan Kane dated April 20, 2007)(Kane, Susan) (Entered: 04/23/2007)
49 SUPPLEMENT re 48 MOTION to Compel Compliance with Subpoena Duces Tecum of EEOC Investigator Robert T. Hill, and Request for Expedited Consideration by all defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - page 5 Attachment A to Deposition Subpoena Duces Tecum)(Kane, Susan) (Entered: 04/23/2007)
50 ORDER regarding 48 Motion to Compel, Plf is ordered to file an expedited response to Dfts' Motion to Compel by noon on 4/25/2007. Signed by Judge Robin J. Cauthron on 4/24/2007. (nm, ) (Entered: 04/24/2007)
51 ORDER denying 47 Defendants' Application to File Second Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Robin J. Cauthron on 4/25/07. (lg, ) (Entered: 04/25/2007)
52 RESPONSE in Opposition re 48 MOTION to Compel Compliance with Subpoena Duces Tecum of EEOC Investigator Robert T. Hill, and Request for Expedited Consideration filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Backhaus, William) SAME AS #53 - W/O ATTACHMENTS Modified on 4/26/2007 (lg, ). (Entered: 04/25/2007)
53 RESPONSE in Opposition re 48 MOTION to Compel Compliance with Subpoena Duces Tecum of EEOC Investigator Robert T. Hill, and Request for Expedited Consideration (corrected to add Attachment A1-4) filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A1 -Deposition transcript of Robert Hill, pp 1-41# 2 Attachment A2 -- Deposition transcript of Robert Hill, pp. 42-81# 3 Attachment A3- Deposition transcript of Robert Hill, pp. 82-121# 4 Attachment A4 -- Deposition transcript of Robert Hill, pp. 122-148)(Backhaus, William) (Entered: 04/25/2007)
54 ORDER DENIED 48 Motion to Compel Compliance w/Subpoena Duces Tecum. Signed by Judge Robin J. Cauthron on 4/26/2007. (nm, ) (Entered: 04/26/2007)
55 Exhibit List / Witness List by Defendants Gardner Management Group LLC, Gardner Tanenbaum Group LLC, G&G Construction. (Smith, Curtis) (Entered: 04/26/2007)
56 ENTRY of Appearance by Suzanne M Anderson on behalf of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Anderson, Suzanne) (Entered: 05/01/2007)
57 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment And Brief In Support Thereof by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1-Charge of Discrimination Teresa Myrick# 2 Exhibit 2-Charge of Discrimination Rachelle Sharp# 3 Exhibit 3-Charge of Discrimination Misti Murphy# 4 Exhibit 4-Determination Teresa Myrick# 5 Exhibit 5-Determination Rachelle Sharp# 6 Exhibit 6-Determination Misti Murphy# 7 Exhibit 7-Letter to Leonard Court# 8 Exhibit 8-Affidavit of Suzanne M. Anderson# 9 Exhibit 9-Defendants' Answers to Plaintiff EEOC First Set of Interrogatories)(Anderson, Suzanne) (Entered: 05/01/2007)
58 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Gardner Management Group LLC, Gardner Tanenbaum Group LLC, G&G Construction. (Whitworth, Kelly)

9 of 11

7/26/2007 11:05 AM

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:okwd - Docket Report

https://ecf.okwd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?986948759315376-L_...

05/10/2007 05/10/2007 05/14/2007 05/18/2007
05/21/2007 06/05/2007 06/11/2007
06/11/2007
06/21/2007

(Entered: 05/09/2007)
59 DOCKET: Jury Trial set for 7/9/2007 09:00 AM before Honorable Robin J. Cauthron. (lg, ) (Entered: 05/10/2007)
60 ORDER granting 58 Motion to Withdraw. Attorney Kelly L Whitworth terminated. Signed by Judge Robin J. Cauthron on 5/10/07. (lg, ) (Entered: 05/10/2007)
61 ADR REPORT BY MEDIATOR / EVALUATOR (Barghols, Steven) (Entered: 05/14/2007)
62 ORDER SETTING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE. Settlement Conference set for 6/20/2007 at 09:00 AM in Chambers before Magistrate Judge Valerie K. Couch. Settlement conference statements and cover sheets due no later than noon on Friday, 6/15/07. Signed by Judge Valerie K. Couch on 5/18/07. (ch, ) (Entered: 05/18/2007)
63 RESPONSE to Motion re 57 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment And Brief In Support Thereof filed by all defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 Determinations)(Smith, Curtis) (Entered: 05/21/2007)
64 MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER. Signed by Judge Robin J. Cauthron on 6/5/07. (lg, ) (Entered: 06/05/2007)
65 RESPONSE in Support re 57 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment And Brief In Support Thereof ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE REQUESTED BY THE COURT filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment Attachment A -- Letter from Bob Hill to Leonard Court# 2 Attachment Att. B -- Letter confirming conciliation# 3 Attachment Att. C -Robert A. Canino affidavit)(Anderson, Suzanne) (Entered: 06/11/2007)
66 RESPONSE in Opposition re 57 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment And Brief In Support Thereof - Defendants' Additional Evidence Relating to Conciliation filed by Gardner Management Group LLC, Gardner Tanenbaum Group LLC, G&G Construction. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - E-mail from Curtis L. Smith to William Backhaus dated May 24, 2007)(Kane, Susan) (Entered: 06/11/2007)
67 CONSENT DECREE. Signed by Judge Robin J. Cauthron on 6/21/07. (lg, ) (Entered: 06/21/2007)

10 of 11

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

07/26/2007 11:03:00

PACER Login:

hs0328

Client Code:

eeoc

Description:

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

5:05-cv-01148-C Start date: 1/1/1970 End date: 7/26/2007

7/26/2007 11:05 AM

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:okwd - Docket Report

https://ecf.okwd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?986948759315376-L_...

Billable Pages:

7

Cost:

0.56

11 of 11

7/26/2007 11:05 AM