Case 2:02-cv-02628-SLB Document 1 Filed 10/25/2002 Page 1 of 9

I"'· .

" ,. ("I ~'\

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

r FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABA~ (li'T 'j ,. I ~

2: 25 SOUTHERN DIVISION

(. l)\.1" ,

J

i I

~,

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff, v. KRAFT FOODS NORTH AMERICA, INC.,
Defendant.

)

\

)

CIVIL ACTION NO.

)

)

CV···02···I::···262B···8

)

)

COMPLAINT

)

WRY TRIAL DEMAND

)

)

)

-------------------------------)

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. This is an action brought under Title VII ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended,

to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of sex (male), and retaliation and to provide

appropriate relief to Victor T. Bates, Jimmy L. Cains, Matthew Crane, Thomas E. Engle, James

Lenyard, Stephen D. Ratlif, John Reese, Stanley E. Sigers, John Steve, Oliver W. Taylor, Dedric V.

Travis, Jessie D. Wilkerson, Dexter T. Williams, as well as all similarly situated male employees

who worked for Defendant or its predecessor primarily as route drivers or warehouse workers

(hereinafter collectively referred to as the "class"). As alleged with more particularity in paragraphs

11 through 34 below, the Defendant, through its officers, managers, and/or agents engaged in a

pattern or practice of sexual harassment and retaliation and subjected individual members of the

class to a sexually hostile environment and/or sexual harassment from at least 1995 through the

present. Defendant Kraft tolerated this ongoing sexually hostile environment. Certain members of

the class were also subjected to retaliation and further harassment after they complained of this

hostile and harassing conduct or opposed this hostile and harassing environment.

\

Case 2:02-cv-02628-SLB Document 1 Filed 10/25/2002 Page 2 of 9
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 2. Jurisdiction ofthis Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.c. § 451, l331, 1337, 1343 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to §§ 706(t)(1) and (3), and 707 ofTitle VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-5(t)(1) and (3) and 2000e-6, ("Title VII") and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981A. 3. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful herein were committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.
PARTIES 4. The Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "Commission"), is an agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement ofTitle VII, and is expressly authorized to bring this action by §§ 706(t)( 1) and (3) and 707 of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-5(t)(I) and (3) and -6. 5. Defendant, Kraft Foods North America, Inc., (the "Employer" or "Kraft") is the successor to Nabisco, Inc. ("Nabisco). Nabisco was acquired by Kraft Foods, Inc., on December 11,2000. Kraft Foods, Inc., changed its name to Kraft Foods North America, Inc., in 2001 and in that same year Nabisco, was merged into Kraft Foods North America, Inc. 6. Defendant Kraft, either independently or as successor to Nabisco, has continuously been a Delaware corporation doing business in the State of Alabama, and has continuously had at least fifteen employees. Defendant Kraft is a successor in liability to Nabisco. 7. At all relevant times, the Defendant Employer (either as Kraft or as Nabisco) has continuously been and is now an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of § 701(b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(b), (g) and (h).
2

Case 2:02-cv-02628-SLB Document 1 Filed 10/25/2002 Page 3 of 9
JURISDICTIONAL PREREOUISITES TO SUIT 8. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit one or more charges of discrimination were filed with the Commission against the Defendant Employer by Victor T. Bates, Jimmy L. Cains, Matthew Crane, Thomas E. Engle, James Lenyard, Stephen D. Ratliff, John Reese, Stanley E. Sigers, John Steve, Oliver W. Taylor, Dedric V. Travis, Jessie D. Wilkerson, and Dexter T. Williams, alleging violations of Title VII by the Defendant Employer. 9. The Commission conducted an investigation of each of these charges and issued a Determination or Amended Determination on these charges in which the Commission concluded that Defendant had discriminated against the class in violation of Title VII. 10. From at least October 4, 2001, through at least June 22, 2002, the Commission engaged in good faith efforts to eliminate the alleged unlawful employment practices identified in its Determinations or Amended Determination by informal methods ofconference, conciliation, and persuasion. These efforts were unsuccessful. 11. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled.
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 12. Since at least May, 1995, Defendant Kraft has engaged in a pattern and practice of unlawful employment practices at its facility in Birmingham, Alabama, in violation of §§ 703(a)(1), 704 (a), and 707 of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2(a)(1), 3(a) and 2000e-6. 13. These practices include, but are not limited to, engaging in intentional discrimination against Victor T. Bates, Jimmy L. Cains, Matthew Crane, Thomas E. Engle, James Lenyard, Stephen D. Ratlif, John Reese, Stanley E. Sigers, John Steve, Oliver W. Taylor, Dedric V. Travis, Jessie D. Wilkerson, Dexter T. Williams and a class ofmale employees by subjecting them to sexual and sex-
3

Case 2:02-cv-02628-SLB Document 1 Filed 10/25/2002 Page 4 of 9
based harassment and failing to take prompt remedial action intended to eliminate the harassment after Kraft became aware of the illegal behavior, all in continuing violation of Section 703(a) and Section 707 of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§2000e-2(a) and -6.
14. Defendant hired Edward Bailey as an employee in 1995. Soon thereafter Defendant Kraft promoted Mr. Bailey to the position of working leader or leadman.
15. As working leader or leadman, Mr. Bailey was responsible for making the daily route and truck assignments to drivers, conducted training of new employees and assigned work and overtime in the warehouse.
16. Mr. Bailey reported directly to department managers and supervisors of Defendant Kraft.
17. The department managers and supervisors to whom Mr. Bailey reported generally accepted his decisions with regard to work assignments and employee job performance.
18. The class members understood Mr. Bailey to have direct supervisory authority over them and that this authority came directly from the department managers and supervisors of Defendant Kraft.
19. From the beginning of Mr. Bailey's employment until his termination, members of the class were subjected to sexual comments, unwelcome touching, and sexually offensive gestures from Mr. Bailey. This behavior occurred on a daily basis and included conduct such as the following:
a. Mr. Bailey would stare at the genital areas of members of the class; b. Mr. Bailey would speculate out loud about the size of the genitalia of
members of the class;
4

Case 2:02-cv-02628-SLB Document 1 Filed 10/25/2002 Page 5 of 9

c. Mr. Bailey would approach members of the class from behind, would grab

their upper bodies or waist, and would simulate sexual intercourse by

thrusting his body into theirs;

d. Mr. Bailey would grab the genitals of members of the class;

e. Mr. Bailey openly addressed members of the class as "horse man", "mule

man", and "big dick man".

f.

Mr. Bailey would refer to members of the class as "baby", "sugar", and

"honey";

g. Mr. Bailey propositioned members of the class and offered money to

members of the class in exchange for permitting him to perform sexual acts

on said members.

h. On at least two occasions Mr. Bailey forcibly committed sexual acts upon

members of the class.

20. Mr. Bailey engaged in this unwelcome and sexually offensive conduct openly and

each member of the class was aware of the conduct directed at other members of the class.

21. As a result ofMr. Bailey's open and offensive conduct, various members ofthe class

adopted practices designed to isolate them from Mr. Bailey, including locking the main bathroom

door while they were using the facility so as to avoid Mr. Bailey staring at their genitals, making

sexual comments to them while they used the urinals, or peering over or under the stall doors while

they used the toilets.

22. Beginning at least as early as 1997 and continuing through at least December, 2000,

several members ofthe class, either individually or in groups, complained internally to Defendant's

5

Case 2:02-cv-02628-SLB Document 1 Filed 10/25/2002 Page 6 of 9
managers and supervisors regarding Mr. Bailey's unwelcome and offensive sexual behavior directed toward them. These complaints were met with inaction by the managers.
23. Defendant did not conduct an investigation into the conduct of Mr. Bailey until a formal charge ofdiscrimination was filed against it with the Commission. As a result ofthis belated investigation, the Defendant determined that Mr. Bailey had engaged in sexually harassing conduct in violation of Defendant's policy concerning sexual harassment in the workplace.
24. Despite this finding, Defendant allowed Mr. Bailey to return to his position as working leader or lead man over the same members of the class he had been harassing. While Defendant warned Mr. Bailey that he would be terminated if there was another breach of company policy concerning sexual harassment, Defendant did not act upon this warning.
25. Mr. Bailey returned to his sexually offensive conduct within two months of this warning. Defendant's managers and supervisor were aware of this recurrence of this sexually offensive conduct..
26. Mr. Bailey was not fired by Defendant until December 2000, nearly three years after the warning issued to him. During this three year period, Mr. Bailey continued to engage in unwelcome and sexually offensive conduct directed toward members of the class.
27. The Defendant Employer was negligent in discovering the alleged harassment and failed to take prompt and effective action to prevent and to remedy the hostile and harassing environment created by Mr. Bailey.
28. Defendant Employer failed to exercise reasonable care to prevent or correct promptly the alleged sexually harassing behavior.
29. Defendant, through both its actions and inactions, maintained a hostile work
6

Case 2:02-cv-02628-SLB Document 1 Filed 10/25/2002 Page 7 of 9
environment involving sexual harassment that was offensive to the members of the class. 30. Defendant, through its agents, subjected members ofthe class to adverse terms and
conditions of their employment after they rebuffed Mr. Bailey's advances, complained about Mr. Bailey's behavior, or opposed his conduct. This treatment included but was not limited to: being assigned to long, arduous delivery routes, denial of overtime opportunities, and being assigned to trucks in need of repair.
31. The practices complained of had the effect of unreasonably interfering with the work performance of members of the class by creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment and deprived the members of the class of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affected their status as employees because of their sex (male).
32 As a result ofDefendant's inaction, every work day members ofthe class feared that they would be the subject of Mr. Bailey's unwelcome sexual advances and conduct at work. This fear adversely affected the mental state of the members of the class, interfered with their abilities to perform their jobs and perpetuated the effect of Defendant's unwelcome and sexually hostile environment.
33. The unlawful employment practices complained of above comprise a pattern or practice of unlawful discrimination in violation of Title VII.
34. The unlawful employment practices complained of above were intentional, continuous, deliberate and in reckless disregard of the rights of the class.
35. The unlawful employment practices complained ofabove were done with malice or reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of the aggrieved parties.
7

Case 2:02-cv-02628-SLB Document 1 Filed 10/25/2002 Page 8 of 9
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining the Defendant Employer, its officers, successors, assigns and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in any employment practices which discriminate on the basis of sex and retaliation. B. Order Defendant Employer to institute and carry out policies, practices and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for the members of the class, and which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices, including implementing an efficacious sexual harassment policy. C. Order Defendant Employer to make whole the members of the class by providing appropriate back pay with prejudgment interest, in amounts to be determined at trial, and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices. D. Order Defendant Employer to make whole the members of the class by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses, in amounts to be determined at trial. E. Order Defendant Employer to make whole the members of the class by providing compensation for non-pecuniary losses, including emotional pain, suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, and humiliation, in amounts to be determined at trial. F. Order Defendant Employer to pay punitive damages to the members ofthe class in an amount to be determined at trial for its malicious or reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of the members of the class. G. Order Defendant Employer to reinstate, with full back pay and benefits, those members ofthe class who were terminated in retaliation for having opposed practices made unlawful
8

Case 2:02-cv-02628-SLB Document 1 Filed 10/25/2002 Page 9 of 9
by Title VII or who objected to the harassing conduct complained of in this Complaint. H. Award the members of the class their reasonable attorneys' fees. I. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper. J. Award the Commission its costs in this action. JURY TRIAL DEMAND The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its Complaint. Respectfully submitted, NICHOLAS M. INZEO Acting Deputy General Counsel GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Idred Byrd (LA No 03741) Supervisory Trial Attorney
~(3~,~
Debra Hawes Crook (ASB No. 6862R69D) Senior Trial Attorney EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 1130 22nd Street, South, Suite 2000 Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone Number: 205-731-1380 9

 
 Case 2:02-cv-02628-SLB Document 16 Filed 06/16/2003 Page 1 of 10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

}

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

}

}

Plaintiff,

}

}

vs.

}

}

KRAFT FOODS NORTH AMERICA, }

INC.,

}

}

Defendant.

}

CASE NO. CV 02-B-2628-S

ORDER

Currently before the court is a Motion to Enter Consent Decree and Final Judgment. The

court has reviewed the Consent Decree and finds that is an appropriate resolution of the action

and that the parties' motion is due to be granted. Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that the

attached Consent Decree be ENTERED as a FINAL ORDER AND JUDGMENT in this

matter with each party to bear his or its own costs and attorneys' fees in accordance with the

provisions of the Consent Decree.

DONE this the {'tt...day of June, 2003.

£~ ~tA P~Yc\o~
SHARON LOVELACE BLACKBURN
United States District Judge

 
 00,09/2003 11:13 FAX

N

JBPP

~\J\.I';'

Case 2:02-cv-02628-SLB Document 16 Filed 06/16/2003 Page 2 of 10

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALAR AMi..
SOUTHERN DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff,
VS.
KRAFT FOODS NORTH AMERICA, INC., Defendant.

)

)

)

)

Civil Action Number:

)

CV-02-B-2628-S

)

)

)

CONSEl'IT DECREE

)

)

)

)

)

On November 25, 2002, the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") filed suit in this Court against Kraft Foods North America, Inc. ("Kraft). The EEOC's Complaint alleged that Kraft had discriminated against male employees of the Birmingham, Alabama facility in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and the Civil Rights Act of 1991.
Specifically. the EEOC alleged that Nabisco, Inc., a predecessor company subsequently acquired by Kraft, had subjected its male employees at its Binningham, Alabama facility 10 sexual and sex-based harassment and that Nabisco failed to take prompt remedial action to eliminate this conduct after it became aware oftbe behavior. The EEOC also alleged that Kraft, through the conduct of Nabisco, retaliated against certain individuals at the Birmingham, Alabama facility who opposed this conduct.

JU~H19-2003 11: 31

97%

P.02

.JDrr
Case 2:02-cv-02628-SLB Document 16 Filed 06/16/2003 Page 3 of 10
Following the filing of the EEOC Complaint Kraft continued negotiations with the
individuals adversely affected by the conduct alleged in the EEOC's Complaint. Each of the
individuals identified by the EEOC in its Complaint are represented by separate counsel. As a
result of those negotiations, Kraft has reached contingent confidential settlement agreements 'With.
the following individuals:
Victor Bates Jinuny Lee Cains Matthew Crane Donald Deason Thomas Engle Marquis Gibbs James Lenyard Shennan Miller Stephen Ratliif John Reese Phillip Sellers Stanley Sigers John Steve Oliver Taylor Dedric Travis Jesse Wilkerson Dexter Williams
None of these indivjduals have moved to intervene in this proceeding. All but one of these
individuals is represented by the law fum of Whatley Drake.
While the specific terms of these agreements have not been revealed to the EEOC or to
this Court, the EEOC and the Court have been advised that the amounts being paid to these
individuals to settle these claims are substantial and that the individual claimants are willing 10
resolve their claims against Kraft on the terms set forth in these agreements. Kraft has also
agreed to pay to thes\! individuals attorney's fees and costs. Further, the Court has been advis('d

JUt~-09-2003 11: 31

2
97%

P.03

Oe / D9/20D3 11:13 FAX

l~

..Jl:)rr

Case 2:02-cv-02628-SLB Document 16 Filed 06/16/2003 Page 4 of 10

that Kraft offered to pay an additional sum of money to any individual who wished to leave th~ emp]oyment of KIaft 3.S part of this settlement. Some individuals have accepted this offer, whil!! others have not.

Each of these agreements is contingent upon Kraft reaching resolution with the EEOC as to its claim for relief.
The EEOC and Kraft have conferred and have advised the Court that they desire to resolve the instant controversy without the burden, expense, and delay of further litigation. By resolving this matter, Kraft does not admit liability as to the Plaintiff, the indjviduals named above, or to any employee or fonner employee of Kraft or Nabisco.
Now, therefore, without trial or adjudication of any issu~ of fact or law raised by the EEOC's Complaint, it is the finding of this Court that: 1) this Court has jurisdiction over th~ parties and the subject matter of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.c. §§ 451, l331, 1337, 1343, and 1345; 2) this Consent Decree conforms with the Federal Ru1es of Civil Procedure and is n01 in derogation of the rights and privileges of any person; and 3) the provisions of Title VlI and the Civil Rights Act of 1991 will be carried out by the implementation of this Decree and this Decree is entered into pursuant to said statutes and laws.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED THAT: 1) This Decree resolves only the factual claims asserted by the EEOC on behalf (,f
Victor Bates, Jimmy Lee Cains, Matthew Crane, Donald Deason, Thomas Engle, Marquis Gibb!;, James Lenyard, Sherman Miller, Stephen Ratliff, John Reese, Phillip Sellers, Stanley Siger:;, 101m Steve, Oliver Taylor, Dedric Travis, Jesse Wilkerson, and Dexter Williams. The relief

3

JU~~-09-2003 11: 31

97%

P.04

06/09/2003 11:14 tAA

~VV..J

Case 2:02-cv-02628-SLB Document 16 Filed 06/16/2003 Page 5 of 10

resolved by this Decree includes all claims for damages, injunctive relief, attorney's fees and costs made by these individuals but only these indjviduals.
2) The claims of individuals not specifically identified in paragraph 1, if any, shall not be affected by the terms of the Decree which applies only to Kraft's Birmingham, AlabamJ. facility.

3) Nothing in this Decree shall affect any other pending litigation or investigation between the parties unless expressly noted herein. Kraft has represented that it knows of no other individuals who have asserted claims relating to this matter other than those named above. Nothing in this Agreement shall preclude any party from bringing an action to enforce the term-; of this Decree; nor shall this Decree preclude future action by the EEOC or any other person to remedy any other violations of Title VII by Defendant.
4) The Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce this Consent Decree for purposes of insuring compliance with the Decree and entry of such further orders as may be necessary or proper to effectuate 1he pUI]Joses of the Decree. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Company of America, 511 U.S. 375. 114 S.Ct. 1673 (1994).
5) Within thirty (30) days of the entry of this Decree, Kraft shall submit a copy of its corporate policy with regard to sexual harassment in the workplace to the EEOC.
6) Within ninety (90) days of the entry of this Decree, Kraft shall develop and institute a comprehensive training program for non-supervisory employees of its Birmingham facility. The participants in this training shall be advised that this training is

JU~H39-213m 11 : 31

4

97%

P.135

06/09/2003 11:14 FAX

N

JI:H'I:'

'i!.:J ,",!..IU

Case 2:02-cv-02628-SLB Document 16 Filed 06/16/2003 Page 6 of 10

being provided to them as a result of the settlement of the claims made by the EEOC in this case.
This program shall cover at least the following topics: a) general EEO information; b) specific training on harassment issues; c) training on the right to a workplace free of harassment, including Kraft's anti-harassment policy; d) training on how to recognize harassment and how to respond to it;
e) training on the internal and external means for reporting harassment, including the process for filing charges with the EEOC, filing suit in court, and the filing of grievances pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement;
f) training as to the internal policies in place at Kraft to address harassment in the workplace, including the consequences to supervisors who fail to enforce or otherwise violate Kraft's anti-harassment policy.
g) training as to the consequences to supervisors and co-workers who engage in harassing conduct;
h) the protections available to employees who submit claims of workplace harassment
7) The training materials developed for use in the comprehensive training program called for by paragraph 6, above, as well as the qualifications of the individuals

JUN-09-2003 11: 31

5
97%

P.06

06/09/2uua 11:14 tAA

I'll

~VVI

Case 2:02-cv-02628-SLB Document 16 Filed 06/16/2003 Page 7 of 10

conducting the training, shall be subject to the approval of Whatley Drake and constructive comment by the EEOC. Kraft shall submit all training materials ancl information about the proposed trainers to Whatley Drake and the EEOC for review thirty (30) calendar days before the scheduled training. The EEOC and Whatley Drake shall have five (5) work days in which to comment on the proposed trainers ancl materials and, if necessary, suggest modifications. additions, or deletions. Copies of the materials used for the training shall be maintained by Kraft for no less than four (4) years from the date ofthe training.
8) Within six (6) months of the entry of this Decree, Kraft shall institute a comprehensive mandatory training program for all supervisory employees at the Birmingham facility. The participants in this training shall be advised that they are being required to attend this training as a result of the settlement of the claims made by the EEOC. This training program shall cover at least the following topics:

a) general EEO information; b) specific training on harassment issues; c) training on the right to a workplace free of harassment, including Kraft's antiharassment policy; d) training 011 how to recognize harassment and how to respond to it; e) training on the internal and external means for reporting harassment, including tht, process for filing charges with the EEOC, filing suit in court, and the filing of grievance~:

JUt,H39-2003 11: 31

6

97%

P.07

·06/09/2003 11:14 FAX

N

JBPP

J

l{!dUUI)

Case 2:02-cv-02628-SLB Document 16 Filed 06/16/2003 Page 8 of 10

pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement;

f)

training as to the internal policies in place at Kraft to address harassment in tht

workplace, including the consequences to supervisors who fail to enforce or otherwise violate

Kraft's anti-harassment poljcy;

g) the prohibition against retaliation against individuals who complain 0 f

harassment; 11) the procedure in effect to protect supervisors who report harassment from

retaliation.

9) The training materials developed for use in the comprehensive training program called for by paragraph 8, above, as well as the individuals conducting the training, shall be subject to the approval of Whatley Drake. Kraft shall submit all training materials and information about the proposed trainers to Whatley Drake for review thirty (30) calendar day:; before the scheduled training. Whatley Dral.::e shall have five (5) work days in which to comment on the proposed trainers and the materials and, ifneccssary, suggest modifications, additions, or deletions. A copy of the final training materials shall be submitted to the EEOC no later than ten
(10) days after the training is conducted. Kraft shall require all supervisors who attend tru:i
training to sign an attl'lldance sheet. Copies of such sheets, as well as the materials used for the training, shall be maintained by Kraft for no less than fOUl" (4) years from the date of the training.
10) Kraft will send to each of the individuals identified in paragraph 1 who. through counsel, request such, and to the EEOC a statement, Signed by a senior

JUN-09-2003 11: 31

7

97%

P.08

'06/09/2003 11:15 FAX

N

JBPP

J

Case 2:02-cv-02628-SLB Document 16 Filed 06/16/2003 Page 9 of 10

management official of Kraft, recognizing that they may have been offended by thE! alleged conduct of former Nabisco employees. This statement shall not be governed by any condition of confidentiality and there shall be no penalties imposed upon any individuals or agencies who make such statement public.
11) Kraft shall not retaliate against any person who participated in this lawsuit or in the investigation of charges which form the basis for the Complaint filed in this case.
12) Kraft shall not retaliate against any person who complains about or report!; harassment in the workplace.
13) If the terms and conditions of this Decree are violated or breached, the parties may petition the Court for further Orders, adjudication and relief in this matter.
14) Except as provided in the Agreements between Kraft and the individual claimants, each Party shall bear its own costs and attorney fees.
15) Upon the entry of this Agreement, Kraft shall finalize its agreements with the individuals identified in paragraph 1, above.

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF:

T:

~~E~~~~~~~

Charles E. Guerrier (OH-0023546)

arIes owell, I

Regional Attorney

Johnston, Barton, Proctor & Powell, L.L.P.

2900 AmSouth/Harbert Plaza

1901 Sixth Avenue North

Birmingham, AL 35203-2638

JUN-09-2003 11:31

8

98%

P.09

Case 2:02-cv-02628-SLB Document 16 Filed 06/16/2003 Page 10 of 10
'~Y
Debra Hawes Crook (AL-6862R69D) Senior Trial Attorney Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Rjdge Park Place 1130 2200 Street. South, Suite 2000 Birmingham, Alabama 05-2881
Whatley Drake 2323 211d Avenue North Birmingham, Alabama 35202-0647

JUN-09-2003 11 : 31

9
97%

P.10

 
 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court Northern District of Alabama - Docket R... https://ecf.alnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?788115220757344-L_9...

U.S. District Court Northern District of Alabama (Southern) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:02-cv-02628-SLB

CLOSED

EEOC v. Kraft Foods of North Assigned to: Chief Judge Sharon Lovelace Blackburn Demand: $0 Cause: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

Date Filed: 10/25/2002 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by Charles Guerrier EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Ridge Park Place, Suite 2000 1130 22nd Street South Birmingham, AL 35205 205-212-2044 Fax: 205-212-2041 Email: charles.guerrier@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Debra Hawes Crook EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Ridge Park Place, Suite 2000 1130 22nd Street, South Birmingham, AL 35205 205-212-2064 Fax: 205-212-2105 Email: debra.crook@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gwendolyn Young Reams EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 1801 L Street NW Washington, DC 20507 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mildred Byrd EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Ridge Park Place, Suite 2000 1130 22nd Street South Birmingham, AL 35205 205-212-2054 Fax: 205-212-2041

1 of 4

3/27/2007 11:45 AM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court Northern District of Alabama - Docket R... https://ecf.alnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?788115220757344-L_9...

V. Defendant Kraft Foods of North America Inc

Email: Mildred.Byrd@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nicholas M Inzeo EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 1801 L Street NW Washington, DC 20507 1-202-663-4639 fax Fax: 1-202-663-4639 fax ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles A Powell, III JOHNSTON BARTON PROCTOR & POWELL LLP AmSouth/Harbert Plaza, Suite 2900 1901 Sixth Avenue North Birmingham, AL 35203-2618 205-458-9449 Fax: 205-458-9500 Email: cap@jbpp.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth Barry Johnson JOHNSTON BARTON PROCTOR & POWELL LLP AmSouth Harbert Plaza, Suite 2900 1901 6th Avenue North Birmingham, AL 35203-2618 458-9400 Email: ebj@jbpp.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Heather F Lindsay JOHNSTON BARTON PROCTOR & POWELL LLP AmSouth Harbert Plaza, Suite 2900 1901 6th Avenue North Birmingham, AL 35203-2618 458-9400 Fax: 458-9500 fax Email: hfl@jbpp.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

2 of 4

3/27/2007 11:45 AM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court Northern District of Alabama - Docket R... https://ecf.alnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?788115220757344-L_9...

Date Filed 10/25/2002 01/06/2003 01/21/2003 03/05/2003 03/05/2003 03/07/2003 03/07/2003
03/21/2003 03/25/2003 04/09/2003 04/14/2003
04/15/2003
05/14/2003 06/04/2003 06/10/2003

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT filed, amount paid $ wv, (KAM) (Entered: 10/29/2002)
2 WAIVER of service of summons by defendant Kraft Foods of North filed 12/20/02 (KAM) Modified on 01/23/2003 (Entered: 01/07/2003)
3 MOTION by defendant Kraft Foods of North to dismiss , or, in the alternative for more definite statement filed cs (KAM) (Entered: 01/21/2003)
4 MOTION by plaintiff EEOC in limine re: substance of conciliation efforts filed cs (KAM) (Entered: 03/06/2003)
5 MOTION by defendant Kraft Foods of North for order for temporary relief from LR26.1 filed cs (KAM) (Entered: 03/06/2003)
6 ORDER -Parties DIRECTED to follow attached instructions regarding scheduling conferences ; Pretrial scheduling conf set for 3:00 4/20/03 filed ( by Judge Sharon L. Blackburn ) cm (MAA) (Entered: 03/07/2003)
7 ORDER granting motion for order for temporary relief from LR26.1 [5-1] parties are ORDERED to meet and file report of planning meeting by 3/25/03, denying motion to dismiss [3-1], denying motion for more definite statement [3-2] filed ( by Judge Sharon L. Blackburn ) cm (MAA) (Entered: 03/07/2003)
8 ANSWER by defendant Kraft Foods of North w/appear by atty(s) filed cs (KAM) (Entered: 03/21/2003)
9 Report of Parties (form 35) of compliance with FRCP 26 filed (KAM) (Entered: 03/26/2003)
10 ORDER ; Pretrial scheduling conf set for 1:30 4/14/03 filed ( by Judge Sharon L. Blackburn ) cm (KAM) (Entered: 04/09/2003)
11 4 - ORDER denying motion in limine re: substance of conciliation efforts [4-1] upon consideration of the Motion, the memoranda submitted in support of and in opposiiton to the motion, and the record herein, the court is of the opinion that this motion is due to be and hereby is DENIED (As noted during oral argument, dft's reply brief was submitted to the court's chambers and is currently not a filed document in the court's official case file ( by Judge Sharon L. Blackburn ) entered cm (KSS) (Entered: 04/15/2003)
12 ORDER this case is SET for a 16(b) scheduling conference at 10:00 a.m. on 5/27/03; the parties are DIRECTED to follow the attached instructions regarding scheduling conferences filed ( by Judge Sharon L. Blackburn ) cm (KSS) (Entered: 04/15/2003)
13 ORDER ; Pretrial scheduling conf set for 12:00 6/3/03 filed ( by Judge Sharon L. Blackburn ) cm (KAM) (Entered: 05/14/2003)
14 ORDER the 16(b) scheduling conf is hereby RESET at 11:30 a.m. on 6/24/03 filed ( by Judge Sharon L. Blackburn ) cm (KSS) (Entered: 06/04/2003)
15 MOTION by plaintiff EEOC, defendant Kraft Foods of North for order approving and entering consent decree and final judgment filed (KAM) (Entered:

3 of 4

3/27/2007 11:45 AM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court Northern District of Alabama - Docket R... https://ecf.alnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?788115220757344-L_9...

06/16/2003

06/11/2003)
16 ORDER granting motion for order approving and entering consent decree and final judgment [15-1]; the court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce this decree for pruposes of insuring compliance; if the the terms and conditions of the decree are violated or breached, the parties may petition the Court for further orders terminating case each party shall bear his own costs and atty fees in accordance with the provisions of the decree filed ( by Judge Sharon L. Blackburn ) cm (KAM) (Entered: 06/16/2003)

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

03/27/2007 11:44:57

PACER Login:

hs0328

Client Code:

Description:

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

Billable Pages: 2

Cost:

nniles 2:02-cv-02628-SLB 0.16

4 of 4

3/27/2007 11:45 AM

 
 EEOC SUES KRAFT FOODS NORTH AMERICA, INC. FOR SAME...

http://www.eeoc.gov/press/10-25-02.html

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Friday, October 25, 2002

CONTACT: TTY:

Cynthia G. Pierre (205) 731-1182 Charles E. Guerrier (205) 731-2067 (205) 731-0175

EEOC SUES KRAFT FOODS NORTH AMERICA, INC. FOR SAME-SEX HARASSMENT OF MEN

Suit Says Male Workers Were Groped, Propositioned, and Sexually Assaulted by Male Supervisor
BIRMINGHAM, Ala. - The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) today filed suit against global food giant Kraft Foods North America, Inc. and its subsidiary Nabisco, Inc. under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 on behalf of a class of male employees who were subjected to egregious same-sex harassment and retaliation by their male supervisor at a sales and distribution facility in Birmingham, Alabama. Kraft Foods, which recently acquired Nabisco in a merger, is based in Northfield, Illinois, and employs approximately 113,000 people worldwide.
The suit, EEOC v. Kraft Foods North America, Inc., filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Southern Division, charges Kraft with creating a sexually hostile work environment for male employees and retaliating against them for complaining about the harassment. In particular, the suit alleges that male employees were the subject of sexual comments, were propositioned for sex, were touched and grabbed, and were sexually assaulted by a Nabisco male supervisor.
The Commission seeks monetary damages for the male employees who were subjected to this conduct as well as certain equitable relief to make certain that this conduct does not recur. Under the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which amended Title VII, individuals are entitled to up to $300,000 each in compensatory and punitive damages - in addition to other relief - for egregious discrimination by large employers (those with 500 employees or more). The EEOC filed suit after exhausting its conciliation efforts to reach a voluntary pre-litigation settlement.
"The EEOC has long held that sexual harassment of men by men at work violates federal civil rights laws - a position that was affirmed by the Supreme Court in 1998," said Charles E. Guerrier, Regional Attorney for the federal Agency's Birmingham District Office, which filed the suit. "No person should be required to run a gauntlet of sexual abuse in return for the privilege of being allowed to work and make a living."
Sexual harassment charge filings with the EEOC by men have shown a steady increase over the years from 10% of all sexual harassment filings in Fiscal Year 1994 to nearly 14% of all such filings in FY 2001. The Commission does not statistically track same-sex, male-on-male, harassment charges because the agency does not track the sex of the alleged harasser. Nevertheless, anecdotal evidence shows that most sexual harassment allegations by men are against other men.
Cynthia Pierre, District Director of the EEOC's Birmingham office, said: "Employers have an obligation under the law to make certain that those whom they put in charge of the workplace do not create an offensive and sexually-charged environment for men or women. Additionally, when an employer learns of such unlawful conduct, that employer must take prompt and effective action to make certain that the harassment stops and the environment that fostered such harassment is dismantled. Failure to do so, will result in action by the EEOC."
In addition to enforcing Title VII, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin, EEOC enforces the Age Discrimination in Employment Act; the Equal Pay Act; Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits employment discrimination against people with disabilities in the private sector and state and local governments; prohibitions against discrimination affecting individuals with disabilities in the federal government; and sections of the Civil Rights Act of 1991. Further information about the Commission is available on the agency's Web site at www.eeoc.gov.

This page was last modified on November 1, 2002.

Return to Home Page

1 of 1

6/14/2007 3:23 PM