Case 5:01-cv-21105-RMW Document 26 Filed 02/14/2002 Page 1 of 24

1 Michael Meuter, State Bar No. 161554 CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE, Inc.
2 3 Williams Road Salinas, CA 93905
3 Telephone: (831) 757-5221 Facsimile: (831) 757-6212
4 Lisa Duarte, State Bar No. 169750
5 MINAMI, LEW & TAMAKI LLP 360 Post Street, 8th Floor
6 San Francisco, CA 94108-4903 Telephone: (415) 788-9000
7 Facsimile: (415) 398-3887
8 Attorneys for Plaintiffs/Intervenors ANA LILIA MONTES, AURORA VASQUEZ,
9 MICAELA GARCIA, EDELFA MADRIGAL

10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY ) CASE NO. C01-21105 RMW

COMMISSION,

)

13

) COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Plaint iff,

) DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

14

)

ANA LILIA MONTES, AURORA VASQUEZ, ) 1. Unlawful Sex Discrimination (42 U.S.C.

15 MICAELA GARCIA, EDELFA MADRIGAL, )

§ 2000e)

as individuals and acting for the interests of the ) 2. Hostile Environment Sexual Harassment

16 general public,

)

(Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-2(a)(1)

) 3. Unlawful Retaliation (42 U.S.C. §

17

Plaintiffs/Intervenors,

)

2000e-3(a))

) 4. Unlawful Sex Discrimination (Cal. Gov

18 v.

)

Code § 12940(a))

) 5. Retaliation for Opposing Discrimination

19 COASTAL VALLEY MANAGEMENT, Inc. )

and Harassment (Cal. Gov. Code §

RON GALLEGOS, EDUBIGEN RESENDEZ, )

12940 (h)

20 LUPE VELASCO,

) 6. Aiding and Abetting Sexual Harassment,

)

Sex Discrimination, and Retaliation

21

Defendants.

)

(Cal. Gov. Code § 12940(i))

) 7. Hostile Environment Sexual Harassment

22

)

(Cal. Gov. Code § 12940(j)(1))

) 8. Failure to Prevent Discrimination and

23

)

Harassment (Cal. Gov. Code §

)

12940 (k))

24

) 9. Unfair Business Practices (Cal. Bus. &

_______________________________________)

Prof. Code § 17200)

25

26 ///

27
EEOC v. Coastal Valley
28 C01-21105 RMW
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Case 5:01-cv-21105-RMW Document 26 Filed 02/14/2002 Page 2 of 24

1

PARTIES

2

1. Plaintiffs ANA LILIA MONTES (hereinafter MONTES ), AURORA

3 VASQUEZ (hereinafter VASQUEZ ), MICAELA GARCIA (hereinafter GARCIA ), and

4 EDELFA MADRIGAL (hereinafter MADRIGAL ) are, and at all times mentioned herein, were,

5 residents of the State of California, County of Monterey. Plaintiffs MONTES, VASQUEZ,

6 GARCIA, and MADRIGAL were, at all times material hereto members of a protected group

7 under California Government Code Section 12940(a) based on their sex (females), and Title VII

8 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII)as amended, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5 (f) (1) and (3), and

9 Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. §1981(a).

10

2. Plaintiffs MONTES, VASQUEZ, GARCIA, and MADRIGAL are informed and

11 believe that defendant COASTAL VALLEY MANAGEMENT, INC. (hereinafter COASTAL

12 VALLEY ) is a corporation, and was at all relevant t imes, a corporation organized and existing

13 under t he laws of the State of California, do ing business in the city of King City, California in the

14 County of Mont erey.

15

3. RON GALLEGOS (hereinafter GALLEGOS ), employee of COASTAL

16 VALLEY and Human Resource Manager at COASTAL VALLEY from approximately 1996 to

17 1999, was plaintiffs supervisor during those years.

18

4. EDUBIGEN RESENDEZ (hereinafter RESENDEZ ), employee of COASTAL

19 VALLEY and supervisor at COASTAL VALLEY was and continues to be plaintiff GARCIA s

20 supervisor.

21

5. LUPE VELASCO (hereinafter VELASCO ), employee of COASTAL VALLEY

22 and supervisor at COASTAL VALLEY from approximately 1992 to the present, was plaintiff

23 MADRIGAL s supervisor.

24

6. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that Defendant COASTAL

25 VALLEY is, and at all times relevant hereto was, an employer subject to suit under California s

26 Fair Employment and Housing Act ( FEHA ), in that Defendant COASTAL VALLEY is, and

27
EEOC v. Coastal Valley

28 C01-21105 RMW

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

2

Case 5:01-cv-21105-RMW Document 26 Filed 02/14/2002 Page 3 of 24

1 was, an employer who regularly employs five or more persons. Cal. Gov. Code §§ 12926(d),

2 12940.

3

7. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that Defendant COASTAL

4 VALLEY is, and at all times relevant hereto was, an employer subject to suit under Title VII, in

5 that Defendant COASTAL VALLEY is and was an employer who has regularly employed fifteen

6 or more persons for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current

7 and preceding calendar years. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b).

8

8. Defendants RON GALLEGOS, EDUBIGEN RESENDEZ, and LUPE VELASCO

9 were, at all times relevant hereto, supervisors of Plaintiffs as defined under Cal. Gov. Code §

10 12926(r) and were employers of Plaintiffs as defined under Cal. Gov. Code § 12926(d). The acts

11 of the individually named Defendants, which were continuing in nature, were therefore acts

12 performed on behalf of COASTAL VALLEY, as well as acts performed by these individual

13 Defendants. Defendant RON GALLEGOS is sued in his official capacity as Human Resources

14 Manager and in his individual capacity. Defendant EDUBIGEN RESENDEZ is sued in his

15 official capacity as a supervisor and in his individual capacity. Defendant LUPE VELASCO is

16 sued in his official capacity as foreman/supervisor and in his individual capacity.

17

9. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that each Defendant is, and

18 at all times relevant hereto was, the agent, servant, and/or employee of each of the other

19 Defendants, and that each Defendant, agent, servant and/or employee was acting, at all times

20 relevant hereto, within the course and scope of his or her agency and/or employment. Plaintiffs

21 are informed and believe, and thereon allege, upon performing every wrongful act, or upon each

22 wrongful omission complained of herein, that each Defendant, was acting or failing to act, with

23 the knowledge, as well as the approval, express or implied, o f each of the other Defendants, and

24 that each Defendant has ratified and approved the acts and omissions of the other Defendants.

25

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

26

10. The jurisdiction of this Court is based upon section 703(a)(1) Title VII of the Civil

27
EEOC v. Coastal Valley

28 C01-21105 RMW

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

3

Case 5:01-cv-21105-RMW Document 26 Filed 02/14/2002 Page 4 of 24

1 Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). Jurisdiction of this Court is also

2 invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1337, 1343 and 1346 and the Court s pendant

3 jurisdiction over state law claims. Injunctive and declaratory relief, damages and other

4 appropriate legal and equitable relief are sought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e (f) and (g) as

5 amended, and state law. The unlawful employment practices of which plaintiffs complain

6 occurred within the Northern District of California and defendant COASTAL VALLEY has

7 business operations where plaintiffs worked at all relevant times alleged herein in the Northern

8 District of California. Venue is therefore proper in this District pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-

9 5(f)(3). Venue is also proper in this District pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 1965(a) and 1965(b), and

10 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e).

11

INTRA-DISTRICT ASSIGNMENT

12

11. Since all of the acts which gave rise to this complaint occurred in Monterey

13 County, assignment to the San Jose Division pursuant to Civil L.R. 3-2(c) would be appropriate.

14

EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES

15

12. On or around October 25, 1998, Plaintiff MADRIGAL filed charges of

16 discrimination with the EEOC. On or around November 6, 1998, Plaintiff VASQUEZ filed

17 charges of discrimination with the EEOC. On or around August 11, 1999, Plaintiff MONTES

18 filed charges of discrimination with the EEOC. On or around August 3, 2000, Plaintiff GARCIA

19 filed charges of discrimination with the EEOC. These charges were simultaneously filed with the

20 California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (hereinafter DFEH ) pursuant to t he

21 terms of a work sharing agreement between the two agencies.

22

13. On or around October 25, 1999 notice of Plaintiff MADRIGAL s right to file a

23 private civil suit was issued by the DFEH. On or around August 24, 2000 notice of Plaintiff

24 GARCIA s right to file a private civil suit was issued by the DFEH. On or around November 6,

25 1999 notice of Plaintiff VASQUEZ s right to file a private civil suit was issued by the DFEH. On

26 or around August 11, 1999 notice of Plaintiff MONTES s right to file a private civil suit was

27
EEOC v. Coastal Valley

28 C01-21105 RMW

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

4

Case 5:01-cv-21105-RMW Document 26 Filed 02/14/2002 Page 5 of 24

1 issued by the DFEH. The DFEH issued the right to sue letters after having deferred its

2 investigations of plaintiffs discrimination charges to the EEOC pursuant to the terms of a work

3 sharing agreement between the two agencies. The one-year period following the issuance of these

4 notices within which to file an action for violation of the FEHA was equitably tolled during the

5 pendency of the EEOC investigation.

6

14. On or about November 21, 2001, the EEOC concluded investigation of the case

7 and thereafter filed suit in the instant matter.

8

15. Plaintiffs MONTES, VASQUEZ, GARCIA, and MADRIGAL have timely filed

9 this action. Therefore, they have complied with all administrative prerequisites to be able to bring

10 this lawsuit.

11

FACTS

12

Factual Allegations Pertaining to Aurora Vasquez

13

16. AURORA VASQUEZ began working at COASTAL VALLEY in about

14 September 1979. VASQUEZ began working as general laborer and currently holds the position

15 of Assistant Foreman.

16

17. In or before 1996, RON GALLEGOS was hired by COASTAL VALLEY to be

17 their Human Resources Manager. He held this position until he left COASTAL VALLEY in

18 1999.

19

18. Following the assignment of GALLEGOS to a position of authority he

20 immediately commenced a continual course of conduct, wherein he sexually harassed VASQUEZ.

21 While VASQUEZ worked for the Defendants, she was subject to sexual harassment which was

22 severe and pervasive enough to alter her working conditions and create a hostile work

23 environment. VASQUEZ was repeatedly forced to endure offensive language, and intimidating

24 and unwelcome romantic and/or sexual overtures.

25

19. The sexual harassment by GALLEGOS was repeated and was designed to compel

26 VASQUEZ to submit to his sexual advances, thereby rendering VASQUEZ s submission to his

27
EEOC v. Coastal Valley

28 C01-21105 RMW

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

5

Case 5:01-cv-21105-RMW Document 26 Filed 02/14/2002 Page 6 of 24

1 sexual advances a term or condition of her employment.

2

20. VASQUEZ was directly told by GALLEGOS that she would be fired if she did

3 not sign a paper stating that she had received a final written warning, after she had complained

4 that he had harassed her.

5

21. When VASQUEZ rejected the sexual advances of GALLEGOS, she was

6 subjected to retaliation in the form of further unwanted sexual advances, as well as being refused

7 work assignments, and being disciplined, including receiving a final written warning, which she

8 signed under pressure. VASQUEZ S husband, also an employee of COASTAL VALLEY, was

9 also subjected to ret aliation by defendants due to VASQUEZ S complaints of sexual harassment

10 and her refusal to submit to GALLEGOS S sexual overtures.

11

22. The sexual harassment by GALLEGOS of VASQUEZ substantially affected her

12 employment. Defendants, their agents, servants and/or employees, through their sexual

13 harassment and their failure to eradicate it, intended to, and did, cause VASQUEZ severe

14 psychological and emotional damage. Through their acts and omissions, some of which

15 constituted sexual harassment, abuse, discrimination, and retaliation toward Plaintiffs, Defendants,

16 their agents, servants and/or employees, have caused VASQUEZ to suffer extreme anxiety, severe

17 depression, and other emotional distress. Defendants conduct has adversely affected

18 VASQUEZ s ability to work, and her sense of well-being. The abuse of VASQUEZ by

19 Defendants, their agents, servants and/or employees, and Defendants failure to stop such abuse,

20 rendered her work environment so intolerable that any reasonable person would find such

21 treatment offensive.

22

23. Following t he commencement by GALLEGOS of the numerous acts o f sexual

23 harassment, VASQUEZ made numerous complaints to Defendants.

24

24. Despite the complaints made by VASQUEZ to the Defendants, COASTAL

25 VALLEY effectively failed and refused to terminate the course of repetitively offensive conduct

26 of GALLEGOS which constituted sexual harassment of VASQUEZ. Despite GALLEGOS

27
EEOC v. Coastal Valley

28 C01-21105 RMW

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

6

Case 5:01-cv-21105-RMW Document 26 Filed 02/14/2002 Page 7 of 24

1 terminating his own employment, Defendants otherwise took no action to address, correct, or

2 prevent these adverse working conditions of sexual harassment, retaliation, and discrimination,

3 thereby condoning such illegal acts and transforming the acceptance of GALLEGOS sexual

4 advances into a condition of Plaintiff s continued employment.

5

25. The repetitively offensive conduct of GALLEGOS, constituting sexual harassment,

6 abuse, discrimination, and retaliation was further actively fostered, participated in, ratified and/or

7 condoned by COASTAL VALLEY, in that GALLEGOS sexually harassed other female

8 employees of COASTAL VALLEY and did compel their submission to sexual intimacies and

9 activities. Such other acts of sexual harassment by GALLEGOS were in fact known to

10 COASTAL VALLEY, its agents, servants and/or employees. COASTAL VALLEY, as

11 employer, effectively failed and refused to terminate GALLEGOS, thereby rendering it a policy of

12 the COASTAL VALLEY that its female employees submit to sexual harassment as a condition of

13 their employment.

14

26. Defendants, their agents, servants and/or employees committed the acts against

15 VASQUEZ alleged herein maliciously, fraudulently, and oppressively, with the wrongful intention

16 of injuring VASQUEZ and in conscious disregard of, and with reckless indifference to, her rights.

17

Factual Allegations Pertaining to ANA LILIA MONTES

18

27. ANA LILIA MONTES (hereinafter MONTES ) was hired by COASTAL

19 VALLEY on or around October 2, 1991 as a general laborer, where she worked until 1996 when

20 she was promoted to her current position of Assistant Foreman.

21

28. Following the assignment of GALLEGOS to the position of Human Resources

22 Manager in around 1996, a position of authority over MONTES, he commenced an immediate

23 and continual course of repetitively offensive conduct, wherein he sexually harassed MONTES.

24 While MONTES worked for the Defendants, she was subject to sexual harassment which was

25 severe and pervasive enough to alter her working conditions and create a hostile work

26 environment. MONTES was forced to endure offensive language and pictures, and unwelcome

27
EEOC v. Coastal Valley

28 C01-21105 RMW

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

7

Case 5:01-cv-21105-RMW Document 26 Filed 02/14/2002 Page 8 of 24

1 touching and assaults. MONTES was also forced to endure intimidating and unwelcome

2 romantic and/or sexual overtures, including receiving notes from GALLEGOS in which he

3 professed his love for her, and she received threats designed to elicit compliance with such

4 overtures.

5

29. The sexual harassment by GALLEGOS was repeated and was designed to

6 compel MONTES to submit to his sexual advances, thereby rendering MONTES s submission to

7 his sexual advances a term or condition of her employment.

8

30. When MONTES rejected the sexual advances of GALLEGOS, she was subjected

9 to retaliation in the form of further unwanted sexual advances, as well as other forms of assault,

10 threats of job termination, and derogatory comments of a sexual nature about herself, as well as

11 threats against her family.

12

31. The sexual harassment by GALLEGOS of MONTES substantially affected

13 MONTES s employment. Defendants, their agents, servants and/or employees, through their

14 sexual harassment and their failure to eradicate it, intended to, and did, cause MONTES severe

15 psychological and emotional damage. Through their acts and omissions, some of which

16 constituted sexual harassment, abuse, discrimination, and retaliation toward Plaintiffs, Defendants,

17 their agents, servants and/or employees, have caused MONTES to suffer extreme anxiety, severe

18 depression and other emotional distress. Defendants conduct has adversely affected MONTES s

19 ability to work, and her sense of well-being. Defendants abuse of MONTES, and Defendants

20 failure to st op such abuse, rendered her work environment so intolerable that any reasonable

21 person would find such treatment offensive.

22

32. Following the commencement by GALLEGOS of the numerous acts of sexual

23 harassment, MONTES made numerous complaints to Defendants.

24

33. Despite the complaints made by MONTES t o the Defendants, COASTAL

25 VALLEY effectively failed and refused to terminate the course of repetitively offensive conduct

26 of GALLEGOS which constituted sexual harassment of MONTES. Despite GALLEGOS

27
EEOC v. Coastal Valley

28 C01-21105 RMW

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

8

Case 5:01-cv-21105-RMW Document 26 Filed 02/14/2002 Page 9 of 24

1 terminating his own employment, Defendants otherwise took no action to address, correct, or

2 prevent these adverse working conditions of sexual harassment, retaliation, and discrimination,

3 thereby condoning such illegal acts and transforming the acceptance of GALLEGOS sexual

4 advances into a condition of MONTES s continued employment.

5

34. The repetitively offensive conduct of GALLEGOS, constituting sexual

6 harassment , abuse, discrimination, and retaliation was further actively fostered, participated in,

7 ratified and/or condoned by COASTAL VALLEY, in that GALLEGOS sexually harassed other

8 female employees of COASTAL VALLEY and did compel their submission to sexual intimacies

9 and activities. Such other acts of sexual harassment by GALLEGOS were in fact known to

10 COASTAL VALLEY, its agents, servants and/or employees. COASTAL VALLEY, as

11 employer, effectively failed and refused to terminate GALLEGOS, thereby rendering it a policy of

12 COASTAL VALLEY that its female employees submit to sexual harassment as a condition of

13 their employment.

14

35. Defendants, their agents, servants and/or employees committed the acts against

15 MONTES alleged herein maliciously, fraudulently, and oppressively, with the wrongful intention

16 of injuring MONTES and in conscious disregard of, and with reckless indifference to, her rights.

17

18

Factual Allegations Pertaining to Edelfa Madrigal

19

36. EDELFA MADRIGAL (hereinafter MADRIGAL ) worked for COASTAL

20 VALLEY from 1992 through February 17, 1999. MADRIGAL was employed by COASTAL

21 VALLEY, in various capacities including that of Crop Harvester.

22

37. In February 1999 MADRIGAL was terminated for alleged lack of respect

23 towards her supervisor.

24

38. In or before 1992, Defendant, its agents, servants and/or employees hired

25 Defendant LUPE VELASCO (hereafter VELASCO ), who held a position of authority over

26 MADRIGAL.

27
EEOC v. Coastal Valley

28 C01-21105 RMW

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

9

Case 5:01-cv-21105-RMW Document 26 Filed 02/14/2002 Page 10 of 24

1

39. Following the assignment of VELASCO to a position of authority over

2 MADRIGAL, he commenced an immediate and continual course of repetitively offensive

3 conduct, wherein he sexually harassed MADRIGAL. While MADRIGAL worked for the

4 Defendants, she was subject to sexual harassment which was severe and pervasive enough to alter

5 her working conditions and create a hostile work environment. MADRIGAL was forced to

6 endure offensive language and intimidating and unwelcome romantic and/or sexual comments,

7 including GALLEGOS s insinuations to MADRIGAL that she and/or her husband could advance

8 at COASTAL VALLEY if she complied with his sexual desires and VELASCO s repeated

9 statements to MADRIGAL about his sexual encounters with other women.

10

40. The sexual harassment by VELASCO was repeated and was designed to compel

11 MADRIGAL to submit to his sexual advances, thereby rendering MADRIGAL s submission to

12 his sexual advances a term or condition of her employment.

13

41. When MADRIGAL rejected the sexual advances of VELASCO, she was

14 subjected to retaliation in the form of further unwanted sexual advances, as well as being

15 disciplined, including being discharged.

16

42. The sexual harassment by VELASCO of MADRIGAL substantially affected her

17 employment. Defendants, their agents, servants and/or employees, through their sexual

18 harassment and their failure to eradicate it, intended to, and did, cause MADRIGAL severe

19 psychological, and emotional damage. Through their acts and omissions, some of which

20 constituted sexual harassment, abuse, discrimination, and retaliation toward Plaintiffs, Defendants,

21 their agents, servants and/or employees, have caused MADRIGAL to suffer extreme anxiety,

22 severe depressio n and emot ional distress. Through their acts and omissions, Defendants, their

23 agents, servants and/or employees, have adversely affected MADRIGAL s ability to work, and

24 her sense of well-being. The abuse of MADRIGAL by Defendants, their agents, servants and/or

25 employees, and Defendants failure to stop such abuse, rendered her work environment so

26 intolerable that any reasonable person would find such treatment offensive, and would refuse to

27
EEOC v. Coastal Valley

28 C01-21105 RMW

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

10

Case 5:01-cv-21105-RMW Document 26 Filed 02/14/2002 Page 11 of 24

1 continue to work under such conditions. Defendants, their agents, servants and/or employees,

2 had actual knowledge of these intolerable conditions and intended to constructively discharge

3 MADRIGAL.

4

43. Following t he commencement by VELASCO of the numerous acts o f sexual

5 harassment, MADRIGAL made numerous complaints to Defendants, their agents, servants and/or

6 employees, including but not limited to GALLEGOS, because he was the Human Resources

7 Manager. However, Defendant RON GALLEGOS failed to address, correct, or prevent such

8 sexual harassment, and GALLEGOS in fact threatened MADRIGAL to discourage her from

9 putting her complaints in writing.

10

44. Despite the complaints made by MADRIGAL to the Defendants about

11 harassment by VELASCO, COASTAL VALLEY effectively failed and refused to terminate the

12 course of action by VELASCO and GALLEGOS which included GALLEGOS s disciplining and

13 terminating MADRIGAL for her complaining about sexual harassment. COASTAL VALLEY

14 effectively failed and refused to terminate the course of harassment by VELASCO and the

15 inaction by GALLEGOS which constituted ratification of sexual harassment of MADRIGAL.

16 Despite GALLEGOS terminating his own employment, Defendants otherwise took no action to

17 address, correct, or prevent these adverse working conditions of sexual harassment, retaliation,

18 and discrimination, thereby condoning such illegal acts and transforming the acceptance of

19 VELASCO s sexual advances into a condition of Plaintiff s continued employment.

20

45. COASTAL VALLEY effectively failed and refused to terminate the course of

21 conduct of VELASCO which constituted sexual harassment of MADRIGAL, despite her

22 complaints to the Defendants.

23

46. The repetitively offensive conduct of VELASCO, constituting sexual harassment,

24 abuse, discrimination, and retaliation was further actively fostered, participated in, ratified and/or

25 condoned by COASTAL VALLEY. GALLEGOS knew of sexual harassment of other female

26 employees of COASTAL VALLEY. Therefore, such harassment was in fact known to

27
EEOC v. Coastal Valley

28 C01-21105 RMW

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

11

Case 5:01-cv-21105-RMW Document 26 Filed 02/14/2002 Page 12 of 24

1 COASTAL VALLEY, its agents, servants and/or employees. However, COASTAL VALLEY,

2 as employer, and its agents, servants and/or employees effectively failed and refused to terminate

3 VELASCO, thereby rendering it a policy of COASTAL VALLEY that its female employees

4 submit to sexual harassment as a condition of their employment.

5

47. Defendants, their agents, servants and/or employees committed the acts against

6 MADRIGAL alleged herein maliciously, fraudulently, and oppressively, with the wrongful

7 intention of injuring MADRIGAL and in conscious disregard of, and with reckless indifference to,

8 her rights.

9

Factual Allegations Pertaining to MICAELA GARCIA

10

48. MICAELA GARCIA (hereinafter GARCIA ) has worked for COASTAL

11 VALLEY for over 20 years. She first became employed in 1980 and continues to be employed by

12 COASTAL VALLEY. GARCIA has held various positions including her current position of

13 Irrigation Worker.

14

49. In or before 1996, GARCIA was assigned by Defendants to work under the

15 supervision of EDUBIGEN RESENDEZ (hereafter RESENDEZ ).

16

50. Following the assignment of RESENDEZ as a supervisor of GARCIA, he

17 commenced an immediate and continual course of repetitively offensive conduct, wherein he

18 sexually harassed GARCIA. While GARCIA worked for the Defendants, she was subject to

19 sexual harassment which was severe and pervasive enough t o alter her working conditions and

20 create a host ile work environment. GARCIA was subjected to assaults and encounters, including

21 RESENDEZ trying to run her over with his truck, and following her around town. GARCIA was

22 also repeatedly forced to endure offensive language, intimidating and unwelcome romantic and/or

23 sexual overtures, and threats designed to elicit compliance with such overtures.

24

51. The sexual harassment by RESENDEZ was repeated and was designed to compel

25 GARCIA to submit to his sexual advances, thereby rendering GARCIA s submission to his sexual

26 advances a term or condition of her employment.

27
EEOC v. Coastal Valley

28 C01-21105 RMW

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

12

Case 5:01-cv-21105-RMW Document 26 Filed 02/14/2002 Page 13 of 24

1

52. GARCIA was told by RESENDEZ that she should not tell anyone about his

2 feelings for her because he was a supervisor, and that she would be fired if she told anyone about

3 his feelings for her.

4

53. When GARCIA rejected the sexual advances of RESENDEZ, she was subjected

5 to retaliation in the form of further unwanted sexual advances, as well as other forms of assault,

6 stalking, and derogatory comments of a sexual nature about herself.

7

54. The sexual harassment by RESENDEZ of GARCIA substantially affected

8 GARCIA s employment. Defendants, their agents, servants and/or employees, through their

9 sexual harassment and their failure to eradicate it, intended to, and did, cause GARCIA severe

10 psychological, and emotional damage. Through their acts and omissions, some of which

11 constituted sexual harassment, abuse, discrimination, and retaliation toward Plaintiffs, Defendants,

12 their agents, servants and/or employees, have caused GARCIA to suffer extreme anxiety, severe

13 depression and other emotional distress. Defendants conduct has adversely affected GARCIA s

14 ability to work, and her sense of well-being. Defendants abuse of GARCIA, and Defendants

15 failure to st op such abuse, rendered her work environment so intolerable that any reasonable

16 person would find such mistreatment offensive.

17

55. Following the commencement by RESENDEZ of the numerous acts of sexual

18 harassment, GARCIA made numerous complaints to Defendants, their agents, servants and/or

19 employees, including to GALLEGOS.

20

56. Despite the complaints made by GARCIA to the Defendants, their agents,

21 servants and/or employees, COASTAL VALLEY failed and refused to terminate the course of

22 repetitively offensive conduct of RESENDEZ which constituted sexual harassment of GARCIA.

23 Defendants, their agents, servants and/or employees otherwise took no action to address, correct,

24 or prevent these adverse working conditions of sexual harassment, retaliation, and discrimination,

25 thereby condoning such illegal acts and transforming the acceptance of RESENDEZ s sexual

26 advances into a condition of Plaintiff s continued employment.

27
EEOC v. Coastal Valley

28 C01-21105 RMW

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

13

Case 5:01-cv-21105-RMW Document 26 Filed 02/14/2002 Page 14 of 24

1

57. Defendants, their agents, servants and/or employees committed the acts against

2 GARCIA alleged herein maliciously, fraudulently, and oppressively, with the wrongful intention

3 of injuring GARCIA and in conscious disregard of, and with reckless indifference to, her rights.

4

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(UNLAWFUL EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION BASED ON SEX)

5

(TITLE VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e)

6

58. Plaint iffs hereby incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 57 of this

7 complaint as if fully set forth herein.

8

59. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiffs were employees, employed by Defendants.

9

60. Defendants unlawfully discriminated against plaintiffs MONTES, VASQUEZ,

10 GARCIA, and MADRIGAL based on their sex in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of

11 1964, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-16.

12

61. Defendants treated plaintiffs MONTES, VASQUEZ, GARCIA, and MADRIGAL

13 less favorably than similarly situated male employees, subjecting them to discrimination in pay and

14 raises and in other terms and conditions of their employment in violation of Title VII.

15

62. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid discrimination based on

16 plaintiffs sex, plaintiffs MONTES, VASQUEZ, GARCIA, and MADRIGAL have sustained a

17 loss of earnings and other benefits. They have also suffered severe emotional distress manifested

18 by feelings of humiliation, embarrassment, anxiety, nervousness and other symptoms of stress.

19

63. Defendants acts of discrimination against plaintiff on the basis of sex were

20 wanton, willful and intentional with malicious and reckless disregard of the rights and sensibilities

21 of the plaintiffs.

22

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs MONTES, VASQUEZ, GARCIA, and MADRIGAL request

23 relief as hereinafter provided.

24

25

SECOND CLAM FOR RELIEF

(SEXUAL HARASSMENT)

26

(TITLE VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1))

27
EEOC v. Coastal Valley

28 C01-21105 RMW

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

14

Case 5:01-cv-21105-RMW Document 26 Filed 02/14/2002 Page 15 of 24

1

64. Plaint iffs hereby incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 63 of this

2 complaint as if fully set forth herein.

3

65. Defendants violated plaintiffs rights under Title VII by subjecting plaintiffs to

4 unwelcome sexual comments and acts and permitting and encouraging a work environment in

5 which plaintiffs MONTES, VASQUEZ, GARCIA, and MADRIGAL were subjected to ridicule,

6 harassment , discrimination and intimidation because of their sex.

7

66. In addition, defendants subjected plaintiffs to quid pro quo sexual harassment by

8 threatening plaintiffs jobs and or promising advancement in exchange for sexual favors.

9

67. Defendant COASTAL VALLEY participated in creating and maintaining a hostile

10 work environment and failed t o investigate, stop or prevent the incidents of sexual harassment

11 even after plaintiffs MONTES, VASQUEZ, GARCIA, and MADRIGAL gave notice of such

12 incidents. The sexual harassment was severe and pervasive such that it altered the terms and

13 conditions of plaintiffs employment.

14

68. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid harassment based on sex,

15 Plaintiffs MONTES, VASQUEZ, GARCIA, and MADRIGAL have sustained injury in the form

16 of severe emotional distress, humiliation, embarrassment, and mental anguish, all to their damage

17 in amounts to be established at trial.

18

69. As described above, defendants aforesaid acts of harassment were wanton,

19 willful and intentional with malicious and reckless disregard for the rights and sensibilities of

20 plaintiffs MONTES, VASQUEZ, GARCIA, and MADRIGAL.

21

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs MONTES, VASQUEZ, GARCIA, and MADRIGAL request

22 relief as hereinafter provided.

23

24

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

UNLAWFUL RETALIATION

25

(42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a))

26

70. Plaint iffs hereby incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 69 of this

27
EEOC v. Coastal Valley

28 C01-21105 RMW

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

15

Case 5:01-cv-21105-RMW Document 26 Filed 02/14/2002 Page 16 of 24

1 complaint as if fully set forth herein.

2

71. In perpetrating the above described actions and omissions, Defendant COASTAL

3 VALLEY, as employer, and the other Defendants, their agents, servants and/or employees,

4 engaged in unlawful retaliation in violation of Title VII.

5

72. Plaintiffs each engaged in protected activity when they complained to their direct

6 supervisors, including GALLEGOS and others, about sexual harassment, retaliation and

7 discrimination.

8

73. Defendants, their agents, servants and/or employees retaliated against Plaintiffs on

9 the basis of Plaintiffs complaints by taking adverse actions against them, including by creating a

10 hostile work environment, by breaching confidentiality, by discharging Plaintiffs from

11 employment, by imposing different terms, conditions, or privileges of employment on Plaintiffs,

12 and by other retaliatory treatment and actions.

13

74. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid retaliation, Plaintiffs MONTES,

14 VASQUEZ, GARCIA, and MADRIGAL have sustained injury in the form of severe emotional

15 distress, humiliation, embarrassment, and mental anguish, all to the damage in amount to be

16 established at trial.

17

75. As described above, defendants aforesaid acts of harassment were wanton,

18 willful and intentional with malicious and reckless disregard for the rights and sensibilities of

19 plaintiffs MONTES, VASQUEZ, GARCIA, and MADRIGAL.

20

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs MONTES, VASQUEZ, GARCIA, and MADRIGAL request

21 relief as hereinafter provided.

22

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(UNLAWFUL EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION BASED ON SEX)

23

(CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE § 12940(a))

24

76. Plaint iffs hereby incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 75 of this

25 complaint as if fully set forth herein.

26

77. At all times material hereto, defendants owed plaintiffs MONTES, VASQUEZ,

27
EEOC v. Coastal Valley

28 C01-21105 RMW

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

16

Case 5:01-cv-21105-RMW Document 26 Filed 02/14/2002 Page 17 of 24

1 GARCIA, and MADRIGAL the duty not to discriminate against them in the terms and conditions

2 of their employment on the basis of their gender as mandated by the Fair Employment and

3 Housing Act provided in California Government Code section 12940(a).

4

78. In violation of the aforesaid duty, defendants treated plaintiffs MONTES,

5 VASQUEZ, GARCIA, and MADRIGAL adversely and differently from their male counterparts.

6

79. The decision to treat plaintiffs MONTES, VASQUEZ, GARCIA, and

7 MADRIGAL in the foregoing adverse and disparate manner was based upon Plaintiffs sex and

8 was want on, willful and intentional with malicious and reckless disregard of the rights and

9 sensibilities of the plaintiffs.

10

80. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid discrimination based on sex,

11 plaintiffs MONTES, VASQUEZ, GARCIA, and MADRIGAL have sustained a loss of earnings

12 and fringe benefits. They have also suffered emotional distress manifested by feelings of

13 humiliation, embarrassment, anxiety, nervousness and other symptoms of stress.

14

81. In doing the acts herein alleged, defendants acted maliciously, and oppressively,

15 with the wrongful intent of injuring plaintiffs MONTES, VASQUEZ, GARCIA, and

16 MADRIGAL, and acted with an improper and evil motive amounting to malice, in conscious

17 disregard of plaintiffs rights. Because the acts taken towards them were carried out by

18 defendants acting in a despicable, deliberate, and intentional manner in order to injure and damage

19 them, plaintiffs are entitled to recover punitive damages in an amount according to proof.

20

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs MONTES, VASQUEZ, GARCIA, and MADRIGAL request

21 relief as hereinafter provided.

22

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

RETALIATION FOR OPPOSING DISCRIMINATION

23

AND HARASSMENT (CAL. GOV. CODE §12940(h))

24

82. Plaint iffs hereby incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 81 of this

25 complaint as if fully set forth herein.

26

83. In perpetrating the above described actions and omissions, Defendant COASTAL

27
EEOC v. Coastal Valley

28 C01-21105 RMW

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

17

Case 5:01-cv-21105-RMW Document 26 Filed 02/14/2002 Page 18 of 24

1 VALLEY MANAGEMENT, as employer, and the other Defendants, their agents, servants and/or

2 employees, engaged in unlawful retaliation in violation of the California Fair Employment and

3 Housing Act ( FEHA ), Cal. Gov. Code § 12940(h).

4

84. Plaintiffs each engaged in protected activity by complaining to a supervisor,

5 including GALLEGOS and others, regarding sexual harassment, retaliation, and/or

6 discrimination.

7

85. Defendants, their agents, servants and/or employees retaliated against Plaintiffs on

8 the basis of their protected activity and took adverse actions against them including creating a

9 hostile work environment, by breaching confidentiality, by discharging Plaintiffs from

10 employment, by imposing different terms, conditions, or privileges of employment on Plaintiffs,

11 and by other retaliatory treatment and actions.

12

86. Defendant COASTAL VALLEY participated in creating and maintaining the

13 hostile work environment and failed to investigate, stop or prevent the incidents of sexual

14 harassment even after Plaintiffs gave notice of such incidents.

15

87. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid retaliation plaintiffs MONTES,

16 VASQUEZ, GARCIA, and MADRIGAL have sustained injury in the form of severe emotional

17 distress, humiliation, embarrassment, and mental anguish, all to their damage in amounts to be

18 established at trial.

19

88. Defendants aforesaid acts of ret aliation were wanton, willful and intentional with

20 malicious and reckless disregard for the rights and sensibilities of Plaintiffs.

21

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs MONTES, VASQUEZ, GARCIA, and MADRIGAL request

22 relief as hereinafter provided.

23

SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

AIDING AND ABETTING SEXUAL HARASSMENT

24

SEX DISCRIMINATION, AND RETALIATION

(CAL. GOV. CODE § 12940(i))

25

26

89. Plaint iffs hereby incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 88 of this

27
EEOC v. Coastal Valley

28 C01-21105 RMW

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

18

Case 5:01-cv-21105-RMW Document 26 Filed 02/14/2002 Page 19 of 24

1 complaint as if fully set forth herein.

2

90. In perpetrating the above described actions and omissions, Defendant COASTAL

3 VALLEY, as employer, and the other Defendants, their agents, servants and/or employees,

4 engaged in a pattern and practice of unlawful aiding and abetting of harassment, discrimination,

5 and retaliation, in violation of the California Fair Employment and Ho using Act ( FEHA ), Cal.

6 Gov. Code § 12940(i).

7

91. Each of the Defendants, their agents, servants and/or employees, attempted to and

8 did in fact, aid, abet, incite, compel and/or coerce each of the other Defendants, their agents,

9 servants and/or employees to engage in unlawful sexual harassment, sex and/or gender

10 discrimination, and retaliation against the Plaintiffs, as alleged above.

11

92. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid harassment based on sex,

12 plaintiffs MONTES, VASQUEZ, GARCIA, and MADRIGAL have sustained injury in the form

13 of severe emotional distress, humiliation, embarrassment, and mental anguish, all to their damage

14 in amounts to be established at trial.

15

93. Defendants aforesaid acts were wanton, willful and intentional with malicious

16 and reckless disregard for the rights and sensibilities of Plaintiffs.

17

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs MONTES, VASQUEZ, GARCIA, and MADRIGAL request

18 relief as hereinafter provided.

19

SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT SEXUAL HARASSMENT)

20

(CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE § 12940(j))

21

94. Plaint iffs hereby incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 93 of this

22 complaint as if fully set forth herein.

23

95. Defendants subjected plaintiffs to unwelcome sexual advances, comments, and

24 degrading and humiliating conduct as described above. Defendants aforesaid unwelcome sexual

25 comments and acts were so severe or pervasive that they created a continuing hostile work

26 environment.

27
EEOC v. Coastal Valley

28 C01-21105 RMW

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

19

Case 5:01-cv-21105-RMW Document 26 Filed 02/14/2002 Page 20 of 24

1

96. Defendant COASTAL VALLEY failed to prevent sexual harassment by failing to

2 investigate, stop or prevent the incidents of sexual harassment even after Plaintiffs gave notice of

3 such incidents.

4

97. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid harassment based on sex,

5 plaintiffs MONTES, VASQUEZ, GARCIA, and MADRIGAL have sustained injury in the form

6 of severe emotional distress, humiliation, embarrassment, and mental anguish, all to their damage

7 in amounts to be established at trial.

8

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs MONTES, VASQUEZ, GARCIA, and MADRIGAL request

9 relief as hereinafter provided.

10

EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

FAILURE TO PREVENT DISCRIMINATION AND HARASSMENT

11

(CAL. GOV. CODE § 12940(k))

12

98. Plaint iffs hereby incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 97 of this

13 complaint as if fully set forth herein.

14

99. In perpetrating the above described actions and omissions, Defendant COASTAL

15 VALLEY, as employer, and the other Defendants, their agents, servants and/or employees,

16 engaged in a pattern and practice of failing to prevent discrimination and harassment, in violation

17 of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act ( FEHA ), Cal. Gov. Code § 12940(k).

18

100. In violation of Cal. Gov. Code § 12940(i), Defendants, their agents, servants

19 and/or employees, failed to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent sex and/or gender

20 discrimination and sexual harassment from occurring, including, among other things, failure to

21 implement an effective policy against sexual harassment and/or an effective means of remedying

22 such harassment.

23

101. Defendants, their agents, servants and/or employees, knew or should have known

24 of Defendants failure to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent sex and/or gender

25 discrimination and sexual harassment from occurring. Defendants, their agents, servants and/or

26 employees did not take all reasonable steps to prevent retaliation from occurring, and failed to

27
EEOC v. Coastal Valley

28 C01-21105 RMW

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

20

Case 5:01-cv-21105-RMW Document 26 Filed 02/14/2002 Page 21 of 24

1 take immediate and appropriate corrective action.

2

102. Defendant COASTAL VALLEY participated in creating and maintaining the

3 hostile work environment and failed to investigate, stop or prevent the incidents of sexual

4 harassment even after Plaintiffs gave notice of such incidents.

5

103. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid harassment based on sex,

6 plaintiffs MONTES, VASQUEZ, GARCIA, and MADRIGAL have sustained injury in the form

7 of severe emotional distress, humiliation, embarrassment, and mental anguish, all to their damage

8 in amounts to be established at trial.

9

104. Defendants aforesaid acts of harassment were wanton, willful and intentional with

10 malicious and reckless disregard for the rights and sensibilities of Plaintiffs.

11

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs MONTES, VASQUEZ, GARCIA, and MADRIGAL request

12 relief as hereinafter provided.

13

NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Unfair Business Practices - Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200

14

All Plaintiffs Against All Defendants

15

105. Plaintiffs hereby re-allege and incorporate herein by reference each and every

16 allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 104, inclusive, in this Complaint, as if set forth fully

17 herein.

18

106. Pursuant to §§17200 et seq. of California's Business and Professions Code,

19 Plaintiffs bring this cause of action acting for their own interests and act ing for the interests of the

20 members of t he general public previously, currently and hereafter employed by Defendants, their

21 agents, servants and/or employees.

22

107. Defendants, their agents, servants and/or employees were, and are, required under

23 state and federal law to prevent, and not to engage in, and not to aid, abet or encourage, sexual

24 harassment and discrimination in the workplace, and not to retaliate against employees for

25 exercising their statutory rights and privileges to be free of such harassment in the workplace.

26

108. Each of the Defendants, their agents, servants and/or employees did, and on

27
EEOC v. Coastal Valley

28 C01-21105 RMW

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

21

Case 5:01-cv-21105-RMW Document 26 Filed 02/14/2002 Page 22 of 24

1 information and belief, does commit unlawful business practices in violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof.

2 Code §17200 et seq, by:

3

a. unlawfully sexually harassing their employees, including Plaintiffs, in

violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, Cal. Gov. Code § 12940(j), and Cal. Civ.

4

Code § 51.9;

5

b. unlawfully discriminating against their employees, including Plaintiffs, on

the basis of their sex and/or gender, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e and

6

Cal. Gov. Code § 12940(a);

7

c. unlawfully retaliating against their employees, including Plaintiffs, for

opposing retaliation and discrimination, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e

8

and Cal. Gov. Code § 12940(h);

9

d. unlawfully aiding and abetting sexual harassment, sex and/or gender

discrimination and retaliation, in violation of Cal. Gov. Code § 12940(i);

10

e. failing to prevent discrimination and harassment in violation of Cal. Gov.

11

Code § 12940(k);

12

109. Each Defendant, by the acts and omissions alleged herein, did, and does,

13 unlawfully and unfairly compete with other California agricultural employers, both growers and

14 farm labor contractors, who attempt in good faith to comply with applicable federal and state

15 laws.

16

110. As a result of Defendants' unlawful business practices, each Defendant did and

17 does receive ill-gotten gains from Plaintiffs, including retention of wages which Plaintiff EDELFA

18 MADRIGAL wo uld have been paid, had she not been discharged, and, on information and belief,

19 other similarly-employed members of the general public. Plaintiffs and other similarly-employed

20 members of the general public are entitled to restitution of these amounts, as well as damages for

21 exposure to t he unlawful conduct of Defendants, their agents, servants and/or employees.

22

111. The unlawful business acts described herein present a continuing threat to the

23 general public which cannot be adequately remedied at law. Plaintiffs are informed and believe,

24 and thereon allege, that each Defendant will continue these acts unless enjoined by this Court as

25 provided under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17203.

26

27
EEOC v. Coastal Valley

28 C01-21105 RMW

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

22

Case 5:01-cv-21105-RMW Document 26 Filed 02/14/2002 Page 23 of 24

1 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendants as follows:

2

1. For compensatory damages according to pro of, including but not limited to lost

3 wages, damages for emotional distress, including but not limited to humiliation, grief, and

4 anguish;

5

2. For punitive damages;

6

3. For injunctive relief to enjoin Defendants from engaging in unlawful activity

7 alleged herein;

8

4. For declaratory relief, including but not limited to reinstatement of MADRIGAL s

9 job with full benefits and seniority,

10

5. For reasonable attorneys fees, for the firm of Minami, Lew & Tamaki only;

11

6. For costs of suit;

12

7. For such other relief as the Court deems proper.

13

14

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

15

Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial as provided by Rule 38(a) of the Federal Rules of

16 Civil Procedure.

17 DATED:

CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE, INC.

18

19

By: _________________________________

MICHAEL MEUTER

20

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

21

22

23 DATED:

MINAMI, LEW & TAMAKI LLP

24

25

By: __________________________________

LISA DUARTE

26

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

27
EEOC v. Coastal Valley

28 C01-21105 RMW

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

23

Case 5:01-cv-21105-RMW Document 26 Filed 02/14/2002 Page 24 of 24

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27
EEOC v. Coastal Valley

28 C01-21105 RMW

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

24

 
 Case 5:01-cv-21105-RMW Document 37 Filed 05/28/2002 Page 1 of 11

1 WILLIAM R. TAMAYO - #084965 (CA) JONATHAN T. PECK - #12303 (VA)
2 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION San Francisco District Office
3 901 Market Street, Suite 500 San Francisco, California 94103
4 Telephone: (415) 356-5085

5 SANYA P. HILL - #18739 (WA) LUCILA ROSAS -#187345 (CA)
6 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION San Jose Local Office
7 96 North Third Street, Suite 200 San Jose, California 95112
8 Telephone: (408) 291-7497

9 Attorneys for Plaintiff

10 LISA DUARTE- #169750 (CA) MINAMI, LEW & TAMAKI, LLP
11 360 Post Street, 8th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108-4903
12 Telephone: (415) 788-9000

13 MICHAEL MEUTER- #161554 (CA) CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE, INC.
14 3 Williams Road Salinas, CA 93905
15 Telephone: (831) 757-5221

16 Attorneys for Plaintiffs/Intervenors

17

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

18

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

19

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )

20 COMMISSION.

)

)

21

Plaintiff,

)

)

22 ANA LILIA MONTES, AURORA

)

VASQUEZ, MICAELA GARCIA,

)

23 EDELFA MADRIGAL,

)

)

24

Plaintiff/Intervenors )

)

25 v.

)

)

26 COASTAL VALLEY MANAGEMENT, )

INC.

)

27

)

)

28

Defendant.

)

)

*E-FILED - 5/28/02* CIVIL ACTION NO. C-01-21105-RMW (PVT)
CONSENT DECREE

CONSENT DECREE C-01-21105-RMW (PVT)
1

Case 5:01-cv-21105-RMW Document 37 Filed 05/28/2002 Page 2 of 11

1

1. Plaintiff, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“Commission”),

2 brought this lawsuit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and Title I of the Civil

3 Rights Act of 1991, to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of sexual harassment

4 and retaliation and to make whole Ms. Edelfa Madrigal, Ms. Ana Lilia Montes, Ms. Aurora

5 Vasquez, Ms. Micaela Garcia and a class of employees of the Defendant aggrieved by the

6 unlawful practices. Plaintiff alleged that Defendant, Coastal Valley Management, Inc. (“Coastal

7 Valley”), unlawfully subjected Ms. Edelfa Madrigal, Ms. Ana Lilia Montes, Ms. Aurora

8 Vasquez, Ms. Micaela Garcia and other women to quid pro quo and/or hostile work environment

9 sexual harassment. Finally, Plaintiff alleged that Coastal Valley subjected Ms. Edelfa Madrigal,

10 Ms. Ana Lilia Montes, Ms. Aurora Vasquez, Ms. Micaela Garcia and other employees to

11 retaliation after they complained about harassment and/or rejected the sexual harassment.

12

2. Defendant denies these allegations.

13

3. In the interest of resolving this matter and as a result of having engaged in

14 comprehensive settlement negotiations, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

15 and Coastal Valley Management, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as “the Parties”) have agreed that

16 this action should be finally resolved by entry of this Decree. This Decree shall not constitute an

17 adjudication and/or finding on the merits of the case, and shall not be used as evidence of

18 liability, res judicata, or collateral estoppel in any other legal proceeding against Coastal Valley.

19

4. This Decree is final and binding upon the Parties, their successors and assigns.

20

5. The Parties agree that this Decree resolves all claims arising out of EEOC Charge

21 Nos. 377-A0-0408, 377-A0-0048, 370-99-0131 and 377-99-0392 and the complaints filed in this

22 action, and constitutes a complete resolution of all claims of sexual harassment and retaliation

23 under Title VII that were made by the Commission in this action. This Consent Decree does not,

24 however, resolve any future charges or charges that may be pending with the Commission other

25 than the charges specifically referred to in this paragraph or those that may be released by

26 Eligible Claimants pursuant to this Decree.

27

6. This Decree and the separate Settlement Agreement and Release entered into

28 between Coastal Valley and Plaintiff/Intervenors comprise the full and exclusive agreements of

CONSENT DECREE C-01-21105-RMW (PVT)
2

Case 5:01-cv-21105-RMW Document 37 Filed 05/28/2002 Page 3 of 11

1 the parties with respect to the matters discussed herein. No waiver, modification or amendment

2 of any provision of this Decree shall be effective unless made in writing, approved by all parties

3 to this Decree and approved by the Court or ordered by the Court.

4

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and agreements set forth

5 herein, the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND

6 DECREED that:

7

8

7. This Court has jurisdiction of the subject matter and of the parties to this action.

9 This Court retains jurisdiction over this Consent Decree for all purposes until the satisfaction of

10 the defendant’s obligations as set forth herein.

11

8. This Consent Decree conforms with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and is

12 not in derogation of the rights or privileges of any person. The entry of this Consent Decree will

13 further the objectives of Title VII and will be in the best interest of the parties, those for whom

14 EEOC seeks relief, and the public.

15 Scope of Consent Decree

16

9. The duration of this Decree shall be two (2) years from the date of entry of the

17 Decree, provided that defendant has complied substantially with the terms of this Consent

18 Decree. Coastal Valley will be deemed to have complied substantially if the Court has not made

19 any finding or orders during the term of the Consent Decree that the defendant has failed to

20 comply with any terms of this Decree. During that time, this Court shall retain jurisdiction over

21 this matter and the Parties for the purpose of enforcing compliance with the Consent Decree,

22 including issuing such orders as may be required to effectuate its purposes. Nothwithstanding

23 the foregoing, the Parties acknowledge that as of June 29, 2002, the management agreement

24 between Coastal Valley and the owner of the vineyard property where the Plaintiff Intervenors

25 and Identified Claimants worked (“the Vineyard Property”) will be terminated. Accordingly, the

26 obligations contained in this Consent Decree shall be enforceable after that date only in the event

27 that Coastal Valley resumes operating.

28

CONSENT DECREE C-01-21105-RMW (PVT)
3

Case 5:01-cv-21105-RMW Document 37 Filed 05/28/2002 Page 4 of 11

1 General Injunctive Provision

2

10. Sexual Harassment. Coastal Valley and its officers, agents, management

3 (including all supervisory employees), successors, assigns, and all those in active concert or

4 participation with them, or any of them, hereby agree not to (a) discriminate against persons on

5 the basis of sex in the terms and conditions of employment; (b) engage in or be a party to any

6 action, policy or practice that is intended to or is known to them to have the effect of harassing or

7 intimidating any female employee on the basis of her gender or any male employee because of

8 his association with a female employee; or (c) create, facilitate or permit the existence of a work

9 environment that is hostile to female employees.

10

11. Retaliation. Coastal Valley and its officers, agents, management (including all

11 supervisory employees), successors and assigns, and all those in active concert or participation

12 with them, or any of them, hereby agree not to engage in, implement or permit any action, policy

13 or practice with the purpose of retaliating against any current or former employee of Coastal

14 Valley because he or she has in the past, or during the term of this Consent Decree: (a) opposed

15 any practice of sex discrimination, sexual harassment or retaliation made unlawful under Title

16 VII; (b) filed a Charge of Discrimination alleging such practice; (c) testified or participated in

17 any manner in any investigation (including, without limitation, any internal investigation

18 undertaken by Coastal Valley), or proceeding in connection with this case and/or relating to any

19 claim of sex discrimination or sexual harassment; (d) was identified as a possible witness in this

20 action; (e) asserted any rights under this Decree; or (f) sought and/or received any monetary

21 and/or non-monetary relief in accordance with this Decree.

22 Monetary Relief

23

12. Within forty (40) days after the effective date of this Consent Decree, Coastal

24 Valley agrees to pay the total sum of Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000.00) as damages,

25 to be allocated to Ms. Edelfa Madrigal, Ms. Ana Lilia Montes, Ms. Aurora Vasquez, Ms. Micaela

26 Garcia, identified current and former employees employed by Coastal Valley for their claims of

27 alleged sexual harassment and retaliation.

28

CONSENT DECREE C-01-21105-RMW (PVT)
4

Case 5:01-cv-21105-RMW Document 37 Filed 05/28/2002 Page 5 of 11

1

13. The actual amount to be paid to Ms. Edelfa Madrigal, Ms. Ana Lilia Montes, Ms.

2 Aurora Vasquez, Ms. Micaela Garcia and their attorneys is set forth in Exhibit A, attached

3 hereto. Exhibit A, attached hereto, shall remain under seal. Coastal Valley shall enter into a

4 separate settlement agreement and release with Ms. Edelfa Madrigal, Ms. Ana Lilia Montes, Ms.

5 Aurora Vasquez and Ms. Micaela Garcia and their private attorneys which contains additional

6 terms regarding their individual settlement.

7

14. The actual amount to be paid to the other identified claimants by the EEOC (the

8 “identified claimants”) is set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto. Exhibit A shall remain under

9 seal. Said checks shall be sent directly to claimants to the addresses listed in Exhibit A after

10 Coastal Valley receives written notification by the EEOC that all of the identified claimants’

11 Title VII Releases (attached hereto as Exhibit B) have been delivered by the identified claimants

12 to the EEOC. Within five (5) days of receiving canceled checks (or other proof of payment or

13 proof of delivery of payment acceptable to the EEOC) indicating that all identified claimants

14 were paid and/or delivered payment in full in the amounts referenced in Exhibit A, the EEOC

15 will deliver the original Title VII Releases to Coastal Valley’s counsel. Any unclaimed funds

16 shall be distributed to the other identified claimants in proportion to the distribution that they

17 have already received.

18 Specific Injunctive Relief

19

POSTING AND OTHER NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES

20

15. The terms of this Consent Decree or an agreed-upon Notice in English and

21 Spanish shall be, and remain, posted in a clearly visible location frequented by employees at each

22 location owned and/or operated by Coastal Valley during the term of this Consent Decree.

23

16. Within forty (40) days of the entry of this Consent Decree, or as soon thereafter as

24 practical and consistent with the defendant’s obligation pursuant to this Consent Decree, Coastal

25 Valley shall issue to all employees, supervisors and managers Coastal Valley’s sexual harassment

26 policy and procedure statement, and each such person shall be asked to sign an acknowledgment

27 that they have received and read the policy. The policy and procedure statement should be

28 written in English and Spanish. The same acknowledgment shall be required of all newly hired

CONSENT DECREE C-01-21105-RMW (PVT)
5

Case 5:01-cv-21105-RMW Document 37 Filed 05/28/2002 Page 6 of 11

1 employees at the start of their employment.

2

17. Under the direction of an outside consultant paid by Coastal Valley, Coastal

3 Valley shall provide and require all current and new personnel to attend sexual harassment

4 training during the week of May 13, 2002 and on the first day of January and June of each year

5 thereafter during the duration of this Consent Decree. The purpose of said training will be to

6 give participants a thorough understanding of sexual harassment issues, including but not limited

7 to theories of liability under Title VII, sources of legal protection of sexual harassment victims

8 and the employer’s obligation to take preventive, investigative and remedial action with respect

9 to sexual harassment complaints and to review company policies (including discipline policies)

10 and practices related to sex harassment and retaliation. This training shall be designed and

11 conducted, with specific reference to the sex harassment policies of the defendant, by an outside

12 consultant in conjunction with company personnel. Coastal Valley agrees to allow the outside

13 consultant to conduct the significant portions of all training programs. The training shall be

14 conducted in both Spanish, English and any other language necessary to comply with the law.

15 This consultant shall be selected by Coastal Valley, subject to approval by counsel for the

16 Commission, and will be a person with established experience in matters of sexual harassment

17 training, and the applicable laws and regulations. Any change in consultants during the terms of

18 this Consent Decree can be done only upon the joint approval of counsel for the Commission and

19 Coastal Valley, or, if a dispute arises, upon Order of the Court.

20

18. The content, method of training and size of training classes is subject to approval

21 by the Commission and shall take into consideration the Company’s operational needs. All

22 training sessions will take place during the employees’ regular working hours. Coastal Valley

23 agrees to provide a description of each training program to counsel for the Commission no later

24 than ten (10) days before the training programs are scheduled to be held.

25

19. The company President, or an official of identical or higher ranking with

26 ownership interest in Coastal Valley shall appear in person at all of the training sessions

27 conducted by the consultant to reiterate the sex harassment policies of the defendant, to affirm

28 that such harassment shall not be tolerated, and to encourage women who believe that they have

CONSENT DECREE C-01-21105-RMW (PVT)
6

Case 5:01-cv-21105-RMW Document 37 Filed 05/28/2002 Page 7 of 11

1 been victims of such harassment to utilize the complaint procedure established by the defendant.

2 Any and all presentations will be provided in English, Spanish and any other language necessary

3 to comply with the law. Counsel for the Commission shall preview and approve the remarks of

4 the high-ranking official in this regard.

5

20. All persons attending mandatory sexual harassment training shall sign an

6 acknowledgment of their attendance at the training, the date thereof, and their position with the

7 company. The consultant shall retain the originals of these acknowledgments, and provide

8 Coastal Valley with a copy thereof.

9 SEXUAL HARASSMENT POLICIES AND PROCEDURES

10

21. After consultation with the above-referenced consultant, and with the approval of

11 counsel for the Commission, within forty (40) days of the effective date of this Consent Decree

12 the defendant shall adopt, revise, modify or otherwise adapt their existing sex harassment

13 policies, procedures and associated notices and forms to more effectively carry out Coastal

14 Valley’s obligations under this Consent Decree. Upon the suggestion of the consultant, or as

15 otherwise deemed appropriate by Coastal Valley, and with the approval of counsel for the

16 Commission, these policies and procedures will be further modified during the term of this

17 Consent Decree for the same reasons.

18

22. Within thirty (30) days after each above-referenced training, Coastal Valley will mail

19 to counsel for the Commission a report containing the following information and documentation:

20

a. dates of sex harassment training and copies of list of all attendees.

21

b. copies of all materials distributed at sex harassment training.

22

23. Within ninety (90) days after entry of this Decree, defendant will mail to counsel

23 for the Commission a report containing the following information and documentation:

24

a. Copies of all sex harassment complaints made since the submission of the

25

immediately preceding report hereunder, and a statement for each, as to the

26

results of the investigation of such complaints. Additionally, Coastal Valley will

27

identify the name, address and telephone number of the complainant and identify

28

the person who received the complaint. Coastal Valley will also identify the steps

CONSENT DECREE C-01-21105-RMW (PVT)
7

Case 5:01-cv-21105-RMW Document 37 Filed 05/28/2002 Page 8 of 11

1

it took to investigate such complaints, what it concluded as a result of any

2

investigation into sex harassment that they undertook since the submission of the

3

immediately preceding report. A copy of all records, documents and other

4

writings relevant to such complaints and investigations shall be maintained by

5

Coastal Valley during the period of this Consent Decree, and will be made

6

available to the Commission within ten (10) days following a written request from

7

Commission counsel to Coastal Valley’s counsel.

8 On the first day of January and June of each year during the duration of this Consent Decree,

9 Coastal Valley will mail to counsel for the Commission a report containing the above

10 documentation and information.

11 POLICIES DESIGNED TO PROMOTE SUPERVISOR ACCOUNTABILITY

12

24. Coastal Valley agrees that it shall impose substantial discipline --- up to and

13 including termination, suspension without pay or demotion --- upon any supervisor or manager

14 who engages in sexual harassment or sex-based harassment or permits any such conduct to occur

15 in his or her work area or among employees under his or her supervision, or who retaliates

16 against any person who complains or participates in any investigation or proceeding concerning

17 any such conduct. Coastal Valley shall communicate this policy to all of its supervisors and

18 managers.

19

25. Coastal Valley agrees that it shall continue to advise all managers and supervisors

20 of their duty to actively monitor their work areas to ensure employee’s compliance with the

21 company’s sexual harassment policy, and to report any incidents and/or complaints of sexual

22 harassment, sex-based harassment and/or retaliation of which they become aware to the

23 department charged with handling such complaints.

24

26. Coastal Valley agrees that it will distribute in English and Spanish the “No

25 Harassment” policy for supervisors attached hereto as Exhibit C within ten (10) days of the

26 effective date of this Consent Decree. Coastal Valley agrees to distribute the “No Harassment”

27 policy to each and every new supervisor and manager that it hires or promotes to that position

28 during the life of this Consent Decree no later than ten (10) days after each supervisor and

CONSENT DECREE C-01-21105-RMW (PVT)
8

Case 5:01-cv-21105-RMW Document 37 Filed 05/28/2002 Page 9 of 11

1 manager is hired or promoted.

2

27. Coastal Valley agrees to compile and distribute supervisors instructions with

3 respect to hiring, discipline and termination of employees for its managers and supervisors no

4 later than September 1, 2002. Coastal Valley agrees that these instructions will include the “No

5 Harassment” policy referenced in paragraph 26 above and will include any other current and

6 revised policies pertaining to sexual harassment, sex discrimination and retaliation. Coastal

7 Valley agrees to distribute the supervisors instructions to each and every new supervisor and

8 manager that it hires or promotes to that position during the life of this Consent Decree no later

9 than ten (10) days after each supervisor and manager is hired or promoted.

10

28. Coastal Valley agrees that it shall include “commitment to equal employment

11 opportunity” as a criterion for qualification for supervisory positions.

12 Other Injunctive Relief

13

29. Coastal Valley acknowledges that Ron Gallegos, Edubigen Resendez and

14 Guadalupe Velasco are no longer employed by Coastal Valley. Coastal Valley and its officers,

15 affiliates, agents, employees, successors and all persons in active concert or participation with it

16 are hereby enjoined and restrained from hiring Mr. Gallegos, Mr. Resendez or Mr. Velasco in

17 any capacity at any of its locations during the term of this Decree.

18 Dismissal of Action

19

32. Two (2) years after the entry of this Consent Decree, this lawsuit will be

20 dismissed with prejudice, provided that the defendant has complied substantially with the terms

21 of this Consent Decree. Coastal Valley will be deemed to have complied substantially if the

22 Court has not made any finding or orders during the term of the Decree that the defendant has

23 failed to comply with any of the terms of this Decree.

24 ////

25 ////

26 ////

27 ////

28 ////

CONSENT DECREE C-01-21105-RMW (PVT)
9

Case 5:01-cv-21105-RMW Document 37 Filed 05/28/2002 Page 10 of 11

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 Dated: 5/9/02
9

10

11 Dated: 5/9/02

12

13 Dated: 5/10/02
14

15

16 Dated: 5/15/02

17

18

19

20

21

22 Dated: 5/10/02

23

24 Dated:
25

5/13/02

26

27 Dated:

5/9/02

28

CONSENT DECREE C-01-21105-RMW (PVT)

On behalf of Plaintiffs,
GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of the General Counsel Washington, DC 20507 Telephone: (202) 663 - 4702
s/William R. Tamayo WILLIAM R. TAMAYO Regional Attorney
s/Jonathan T. Peck JONATHAN T. PECK Supervisory Trial Attorney
s/Sanya P. Hill SANYA P. HILL Senior Trial Attorney
s/Lucila G. Rosas LUCILA G. ROSAS Trial Attorney
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION San Jose Local Office 96 North Third Street, Suite 200 San Jose, CA 95112
s/Lisa Duarte LISA DUARTE MINAMI, LEW & TAMAKI LLP
s/Michael Meuter MICHAEL MEUTER CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE
s/Randolph C. Roeder RANDOLPH C. ROEDER LITTLER, MENDELSON LLP
10

Case 5:01-cv-21105-RMW Document 37 Filed 05/28/2002 Page 11 of 11

1 2
5/23/02 3 DATE: 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
CONSENT DECREE C-01-21105-RMW (PVT)

IT IS SO ORDERED /S/ RONALD M. WHYTE
United States District Judge
11

 
 CAND-ECF - Docket Report

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?804606155405653-L_3...

ADRMOP, CLOSED
U.S. District Court California Northern District (San Jose) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 5:01-cv-21105-RMW

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission et al v. Coastal Valley Management et al Assigned to: Hon. Ronald M. Whyte Referred to: Magistrate Judge Patricia V. Trumbull Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)

Date Filed: 11/28/2001 Date Terminated: 05/28/2002 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by Lucila G. Rosas U.S. EEOC 96 North Third Street Suite 200 San Jose, CA 95112 (408) 291-6401 Email: Lucila.Rosas@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sanya P. Hill Maxion U.S. EEOC 350 The Embarcadero Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94105-1260 415-625-5650 Fax: 415-625-5657 Email: sanya.hill@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William Robert Tamayo U.S. EEOC 350 Embarcadero Street Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94105-1687 415-625-5645 Fax: 415-625-5657 Email: william.tamayo@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jonathan T. Peck U.S. EEOC 350 Embarcadero Street Suite 500

1 of 7

6/14/2007 12:07 PM

CAND-ECF - Docket Report
Intervenor Pla Ana Lilia Montes
Intervenor Pla Aurora Vasquez
2 of 7

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?804606155405653-L_3...
San Francisco, CA 94105-1687 415/625-5600 Fax: 415-625-5657 Email: Jonathan.Peck@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Douglas Herbek California Rural Legal Assistance Inc 801 15TH Suite B Modesto, CA 95354 209-577-3811 Fax: 209-577-1098 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lisa Duarte Minami Lew & Tamaki, LLP 360 Post Street 8th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108 415 788-0237 Fax: 415 398-3887 Email: ld@mltsf.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael L. Meuter California Rural Legal Assistance Inc 3 Williams Road Salinas, CA 93905 831-757-5221 Fax: 831-757-6212 Email: mmeuter@crla.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lisa Duarte (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Douglas Herbek (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael L. Meuter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
6/14/2007 12:07 PM

CAND-ECF - Docket Report

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?804606155405653-L_3...

Intervenor Pla Micaela Garcia
Intervenor Pla Edelfa Madrigal
V. Defendant Coastal Valley Management
Defendant Lupe Velasco Defendant Edubigen Resendez Defendant Ron Gallegos

represented by Lisa Duarte (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Douglas Herbek (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael L. Meuter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lisa Duarte (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Randolph C. Roeder Littler Mendelson, P.C. 650 California Street, 20th Fl. San Francisco, CA 94108 (415) 677-3148 Email: rcroeder@littler.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 11/28/2001

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT jury demand; summons issued against Coastal Valley Management (). Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (lrd, ) Additional attachment(s) added on 4/18/2002 (dhm, ). (Entered: 11/30/2001)

3 of 7

6/14/2007 12:07 PM

CAND-ECF - Docket Report
11/28/2001 11/28/2001 11/29/2001 11/29/2001 11/29/2001 11/29/2001 12/07/2001 12/07/2001 12/07/2001 12/07/2001 12/13/2001 12/14/2001 12/14/2001 12/14/2001 12/18/2001 12/26/2001

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?804606155405653-L_3...
2 ADR SCHEDULING ORDER: Case Management Statement due by 3/26/2002. Case Management Conference set for 4/2/2002 at 02:00 PM. (lrd, ) (Entered: 11/30/2001)
10 Summons Issued as to Coastal Valley Management (lrd, ) Additional attachment(s) added on 12/12/2001 (lrd, ). (Entered: 11/30/2001)
3 MOTION to Intervene filed by Micaela Garcia, Edelfa Madrigal, Ana Lilia Montes, Aurora Vasquez. Motion Hearing set for 1/8/2002 10:00 AM. (lrd, ) (Entered: 11/30/2001)
4 MEMORANDUM in Support re [3] filed by Micaela Garcia, Edelfa Madrigal, Ana Lilia Montes, Aurora Vasquez. (Related document(s)[3]) (lrd, ) (Entered: 11/30/2001)
5 DECLARATION in Support re [3] of Lisa Duarte filed by Micaela Garcia, Edelfa Madrigal, Ana Lilia Montes, Aurora Vasquez. (Related document(s)[3]) (lrd, ) (Entered: 11/30/2001)
Received Order re [3] by Micaela Garcia, Edelfa Madrigal, Ana Lilia Montes, Aurora Vasquez. (lrd, ) (Entered: 11/30/2001)
6 Consent to Proceed Before a U.S. Magistrate Judge by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Rosas, Lucila) (Entered: 12/07/2001)
7 Statement of Non-Opposition re [3] Motion to Intervene filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Related document(s)[3]) (Rosas, Lucila) (Entered: 12/07/2001)
8 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 6 Consent to Proceed before a Magistrate Judge (Rosas, Lucila) (Entered: 12/07/2001)
9 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 7 Non-Opposition to Motion to Intervene (Rosas, Lucila) (Entered: 12/07/2001)
11 Declination to Proceed Before a U.S. Magistrate Judge by Coastal Valley Management. (Roeder, Randolph) (Entered: 12/13/2001)
12 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Coastal Valley Management (Roeder, Randolph) (Entered: 12/14/2001)
13 CLERK'S NOTICE Case Management Conference set for 4/5/2002 at 10:30 AM. Before Honorable Ronald M. Whyet Case Management Statement due by 3/29/2002. (cm, ) (Entered: 12/14/2001)
15 NOTICE of Dissociation of counsel by Micaela Garcia, Edelfa Madrigal, Ana Lilia Montes, Aurora Vasquez. (lrd, ) (Entered: 12/20/2001)
14 ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to Judge Ronald M. Whyte and Patricia V Trumbull for all further proceedings. . Signed by Executive Committee on 12/18/01. (lrd, ) (Entered: 12/19/2001)
16 ANSWER to Complaint by Coastal Valley Management. (Roeder, Randolph) (Entered: 12/26/2001)

4 of 7

6/14/2007 12:07 PM

CAND-ECF - Docket Report
12/27/2001 01/04/2002 01/04/2002 01/04/2002 01/04/2002 01/04/2002 01/16/2002 01/16/2002 01/22/2002 02/01/2002 02/14/2002 02/19/2002 02/22/2002 02/27/2002 02/27/2002 03/06/2002 03/07/2002
5 of 7

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?804606155405653-L_3...
17 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Coastal Valley Management re 16 Answer to Complaint (Roeder, Randolph) (Entered: 12/27/2001)
18 MOTION to Intervene filed by Micaela Garcia, Edelfa Madrigal, Ana Lilia Montes, Aurora Vasquez. Motion Hearing set for 2/8/2002 09:00 AM. (cv, ) (Entered: 01/04/2002)
19 ECF Letter to Lisa Duarte re: #18 (cv, ) (Entered: 01/04/2002)
20 MEMORANDUM in Support re [18] filed by Micaela Garcia, Edelfa Madrigal, Ana Lilia Montes, Aurora Vasquez. (Related document(s)[18]) (cv, ) (Entered: 01/04/2002)
21 DECLARATION in Support re [18] of L. Duarte filed by Micaela Garcia, Edelfa Madrigal, Ana Lilia Montes, Aurora Vasquez. (Related document(s)[18]) (cv, ) (Entered: 01/04/2002)
Proposed Order re: motion to intervene as party plaintiff by Micaela Garcia, Edelfa Madrigal, Ana Lilia Montes, Aurora Vasquez. (cv, ) (Entered: 01/04/2002)
22 Statement of Non-Opposition re [18] Motion to Intervene and Reservation of Rights filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Related document(s)[18]) (Rosas, Lucila) (Entered: 01/16/2002)
23 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 22 Statement of Non-Opposition (Rosas, Lucila) (Entered: 01/16/2002)
24 Statement of Non-Opposition re [18] filed by Coastal Valley Management. (Related document(s)[18]) (Roeder, Randolph) (Entered: 01/22/2002)
25 ORDER by Judge Ronald M. Whyte granting [3]and 8 Motion to Intervene (rmwlc1, ) (Entered: 02/01/2002)
26 COMPLAINT against all defendants ( Filing fee $150 ). Filed by Ana Lilia Montes. (Meuter, Michael) (Entered: 02/14/2002)
27 MOTION to Intervene filed by Micaela Garcia. Motion Hearing set for 2/8/2002 10:00 AM. (Attachments: # 1 # 2 # 3 # 4)(Duarte, Lisa) (Entered: 02/19/2002)
Summons Issued as to Coastal Valley Management ; Ron Gallegos ; Edubigen Resendez ; Lupe Velasco (dhm, ) (Entered: 02/22/2002)
28 Defendant Coastal Valley Management, Inc.'s ANSWER to Complaint Filed by Intervenors by Coastal Valley Management. (Roeder, Randolph) (Entered: 02/27/2002)
Proposed Order & Stipulation for two week continuance of case management conference by Coastal Valley Management. (dhm, ) (Entered: 02/28/2002)
29 CLERK'S NOTICE Case Management Conference set for 4/19/2002 at 10:30 AM. Joint Case Management Statement due by 4/12/2002. (jv, ) (Entered: 03/06/2002)
30 STIPULATION re 1 Allowing Filing of Amended Answer to EEOC Complaint by Coastal Valley Management. (Attachments: # 1 Defendant Coastal Valley Management, Inc.'s Amended Answer to EEOC Complaint)(Roeder, Randolph)
6/14/2007 12:07 PM

CAND-ECF - Docket Report
04/10/2002 04/15/2002 04/18/2002 04/18/2002 04/29/2002 05/08/2002 05/15/2002
05/15/2002
05/16/2002 05/28/2002 05/28/2002 05/28/2002

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?804606155405653-L_3...
(Entered: 03/07/2002)
31 STIPULATION re 29 four week continuance of case management conference by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Rosas, Lucila) (Entered: 04/10/2002)
33 ANSWER to Complaint ; Jury Demand by Edubigen Resendez. (dhm, ) (Entered: 04/18/2002)
32 ORDER for a Four-Week Continuance of Case Management Conference re 31. Case Management Conference is set for 5/17/02 @ 10:30 am. Signed by Judge Ronald M. Whyte on 4/18/02. (jv, ) (Entered: 04/18/2002)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Case Management Conference set for 5/17/2002 at 10:30 AM. (jv, ) (Entered: 04/18/2002)
34 NOTICE of Letter regarding Settlement by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Rosas, Lucila) (Entered: 04/29/2002)
Remark Letter submitted to Court re: case settled through mediation on 4/23/02. Parties will forward a Consent Decree. (jv, ) (Entered: 05/08/2002)
35 Proposed Order (CONSENT DECREE) by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Notice Regarding Exhibit A Attachment# 2 Exhibit Release# 3 Exhibit Coastal Valley No-Harassment Policy)(Rosas, Lucila) (Entered: 05/15/2002)
36 Ex Parte MOTION to Seal Document Exhibit A Of Consent Decree filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Granting Plaintiff EEOC'S Ex Parte Motion To File Exhibit A Of Consent Decree Under Seal Indefinitely)(Rosas, Lucila) (Entered: 05/15/2002)
Received Document re 35 Exhibit A (SUBMITTED UNDER SEAL) by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Micaela Garcia, Edelfa Madrigal, Ana Lilia Montes, Aurora Vasquez. (dhm, ) (Entered: 05/16/2002)
37 ORDER re 35 CONSENT DECREE. Signed by Judge Ronald M. Whyte on 5/23/02. (jv, ) (Entered: 05/28/2002)
38 ORDER by Judge Ronald M. Whyte granting 36 Motion to Seal Document (Exhibit A) of Consent Decree. (jv, ) (Entered: 05/28/2002)
39 EXHIBITS re 37 Consent Decree filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Micaela Garcia, Edelfa Madrigal, Ana Lilia Montes, Aurora Vasquez. (Related document(s)37) (dhm, ) Modified on 5/28/2002 (dhm, )EXHIBIT FILED UNDER SEAL PURSUANT TO ORDER FILED ON 5/28/2002 (Entered: 05/28/2002)

6 of 7

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt
06/14/2007 10:08:30

6/14/2007 12:07 PM

CAND-ECF - Docket Report

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?804606155405653-L_3...

PACER Login:
Description:
Billable Pages:

hs0328
Docket Report
4

Client Code: eeoc

Search Criteria:

5:01-cv-21105-RMW

Cost:

0.32

7 of 7

6/14/2007 12:07 PM