IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

)

COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

.

)

)

JEFF WYLER CHEVROLET, INC.

)

)

)

Defendant.

)

)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:03cv662
COMPLAINT JURY TRIAL DEMAND
WEBER/HOGAN

NATURE OF THE ACTION

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

1964 and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to correct

unlawful employment practices on the basis of sex and to provide

appropriate relief to Patricia S. Cameron-Lytle who was adversely

affected by such practices. The Commission alleges that Defendant

failed to hire females, including Patricia S. Cameron-Lytle, as

salespersons because of their sex.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28

U.S.C. §§ 451, 1331, 1337, 1343 and 1345. This action is

authorized and instituted pursuant to Section 706(f)(1) and (3) of

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.§

2000e-5(f)(1) and (3)("Title VII") and Section 102 of the Civil

Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a.

2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were

committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division.
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "Commission"), is the agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title VII, and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Section 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3).
4. At all relevant times, Defendant, Jeff Wyler Chevrolet, Inc. (the "Employer"), has continuously been an Ohio corporation doing business in the State of Ohio and the City of Batavia, and has continuously had at least 15 employees.
5. At all relevant times, Defendant Employer has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701(b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(b), (g) and (h).
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 6. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Patricia S. Cameron-Lytle filed a charge with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by Defendant Employer. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled. 7. Since at least 300 days before the August 28, 2001 charge

signed by Patricia S. Cameron-Lytle, mailed to the EEOC on or about August 29, 2001 and docketed by the EEOC on October 5, 2001, Defendant Employer has engaged in unlawful employment practices at its facilities in Batavia, Ohio in violation of Section 703 of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2 by failing to hire females, including Patricia S. Cameron-Lytle, as salespersons because of their sex.
8. The effect of the practices complained of in paragraph 7 above has been to deprive Patricia S. Cameron-Lytle and similarly situated females of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as an employee because of their sex.
9. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 7 above were intentional.
10. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 7 above were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Patricia S. Cameron-Lytle and similarly situated females.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant Employer, its officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from refusing to hire females, including Patricia S. Cameron-Lytle, and any other employment practice which discriminates on the basis of sex.

B. Order Defendant Employer to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for women, and which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices.
C. Order Defendant Employer to make whole Patricia S. Cameron-Lytle and similarly situated females, by providing appropriate backpay with prejudgment interest, in amounts to be determined at trial, and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices, including, but not limited to, the rightful place hiring of Patricia S. Cameron-Lytle and similarly situated females.
G. Order Defendant Employer to make whole Patricia S. Cameron-Lytle and similarly situated females, by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described in paragraph 7 above, including past and future out-of-pocket losses in amounts to be determined at trial.
H. Order Defendant Employer to make whole Patricia S. Cameron-Lytle and similarly situated females by providing compensation for past and future nonpecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices complained of in paragraph 7 above, including nonpecuniary losses such as emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life, and humiliation in amounts to be determined at trial.
I. Order Defendant Employer to pay Patricia S. Cameron-

Lytle, and similarly situated females, punitive damages for its malicious and reckless conduct described in paragraph 7 above, in amounts to be determined at trial.
J. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public interest.
K. Award the Commission its costs of this action.
JURY TRIAL DEMAND The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its complaint.
Eric S. Dreiband GENERAL COUNSEL James L. Lee DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL Gwendolyn Young Reams ASSOCIATE GENERAL COUNSEL
C. Larry Watson (0031443) Regional Attorney larry.watson@eeoc.gov
John D. Sargent (0021028) Supervisory Trial Attorney john.sargent@eeoc.gov
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Cleveland District Office 1660 W. 2nd St. Suite 850 Cleveland, Ohio 44113 - 1412 (216) 522-7438v (216) 522-7430f

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

)

COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

JEFF WYLER EASTGATE, INC.

)

formerly known as

)

JEFF WYLER CHEVROLET, INC.

)

)

Defendant.

)

)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:03CV662
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
JURY TRIAL DEMAND
Weber/Hogan

NATURE OF THE ACTION

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

1964 and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to correct

unlawful employment practices on the basis of sex and to provide

appropriate relief to Patricia S. Cameron-Lytle who was adversely

affected by such practices. The Commission alleges that Defendant

failed to hire females, including Patricia S. Cameron-Lytle, as

salespersons because of their sex.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28

U.S.C. §§ 451, 1331, 1337, 1343 and 1345. This action is

authorized and instituted pursuant to Section 706(f)(1) and (3) of

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.§

2000e-5(f)(1) and (3)("Title VII") and Section 102 of the Civil

Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a.

2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were

committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division.
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "Commission"), is the agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title VII, and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Section 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3).
4. At all relevant times, Defendant, Jeff Wyler Chevrolet, Inc. (the "Employer"), has continuously been an Ohio corporation doing business in the State of Ohio and the City of Batavia, and has continuously had at least 15 employees.
5. At all relevant times, Defendant Employer has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701(b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(b), (g) and (h).
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 6. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Patricia S. Cameron-Lytle filed a charge with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by Defendant Employer. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled. 7. Since at least 300 days before the August 28, 2001 charge

signed by Patricia S. Cameron-Lytle, mailed to the EEOC on or about August 29, 2001 and docketed by the EEOC on October 5, 2001, Defendant Employer has engaged in unlawful employment practices at its facilities in Batavia, Ohio in violation of Section 703 of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2 by failing to hire females, including Patricia S. Cameron-Lytle, as salespersons because of their sex.
8. The effect of the practices complained of in paragraph 7 above has been to deprive Patricia S. Cameron-Lytle and similarly situated females of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as an employee because of their sex.
9. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 7 above were intentional.
10. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 7 above were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Patricia S. Cameron-Lytle and similarly situated females.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant Employer, its officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from refusing to hire females, including Patricia S. Cameron-Lytle, and any other employment practice which discriminates on the basis of sex.

B. Order Defendant Employer to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for women, and which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices.
C. Order Defendant Employer to make whole Patricia S. Cameron-Lytle and similarly situated females, by providing appropriate backpay with prejudgment interest, in amounts to be determined at trial, and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices, including, but not limited to, the rightful place hiring of Patricia S. Cameron-Lytle and similarly situated females.
D. Order Defendant Employer to make whole Patricia S. Cameron-Lytle and similarly situated females, by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described in paragraph 7 above, including past and future out-of-pocket losses in amounts to be determined at trial.
E. Order Defendant Employer to make whole Patricia S. Cameron-Lytle and similarly situated females by providing compensation for past and future nonpecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices complained of in paragraph 7 above, including nonpecuniary losses such as emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life, and humiliation in amounts to be determined at trial.
F. Order Defendant Employer to pay Patricia S. Cameron-

Lytle, and similarly situated females, punitive damages for its
malicious and reckless conduct described in paragraph 7 above, in
amounts to be determined at trial.
G. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary
and proper in the public interest.
H. Award the Commission its costs of this action.
JURY TRIAL DEMAND
The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact
raised by its complaint.
Eric S. Dreiband GENERAL COUNSEL
James L. Lee DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL
Gwendolyn Young Reams ASSOCIATE GENERAL COUNSEL
S/ Larry Watson C. Larry Watson (0031443) Regional Attorney larry.watson@eeoc.gov
S/John D. Sargent John D. Sargent (0021028) Supervisory Trial Attorney john.sargent@eeoc.gov
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Cleveland District Office 1660 W. 2nd St. Suite 850 Cleveland, Ohio 44113 - 1412 (216) 522-7438v (216) 522-7430f

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Plaintiff EEOC’s First Amended Complaint has been served upon the following Defendant Representative via regular U.S. Mail on October 7, 2003:
Jeffrey L. Wyler 829 Eastgate South Drive Cincinnati, Ohio 45245
S/ John D. Sargent John D. Sargent

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION

PATRICIA S. CAMERON-LYTLE

:

CASE NO. 03-CV-662

3296 Huntsman Trace

:

Amelia, OH 45102

:

:

Plaintiff,

:

Judge: Herman J. Weber

:

vs.

:

Magistrate: Timothy S. Hogan

:

JEFF WYLER EASTGATE, INC.

:

Formerly Known As

JEFF WYLER CHEVROLET, INC.

:

COMPLAINT AND

:

JURY DEMAND

:

Statutory Agent:

:

:

Donald W. White

:

237 Main Street

:

Batavia, OH 45103

:

:

Defendant.

:

______________________________________________________________________________

Now comes Plaintiff Patricia Cameron-Lytle and for her Complaint against the

Defendant hereby states as follows:

I. PARTIES

1. Plaintiff Patricia Cameron-Lytle is an individual citizen of the County of Clermont,

State of Ohio.

2. Defendant Jeff Wyler Eastgate, Inc., formerly known as Jeff Wyler Chevrolet, Inc., is

incorporated under the laws of the State of Ohio and conducts business in Batavia, Clermont

County, Ohio, within the Western Division for the Southern District of Ohio.

EXHIBIT 1

1

3. At all times material, Defendant has continuously been and is an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-(b), (g) and (h) and Ohio Rev. Code §4112.01 (A)(2).
II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 4. Jurisdiction over Count One of this action is conferred on this Court by 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5(f)(3) because this claim arises under the laws of the United States. Jurisdiction over Count Two of this action is founded on supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367 because these claims arise from the same facts and circumstances as Count One. 5. Venue is properly laid in the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, because Defendant is doing business in this district; Plaintiff resides in this district; and the claims arose in this district.
III. ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION 6. On or about August 28, 2001, Plaintiff Cameron-Lytle executed a Charge and on or about January 2, 2002, executed an Amended Charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in 221A20047, alleging that Defendant discriminated against her and similarly situated female applicants on the basis sex. 7. On February 20, 2003, the EEOC issued a probable cause finding to Plaintiff, Cameron-Lytle. Efforts at conciliating the case failed and on September 25, 2003, a Complaint was filed by the EEOC on behalf of Cameron-Lytle and similarly situated employees in the instant case.
2

IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 8. Plaintiff Cameron-Lytle applied for the position of salesperson with Defendant’s Eastgate location on numerous occasions commencing in Summer 2000 through Summer 2001. 9. Plaintiff Cameron-Lytle possessed the necessary experience and qualifications for the position of salesperson. 10. Vacancies existed at Defendant in the position of salesperson during the period Plaintiff Cameron-Lytle made applications for employment. 11. Despite the fact that Plaintiff Cameron-Lytle and other female applicants were qualified for the position of salesperson, Defendant refused to hire Plaintiff and other similarly situated female applicants because of sex. 12. The effect of the practices complained of in Paragraph 11 above have been to deprive Plaintiff Cameron-Lytle and similarly situated females of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affected their status as an employee because of their sex. 13. The unlawful employment practices complained of in Paragraph 11 above were intentional. 14. The unlawful employment practices complained of in Paragraph 11 above were done with malice and/or reckless indifference to the federally-protected rights of Plaintiff CameronLytle and similarly situated females.
COUNT ONE SEX DISCRIMINATION -TITLE VII 15. The allegations of the prior paragraphs are incorporated as if fully set forth below.
3

16. Defendant’s discriminatory conduct toward Plaintiff Cameron-Lytle and similarly situated female applicants, in failing to hire them because of sex, violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. §2000(e), as amended.
17. As a result of Defendant’s discriminatory conduct, Plaintiff Cameron-Lytle and other similarly situated females have been damaged.
COUNT TWO SEX DISCRIMINATION-OHIO REV. CODE §4112.02(A) AND 4112.99 18. The allegations of the prior paragraphs are incorporated as if fully set forth below. 19. Defendant’s discriminatory conduct toward Plaintiff Cameron-Lytle and similarly situated female applicants, in failing to hire them because of sex, violates Ohio Rev. Code §4112.02(A) as made actionable by Ohio Rev. Code § 4112.99 . 20. As a result of Defendant’s discriminatory conduct, Plaintiff Cameron-Lytle and similarly situated employees have been damaged.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that this Court enter a judgment as follows: A. Declaring that the acts and practices complained of herein are in violation of Title VII and O.R.C. 4112.02 (A); B. Enjoining and restraining further violations of Title VII and O.R.C. 4112.02 (A); C. Ordering Defendant to take such affirmative actions as are necessary to ensure that the effects of these unlawful employment practices are eliminated;
4

D. Ordering Defendant to make whole Plaintiff Cameron-Lytle and other similarly situated employees by providing appropriate back-pay with prejudgment interest in amounts to be determined at trial and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate its effects of unlawful employment practices, including, but not limited to, the rightful place hiring of Plaintiff Cameron-Lytle and similarly situated females;
E. Ordering Defendant to make whole Plaintiff Cameron-Lytle and other similarly situated employees by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described in Paragraph 11 above, including past and future out-of-pocket losses in amounts to be determined at trial;
F. Ordering Defendant to make whole Plaintiff Cameron-Lytle and other similarly situated employees by providing compensation for past and future non pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described in Paragraph 11 above, including losses such as emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life and humiliation in amounts to be determined at trial;
G. Awarding Plaintiff Cameron-Lytle her costs and disbursements incurred in connection with this action, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, expert witness fees and other costs;
H. Awarding pre-judgment and post judgment interest as provided by law; and
5

I. Granting such further relief as may be just and equitable. Respectfully submitted,
S/Deborah R. Grayson Deborah R. Grayson, #0062777 Meizlish & Grayson dgrayson@winstarmail.com
s/Bruce H. Meizlish Bruce H. Meizlish #0033361 Meizlish & Grayson Attorney for Plaintiff 830 Main Street, Suite 999 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 (513) 345-4700 Fax: (513) 345-4703 brucelaw@winstarmail.com
Jury Trial Demand Plaintiff requests a jury trial on all issues of fact raised by the Complaint.
S/Deborah R. Grayson Deborah R. Grayson, #0062777 Meizlish & Grayson dgrayson@winstarmail.com
6

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION

PATRICIA S. CAMERON-LYTLE

:

3296 Huntsman Trace

:

Amelia, OH 45102

:

:

SHA’QUILA MATHEWS

:

3810 Oboe Drive, Apt. S

:

Louisville, KY 40216

:

and

:

:

BONNIE FINNS

:

4292 Mt. Carmel-Tobasco Road

:

Cincinnati, OH 45244

:

:

and

:

:

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY :

COMMISSION

:

Cleveland District

:

1600 W Second St-Ste. 850

:

Cleveland, OH 44113

:

:

Plaintiffs,

:

:

vs.

:

JEFF WYLER EASTGATE, INC.

:

Formerly Known As

:

JEFF WYLER CHEVROLET, INC.

:

:

JEFF WYLER AUTOMOTIVE

:

FAMILY, INC.

:

Eastgate Automall

:

Cincinnati, OH 45245

:

:

JEFF WYLER COLERAIN, INC.

:

8950 Colerain Avenue

:

Cincinnati, OH

:

CASE NO. 03-CV-662 :
Judge: Susan Dlott AMENDED COMPLAINT AND
JURY DEMAND

:

JEFF WYLER FAIRFILED, INC.

:

1

5815 Dixie Highway

:

Fairfield, OH 45014

:

:

JEFF WYLER HILLCREST, INC.

:

1501 Hillcrest Avenue

:

Springfield, OH 45504

:

:

JEFF WYLER SPRINGFIELD, INC.

:

State Highway 41

:

Springfield, OH 45501

:

:

JEFF WYLER TROTWOOD, INC.

:

829 Eastgate Drive

:

Cincinnati, OH 45245

:

:

JEFF WYLER ALEXANDRIA, INC.

:

7926 Alexandria Pike

:

Alexandria, KY 41001

:

:

JEFF WYLER FLORENCE, INC.

:

1020 Burlington Pike

:

Florence, KY 41042

:

:

JEFF WYLER FT. THOMAS, INC.

:

100 Alexandria Pike

:

Fort Thomas, KY 41075

:

:

AND

:

:

JEFF WYLER CLARKSVILE, INC.

:

808 Highway 131

:

Clarksville, IN 47129

:

:

Defendants.

:

:

ALSO SERVE:

:

:

Statutory Agent for Jeff Wyler Colerain, Inc. :

Jeff Wyler Hillcrest, Inc. and Jeff Wyler

:

Springfield, Inc.:

:

Corporate Statutory Services, Inc. 255 East Fifth Street - Suite 2400

: :
2

Cincinnati, OH 45202

:

:

AND

:

:

Statutory Agent for Jeff Wyler Automotive :

Family:

:

:

Jeffrey L. Wyler

:

829 Eastgate South Drive

:

Cincinnati, OH 45245

:

:

AND

:

:

Statutory Agent for Jeff Wyler Fairfield, Inc.: :

:

Donald W. White

:

237 Main Street

:

Batavia, OH 45103

:

:

AND

:

:

Statutory Agent for Jeff Wyler Trotwood, Inc.: :

:

Mark J. Jahnke

:

255 East Fifth Street - Suite 2400

:

Cincinnati, OH 45202

:

:

AND

:

:

Statutory Agent for Jeff Wyler Ft. Thomas, Inc., :

Jeff Wyler Alexandria, Inc. and Jeff Wyler

:

Florence, Inc.

:

:

Corporate Statutory Services, Inc.

:

2963 Homestead Drive

:

Edgewood, KY 41017

:

:

AND

:

:

Statutory Agent for Jeff Wyler Clarksville,

:

3

Inc.:

:

:

Michael G. Naville

:

506 State Street

:

New Albany, IN 47150

:

______________________________________________________________________________

Now come Plaintiffs Patricia Cameron-Lytle, Sha’quila Mathews and Bonnie Finns and

for their Amended Complaint against the Defendants hereby state as follows:

I. PARTIES

1. Plaintiff Patricia Cameron-Lytle is an individual citizen of the County of Clermont,

State of Ohio.

2. Plaintiff Sha’quila Mathews is an individual citizen of the County of Jefferson, State

of Kentucky but during the time material herein was an individual citizen of the County of

Hamilton, State of Ohio.

3. Plaintiff Bonnie Finns is an individual citizen of the County of Clermont, State of

Ohio.

4. Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is the agency of the United

States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title VII.

5. Defendant Jeff Wyler Eastgate, Inc., formerly known as Jeff Wyler Chevrolet, Inc., is

incorporated under the laws of the State of Ohio and conducts business in Batavia, Clermont

County, Ohio, within the Western Division for the Southern District of Ohio.

6. Defendant Jeff Wyler Automotive Family, Inc. is incorporated under the laws of the

State of Ohio and conducts business in Batavia, Clermont County, Ohio, within the Western

Division for the Southern District of Ohio.

4

7. Defendant Jeff Wyler Colerain, Inc. is incorporated in the State of Ohio and conducts business in Cincinnati, Ohio, within the Western Division for the Southern District of Ohio.
8. Defendant Jeff Wyler Fairfield, Inc. is incorporated in the State of Ohio and conducts business in Fairfield, Ohio, within the Western Division for the Southern District of Ohio.
9. Defendant Jeff Wyler Hillcrest, Inc. is incorporated in the State of Ohio and conducts business in the City of Springfield, Ohio.
10. Defendant Jeff Wyler Springfield, Inc. is incorporated in the State of Ohio and conducts business in the City of Springfield, Ohio.
12. Defendant Jeff Wyler Trotwood, Inc. is incorporated in the State of Ohio and conducts business in the City of Trotwood, Ohio.
13. Defendant Jeff Wyler Alexandria, Inc. is incorporated in the Commonwealth of Kentucky and conducts business in the City of Alexandria, Kentucky .
14. Defendant Jeff Wyler Florence, Inc. is incorporated in the Commonwealth of Kentucky and conducts business in the City of Florence, Kentucky.
15. Defendant Jeff Wyler Ft. Thomas, Inc. is incorporated in the Commonwealth of Kentucky and conducts business in the City of Ft. Thomas, Kentucky.
16. Defendant Jeff Wyler Clarksville, Inc. is incorporated in the State of Indiana and conducts business in the City of Clarksville, Indiana..
17. At all relevant times, Defendants described in paragraphs 5 through 16 above have operated as an integrated enterprise and have continuously been a single employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-(b), (g) and (h) and Ohio Rev. Code §4112.01 (A)(2).
5

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 18. Jurisdiction over Count One of this action is conferred on this Court by 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5(f)(3) because this claim arises under the laws of the United States. Jurisdiction over Count Two of this action is founded on supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367 because these claims arise from the same facts and circumstances as Count One. 19. Venue is properly laid in the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, because Defendants are doing business in this district; Plaintiffs Cameron-Lytle and Finns reside in this district and Plaintiff Mathews resided in this district when the claims arose; and the claims arose in this district.
III. ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION 20. On or about August 28, 2001, Plaintiff Cameron-Lytle executed a Charge and on or about January 2, 2002, executed an Amended Charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in 221A20047, alleging that Defendant discriminated against her and similarly situated female applicants on the basis sex. 21. On February 20, 2003, the EEOC issued a probable cause finding to Plaintiff, Cameron-Lytle. Efforts at conciliating the case failed and on September 25, 2003, a Complaint was filed by the EEOC on behalf of Cameron-Lytle and similarly situated employees in the instant case.
IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 22. Plaintiff Cameron-Lytle applied for the position of salesperson with Defendants’ Eastgate location on numerous occasions commencing in Summer 2000 through Summer 2001. 23. Plaintiff Cameron-Lytle possessed the necessary experience and qualifications for the position of salesperson.
6

24. Vacancies existed at Defendants’ locations in the position of salesperson during the period Plaintiff Cameron-Lytle made applications for employment.
25. Despite the fact that Plaintiff Cameron-Lytle and other female applicants were qualified for the position of salesperson, Defendants refused to hire Plaintiff and other similarly situated female applicants because of sex.
26. The effect of the practices complained of in Paragraph 25 above have been to deprive Plaintiff Cameron-Lytle and similarly situated females of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affected their status as an employee because of their sex.
27. The unlawful employment practices complained of in Paragraph 25 above were intentional.
28. The unlawful employment practices complained of in Paragraph 25 above were done with malice and/or reckless indifference to the federally-protected rights of Plaintiff CameronLytle and similarly situated females.
29. Plaintiff Sha’quila Mathews applied for the position of salesperson with Defendants’ Eastgate location in 2001.
30. Plaintiff Mathews possessed the necessary experience and qualifications for the position of salesperson.
31. Vacancies existed at Defendants’ locations in the position of salesperson during the period Plaintiff Mathews made applications for employment.
32. Despite the fact that Plaintiff Mathews and other female applicants were qualified for the position of salesperson, Defendants refused to hire Plaintiff Mathews and other similarly situated female applicants because of sex.
7

33. The effect of the practices complained of in Paragraph 32 above have been to deprive Plaintiff Mathews and similarly situated females of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affected their status as an employee because of their sex.
34. The unlawful employment practices complained of in Paragraph 32 above were intentional.
35. The unlawful employment practices complained of in Paragraph 32 above were done with malice and/or reckless indifference to the federally-protected rights of Plaintiff Mathews and similarly situated females.
36. Plaintiff Bonnie Finns applied for the position of salesperson at Defendants’ Eastgate location on at least two occasions during the Fall of 2003.
37. Plaintiff Finns possessed the necessary experience and qualifications for the position of salesperson.
38. Vacancies existed at Defendants’ locations in the position of salesperson during the period Plaintiff Finns made applications for employment.
39. Despite the fact that Plaintiff Finns and other female applicants were qualified for the position of salesperson, Defendant refused to hire Plaintiff Finns and other similarly situated female applicants because of sex.
40. The effect of the practices complained of in Paragraph 39 above have been to deprive Plaintiff Finns and similarly situated females of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affected their status as an employee because of their sex.
41. The unlawful employment practices complained of in Paragraph 39 above were intentional.
8

42. The unlawful employment practices complained of in Paragraph 39 above were done with malice and/or reckless indifference to the federally-protected rights of Plaintiff Finns and similarly situated females.
COUNT ONE SEX DISCRIMINATION -TITLE VII 43. The allegations of the prior paragraphs are incorporated as if fully set forth below. 44. Defendants’ discriminatory conduct toward Plaintiffs Cameron-Lytle, Mathews and Finns and similarly situated female applicants, in failing to hire them because of sex, violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. §2000(e), as amended. 45. As a result of Defendants’ discriminatory conduct, Plaintiffs Cameron-Lytle, Mathews and Finns and other similarly situated females have been damaged.
COUNT TWO SEX DISCRIMINATION-OHIO REV. CODE §4112.02(A) AND 4112.99 46. The allegations of the prior paragraphs are incorporated as if fully set forth below. 47. Defendants’ discriminatory conduct toward Plaintiffs Cameron-Lytle, Mathews and Finns and similarly situated female applicants, in failing to hire them because of sex, violates Ohio Rev. Code §4112.02(A) as made actionable by Ohio Rev. Code § 4112.99 . 48. As a result of Defendants’ discriminatory conduct, Plaintiffs Cameron-Lytle, Mathews and Finns and similarly situated females have been damaged.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that this Court enter a judgment as follows: A. Declaring that the acts and practices complained of herein are in violation of Title VII and O.R.C. 4112.02 (A); B. Enjoining and restraining further violations of Title VII and O.R.C. 4112.02 (A);
9

C. Ordering Defendants to take such affirmative actions as are necessary to ensure that the effects of these unlawful employment practices are eliminated;
D. Ordering Defendants to make whole Plaintiffs Cameron-Lytle, Mathews, Finns and other similarly situated females by providing appropriate back-pay with prejudgment interest in amounts to be determined at trial and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate its effects of unlawful employment practices, including, but not limited to, the rightful place hiring of Plaintiffs Cameron-Lytle, Mathews, Finns and similarly situated females;
E. Ordering Defendants to make whole Plaintiffs Cameron-Lytle, Mathews and Finns and other similarly situated females by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described above, including past and future out-of-pocket losses in amounts to be determined at trial;
F. Ordering Defendants to make whole Plaintiffs Cameron-Lytle, Mathews and Finns and other similarly situated females by providing compensation for past and future non pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described above, including losses such as emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life and humiliation in amounts to be determined at trial;
G. Awarding Plaintiffs Cameron-Lytle, Mathews and Finns their respective costs and disbursements incurred in connection with this action, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, expert witness fees and other costs;
H. Awarding pre-judgment and post judgment interest as provided by law; and I. Granting such further relief as may be just and equitable.
10

Respectfully submitted,
S/Deborah R. Grayson Deborah R. Grayson, #0062777 Meizlish & Grayson drgrayson@fuse.net
S/Bruce H. Meizlish Bruce H. Meizlish #0033361 Meizlish & Grayson Attorney for Plaintiffs Cameron-Lytle,
Mathews and Finns 830 Main Street, Suite 999 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 (513) 345-4700 Fax: (513) 345-4703 brucelaw@fuse.net
Jury Trial Demand
Plaintiff requests a jury trial on all issues of fact raised by the Complaint.
S/Deborah R. Grayson Deborah R. Grayson, #0062777 Meizlish & Grayson drgrayson@fuse.net
__________________________ Bruce H. Meizlish #0033361 Meizlish & Grayson Attorney for Plaintiff 830 Main Street, Suite 999 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 (513) 345-4700 Fax: (513) 345-4703 brucelaw@winstarmail.com
11

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )

COMMISSION, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

JEFF WYLER EASTGATE, INC.,

)

formerly known as

)

JEFF WYLER CHEVROLET, INC.,

)

)

JEFF WYLER AUTOMOTIVE

)

FAMILY, INC.,

)

)

JEFF WYLER COLERAIN, INC.,

)

)

JEFF WYLER FAIRFIELD, INC.,

)

)

JEFF WYLER HILLCREST, INC.,

)

)

JEFF WYLER SPRINGFIELD, INC.,

)

)

JEFF WYLER TROTWOOD, INC.,

)

)

JEFF WYLER ALEXANDRIA, INC.,

)

)

JEFF WYLER FLORENCE, INC.,

)

)

JEFF WYLER FT. THOMAS, INC.,

)

)

and

)

)

JEFF WYLER CLARKSVILLE, INC.

)

)

Defendants.

)

)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:03CV662 JUDGE: SUSAN DLOTT
PLAINTIFF EEOC’S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
JURY TRIAL DEMAND

NATURE OF THE ACTION This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of sex , and to provide appropriate relief to Patricia S. Cameron-Lytle who was adversely affected by such practices. The Commission alleges that Defendants failed to hire females, including Patricia S. Cameron-Lytle, as salespersons because of their sex.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 451, 1331, 1337, 1343 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Section 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3) ("Title VII") and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a. 2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed within the jursidiction of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division.
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "Commission"), is the agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title VII, and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Section 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f) (1) and (3). 4. At all relevant times, Defendant, Jeff Wyler Eastgate Inc., formerly known as Jeff Wyler Chevrolet, Inc., has continuously been an Ohio Corporation doing business in the State of Ohio and the City of Batavia, and has continuously had at least 15 employees.
2

5. At all relevant times, Defendant, Jeffrey Wyler Automotive Family, Inc., has continuously been an Ohio Corporation doing business in the State of Ohio and the City of Batavia, and has continuously had at least 15 employees.
6. At all relevant times, Defendant, Jeff Wyler Colerain, Inc., has continuously been an Ohio Corporation doing business in the State of Ohio and the City of Cincinnati, and has continuously had at least 15 employees.
7. At all relevant times, Defendant, Jeff Wyler Fairfield, Inc., has continuously been an Ohio Corporation doing business in the State of Ohio and the City of Fairfield, and has continuously had at least 15 employees.
8. At all relevant times, Defendant, Jeff Wyler Hillcrest, Inc., has continuously been an Ohio Corporation doing business in the State of Ohio and the City of Cincinnati, and has continuously had at least 15 employees.
9. At all relevant times, Defendant, Jeff Wyler Springfield, Inc., has continuously been an Ohio Corporation doing business in the State of Ohio and the City of Cincinnati, and has continuously had at least 15 employees.
10. At all relevant times, Defendant, Jeff Wyler Trotwood, Inc., has continuously been an Ohio Corporation doing business in the State of Ohio and the City of Trotwood, and has continuously had at least 15 employees.
11. At all relevant times, Defendant, Jeff Wyler Alexandria, Inc., has continuously been a Kentucky Corporation doing business in the State of Kentucky and the City of Alexandria, and has continuously had at least 15 employees.
12. At all relevant times, Defendant, Jeff Wyler Florence, Inc., has continuously been a
3

Kentucky Corporation doing business in the State of Kentucky and the City of Florence, and has continuously had at least 15 employees.
13. At all relevant times, Defendant, Jeff Wyler Fort Thomas, Inc., has continuously been a Kentucky Corporation doing business in the State of Kentucky and the City of Fort Thomas, and has continuously had at least 15 employees.
14. At all relevant times, Defendant, Jeff Wyler Clarksville, Inc., has continuously been an Indiana Corporation doing business in the State of Indiana and the City of Clarksville, and has continuously had at least 15 employees.
15. At all relevant times, Defendants described in pars 4 through 14 above have operated as an integrated enterprise and have continuously been a single employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701(b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(b), (g) and (h).
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 16. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Patricia S. Cameron-Lytle filed a charge with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by Defendant Jeff Wyler Chevrolet, Inc. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled. 17. Since at least August 28, 1999, Defendants, as an integrated enterprise, have engaged in unlawful employment practices in violation of Section 703 of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2 by failing to hire females, including Patricia S. Cameron-Lytle, as salespersons because of their sex. 18. The effect of the practices complained of in paragraph 17 above has been to deprive Patricia S. Cameron-Lytle and similarly situated females of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as an employee because of their sex.
4

19. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 17 above were intentional.
20. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 17 above were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Patricia S. Cameron-Lytle and similarly situated females.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining each Defendant, its officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from refusing to hire females, including Patricia S. Cameron-Lytle, and engaging in any other employment practice which discriminates on the basis of sex. B. Order Defendants to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for women, and which eradicate the effects of their past and present unlawful employment practices. C. Order Defendants to make whole Patricia S. Cameron-Lytle and similarly situated females, by providing appropriate backpay with prejudgment interest, in amounts to be determined at trial, and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of their unlawful employment practices, including but not limited to the rightful place hiring of Patricia S. Cameron-Lytle and similarly situated females. D. Order Defendants to make whole Patricia S. Cameron-Lytle and similarly situated females, by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described in paragraph 17 above, including past and future out-of-pocket
5

losses in amounts to be determined at trial. E. Order Defendants to make whole Patricia S. Cameron-Lytle and similarly situated
females by providing compensation for past and future nonpecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices complained of in paragraph 17 above, including nonpecuniary losses such as emotional pain and suffering, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life, and humiliation, in amounts to determined at trial.
F. Order Defendants to pay Patricia S. Cameron-Lytle and similarly situated females, punitive damages for their malicious and reckless conduct described in paragraph 17 above, in amounts to be determined at trial.
G. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public interest.
H. Award the Commission its costs of this action. JURY TRIAL DEMAND
The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its complaint.
ERIC S. DREIBAND GENERAL COUNSEL JAMES L. LEE DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS ASSOCIATE GENERAL COUNSEL
/s/ C. Larry Watson C. Larry Watson (0031443) Regional Attorney larry.watson@eeoc.gov
6

/s/ Solvita A. McMillan Solvita A. McMillan (0040011) Trial Attorney solvita.mcmillan@eeoc.gov EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION Cleveland District Office 1660 W. Second Street, Suite 850 Cleveland, Ohio 44113-1412 Tel. (216) 522-7453 or 522-7676 Fax. (216) 522-7430
7

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, et aI.,

Plaintiffs

Case No, 1:03cv662

v,

Judge Michael H, Watson

Jeff Wyler Eastgate, Inc., et al.

Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court are the following: 1. The October 8, 2004 Motion of Defendants Jeff Wyler Eastgate, Inc,
(a,k,a. Jeff Wyler Chevrolet, Inc,) (hereinafter "Defendant") and Jeff Wyler Automotive Family, Inc" Jeff Wyler Colerain, Inc" Jeff Wyler Fairfield, Inc., Jeff Wyler Hillcrest, Inc., Jeff Wyler Springfield, Inc., Jeff Wyler Trotwood, Inc., Jeff Wyler Alexandria, Inc., Jeff Wyler Florence, Inc., Jeff Wyler Ft. Thomas, Inc., and Jeff Wyler Clarksville, Inc. (hereinafter collectively "New Defendants") to Dismiss Plaintiff's, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (hereinafter "EEOC" or "Plaintiff"), Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 48). The EEOC filed a Memorandum Contra on November 5, 2004 (Doc. 58). Defendant and New Defendants filed a Reply Memorandum on December 16,2004 (Doc. 62). 2, The October 8,2004 Motion of New Defendants to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint of Intervenor Plaintiffs Patricia Cameron-Lytle

(hereinafter "Cameron-Lytle"), Sha'quila Mathews (hereinafter "Mathews")

and Bonnie Finns (hereinafter "Finns") (hereinafter collectively "Intervenor

Plaintiffs") (Doc. 49). Intervenor Plaintiffs filed a Memorandum in

Opposition on November 5, 2004 (Doc. 57). New Defendants filed a

Reply Memorandum on December 16, 2004 (Doc. 61).

3. The October 8, 2004 Motion of Defendant to Dismiss the First Amended

Complaint of Plaintiffs (Doc. 50), Intervenor Plaintiffs filed a

Memorandum in Opposition on November 5, 2004 (Doc. 56), Defendant

filed a Reply Memorandum on December 16, 2004 (Doc. 61).

These matter are now ripe for review. For the foregoing reasons, the October 8,

2004 Motion of Defendant to Dismiss EEOC's Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 48) is

DENIED; the October 8, 2004 Motion of New Defendants to Dismiss the First Amended

Complaint of Intervenor Plaintiffs (Doc, 49) is DENIED; the October 8, 2004 Motion of

Defendant to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint of Plaintiffs (Doc. 50) is DENIED.

A. FACTS

On September 25, 2003, the EEOC filed a Complaint (Doc, 1) against

Defendant, which alleged Defendant violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 by failing to hire female sales persons,

including Ms. Cameron-Lytle, because of their sex, On February 20, 2004, Ms.

Cameron-Lytle filed an Intervening Complaint (Doc. 16), alleging she applied for a sales

pOSition with Defendant, on more than one occasion from Summer 2000 to Summer 2001, and was denied employment because of her sex.

The EEOC filed a Second Amended Complaint on August 9, 2004 (Doc. 30) to

1:03cv662

2

name New Defendants. Moreover, on August 9, 2004, Ms. Cameron-Lytle amended

her Complaint and added two parties, Ms. Mathews and Ms. Finns (Doc. 29). The

Amended Compliant alleges Ms. Mathews applied for a sales position with Defendant in

2001 and was not hired due to her sex. Ms. Finn contends she also applied for a sales

position with Defendant in the Fall of 2003 and was not hired because of her sex.

B. ANALYSIS

.1. Standard of Review

When considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, this Court is limited to

evaluating whether the plaintiff is "entitled to offer evidence to support the claims, rather

than whether the plaintiff will ultimately prevail." Burr v. Bums, 2005 WL 1969532 at *2

(S.D. Ohio 2005) (citing Schuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974». A complaint

should not be dismissed using Rule 12(b)(6) "unless it appears beyond doubt that the

Plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him'to relief: Lillard v. Shelby County Bd. of Educ., 76 F.3d 716, 724 (6th Cir. 1996) (quoting

Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957». This Court must "construe the complaint

liberally in the plaintiffs favor and accept as true all factual allegations and permissible

inferences therein." Id. (quoting Gazette v. City of Pontiac, 41 F.3d 1061, 1064 (6'h Cir.

1994». The complaint does not need to specify every detail of a plaintiffs claim,

however, it must give the defendant "fair notice of what the defendant's claim is and the

grounds upon which it rests." Gazette, 41 F.3d at 1064. The primary function of

pleadings under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure "is to give adequate notice to the

parties of each side's claims and to allow cases to be decided on the merits after an

adequate development of the facts." Lewis v. ACB Business Services, 135 F.3d 389,

1:03cv662

3

405 (6th Cir. 1998). However, this Court "need not accept as true legal conclusions or unwarranted
factual inferences." Morgan v. Church's Fried Chicken, 829 F.2d 10, 12 (6th Cir. 1987); see Scheid v. Fanny Farmer Candy Shops, 859 F.2d 434, 436-37 (6th Cir. 1988). Therefore, a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss will not be granted "unless there is no law to support the claims made, the facts alleged are insufficient to state a claim, or there is an insurmountable bar on the fact of the complaint" Burr v. Bums, 2005 WL 1969532 at *2 (S.D. Ohio 2005). While this Court "need not accept as true legal conclusions: it has the authority and responsibility to determine if the plaintiff can prove any facts in support of his legal conclusions. Morgan, 829 F.2d at 12; Conley, 355 U.S. at 45-46. Legal conclusions that are minimally supported with a factual basis are properly pled if they provide the defendant "fair notice of [the plaintiff's claim) ... and the grounds upon which it rests." Gazette,41 F.3d at 1064; see Lawrence E Jaffe Pension Plan v. Household Intern., 2004 WL 574665 at *3 (N.D. III. 2004) (finding that courts need not accept as true legal conclusions alleged in the complaint, though a plaintiff may plead conclusions if they "provide the defendant with at least minimal notice of the claim. ").
2. The October 8, 2004 Motion of Defendant and New Defendants to Dismiss EEOC's Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 48) a. Public Records
Normally, when conducting a review of a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the Court cannot consider facts outside of the pleadings. However, the Sixth Circuit holds district courts can take judicial notice of public records, such as public filings of private corporations and unreported judicial proceedings. Passa v. City of Columbus, 123 Fed.

103cv662

4

Appx. 694, 697 (6tl1 Cir. 2005). However, the Court should only take notice of public

records "whose existence or contents prove facts whose accuracy cannot reasonably

be questioned." Id. Moreover, its judicial notice privilege should only be utilized when

the opposing party is not deprived an opportunity to review the public records and

formulate an objection prior to this Court's opinion. Id. In sum, the Court "must only

take judicial notice of facts which are not subject to reasonable dispute." Id.

In the present case, the Court may take judicial notice of the public records relied

upon by the EEOC. The public records are official documents from the Ohio, Kentucky,

and Indiana Secretary of State and therefore, possess the requisite level of reliability. In

addition, Defendant and New Defendants were timely notified of the EEOC's intent to

rely upon these documents. Accordingly, New Defendants were afforded the

opportunity to formulate an objection to the records' authenticity and accuracy.

However, they chose not to directly respond to these issues. As such, the Court

concludes the public records are sufficiently reliable and the New Defendants received

notice of the records and had an opportunity to formulate an objection. Therefore, the

Court may review the public records relied upon by the EEOC.

b. Integrated Enterprise Claim

The Second Amended Complaint adequately placed Defendant and New

Defendants on notice of the integrated enterprise theory of party inclusion. Admittedly,

the Second Amended Complaint explains the integrated enterprise theory in one

sentence, concluding Defendant and New Defendants "have operated as an integrated

enterprise and have continuously been a single employer...." (Doc. 30 1115) However,

the Second Amended Complaint adequately notifies New Defendants of the integrated

1:03cv662

5

enterprise theory of inclusion. More importantly, Plaintiffs Memorandum (hereinafter

"Memorandum") (Doc. 58) includes supplemental facts to support its legal conclusion.

The Memorandum illustrates Plaintiff can prove facts in support of its legal

conclusion that Defendant and New Defendants constitute an integrated enterprise.

See Conley, 355 U.S. at 45-45 (finding that a complaint should not be dismissed under

Rule 12(b)(6) "unless it appears beyond doubt that the [p]laintiff can prove no set of

facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief."). Further, the

Memorandum includes information from the Ohio, Indiana, and Kentucky Secretary of

State which identify each New Defendants' business addresses as 829 Eastgate South

Drive, Cincinnati, OH 45245, which is the address at which Defendant received the

EEOC notice. These documents also illustrate that at least nine, and possibly all ten,

New Defendants have the same president, Mr. Jeff Wyler, who is also Defendant's

president. The Court concludes the public records sufficiently display that Plaintiff can

prove facts to support their integrated enterprise theory of relief. See Lillard, 76 F.3d at

724. This conclusion reflects the Sixth Circuit's view that a "broad interpretation should

be provided the employer and employee provisions of Title VII to effect its remedial

purpose." Basize/ v. Home Instead Senior Care, 370 F.Supp. 2d 631,640 (N.D. Ohio

2005)(citingArmbrusterv. Quinn, 711 F.2d 1332, 1336 (6th Cir. 1983).

Due to information provided by the public records, it would be inappropriate to

grant New Defendant's Motion to Dismiss without conducting more extensive discovery.

See EEOC v. Alford, 142 F.R.D. 283, 288 (E.D. Va. 1992) (ruling that discovery should

be permitted to ascertain the exact relationship between a parent corporation and its

subsidiary even though the plaintiff had only minimal evidence under the integrated

1:03cv662

6

enterprise theory). An examination of Sixth Circuit case law reveals cases which have

dismissed integrated enterprise claims have done so on summary judgment, and after

discovery was completed, not before discovery even commenced. See Baetzel, 370 F.

Supp. 2d 631; EEOC v. Wooster Brush Co., 727 F.2d 566 (6th Cir. 1984). Even

opinions which dismiss integrated enterprise claims, pursuant to 12(b)(6), leave the

door open for party inclusion if discovery reveales additional information. Schumacher

v. J.P. Morgan & Co., 1999 WL 58554 (N.D. III. 1999) (concluding that the party would

be dismissed, but if the plaintiff discovered information during discovery to support his

integrated enterprise claim, the court would "entertain a motion to rejoin [the dismissed

party]."); Coraggio v. Time Inc. Magazine Co., 1995 WL 242047 (S.~. N.Y. 1995)

(dismissing the plaintiff's integrated enterprise claim but permitting the plaintiff to submit

an amended complaint if facts supporting the claim are discovered).

On a related topic, New Defendants chose to file a Motion to Dismiss the Second

Amended Complaint, which was not the only possible course of action. New

Defendants could have filed a motion for a more definite statement under Fed. R of

Civ. Pro. 12(e). Moreover, denying the Motion to Dismiss does not preclude New

Defendants from making this argument again in a motion for summary judgment once

discovery has been substantially concluded. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema, 534 U.S. 506,

514 (2002).

c. Identity of Interest

As New Defendants properly argue, a party must be named in the original EEOC

charge before that party may be sued in federal court under Title VII. Alexander v. Loca/4gB, 177 F.3d 394 (6th Cir. 1999), citing Romain v. Kurek, 836 F.2d 241, 244 (6th

1:03cv662

7

Cir. 1987). However, if a plaintiff can show a clear identify of interest between a party

named in the EEOC complaint and the unnamed party subsequently added to a Title

VII lawsuit, the unnamed party can be properly included in the federal suit. Id.; Romain,

836 F.2d at 245 ("It is well settled that a person not named in an EEOC charge may not

be sued under Title VII unless there is a clear identity of interest between it and a party

named in the EEOC charge.").

The Sixth Circuit acknowledges two tests for determining whether a named party

shares an identity of interest with an unnamed party. Romain, 836 F.2d at 246. One,

established in Eggleston v. Chicago Joumeymen Plumbers' Local Union No. 130,657

F.2d 890 (7th Cir. 1981), recognizes an identity of interest "when the unnamed party

possesses sufficient notice of the claim to participate in voluntary conciliation

proceedings." Alexander, 177 F.3d at 411, citing Romain, 836 F.2d at 245; see also

Eggleston.

The second, the Glus test, uses four factors for defining the relationship between

the named and unnamed party at the time of the EEOC filing:

1. [W]hether the role of the unnamed party could through reasonable effort by the complainant be ascertained at the time of the filing of the EEOC complaint;

2. [W]hether, under the circumstances, the interests of a named [party] are
so similar as the unnamed party's that for the purpose of obtaining voluntary conciliation and compliance it would be unnecessary to include the unnamed party in the EEOC proceedings;

3. [W]hether its absence from the EEOC proceedings resulted in actual prejudice to the interests of the unnamed party;

4.
1:03cv662

[W]hether the unnamed party has in some way represented to the complainant that its relationship with the complainant is to be through the named party.
s

Glus v. G.C. Murphy Co., 562 F.2d 880 (3rd Cir. 1977) (cited in Romain, 836 F.2d at

246)

The Romain and Alexander courts acknowledge that the identity of interest

exception evolved from the reality "that laymen, unassisted by trained lawyers, initiate

the process of filing a charge with the EEOC, and accordingly [the exception does not

require] procedural exactness in stating the charge." Id. at 245. Therefore, the

application of the Eggleston or Glus identity of interest tests should not frustrate the

remedial goals of Title VII by necessitating "procedural exactness." Id.; see Armbruster,

711 F.2d at 1336 (1983) ("The primary purpose of the Civil Rights Act, and Title VII in

particular, is remedial. The aim is to eliminate employment discrimination by creating a

federal cause of action to promote and effectuate its goals.").

Currently, the Eggleston test adequately identifies an identity of interest between

Defendant and New Defendants. As previously discussed, the public records identified

by Plaintiff illustrate that Mr. Wyler is the president of nine, if not all ten, New

Defendants. In addition, all New Defendants possess the same business address,

which is the same address at which Mr. Wyler received notification of the original EEOC

action. As such, even if New Defendants were named in the original EEOC complaint,

those notifications would have been delivered to Mr. Wyler at the same address.

Therefore, it can hardly be argued that New Defendants and their president Mr. Wyler

were not placed on notice of the EEOC charges. Because Mr. Wyler is the president of

New Defendants, he clearly was in position to participate, and apparently has been

participating, in voluntary conciliation proceedings. See Alexander, 177 F.3d at 412

(noting that because the international union had actual notice of the EEOC complaint

1:03cv662

9

against its local union, the international union held an identity of interest under the Eggleston test).
Similarly, the Glus test recognizes an identity of interest between Defendant and New Defendants. New Defendants' absence from the EEOC proceedings did not result in prejudice. As previously mentioned, New Defendants share a common president with Defendant. Therefore, New Defendant's representative during the EEOC complaint stage would likely have been the same person. Moreover, the interests of Defendant and New Defendants are likely the same, "achieving voluntary conciliation with the plaintiffs during EEOC proceedings." Alexander, 177 F.3d at 412. At the very least, this Court should not dismiss the case based on a lack of identity of interest before the record is fully developed and all of the Glus factors can be equitably weighed. See Fletcher v. Columbus Bd. of Edcuation, 2003 WL 21799944 (S.D. Ohio 2003) (denying motion to dismiss based on a lack of identity of interest because the record was not fully developed and the court could not adequately apply either of the two accepted tests).
Accordingly, the October 8,2004 Motion of Defendant and New Defendants to Dismiss the EEOC's Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 48), is hereby DENIED.
3. The October 8. 2004 Motion of Defendant to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint of Plaintiffs (Doc. 50)
Under normal circumstances the "timely filing of an EEOC complaint is a prerequisite to a Title VII suit." Equal Employment Opportunity v. Wilson Metal Casket Company, 24 F.3d 836, 839 (6th Cir. 1994). This qualification places an alleged wrongdoer on notice of potential Title VII liability and allows the EEOC to attempt to

1 :03cv662

10

conciliate rather then proceed with litigation. Id. However, in Wilson Metal Casket

Company, the Sixth Circuit, in keepig with several other circuits, adopted the "single

filing rule, which constitutes an exception to the EEOC timely filing tenet. In a multiple-

plaintiff, non-class action suit, this rule permits additional plaintiffs, which have not filed

a timely administrative charge, to "piggyback" on a timely filed EEOC complaint. Id. at

839-40. The additional parties must possess individual claims "arising out of similar

discriminatory treatment in the same time frame ...." Id. at 840.

In Ho/wett v. Holiday Inns, Inc., the Sixth Circuit pronounced a standard for

"determining whether an administrative charge will suffice to support piggybacking by a

subsequent plaintiff." 49 F.3d 189, 194 (6th Cir. 1995). An administrative charge is

adequate to permit piggybacking under the "single filing rule" if the charge "contains

sufficient information to notify prospective defendants of their potential liability and

permit the EEOC to attempt informal conciliation of the claims before a lawsuit is filed."

Id. at 195. Paramount in this analysis is the size of the work unit involved in the charge.

Id. With a charge involving a "work unit of modest size," similar grievances within the

same general time frame will support piggybacking using the "single filing rule." Id.

Alternatively, a charge involving a larger work unit necessitates "some indication that

the grievance affects a group of individuals defined broadly enough to include those

who seek to piggyback on the claim." Id.

This Court concludes Ms. Mathews and Ms. Finns are permitted to "piggyback"

on Patricia Cameron-Lytle's administrative charge. Adequate similarity and

commonality in time exist between Ms. Cameron-Lytle's discrimination claim and the

claims proffered by Ms. Mathews and Ms. Finns. All three claims allege the failure of

1:03cv662

11

Defendant to hire female applicants as salespersons because of their gender. While the three alleged discriminatory incidents occurred at different points over a span of three years, the claims arose over the same time frame under the "single filing rule." All three claims were precipitated by Defendant's continual discriminatory practices allegedly covering at least three years. See Wilson Meta/ Casket Co., 24 F.3d at 840 (ruling that piggybacking claims arose during the same time frame when they were caused by the defendant's continual practice of sexual harassment).
Moreover, Ms. Cameron·Lytle's Amended Charge provides an explicit "indication that the grievance affect[ed] a group of individuals defined broadly enough to include [the Intervening Plaintiffs)." Ho/wett, 49 F.3d at 195·96. The charge, filed on January 8, 2002, reads in relevant part:
The Charged Party has a common practice of refusing to hire females as used car salespersons. I am aware of other females similarly situated who have also been denied employment because of their gender. The language of the Amended Charge provides the EEOC a clear indication that Ms. Cameron·Lytle's allegation was not an isolated incident and may include other women. Ho/wett, 49 F.3d at 195·96. Furthermore, the language clearly defines the group as women denied employment as salespersons at Defendant's car dealership, allegedly based on their gender. Ms. Mathews and Ms. Finns unquestionably fall into this categorization. See Doc. 29, mJ29-35, 36-42. Accordingly, as Ms. Mathews and Ms. Finns appropriately meet the "single filing rule" standards pronounced by the Sixth Circuit, the October 8,2004 Motion of Defendant to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint of Plaintiffs (Doc. 50) is DENIED.

1:03cv662

12

4. The October 8. 2004 Motion of New Defendants to Dismiss the First
Amended Complaint of Intervenor Plaintiffs (Doc. 49} As New Defendants' Motion to Dismiss raises issues already addressed above, for the reasons previously stated, the October 8, 2004 Motion of New Defendants to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint of Intervenor Plaintiffs (Doc, 49) is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED.
MIC AEL H. WATSON, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

1:03cv662

13

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DMSION

EQUALE~LOYMENTOPPORTUNITY

)

COMMISSION, et aL,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

)

vs

)

)

JEFF WYLER EASTGATE, INC.

)

formerly known as

)

JEFF WYLER CHEVROLET, INC., et al., )

)

Defendants.

)

CASE NO.: 1:03CV662 JUDGE BARRETT
CONSENT DECREE

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "Commission" or "EEOC"), an agency of the United States Government, filed this Action on September 25, 2003, alleging violations ofTitle VII ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VUlt) and Title I ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1991 ("1991 CRA"). The Commission filed a Second Amended Complaint on August 9, 2004. In its Second Amended Complaint, the Commission alleged that Defendant JeffWyler Eastgate, Inc., fonnerly known as Jeff Wyler Chevrolet ("Jeff Wyler Eastgate',) and ten additional related Jeff Wyler corporate entities violated the statutes by failing to hire Ms. Patricia S. Cameron-Lytle ("Plaintiff-Intervenor"), and similarly situated women, as salespersons because oftheir sex, female. l

lIn its Second Amended Complaint the Commission alleged JeffWyler Eastgate, Inc. and the following corporate entities have at all relevant times operated as an integrated enterprise and have continuously been a single employer: JeffWyler Automotive Family, Inc., Jeff Wyler Colerain, Inc., Jeff Wyler Fairfield, Inc., Jeff Wyler Hillcrest, Inc., Jeff Wyler Springfield, Inc., JeffWyler Trotwood, Inc., Jeff Wyler Alexandria, Inc., Jeff Wyler Florence, Inc., Jeff Wyler Ft. Thomas, Inc., and Jeff Wyler Clarksville. All eleven Defendants will be collectively referred to herein as ''Defendants.''

Patricia S. Cameron-Lytle filed a Motion to Intervene on October 16, 2003, and the Court granted the motion on February 19, 2004. Plaintiff-Intervenor filed her Amended Complaint in Intervention on August 9,2004. Defendant JeffWyler Eastgate filed its Answer to the Commission's Second Amended Complaint on October 8, 2004.
For purposes of this Consent Decree only, the Defendants admit to the jurisdiction of this Court over the subject matter ofthis Action.
The Parties have conferred and resolved this matter and have advised this Court that they desire to resolve the instant controversy without the burden, expense and delay offurther litigation.
Now, therefore, without trial or adjudication of any issue of fact or law raised by the Commission's Complaint, it is the finding ofthis Court that: (1) this Court has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter ofthis actionpursuantto28 U.S.C. Sections 451, 1331, 1337, 1343,and 1345; (2) the provisions ofTitle VII and the 1991 CRA will be carried out by the implementation of
this Decree; and (3) this Decree is entered into pursuant to Title vn and the 1991 CRA.
It is therefore DECREED as follows: 1. The term ofthis Decree shall be five (5) years from the date ofEntry, which shall be considered as the Effective Date ofthis Decree. 2. The Commission may review compliance by the Defendants with this Decree in accordance with its terms. As a part ofits review, the Commission may, in accordance with the tenns of this Decree, require written reports from the Defendants relevant to compliance, and may at all reasonable times, after reasonable notice, inspect the various places of business where Defendants operate and have access to, for the purposes of examination, and the right to copy, any evidence relevant to compliance with this Decree, and to interview witnesses.
2

3. The Defendants, their officers, agents, employees, successors, assigns and all others in

active concert with them, are hereby enjoined from discriminating against any applicant because of

sex.

4.

The Defendants, their officers, agents, employers, successors, assignees and all

others in active concert with them, shall not discriminate against any individual because such

individual has opposed any practice made unlawful under Title VII, or because slhe has made a

charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding,. or hearing

under Title VII.

S. Nothing in this Decree shall preclude the Commission from bringing suit to enforce

the terms of this Decree; nor shall this Decree preclude future action by the Commission or other

persons to remedy any alleged violations ofTitle VII by Defendants other than the alleged violations

that are the subject ofthe instant case.

6. This Decree, being entered with the consent of the Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission and the Defendants, shall not constitute an adjudication or finding on the merits ofthis
vn case nor shall it be deemed an admission by the Defendants of any violation ofTitle or the 1991

CRA.

JOB OFFERS

7. Within twenty (20) days following the date ofentry ofthis Decree, EEOC and counsel

for Plaintiff-Intervenorshall provide to counsel for Defendants, from the list ofclaimants identified

by EEOC and counsel for Plaintiff-Intervenor listed on Attachment A ("Claimant" or "Claimants',),

the name of each Claimant who has an interest in current or future employment in the position of

Salesperson for Defendants, the current address ofeach such Claimant, the date or approximate date

3

such Claimant first applied to the Defendants, and the name of the dealership(s) at which such Claimant is interested in working as a Salesperson for the Defendants.
8. The Defendants shall offer the next openings for Salesperson positions to the Claimants identified by EEOC and counsel in accordance with the preceding paragraph, by chronological order representing the date or approximate date the individual first applied to the Defendants, taking into account the location preference indicated by the Claimant and the current availability ofSalesperson positions at the dealership(s) identified by the Claimant. Each offer shall be conditioned on the Claimant meeting the valid, nondiscriminatory qualifications for a Salesperson position required ofall other Salespersons at the time ofthe offer, passing.standard screening criteria of passing a drug test, background check, and holding a valid motor vehicle license. The Defendants may require a Claimant to interview for the position in order for the Defendants to detennine the their qualifications. The Defendants shall notify the Claimant in writing by U.S. First Class Mail ofthe interview request and shall at the same time provide EEOC with a copy of the notification. The Claimant shall have five (5) days within which to respond to an interview request and be interviewed. Any failure to make a timely response to an interview request shall be deemed no response, and the Defendants shall have no further obligation to consider the Claimant for a position. Likewise, the Defendants shall have no further obligation to consider the Claimant for a position if the Claimant rejects an interview request. If after any such interview, the Defendants deem the Claimant not qualified, it shall notify EEOC in writing within three (3) days ofthe interview, explaining all reasons for the decision, and presenting EEOC with all documentary evidence relating to the Claimant's qualifications. Ifthe Defendants deem that the Claimant has not met the standard screening criteria, Defendants shall notify EEOC in writing within five (5) days ofthe interview, presenting EEOC with
4

all documentary evidence relating to the Claimant's failure to meet the standard screening criteria. EEOC shall have seven (7) days within which to notify the Defendants whether it disputes_the Defendants' determination ofthe Claimant's qualifications_or failure to meet the standard screening criteria. Any such dispute which cannot be resolved voluntarily by Defendants and EEOC within ten (10) days of EEOC's notification to Defendants of said dispute shall be submitted to the U.S. Magistrate Judge presiding over this matter. The U.S. Magistrate Judge's determination ofthe dispute shall be final. Any and all costs related to the U.S. Magistrate !udge's dispute resolution shall be shared equally by the parties.
9. The Defendants shall make the offers provided for above in writing, including the date of the offer. The Claimant shall have" fourteen (14) calendar days after receipt of a job offer from the Defendants within which to commence work. If the Claimant fails to report within fourteen (14) calendar days, the Defendants shallhave no further obligation to considerthe Claimant for a position. The compensation shall be commensurate with the then prevailing compensation offered by the Defendants to Salespersons hired who are similarly qualified.
BACK PAY AND COMPENSATORY DAMAGES 10. Following the Court's approval and entry ofthe Consent Decree, and subject to such provisions and conditions as may be hereinafter set forth, the Defendants shall pay back pay and compensatory damages in the total sum of $2,300,000.00 to the individual Claimants named in Attachment B (Master Payment List) attached hereto. Payment ofthis amount shall be made in the manner hereinafter provided and shall be deemed in full settlement ofany and all claims for back pay, compensatory damages and any other monetary relief, no matter how designated. All parties shall bear their own costs.
5

11. The payments will be made in three installments: One million ($1,000,000.00) ofthe amount specified in the preceding paragraph shall be paid within thirty (30) days ofthe Entry Date
(Claimants identified in Attachment Cl and C2), with the remaining two-thirds of the amount
specified in numbered Paragraph 10( i.e., one million three hundred thousand ($1,300,000.00)) shall be paid in two equal additional installments over the next two (2) years (February 2008 and February 2009). The second installment ofsix hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($650,000.00) shall be paid twelve (12) months after the Entry Date (Claimants identified in Attachment D), and the final installment of six hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($650,000.00) shall be paid twenty-four (24) months after the Entry Date (Claimants identified in Attachment E).
12. The Commission shall detennine the pro rata portion of this fund that shall be distributed to each of the individual Claimants (Attachment B). The Commission shall also determine which portion shall constitute backpay and which portion shall constitute compensatory damages and shall advise counsel for Defendants of same in writing within ten (10) days of the Effective Date. The Defendants shall deduct from the amounts designated as back pay, all federal, state and local income tax and Social Security withholding or other statutory amounts nonnally deducted from wages. No amounts shall be deducted for withholding from the amomits designated as compensatory damages.
13. All payments to the four individual Claimants named in Attachment Cl which are
required by Paragraphs numbered 11 and 12 of this Consent Decree, shall be mailed by Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested. Each check shall be accompanied by a statement detailing the gross amount, itemization and identification of all deductions for withholding, and the net amount. The checks and statements shall be mailed to the individuals' addresses, which addresses shall be provided
6

by EEOC to the Defendants within ten (to) days ofthe Effective Date. Thereafter, the EEOC shall

modify and notify Defendants promptly upon being notified of address changes by the individuals.

The addresses shall be furnished to the Defendants by delivering same to counsel for Defendants.

14. Should any check to the four individual Claimants named in AttachmentCl be

returned undelivered, the Defendants shall forthwith notify EEOC's counsel in writing and shall

provide EEOC with the envelope in which the check was mailed to the individual, along with any

explanations provided by postal authorities. Defendants shall remain liable for any such undelivered

payment, but after notifying EEOC in accordance with this paragraph, may tender any such

undelivered payment to EEOC.

15. Upon failure of the Defendants to make payment in accordance with this Consent

Decree, and upon ten (10) days' written notice to the Defendants, Defendants shall have ten (10) days

to cure any such failure. IfDefendants fail to cure timely, all payments set forth in said paragraphs

shall be immediately due and owing as ofthe date for payment which the Defendants failed to make,

provided, however, that Defendants shall have twenty (20) days to make such payment or show good

cause, which shall not include inability to pay, why such payment has not been made. Further upon

default, interest shall accrue on the balance ofthe amounts owing under Paragraphs numbered 10, 11

and 12 of this Consent Decree from date of default to time of payment at the IRS penalty rates

applicable during the period of default.

16.

The Defendants shall provide each individual listed in Attachment Cl with a

completed W-2 every year following payment at the time required by law by mailing same to the

individual at the address provided by EEOC and shall at the same time provide EEOC a copy ofeach

W-2.

7

17. The Defendants shall provide each individual listed in Attachment C2, D and E with a completed W-2 every year following payment at the time required by law by mailing same to the individuals at the addresses provided by their counsel, Meizlish & Grayson, and shall at the same time provide EEOC a copy of each W-2. Meizlish & Grayson shall provide to Defendants a current address for their clients on or before January 1 ofevery year following the year in which payment is made to the claimants to facilitate service ofthe W-2s to their clients.
18. All payments to the thirty-five individual Claimants named in Attachment C2, D and E required by Paragraphs numbered 11 and 12 ofthis Consent Decree shall be made to their attorneys, Meizlish & Grayson, as Tmstees ofthe individual Claimants.
RELEASE AND WAIVER 19. In order to receive any reliefpursuant to the terms ofthis Decree, Plaintiff-Intervenor and each Claimant shall be required to execute a Release and Waiver, in the form attached hereto as Attachment F, and such executed Release and Waiver must be sent to the Commission at the following address: Attention - Associate Regional Attorney, EEOC Cleveland Field Office, AJC Federal Building, 1240 East Ninth Street, Suite 3001, Cleveland, Ohio 44199. Upon the Commission's receipt ofeach such executed Release and Waiver form, the Commission shall send a copy of the executed Release and Waiver form to counsel for the Defendants. Upon the Commission's receipt ofconfirmation that the eligible Claimant has received the reliefto which she is entitled under the terms of this settlement, the Commission shall transmit the original executed release to counsel for the Defendants.
NOTICE POSTING 20. Effective upon entry of this Decree, Defendants shall post and keep posted for the
8

duration of this Decree, in conspicuous places upon their premises, where notices to employees or

applicants are customarily posted, Attachment G and shall report in writing to the Commission upon

compliance with this paragraph, to the attention ofthe Associate Regional Attorney, EEOC Cleveland

Field Office, AJC Federal Building, 1240 East Ninth Street, Suite 300I, Cleveland, Ohio 44199, with

a statement that identifies such report as being submitted consistent with this Decree.

SEMI-ANNUAL REPORTS

21. Defendants shall, for periods indicated below, submit to EEOC semi-annual reports

listing:

(A) the name, address, social security number, home phone number, date of application and job applied for, for each female who applies for employment to Defendants for a sales position for a period of five (5) years from the Effective Date;

(B) the name, address, social security number, home phone number, date of application and job applied for, for each male who applies for employment to Defendants for a sales position for a period offive (5) years from the Effective Date;

(C) the name, address, social security number, home phone number, date of

application,job applied for andjob hired into, for each individual who is hired

by Defendants for a sales position for a period of five (5) years from the

Effective Date;

.

(D) a briefexplanation indicating why a female rejected for employment in a sales position was not considered qualified for such employment opportunity given to a male during the period three (3) years from the Effective Date.

The first semi-annual report is due six (6) months after the date of entry ofthis Decree, and

thereafter reports are due every six (6) months covering the term ofthis Decree. The reports shall be

mailed to the attention of the Associate Regional Attorney, EEOC Cleveland Field Office, AJC

Federal Building, 1240 East Ninth Street, Suite 3001, Cleveland, Ohio 44199, with a statement that

9

identifies such reports as being submitted consistent with this Decree. TRAINING
22. Defendants shall provide training to managers and supervisors regarding the antidiscrimination requirements of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Such training shall occur at least three times during the term ofthis Consent Decree, the first occurring within 90 days ofentryof this Consent Decree. The training shall, without limitation, include issues ofhiring and recruitment, stereotypes regarding groups protected by the anti-discrimination provisions ofTitle VIT, the hannful effects ofstereotypes, sexual harassment, record keeping, remedies, and retaliation. Defendants shall report to the Commission within ten (10) days after completion ofeach training session and include in such report: (1) the name and position held ofeach person in attendance, (2) a copyofthe agenda and a statement ofthe beginning and ending times ofthe training; (3) a copy of all materials distributed, and (4) the name and address ofthe person, organization or entity providing the training. Such report shall be mailed to the attention ofthe Associate Regional Attorney, EEOC Cleveland Field Office, AJC Federal Building, 1240 East Ninth Street, Suite 3001, Cleveland, Ohio 44199, with a statement that identifies such reports as being submitted consistent with this Decree.
23. Defendants shall obtain the Commission's approval ofits proposed trainer prior to the training sessions. Defendants shall submit the name, address, telephone number and curriculum vitae/resume ofthe proposed trainer, together with the date(s)ofthe proposed training sessions to the EEOC within thirty (30) calendar days prior to the first day ofthe proposed date(s) ofthe proposed training sessions to the EEOC within thirty (30) calendar days prior to the first day ofthe proposed date(s) oftraining. The Commission shall have ten (10) calendar days from the date ofreceipt ofthe information described above to accept or reject the proposed trainer(s). In the event the Commission
10

does not approve Defendants' designated trainers, Defendant shall have ten (10) calendar days to

identifY an alternate trainer. The Commission shall have ten (10) calendar days from the date of

receipt of the information described above to accept or reject the alternate trainer. Defendants may

also elect to utilized the services ofthe EEOC Training Institute to fulfill its Consent Decree training

requirements.

MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTABILITY

24. Defendants shall promote management and supervisory accountabilityby the following

conduct:

(A) Providing anti-discrimination training to all ofits supervisory and managerial personnel as set forth in Paragraph 22;

(B) Disciplining, up to and including discharge, any supervisor or manager who violates Defendants' policy orpolicies against discrimination, harassment and retaliation;

(C) Imposing on all managers and supervisory personnel a duty to administer their work areas to ensure compliance with Defendants' policy or policies against discrimination, harassment and retaliation; and

(0) Requiring all managers and supervisors to report any incidents and/or complaints ofharassment and/or retaliation ofwhich they become aware to the appropriate responsible company representatives.

25. This Court shall retain jurisdiction of this case for purposes of compliance with this

Decree and entry of such further orders as may be necessary or proper to effectuate the purposes of

this Decree. The Defendants and the Commission shall each bear their own costs and fees, including

bearing their own attorneys fees.

/JdtvYM!~ THIS~ IT IS SO ORDERED

day of

,2007.

United States District Court Judge

11

ATTACHMENT A Employment Offers

Case I:03-CV-662 Consent Decree

Name/Address
Denise Thurmond 605 Martin Luther King Blvd. Hamilton, OH 45011

Date of Previous Application 11/30/01

Jennifer Goldick 6711 Susan Drive Loveland, OH 45140

5/12/03

Jamie Lynn Haywood 6551 Rainbow Lane Cincinnati. OH 45230
Lindsay Anne Ridenhour 3921 WolfCreek Road Amelia, OH 45102

112/04 2/9/04

Virginia Auckerman 2600 Ipsen Court Dayton, OH 45439

4/16/04

Dealerships of Interest Fairfield Colerain Eastgate
Eastgate Eastgate
Colerain

Charlotte Hill 300 Papps Ridge Road Vevay, IN 47043

5/21104

Florence Ft. Thomas

ATTACHMENT B Master Payment List
Linda Adams Kendra Anderson Suellen Anderson Melissa Arlin Virginia Auckennan Linda Boehm Jennifer Brandt Patricia Cameron Ross Alexia Campbell Letha Chalfont Julie Christopher Dianna Cooley Wanda Distler Nancy Edgington Bonnie Finns Jennifer Goldick Jamie Lynn Haywood Charlotte Hill Amy Taubert Ishtewi Connie Ison Michelle Wood Keyes Charlotte Kline Rebecca LaBarre Rebecca Lambert Angela Lenga Elizabeth Mahan Shaquila Mathews Matjean Mays Shauna Meale Tamra MacFarland Barbara Mowen Pam Phillips Angela Puckett Lindsay Anne Ridenhour Carrie Schuler Alexandria Taher Denise Thurmond Karen Whiton Cheryl Whisman

Case 1:03-CV-662 Consent Decree

Jennifer Brandt Matjean Mays Alexandria Taher Cheryl Whisman

ATTACHMENT C-l First Installment Payment
Unrepresented Claimants

','
Case 1:03-CV-662 Consent Decree

....

Linda Adams Kendra Anderson Suellen Anderson Melissa Arlin Virginia Auckerman Linda Boehm Patricia Cameron Ross Alexia Campbell Letha Chalfont Julie Christopher Dianna Cooley Wanda Distler Nancy Edgington Bonnie Finns Jennifer Goldick Jamie Lynn Haywood Charlotte Hill Amy Taubert Ishtewi Connie Ison Michelle Wood Keyes Charlotte Kline Rebecca LaBarre Rebecca Lambert Angela Lenga Elizabeth Mahan Shaquila Mathews Shauna Meale Tamra MacFarland Barbara Mowen Pam Phillips Angela Puckett Lindsay Anne Ridenhour Carrie Schuler Denise Thurmond Karen Whilon

ATTACHMENT C-2 First Installment Payment
Represented Claimants

Case 1:03-CV-662 Consent Decree

Rqpresented Claimants
Linda Adams Kendra Anderson Suellen Anderson Melissa Arlin Virginia Auckerman Linda Boehm Patricia Cameron Ross Alexia Campbell Letha Chalfont Julie Christopher Dianna Cooley Wanda Distler Nancy Edgington Bonnie Finns Jennifer Goldick Jamie Lynn Haywood Charlotte Hill Amy Taubert Ishtewi ConnieIson Michelle Wood Keyes Charlotte Kline Rebecca LaBarre Rebecca Lambert Angela Lenga Elizabeth Mahan Shaquila Mathews Shauna Meale Tamra MacFarland Barbara Mowen Pam Phillips Angela Puckett Lindsay Anne Ridenhour Carrie Schuler Denise Thurmond Karen Whiton
Unrepresented Claimants
Alexandria Taber Cheryl Whisman

ATIACHMENT D Second Installment Payment

Case 1:03-CV-662 Consent Decree

Represented Claimants
Linda Adams Kendra Anderson Suellen Anderson Melissa Arlin Virginia Auckerman Linda Boehm Patricia Cameron Ross Alexia Campbell Letha Chalfont Julie Christopher Dianna Cooley Wanda Distler Nancy Edgington Bonnie Finns Jennifer Goldick Jamie Lynn Haywood Charlotte Hill Amy Taubert Ishtewi Connie Ison Michelle Wood Keyes Charlotte Kline Rebecca LaBarre Rebecca Lambert Angela Lenga Elizabeth Mahan Shaquila Mathews Shauna Meale Tamra MacFarland Barbara Mowen Pam Phillips Angela Puckett Lindsay Anne Ridenhour Carrie Schuler Denise Thunnond Karen Whilon
Unrepresented Claimants
Alexandria Taher Cheryl Whisman

A'ITACHMENT E Third Installment Payment

Case 1:03-CV-662 Consent Decree

ATI'ACHMENT F RELEASE AND WAIVER
[NAME], for and in consideration of$[fill in amount] as and for back pay and compensatory damages, the receipt ofwhich is acknowledged~ does for herself, her heirs~ executors, administrators, successors and assigns, release, acquit and discharge JeffWyler Eastgate~ Inc. formerly known as Jeff Wyler Chevrolet, Inc., Jeff Wyler Automotive Family, Inc., Jeff Wyler Colerain, Inc., Jeff Wyler Fairfield~ Inc.~ JeffWyler Hillcrest, Inc., JeffWyler Springfield, Inc., JeffWyler Trotwood~ Inc., Jeff Wyler Alexandria, Inc., Jeff Wyler Florence, Inc., and Jeff Wyler Ft. Thomas, Inc., and Jeff Wyler Clarksville, Inc., their officers, agents, shareholders, managers, parents, subsidiaries, divisions. affiliates predecessors, successors, indemnitors, partners, directors, insurers, and attorneys and assigns . ofand from all claims I may have against them, which are covered by the allegations in a certain civil action in the United States District Court for Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, which is Civil Action No. 1:03CV662, styled Equal Employment Op,portunityCommission et al. v. JeffWyler Eastgate, Inc.. formerly known as JeffWyler Chevrolet, Inc.• et aI., and lor are covered by allegations under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and Title I ofCivil Rights Act of 1991, made in Commission Charge Number 221A20047 styled Patricia S. Cameron-Lytle v. Jeff Wyler Used Car Superstore.

Date

[NAME]

17

ATTACHMENTG NOTICE TO ALL APPLICANTS FOR EMPLOYMENT This notice to all Applicants is being posted as part of the remedy agreed to between the parties in settlement of an employment discrimination suit known as Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Jeff Wyler Eastgate, Inc., et al, Civil Action No. 1:03-CV-622. Federal law requires, among other things, that there be no discrimination against any employee or applicant for employment because ofthe employee's sex. . It is the policy of Jeff Wyler Eastgate, and all of its related corporate entities including Jeff Wyler Automotive Family, Inc., Jeff Wyler Colerain, Inc., Jeff Wyler Fairfield, Inc., JeffWyler Hillcrest, Inc., Jeff Wyler Springfield, Inc., JeffWyler Trotwood, Inc., JeffWyler Alexandria, Inc., JeffWyler Florence, Inc., and JeffWyler Ft. Thomas, Inc. and JeffWyler Clarksville, Inc. to consider and hire applicants without regard to sex. Jeff Wyler Eastgate and all of its related corporate entities, encourage qualified females to apply for employment. If you believe that you have been discriminated against because of your sex, you may contact the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC'') at the following national toll-free number: 1-800-669-4000. Ifyou have a TTY device for hearing impaired: TTY number is 1-800-669-6820. You may also contact the EEOC's Cleveland Field Office at the following number: (216)522-2001; TTY (216)522-8441.
18

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION

EEOC, et al.
Plaintiffs,
vs.
JEFF WYLER EASTGATE, INC. Formerly Known As JEFF WYLER CHEVROLET, INC.

:

CASE NO. C-1-03-662

:

:

Judge: Susan Dlott

:

:

Magistrate:

:

: PLAINTIFF PATRICIA CAMERON

: LYTLE’S MOTION FOR

: CONSOLIDATION OF ACTIONS

Plaintiff Patricia Cameron-Lytle moves the Court pursuant to Rule 42(a) of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure for an Order consolidating before this Court this case and the case of

Richard W. Higgins v. Jeff Wyler Eastgate, Inc., Case No. C-1-04-84, which is pending in the

Southern District of Ohio, Western Division before Judge Sandra Beckwith. Consolidation into

one action is sought on the ground that the two cases involve common questions of law and fact

and a consolidation of these cases is necessary for reasons of judicial economy, to avoid

duplication of evidence, unnecessary costs and delay. Consolidation is not opposed by the

EEOC. This motion is supported by the following Memorandum and Affidavit of Counsel Bruce

Meizlish.

Respectfully submitted,

S/Bruce H. Meizlish Bruce H. Meizlish #0033361

S/Deborah R. Grayson Deborah R. Grayson, #0062777 Meizlish & Grayson Attorneys for Plaintiff 830 Main Street - Suite 999 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 345-4700 Fax: (513) 455-473 dgrayson@winstarmail.com
1

MEMORANDUM I. STATEMENT OF THE CASES A. Case 1:03-CV-662
On September 25, 2003, the EEOC filed a Complaint, amended on October 7, 2003, alleging that the Defendant has engaged in unlawful employment practices at its facilities in Batavia, Ohio by failing to hire women, including Patricia S. Cameron-Lytle, as salespersons because of their sex. Patricia S. Cameron-Lytle filed a Motion to Intervene on October 16, 2003 and filed her Complaint on February 20, 2004 adding state law claims of discrimination under Ohio Rev. Code §§4112.02(a) and 4112.99. The case was originally assigned to Judge Herman Weber but was reassigned to Judge Dlott on January 6, 2004. An Order scheduling discovery matters was issued on March 11, 2004. B. Case 1:04-CV-84
On February 6, 2004, Plaintiff Richard W. Higgins filed his Complaint, alleging that he was terminated by Defendant on July 18, 2001 for his refusal to participate in Defendant’s discriminatory practice of refusing to hire women to sell cars. The Complaint alleges that this discriminatory practice began 1997 after a woman salesperson employed at Defendant’s Batavia, Ohio facility made complaints of sexual harassment and subsequently quit her job. After she left, Higgins was instructed by Defendant not to hire any women to sell cars and threatened that the next person who hired a woman would be fired. Higgins was fired on July 12, 2001, one month after hiring a woman as a salesperson. The answer has not yet been filed in this case.
The civil cover sheet filed with this case reflects that it is related to the pending case filed against the same Defendant by the EEOC and Patricia S. Cameron Lytle. Counsel for Plaintiff Higgins, who also represents Cameron-Lytle, anticipated his case would also be assigned to be heard by the same judge. The case, however, was assigned to Judge Beckwith. II. BASIS OF THIS MOTION
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) provides that when actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the Court, the Court may, at its discretion, consolidate the matters for pretrial proceedings, trial or both. Plaintiff Cameron-Lytle submits that the Court’s discretion should be exercised to consolidate these matters at the earliest stage possible since the allegations are interrelated, involve common questions of law and fact, and consolidation will avoid unnecessary costs and delay and achieve judicial economy. III. ARGUMENT A. There are common issues of fact and law.
The cases filed by the EEOC, Patricia Cameron-Lytle and Richard Higgins involve related legal and factual issues, witnesses and evidence. The EEOC has filed a pattern and practice complaint alleging that the Defendant failed to hire women, including Patricia S. Cameron-Lytle as salespersons because of their sex. The EEOC seeks injunctive relief, prospective implementation of policies providing equal opportunities for women, and makewhole remedies for Cameron-Lytle and similarly situated females.
The complaint filed by Cameron-Lytle alleges that she applied for the position of
2

salesperson commencing in the Summer of 2000 through the Summer of 2001 and was denied employment because of sex. Counsel anticipates that witnesses in this case will include Ms. Cameron-Lytle and Defendant’s managers, including Richard W. Higgins, to show that Defendant had a policy and practice of refusing to hire women as car salespersons. Mr. Higgins was a General Sales Manager at the Defendant’s Eastgate Automall in Batavia where Ms. Cameron Lytle applied for employment. He will testify that following a complaint of sexual harassment made by a woman salesperson in 1997 he was instructed not to hire women to sell cars and threatened that the next manager to hire a woman to sell cars would be fired. It is anticipated that at least two other managers and two salespersons will corroborate the existence of this policy and practice. 1 Counsel anticipates that the documentary evidence in Ms. Cameron-Lytle’s case will concern Defendant’s hiring records and practices, applications and its workforce profile and documents concerning the 1997 complaint of sexual harassment. 2
Counsel anticipates that Mr. Higgins’ testimony supporting his own complaint will be substantially the same as his testimony in support of the pattern and practice case with the addition of testimony concerning the pretextual reason of poor production given for his discharge. The same managers and salespersons will support the existence of the unlawful policy and Ms. Cameron Lytle’s testimony will illustrate the operation of the policy. 3 The same documentary evidence concerning the hiring practices of Defendant and its genesis in the sexual harassment complaint will be used to support the existence of the unlawful policy.
Both cases present around a common central issue: Whether Defendant maintained an unlawful policy of refusing to hire women for sales positions. The two cases simply involve different aspects of the operation of that policy; whether women applicants, including Ms. Cameron-Lytle, were denied employment due to the policy and whether Mr. Higgins was terminated because he opposed this policy by hiring a woman to sell cars.
The situation is factually similar to that presented in EEOC v. HBE Corp.4 There, the court consolidated a race discrimination action brought by a terminated employment manager with a retaliatory discharge action brought by the terminated personnel director who was fired for refusing to fire the employment manager. Both terminated managers sought to present evidence about a climate of racial hostility at the hotel and events preceding and following the employment manager’s discharge. The common evidence was relevant to establish both why the employment manager had been fired and why the personnel director believed his termination was due to race and his refusal to fire the employment manager. The court concluded it would have been inefficient to have separate trials involving related parties, witnesses and evidence. B. Convenience and judicial economy would be achieved by consolidation.
If common questions of law or fact exist, the court has broad discretion to order consolidation. The matters of convenience and economy of administration are important
1 (Affidavit of Meizlish, Para. 3 )
2 (Affidavit of Meizlish, Para 4 )
3 (Affidavit of Meizlish, Para 5 )
4EEOC v. HBE Corp., 135 F.3d 543 (8th Cir. 1998).
3

considerations in determining whether to consolidate actions presenting a common issue of law or fact.5
If these matters are not consolidated, it will be necessary to present the testimony of Richard Higgins and other managers concerning Defendant’s exclusionary hiring policy in both cases. It will be necessary to present the documentary and statistical information about hiring practices in both proceedings. Two different judges may be called upon to decide whether the discriminatory policy existed and was enforced and two different jury panels may consider the common issues after the conclusion of the evidence with possible inconsistent verdicts.
Two separate proceedings will cause duplication in discovery and trial and also cause inconvenience to the witnesses. Witnesses will be deposed and testify about the same matters twice. Plaintiff Higgins resides in Florida and would have to travel to Cincinnati to testify to the same facts and circumstances in both cases. This violates principles of judicial economy.6
Both of these cases are in the preliminary state of proceeding. The matter before this Court, however, was filed first and the proceedings are more advanced. Hence, consolidation should occur before this Court. Counsel intended to pursue the two cases in tandem as the allegations were so interrelated but administrative processing delayed the filing of the complaint in the Higgins’ case. Both cases were docketed by the EEOC on October 5, 2001.7 The EEOC filed the complaint in the pattern and practice case on September 25, 2003, nearly two months before the Notice of Right to Sue was issued to Richard Higgins.8
Plaintiff submits that all parties would benefit from consolidation and valuable court time and effort would be saved. Savings will be maximized by an early consolidation. Consolidation will not be prejudicial to any substantial right of Defendant. Plaintiff EEOC does not oppose this motion.9 The motion is timely as a motion to consolidate may be made as soon as the issues that justify consolidation become apparent, even though they are not joined formally between the parties in one or more of the actions.10 IV. CONCLUSION
It is apparent that there are common issues of law and fact in Case Nos. 1:03-662 and 1:04-84. The Court has broad discretion to consolidate cases in these circumstances and the exercise of this discretion is warranted since there are common issues of law and fact and
5Grimes v. Keco Industries, Inc., 1976 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16195, March 11,1976 (Hogan), citing 9 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure; Civil §2383 at 259 (1971).
6Schnellbaecher v. Baskin Clothing Co. , 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3840 (N.D. Ill., W.Div.) Claims of two plaintiffs alleging denial of promotion consolidated at defendant’s request where common issues of law and fact and some of defendant’s witnesses resided outside the state.
7 EEOC Complaint, para. 7, Higgins’ Complaint, para. 6.
8 Higgins’ Complaint, para. 7. (Affidavit of Meizlish para. 7 )
9Affidavit of Meizlish, para. 9
109 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure, Civil 2nd §2383 at 446 (1995).
4

common witnesses and evidence in these two cases. Plaintiff Cameron-Lytle respectfully requests that the Court issue an order consolidating the matters for all further proceedings, including discovery, summary judgment and trial.
Respectfully submitted,
S/Bruce H. Meizlish Bruce H. Meizlish #0033361
_______________________ Deborah R. Grayson, #0062777 Meizlish & Grayson Attorneys for Plaintiff 830 Main Street - Suite 999 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 345-4700 Fax: (513) 455-4703 dgrayson@winstarmail.com
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 2nd day of April, 2004, I electronically filed the foregoing motion, memorandum, and affidavit with the Clerk of the Court, using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following:
W. Breck Weigel Vorys Sater Seymour and Pease LLP 221 East Fourth Street Suite 2000 - Atrium 1 Cincinnati, OH 45202
Scott A. Carroll Vorys Sater Seymour and Pease LLP 221 East Fourth Street Suite 2000 - Atrium 1 Cincinnati, OH 45202
Solvita A. McMillan Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Cleveland District Office Skylight Office Tower 1660 West Second Street, Suite 850
5

Cleveland, Ohio 44113-1412

Deborah R. Grayson

6

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION .

EEOC, et aI., Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No. 1:03cv662 District Judge Michael H. Watson

Jeff Wyler Eastgate, Inc.,

Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART THE APRIL 4. 2004 MOTION OF PLAINTIFF FOR CONSOLIDATION OF ACTIONS

Before the Court is the April 4, 2004 Motion of Plaintiff Patricia Cameron Lytle

(hereinafter "Plaintiff') for Consolidation of Actions (Doc. 18). Defendant Jeff Wyler

Chevrolet, Inc. (hereinafter "Defendant") filed a Memorandum in Opposition on April 26,

2004 (Doc. 20). Plaintiff filed a Reply Memorandum on May 7, 2004 (Doc. 21).

Defendant filed a Supplemental Memorandum in Opposition on September 23, 2004

(Doc. 44). Plaintiff filed a Response on September 29, 2004 (Doc. 45). Plaintiff Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission (hereinafter "EEOC") does not oppose Plaintiff's

request for consolidation.

Plaintiff seeks, pursuant to Fed. Civ. R. Pro. 42(a), consolidation of this matter

with Higgins v. Jeff Wyler Eastgate, Inc., Case No.1 :04cv84 (hereinafter "Higgins'?,

which is also pending before this Court. Plaintiff asserts the cases involve common

questions of law and fact and consolidation is necessary for judicial economy, to avoid

duplication of evidence, and unnecessary costs and delay.

The instant action involves a Complaint filed by the EEOC alleging Defendant

---- -------------------------.
engaged in unlawful employment practices at its facilities in Batavia, Ohio by failing to hire women, including Plaintiff, as salespersons because of their sex. Subsequently, Plaintiff intervened and filed a Compliant asserting state law claims of discrimination under O.R.C. §§4112.02(a) and 4112.99.
Higgins involves a Complaint filed by Richard W. Higgins alleging he was terminated by Defendant for refusing to participate in Defendant's discriminatory practice of refusing to hire women as salespersons. The Higgins Complaint alleges the discriminatory practice began in 1997 after a woman salesperson employed at Defendant's Batavia, Ohio facility made complaints of sexual harassment and subsequently quit her job. After she left, Mr. Higgins was instructed not to hire any women to sell cars and anyone who did would be fired. Mr. Higgins was fired by Defendant one month after hiring a woman salesperson.
Plaintiff contends the instant action and Higgins involve related legal and factual issues, witnesses and evidence. The cases present around a common central issue: whether Defendant maintained an unlawful policy of refusing to hire women for sales positions. Each case presents a different aspect of the operation of the alleged discriminatory practice; whether women applicants, including Plaintiff, were denied employment due to the policy and whether Mr. Higgins was terminated because he opposed this policy by hiring a woman to sell cars.
Failing to consolidate both matters, Plaintiff asserts, will result in the presentation of testimony from Mr. Higgins and other managers concerning Defendant's exclusionary hiring policy in both cases. Additionally, it will be necessary to present documentary and statistical information about hiring practices in both proceedings. Further, two
2

different jury panels may consider the common issues after the conclusion of the evidence and, possibly, reach inconsistent verdicts.
In support, Plaintiff relies upon EEOC v. HBE Corp., 135 F.3d 543 (8th Cir. 1998). The HBE court consolidated a race discrimination action brought by a terminated employment manager with a retaliatory discharge action brought by the terminated personnel director who was fired for refusing to fire the employment manager. The HBE court concluded consolidation was appropriate as the former employees sought to present similar evidence about a climate of racial hostility at the hotel and the events immediately preceding and following the discharge of the employment manager. The evidence was relevant to establish (1) why the employment manager was fired and (2) why the personnel director had a reasonable belief it was because of racial discrimination.
In response, Defendant maintains Plaintiff ignores the profound legal difference between a gender discrimination case and a retaliation case. The prima facie case for each claim is different along with the Defendant's legal burden. Additionally, the pretext elements are different for each claim. Accordingly, as no one legal question in either case, if answered, would necessarily answer a question in the other, consolidation should not occur.
Furthermore, Defendant asserts the two cases involve disparate questions of fact, which are unique to each case. The resolution of one in either case will not automatically resolve any question in the other case. Defendant contends case law counsels trial courts to avoid this precise situation.
As such, Defendant asserts, contrary to Plaintiffs position, the factual and legal
. 3

showing Mr. Higgins must make is vastly different from the evidence Plaintiff must present. Defendant contends these profound differences, coupled with the other attendant factual differences requires denial of consolidation.
Furthermore, Defendant maintains consolidation will result in unfair prejudice to it. Plaintiff's claim is being prosecuted by the EEOC, who declined to pursue Mr. Higgin's claim, consolidation of the two cases will give the appearance that the EEOC was placing its imprimatur on both cases. Additionally, Defendant asserts prejudice will result from a single jury being forced to decipher what evidence is relevant to both the separate claims and separate cases.
However, Defendant contends prejudice will not result if consolidation does not occur. Plaintiff's concern that inconsistent verdicts may be reached by two separate juries is unfounded as the prima facie elements for the claims in each case are entirely different. Moreover, Defendant opines there is no appreciable gain in judicial economy or greater convenience to the parties or witnesses. While some witnesses may be called in both cases, the scope of the testimony will be different because of the differences in the underlying facts and law.
Upon consideration of the arguments advanced by the parties, consolidation of the cases for discovery is appropriate. This will allow the parties and counsel to conduct discovery in as efficient a manner as possible. However, at this time, the Court is unwilling to consolidate the cases for trial. Instead, the Court believes this issue is better resolved upon completion of discovery. The completion of discovery will allow the Court a more developed and accurate understanding of the related factual issues, which witnesses will testify in both actions and how their testimony mayor may not be
4

related to each action. Moreover, the Court will be better able to determine what prejudice, if any, may result to Defendant if the matters are consolidated for trial. Accordingly, Plaintiff may, if she chooses, again raise the issue of consolidation at that time.
Therefore, the April 4, 2004 Motion of Plaintiff for Consolidation of Actions (Doc. 18) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
IT IS SO ORDERED. MIC AEL H. WATSON, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5

 
 U.S. District Court Southern District of Ohio (Cincinnati) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:03−cv−00662−MRB

CLOSED

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Jeff Wyler Chevrolet Assigned to: Judge Michael R. Barrett related Case: 1:04−cv−00084−MRB Cause: 42:1981 Sex Discrimination
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 09/25/2003 Date Terminated: 04/05/2007 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by C Larry Watson Equal Employment Opportunity Commission AJC Federal Office Building Suite 3001 1240 East Ninth Street Cleveland, OH 44199 216−522−7455 Fax: FAX−522−7430 Email: larry.watson@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John DeVore Sargent 660 West Second Street Suite 850 Cleveland, OH 44113−1412 216/522−7438 Fax: 216−522−7430 Email: john.sargent@eeoc.gov TERMINATED: 05/17/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Solvita A McMillan Equal Employment Opportunity Commission AJC Federal Office Building 1240 East Ninth Street Cleveland, OH 44199 216−522−7676 Email: solvita.mcmillan@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Intervenor Plaintiff Patricia S. Cameron−Lytle

represented by Bruce H Meizlish Meizlish &Grayson − 1 830 Main Street Suite 999 Cincinnati, OH 45202 513−345−4700 Email: brucelaw@fuse.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Deborah R Grayson Meizlish &Grayson − 1 830 Main Street Suite 999

Intervenor Plaintiff Sha'quila Mathews
Intervenor Plaintiff Bonnie Finns
V. Defendant Jeff Wyler Chevrolet formerly known as Jeff Wyler Eastgate Inc

Cincinnati, OH 45202 513−345−4700 Fax: 513−345−4703 Email: drgrayson@fuse.net ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Bruce H Meizlish (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Deborah R Grayson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Bruce H Meizlish (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Deborah R Grayson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Denise A Robinson Dinsmore &Shohl − 1 1900 Chemed Center 255 E 5th Street Cincinnati, OH 45202 513−977−8200 Fax: 513−977−8163 Email: denise.robinson@dinslaw.com TERMINATED: 01/07/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Donald Wayne White Nichols, Speidel &Nichols − 1 237 Main Street Batavia, OH 45103 513−732−1420 Fax: 513−732−1420 Email: dww.nicholslaw@fuse.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Wesley Hawkins Dinsmore &Shohl − 1 1900 Chemed Center 255 E 5th Street Cincinnati, OH 45202 513−977−8200 Email: michael.hawkins@dinslaw.com TERMINATED: 01/07/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY

Defendant Jeff Wyler Automotive Family, Inc.
Defendant Jeff Wyler Colerain, Inc.
Defendant Jeff Wyler Fairfield, Inc.
Defendant Jeff Wyler Hillcrest, Inc.
Defendant Jeff Wyler Springfield, Inc.
Defendant

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott A Carroll Vorys Sater Seymour and Pease LLP Atrium Two 221 E Fourth Street Suite 2000 Cincinnati, OH 45201−0236 513−723−4000 Fax: 513−723−4056 Email: sacarroll@vssp.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William Breck Weigel Vorys Sater Seymour &Pease − 1 Atrium Two 221 E Fourth Street Suite 2100 Cincinnati, OH 45201−0236 513−723−4000 Email: wbweigel@vssp.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kent Allen Britt Vorys Sater Seymour &Pease − 1 221 E Fourth Street Suite 2100 Cincinnati, OH 45201−0236 513−723−4000 Fax: 513−723−4054 Email: kabritt@vssp.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Kent Allen Britt (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Kent Allen Britt (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Kent Allen Britt (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Kent Allen Britt (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Kent Allen Britt (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jeff Wyler Trotwood, Inc.
Defendant Jeff Wyler Alexandria, Inc.
Defendant Jeff Wyler Florence, Inc.
Defendant Jeff Wyler Ft. Thomas, Inc.
Defendant Jeff Wyler Clarksville, Inc.
ThirdParty Plaintiff Patricia S. Cameron−Lytle

represented by Kent Allen Britt (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Kent Allen Britt (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Kent Allen Britt (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Kent Allen Britt (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Kent Allen Britt (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Bruce H Meizlish (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Deborah R Grayson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. ThirdParty Defendant Jeff Wyler Chevrolet

represented by Kent Allen Britt (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 09/25/2003
10/06/2003 10/07/2003
10/07/2003
10/16/2003

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT and Jury Demand. Filing fee not required. (TSH)(ah, ) Additional attachment # 1 Civil Cover Sheet. Additional attachment # 2 Corrected Signature Page added on 10/14/2003 (ph, ). Modified on 10/14/2003 (ph, ). (Entered: 09/25/2003)
2 NOTICE of Placement in CM/ECF Docketing System. (art, ) (Entered: 10/06/2003)
3 AMENDED COMPLAINT against Jeff Wyler Chevrolet, filed by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Defendant Jeff Wyler Chevrolet.(Sargent, John) (Entered: 10/07/2003)
4 SCHEDULING ORDER: Joint Litigation Plan and Proposed Scheduling Order due on 12/22/03. Case Scheduled for a Preliminary Pretrial Conference on 1/23/04 at 9AM.. Signed by Judge Herman J. Weber on 10/7/03. (do, ) (Entered: 10/07/2003)
5 MOTION to Intervene. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support # 2 Complaint)(Grayson, Deborah) Modified on 10/21/2003 (ph, ). (Entered: 10/16/2003)

10/20/2003 11/26/2003 11/26/2003 12/02/2003 12/19/2003 12/23/2003
01/06/2004 01/07/2004 01/16/2004 01/28/2004 02/19/2004 02/20/2004
03/11/2004
04/02/2004 04/16/2004
04/26/2004
05/07/2004
05/17/2004 06/18/2004 06/28/2004 07/30/2004

6 NOTICE of Appearance by Denise A Robinson, Michael Wesley Hawkins Defendant Jeff Wyler Chevrolet (ph, ) (Entered: 10/21/2003)
Remark: Per t/c with atty Robinson − Jt. Plan deadline extended to 1/5/04. (do, ) (Entered: 11/26/2003)
7 STIPULATION AND ORDER: Defendant's Responsive Pleading to be filed by 12/19/03. Signed by Judge Herman J. Weber on 11/26/03. (do, ) (Entered: 11/26/2003)
8 NOTICE of Appearance by Solvita A McMillan Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (McMillan, Solvita) (Entered: 12/02/2003)
9 ANSWER to Amended Complaint by Defendant Jeff Wyler Chevrolet.(Robinson, Denise) (Entered: 12/19/2003)
10 ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case referred to the Clerk of Courts for reassignment. Judge Herman J. Weber no longer assigned to case. Signed by Judge Herman J. Weber on 12/23/03. (do, ) (Entered: 12/23/2003)
11 NOTICE REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to Judge Susan J. Dlott for all further proceedings. (wam, ) (Entered: 01/06/2004)
12 NOTICE by Defendant Jeff Wyler Chevrolet Substition of Counsel (Weigel, Breck) (Entered: 01/07/2004)
13 ORDER: Rule 26 Discovery Plan due by 2/13/2004. Signed by Judge Susan J. Dlott on 1/16/04. (ss, ) (Entered: 01/16/2004)
14 RULE 26(f) REPORT and Joint Litigation Plan by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (McMillan, Solvita) (Entered: 01/28/2004)
15 ORDER granting 5 Motion to Intervene . Signed by Judge Susan J. Dlott on 2/18/04. (ss, ) (Entered: 02/19/2004)
16 THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT against Jeff Wyler Chevrolet, filed by Intervenor Plaintiff Patricia S. Cameron−Lytle, Defendant Jeff Wyler Chevrolet.(Grayson, Deborah) (Entered: 02/20/2004)
17 PRETRIAL ORDER: Plaintiff Primary Expert due by 10/22/2004. Defendant Primary Expert due by 11/19/2004. Discovery due by 2/1/2005. Motions not directed to pleadings due by 4/1/2005. Settlement Conference set for 2/4/2005 10:00 AM in chambers before Susan J. Dlott. Signed by Judge Susan J. Dlott on 3/11/04. (ss, ) (Entered: 03/11/2004)
18 MOTION to Consolidate Cases by Intervenor Plaintiff Patricia S. Cameron−Lytle. (Attachments: # 1)(Grayson, Deborah) (Entered: 04/02/2004)
19 ANSWER to Third Party Complaint /Intervening Complaint by Defendant Jeff Wyler Chevrolet, ThirdParty Defendant Jeff Wyler Chevrolet.(Britt, Kent) (Entered: 04/16/2004)
20 RESPONSE in Opposition re 18 MOTION to Consolidate Cases filed by Defendant Jeff Wyler Chevrolet. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A through E)(Carroll, Scott) (Entered: 04/26/2004)
21 REPLY to Response to Motion re 18 MOTION to Consolidate Cases filed by Intervenor Plaintiff Patricia S. Cameron−Lytle. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Bruce H. Meizlish)(Grayson, Deborah) (Entered: 05/07/2004)
22 NOTICE by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Withdrawal of Counsel (Sargent, John) (Entered: 05/17/2004)
23 STIPULATION to modification to Joint Litigation Plan and Scheduling Order by Defendant Jeff Wyler Chevrolet. (Britt, Kent) (Entered: 06/18/2004)
24 ORDER approving re 23 Stipulation filed by Jeff Wyler Chevrolet. Signed by Judge Susan J. Dlott on 6/24/04. (ss, ) (Entered: 06/28/2004)
25 MOTION for Leave to File Amended Complaint and Jury Demand by Intervenor Plaintiff Patricia S. Cameron−Lytle. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Amended

07/30/2004
08/06/2004 08/06/2004 08/09/2004
08/09/2004
09/15/2004 09/15/2004 09/15/2004 09/15/2004 09/15/2004
09/15/2004 09/15/2004 09/15/2004 09/15/2004 09/15/2004 09/15/2004 09/16/2004
09/23/2004 09/23/2004
09/29/2004

Complaint)(Grayson, Deborah) (Entered: 07/30/2004)
26 MOTION for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Plaintiff EEOC's Second Amended Complaint)(McMillan, Solvita) (Entered: 07/30/2004)
27 ORDER granting 26 Motion for Leave to File amended complaint (EEOC). Signed by Judge Susan J. Dlott on 8/5/04. (ss, ) (Entered: 08/06/2004)
28 ORDER granting 25 Motion for Leave to File amended complaint (Cameron−Lytle). Signed by Judge Susan J. Dlott on 8/5/04. (ss, ) (Entered: 08/06/2004)
29 AMENDED COMPLAINT against Jeff Wyler Chevrolet, filed by Intervenor Plaintiff Patricia S. Cameron−Lytle, Defendant Jeff Wyler Chevrolet.(Grayson, Deborah) (Entered: 08/09/2004)
30 AMENDED COMPLAINT and Jury Demand against Jeff Wyler Chevrolet, filed by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Defendant Jeff Wyler Chevrolet.(McMillan, Solvita) (Entered: 08/09/2004)
31 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed: Jeff Wyler Chevrolet waiver sent on 8/9/2004, answer due 10/8/2004. (Grayson, Deborah) (Entered: 09/15/2004)
32 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed: Jeff Wyler Colerain, Inc. waiver sent on 8/9/2004, answer due 10/8/2004. (Grayson, Deborah) (Entered: 09/15/2004)
33 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed: Jeff Wyler Hillcrest, Inc. waiver sent on 8/9/2004, answer due 10/8/2004. (Grayson, Deborah) (Entered: 09/15/2004)
34 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed: Jeff Wyler Springfield, Inc. waiver sent on 8/9/2004, answer due 10/8/2004. (Grayson, Deborah) (Entered: 09/15/2004)
35 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed: Jeff Wyler Automotive Family, Inc. waiver sent on 8/9/2004, answer due 10/8/2004. (Grayson, Deborah) (Entered: 09/15/2004)
36 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed: Jeff Wyler Fairfield, Inc. waiver sent on 8/9/2004, answer due 10/8/2004. (Grayson, Deborah) (Entered: 09/15/2004)
37 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed: Jeff Wyler Trotwood, Inc. waiver sent on 8/9/2004, answer due 10/8/2004. (Grayson, Deborah) (Entered: 09/15/2004)
38 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed: Jeff Wyler Ft. Thomas, Inc. waiver sent on 8/9/2004, answer due 10/8/2004. (Grayson, Deborah) (Entered: 09/15/2004)
39 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed: Jeff Wyler Florence, Inc. waiver sent on 8/9/2004, answer due 10/8/2004. (Grayson, Deborah) (Entered: 09/15/2004)
40 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed: Jeff Wyler Alexandria, Inc. waiver sent on 8/9/2004, answer due 10/8/2004. (Grayson, Deborah) (Entered: 09/15/2004)
41 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed: Jeff Wyler Clarksville, Inc. waiver sent on 8/9/2004, answer due 10/8/2004. (Grayson, Deborah) (Entered: 09/15/2004)
42 MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Memorandum in Opposition to Intervening−Plaintiff Patricia Cameron−Lytle's Motion to Consolidate by Defendant Jeff Wyler Chevrolet. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Britt, Kent) (Entered: 09/16/2004)
43 ORDER granting 42 Motion for Leave to File supplemental memorandum. Signed by Judge Susan J. Dlott on 9/21/04. (ss, ) (Entered: 09/23/2004)
44 Supplemental Memorandum Opposing re 18 MOTION to Consolidate Cases filed by Defendants Jeff Wyler Chevrolet, Jeff Wyler Chevrolet, Third Party Defendants Jeff Wyler Chevrolet, Jeff Wyler Chevrolet. (Britt, Kent) (Entered: 09/23/2004)
45 RESPONSE in Support re 18 MOTION to Consolidate Cases , Plaintiff's Response to Defendant Jeff Wyler Eastgate's Supplemental Memorandum filed by ThirdParty Plaintiff Patricia S. Cameron−Lytle. (Grayson, Deborah) (Entered: 09/29/2004)

10/04/2004 10/06/2004
10/08/2004 10/08/2004 10/08/2004 10/08/2004 10/15/2004 10/22/2004
10/27/2004
11/04/2004 11/05/2004

46 ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to Judge Michael H. Watson for all further proceedings. Judge Susan J. Dlott no longer assigned to case (wam, ) (Entered: 10/04/2004)
47 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed: Jeff Wyler Alexandria, Inc. waiver sent on 8/9/2004, answer due 10/8/2004; Jeff Wyler Automotive Family, Inc. waiver sent on 8/9/2004, answer due 10/8/2004; Jeff Wyler Chevrolet waiver sent on 8/9/2004, answer due 10/8/2004; Jeff Wyler Clarksville, Inc. waiver sent on 8/9/2004, answer due 10/8/2004; Jeff Wyler Colerain, Inc. waiver sent on 8/9/2004, answer due 10/8/2004; Jeff Wyler Fairfield, Inc. waiver sent on 8/9/2004, answer due 10/8/2004; Jeff Wyler Florence, Inc. waiver sent on 8/9/2004, answer due 10/8/2004; Jeff Wyler Ft. Thomas, Inc. waiver sent on 8/9/2004, answer due 10/8/2004; Jeff Wyler Hillcrest, Inc. waiver sent on 8/9/2004, answer due 10/8/2004; Jeff Wyler Springfield, Inc. waiver sent on 8/9/2004, answer due 10/8/2004; Jeff Wyler Trotwood, Inc. waiver sent on 8/9/2004, answer due 10/8/2004. (ph, ) (Entered: 10/07/2004)
48 MOTION to Dismiss The EEOC'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT by Defendants Jeff Wyler Alexandria, Inc., Jeff Wyler Automotive Family, Inc., Jeff Wyler Clarksville, Inc., Jeff Wyler Colerain, Inc., Jeff Wyler Fairfield, Inc., Jeff Wyler Florence, Inc., Jeff Wyler Ft. Thomas, Inc., Jeff Wyler Hillcrest, Inc., Jeff Wyler Springfield, Inc., Jeff Wyler Trotwood, Inc.. Responses due by 11/1/2004 (Britt, Kent) (Entered: 10/08/2004)
49 MOTION to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint of Patricia Cameron−Lytle, Sha'quila Mathews and Bonnie Finns by Defendants Jeff Wyler Alexandria, Inc., Jeff Wyler Automotive Family, Inc., Jeff Wyler Clarksville, Inc., Jeff Wyler Colerain, Inc., Jeff Wyler Fairfield, Inc., Jeff Wyler Florence, Inc., Jeff Wyler Ft. Thomas, Inc., Jeff Wyler Hillcrest, Inc., Jeff Wyler Springfield, Inc., Jeff Wyler Trotwood, Inc.. Responses due by 11/1/2004 (Britt, Kent) (Entered: 10/08/2004)
50 MOTION to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint of Plaintiffs Patricia Cameron−Lytle, Sha'quila Mathews and Bonnies Finns by Defendant Jeff Wyler Chevrolet, ThirdParty Defendant Jeff Wyler Chevrolet. Responses due by 11/1/2004 (Britt, Kent) (Entered: 10/08/2004)
51 ANSWER to Amended Complaint of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission by Defendant Jeff Wyler Chevrolet, ThirdParty Defendant Jeff Wyler Chevrolet.(Britt, Kent) (Entered: 10/08/2004)
52 ORDER to file status report. Signed by Judge Michael H. Watson on 10/14/04. (mhw1,dtg) (Entered: 10/15/2004)
53 STATUS REPORT by Intervenor Plaintiffs Patricia S. Cameron−Lytle, Bonnie Finns, Sha'quila Mathews, ThirdParty Plaintiff Patricia S. Cameron−Lytle, Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Defendants Jeff Wyler Alexandria, Inc., Jeff Wyler Automotive Family, Inc., Jeff Wyler Chevrolet, Jeff Wyler Clarksville, Inc., Jeff Wyler Colerain, Inc., Jeff Wyler Fairfield, Inc., Jeff Wyler Florence, Inc., Jeff Wyler Ft. Thomas, Inc., Jeff Wyler Hillcrest, Inc., Jeff Wyler Springfield, Inc., Jeff Wyler Trotwood, Inc., ThirdParty Defendant Jeff Wyler Chevrolet. (Britt, Kent) (Entered: 10/22/2004)
54 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 48 MOTION to Dismiss The EEOC'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT, 49 MOTION to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint of Patricia Cameron−Lytle, Sha'quila Mathews and Bonnie Finns, 50 MOTION to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint of Plaintiffs Patricia Cameron−Lytle, Sha'quila Mathews and Bonnies Finns New date requested 11/5/2004. on behalf of Plaintiffs by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (McMillan, Solvita) (Entered: 10/27/2004)
55 ORDER granting 54 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 48 MOTION to Dismiss The EEOC'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT, 50 MOTION to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint of Plaintiffs Patricia Cameron−Lytle, Sha'quila Mathews and Bonnies Finns ; Responses due by 11/5/2004 (ba, ) (Entered: 11/04/2004)
56 RESPONSE in Opposition re 50 MOTION to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint of Patricia Cameron−Lytle, Sha'quila Mathews and Bonnie Finns filed by Intervenor Plaintiff Patricia S. Cameron−Lytle. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Bruce H. Meizlish

11/05/2004 11/05/2004 11/17/2004
11/23/2004 12/16/2004 12/16/2004
12/16/2004
02/01/2005 02/04/2005 02/16/2005 02/16/2005

# 2Exhibit A # 3 Exhibit B # 4Exhibit C # 5Exhibit D # 6Exhibit E)(Grayson, Deborah) Modified on 11/8/2004 (ph, ). Modified on 11/8/2004 (ph, ). (Entered: 11/05/2004)
57 RESPONSE in Opposition re 49 MOTION to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint of Patricia Cameron−Lytle, Sha'quila Mathews and Bonnie Finns filed by Intervenor Plaintiff Patricia S. Cameron−Lytle. (Grayson, Deborah) (Entered: 11/05/2004)
58 RESPONSE in Opposition re 48 MOTION to Dismiss The EEOC'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT filed by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration of Sheila Siklo# 2 Affidavit Declaration of James R. Neely, Jr.)(McMillan, Solvita) (Entered: 11/05/2004)
59 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 50 MOTION to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint of Plaintiffs Patricia Cameron−Lytle, Sha'quila Mathews and Bonnies Finns, 48 MOTION to Dismiss The EEOC'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT, 49 MOTION to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint of Patricia Cameron−Lytle, Sha'quila Mathews and Bonnie Finns New date requested 12/17/2004. by Defendants Jeff Wyler Chevrolet, Jeff Wyler Chevrolet, Jeff Wyler Chevrolet, Jeff Wyler Automotive Family, Inc., Jeff Wyler Colerain, Inc., Jeff Wyler Fairfield, Inc., Jeff Wyler Hillcrest, Inc., Jeff Wyler Springfield, Inc., Jeff Wyler Trotwood, Inc., Jeff Wyler Alexandria, Inc., Jeff Wyler Florence, Inc., Jeff Wyler Ft. Thomas, Inc., Jeff Wyler Clarksville, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Order Granting Unopposed Motion for Additional Time)(Britt, Kent) (Entered: 11/17/2004)
60 ORDER granting Defendants' 59 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply memoranda in support of their motions to dismiss; Replies due by 12/17/2004. (ba, ) (Entered: 11/23/2004)
61 REPLY to Response to Motion re 50 MOTION to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint of Plaintiffs Patricia Cameron−Lytle, Sha'quila Mathews and Bonnies Finns filed by ThirdParty Defendant Jeff Wyler Chevrolet. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Britt, Kent) (Entered: 12/16/2004)
62 REPLY to Response to Motion re 48 MOTION to Dismiss The EEOC'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT filed by Defendants Jeff Wyler Colerain, Inc., Jeff Wyler Fairfield, Inc., Jeff Wyler Hillcrest, Inc., Jeff Wyler Springfield, Inc., Jeff Wyler Trotwood, Inc., Jeff Wyler Alexandria, Inc., Jeff Wyler Florence, Inc., Jeff Wyler Ft. Thomas, Inc., Jeff Wyler Clarksville, Inc., Jeff Wyler Automotive Family, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit # 2 Exhibit)(Britt, Kent) (Entered: 12/16/2004)
63 REPLY to Response to Motion re 49 MOTION to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint of Patricia Cameron−Lytle, Sha'quila Mathews and Bonnie Finns filed by Defendants Jeff Wyler Colerain, Inc., Jeff Wyler Fairfield, Inc., Jeff Wyler Hillcrest, Inc., Jeff Wyler Springfield, Inc., Jeff Wyler Trotwood, Inc., Jeff Wyler Alexandria, Inc., Jeff Wyler Florence, Inc., Jeff Wyler Ft. Thomas, Inc., Jeff Wyler Clarksville, Inc., Jeff Wyler Automotive Family, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit # 2 Exhibit)(Britt, Kent) (Entered: 12/16/2004)
64 NOTICE of Hearing: Scheduling Conference set for 2/16/2005 at 10:30 AM in Room 740 before Michael H. Watson. (ba, ) (Entered: 02/01/2005)
65 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 18 Motion to Consolidate Cases; the Court is unwilling to consolidate the cases for trial at this time, however, will consolidate this matter for discovery purposes only (ba, ) (Entered: 02/04/2005)
66 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Michael H. Watson : Scheduling Conference held on 2/16/2005. Calendar order to follow (ba, ) (Entered: 02/16/2005)
67 SCHEDULING ORDER: Final Pretrial Conference set for 6/8/2006 at 11:00 AM in Room 740 before Michael H. Watson. Telephonic Status Conference set for 3/4/2005 10:00 AM before Michael H. Watson. Parties shall initate contact with the Court by calling 614−719−3280 five minutes prior to 10:00 am. Jury Trial set for 7/11/2006 at 09:30 AM before Michael H. Watson, courtroom to be determined. (ba, ) (Entered: 02/16/2005)

03/21/2005 05/20/2005 05/24/2005 01/09/2006 01/31/2006 02/13/2006
02/13/2006 05/15/2006
05/17/2006
05/25/2006
05/26/2006

68 STATUS REPORT ORDER: The status conference scheduled for 3/18/05 has been vacated; parties have indicated they are very near settlement; Counsel shall report to the court jointly in 60 days of their status toward settlement: Status Report due by 5/21/2005.(ba, ) (Entered: 03/21/2005)
69 STATUS REPORT Joint Status Report by Intervenor Plaintiff Patricia S. Cameron−Lytle. (Grayson, Deborah) (Entered: 05/20/2005)
70 STATUS REPORT ORDER: Status Report due by 6/30/2005. Discovery is also stayed. Should the parties not resolve the matter they are to contact the Court to indicate whether additional time is needed or whether they will be proceeding with discovery. (ba, ) (Entered: 05/24/2005)
71 ORDER DENYING 48 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss EEOC's Second Amended Complaint; DENYING 49 New Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint of Intervenor Plaintiffs; and DENYING 50 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Michael H. Watson on 01/09/06. (dms) (Entered: 01/09/2006)
72 NOTICE of Hearing: Status Conference by telephone set for 2/13/2006 at 09:00 AM before Michael H. Watson; parties are reminded to initiate contact with the Court by calling 614−719−3280 five minutes prior to 9:00 am. (ba, ) (Entered: 01/31/2006)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Michael H. Watson: Status Conference held on 2/13/2006. Bruce Meizlish, Deborah Grayson and Solvita McMillan present for Plaintiffs; and Breck Weigel and Scott Carroll present for Defendants. Parties have agreed to private mediation. First session to occur on April 5 and second session to occur prior to May 15, when a written status report is due to the Court. (For Statistical Purposes Only: 15 minutes) (Court Reporter n/a.) (kw, ) (Court Reporter n/a.) (kw, ) (Entered: 02/13/2006)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Status Report due by 5/15/2006. (ba, ) (Entered: 02/13/2006)
73 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time New date requested 5/26/2006. by Defendants Jeff Wyler Colerain, Inc., Jeff Wyler Fairfield, Inc., Jeff Wyler Hillcrest, Inc., Jeff Wyler Springfield, Inc., Jeff Wyler Trotwood, Inc., Jeff Wyler Alexandria, Inc., Jeff Wyler Florence, Inc., Jeff Wyler Ft. Thomas, Inc., Jeff Wyler Clarksville, Inc., Jeff Wyler Chevrolet, Jeff Wyler Chevrolet, Jeff Wyler Automotive Family, Inc., Intervenor Plaintiffs Patricia S. Cameron−Lytle, Sha'quila Mathews, Bonnie Finns, Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, ThirdParty Plaintiff Patricia S. Cameron−Lytle, ThirdParty Defendant Jeff Wyler Chevrolet. (Britt, Kent) (Entered: 05/15/2006)
74 ORDER granting 73 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to file Status Report filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Jeff Wyler Chevrolet, Patricia S. Cameron−Lytle, Sha'quila Mathews, Bonnie Finns, Jeff Wyler Colerain, Inc., Jeff Wyler Fairfield, Inc., Jeff Wyler Hillcrest, Inc., Jeff Wyler Springfield, Inc., Jeff Wyler Trotwood, Inc., Jeff Wyler Alexandria, Inc., Jeff Wyler Florence, Inc., Jeff Wyler Ft. Thomas, Inc., Jeff Wyler Clarksville, Inc., Jeff Wyler Automotive Family, Inc.; Status Report due by 5/26/2006. Signed by Judge Michael H. Watson on 5/17/2006. (ba, ) (Entered: 05/17/2006)
75 STATUS REPORT by Defendants Jeff Wyler Colerain, Inc., Jeff Wyler Fairfield, Inc., Jeff Wyler Hillcrest, Inc., Jeff Wyler Springfield, Inc., Jeff Wyler Trotwood, Inc., Jeff Wyler Alexandria, Inc., Jeff Wyler Florence, Inc., Jeff Wyler Ft. Thomas, Inc., Jeff Wyler Clarksville, Inc., Jeff Wyler Chevrolet, Jeff Wyler Automotive Family, Inc., Intervenor Plaintiffs Patricia S. Cameron−Lytle, Sha'quila Mathews, Bonnie Finns, Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, ThirdParty Plaintiff Patricia S. Cameron−Lytle, ThirdParty Defendant Jeff Wyler Chevrolet. (Britt, Kent) (Entered: 05/25/2006)
76 ORDER re 75 Status Report filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Jeff Wyler Chevrolet, Patricia S. Cameron−Lytle, Sha'quila Mathews, Bonnie Finns, Jeff Wyler Colerain, Inc., Jeff Wyler Fairfield Inc., Jeff Wyler Hillcrest, Inc., Jeff Wyler Springfield, Inc., Jeff Wyler Trotwood, Inc., Jeff Wyler Alexandria, Inc., Jeff Wyler Florence, Inc., Jeff Wyler Ft. Thomas, Inc., Jeff Wyler Clarksville, Inc., Jeff Wyler Automotive Family, Inc; final pretrial conference &trial dates are vacated; Counsel to notify Court of mediation date before 10/31/2006 and to provide a report no later than

06/26/2006 10/31/2006
11/01/2006 11/01/2006 02/09/2007
02/14/2007 03/29/2007
04/02/2007 04/02/2007
04/05/2007

15 days following mediation. Signed by Judge Michael H. Watson on 5/26/2006. (ba, ) (Entered: 05/26/2006)
77 ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to Judge Michael R. Barrett for all further proceedings. Judge Michael H. Watson no longer assigned to case. Signed by Judge Michael H. Watson on 6/26/2006. (km, ) (Entered: 06/26/2006)
78 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time New date requested 2/1/2007. to Complete Mediation by Defendants Jeff Wyler Colerain, Inc., Jeff Wyler Fairfield, Inc., Jeff Wyler Hillcrest, Inc., Jeff Wyler Springfield, Inc., Jeff Wyler Trotwood, Inc., Jeff Wyler Alexandria, Inc., Jeff Wyler Florence, Inc., Jeff Wyler Ft. Thomas, Inc., Jeff Wyler Clarksville, Inc., Jeff Wyler Chevrolet, Jeff Wyler Chevrolet, Jeff Wyler Automotive Family, Inc., Intervenor Plaintiffs Patricia S. Cameron−Lytle, Sha'quila Mathews, Bonnie Finns, Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, ThirdParty Plaintiff Patricia S. Cameron−Lytle, ThirdParty Defendant Jeff Wyler Chevrolet. (Britt, Kent) (Entered: 10/31/2006)
79 ORDER granting 78 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Mediation until 2/1/2007; Parties shall file a status report no later than 2/9/2007. Signed by Judge Michael R. Barrett on 11/1/2006. (ba, ) (Entered: 11/01/2006)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Status Report due by 2/9/2007. (ba, ) (Entered: 11/01/2006)
80 STATUS REPORT by Defendants Jeff Wyler Colerain, Inc., Jeff Wyler Fairfield, Inc., Jeff Wyler Hillcrest, Inc., Jeff Wyler Springfield, Inc., Jeff Wyler Trotwood, Inc., Jeff Wyler Alexandria, Inc., Jeff Wyler Florence, Inc., Jeff Wyler Ft. Thomas, Inc., Jeff Wyler Clarksville, Inc., Jeff Wyler Chevrolet, Jeff Wyler Automotive Family, Inc., Intervenor Plaintiffs Patricia S. Cameron−Lytle, Sha'quila Mathews, Bonnie Finns, Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, ThirdParty Plaintiff Patricia S. Cameron−Lytle, ThirdParty Defendant Jeff Wyler Chevrolet. (Britt, Kent) (Entered: 02/09/2007)
81 STATUS REPORT ORDER; Joint Status Report or notice of dismissal due by 3/29/2007. Signed by Judge Michael R. Barrett on 2/14/2007. (ba, ) (Entered: 02/14/2007)
82 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time New date requested 4/2/2007. by Defendants Jeff Wyler Colerain, Inc., Jeff Wyler Fairfield, Inc., Jeff Wyler Hillcrest, Inc., Jeff Wyler Springfield, Inc., Jeff Wyler Trotwood, Inc., Jeff Wyler Alexandria, Inc., Jeff Wyler Florence, Inc., Jeff Wyler Ft. Thomas, Inc., Jeff Wyler Clarksville, Inc., Jeff Wyler Chevrolet, Jeff Wyler Chevrolet, Jeff Wyler Automotive Family, Inc., Intervenor Plaintiffs Patricia S. Cameron−Lytle, Sha'quila Mathews, Bonnie Finns, Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, ThirdParty Plaintiff Patricia S. Cameron−Lytle, ThirdParty Defendant Jeff Wyler Chevrolet. (Britt, Kent) (Entered: 03/29/2007)
83 ORDER granting 82 Motion for Extension of Time to complete settlement; Parties have until 4/2/2007 to file a notice of dismissal and until 4/6/2007 for a joint status report. Signed by Judge Michael R. Barrett on 4/2/2007. (ba, ) (Entered: 04/02/2007)
84 Joint MOTION to Approve Consent Decree by Defendants Jeff Wyler Colerain, Inc., Jeff Wyler Fairfield, Inc., Jeff Wyler Hillcrest, Inc., Jeff Wyler Springfield, Inc., Jeff Wyler Trotwood, Inc., Jeff Wyler Alexandria, Inc., Jeff Wyler Florence, Inc., Jeff Wyler Ft. Thomas, Inc., Jeff Wyler Clarksville, Inc., Jeff Wyler Chevrolet, Jeff Wyler Chevrolet, Jeff Wyler Automotive Family, Inc., Intervenor Plaintiffs Patricia S. Cameron−Lytle, Sha'quila Mathews, Bonnie Finns, Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, ThirdParty Plaintiff Patricia S. Cameron−Lytle, ThirdParty Defendant Jeff Wyler Chevrolet. (Attachments: # 1)(Britt, Kent) (Entered: 04/02/2007)
85 CONSENT (DECREE) JUDGMENT. Signed by Judge Michael R. Barrett on 4/5/2007. (ba, ) (Entered: 04/05/2007)

 
 EEOC Settles Sex Bias Suit Against Auto Dealer Jeff Wyler Eastgate, Inc...

http://www.eeoc.gov/press/4-5-07.html

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE April 5, 2007

CONTACT: TTY:

C. Larry Watson Associate Regional Attorney (216) 522-7455
Jacqueline McNair, Regional Attorney (215) 440-2666
Michelle Crew, Program Analyst (216) 522-7651 (216) 522-8441

EEOC SETTLES SEX BIAS SUIT AGAINST AUTO DEALER JEFF WYLER EASTGATE, INC. FOR $2.3 MILLION
Class of 39 Qualified Women Rejected for Sales Jobs will Share Monetary Relief
CINCINNATI – The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced today that it has resolved its lawsuit charging that Jeff Wyler Eastgate, Inc. and 10 additional Jeff Wyler-owned dealerships, acting as an integrated enterprise, discriminated against a class of qualified women on the basis of sex by refusing to hire them for automobile sales positions. The Jeff Wyler defendants have denied liability for the violations alleged in the EEOC’s complaint.
The lawsuit (Case No. 1:03CV622) filed on Sept. 25, 2003, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, provides $2.3 million to 39 class members who sought employment in automobile sales positions. The consent decree also provides for the hire of class members, to whom defendants will extend job offers. Other provisions include management accountability in the area of equal employment opportunity, manager training with respect to the anti-discrimination requirements of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, and reporting and monitoring provisions.
The case was resolved by consent decree in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division. The EEOC first attempted to voluntarily resolve the case without litigation.
EEOC Regional Attorney Jacqueline McNair said, "It is disturbing that women still face the barriers and stereotypes they faced 40 years ago when Title VII was enacted. We are pleased that the parties in this case reached an amicable resolution with important training and policy change provisions.”
The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.
This page was last modified on April 5, 2007.

Return to Home Page

1 of 1

6/12/2007 10:20 AM