UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
v.
AMERICAN METAL COATINGS, INC., Defendant.

)

) ) )

1

~iJllC.V2235

.~

)
) Judg~UDGE O'MALLEY
)

)

COMPLAINT AND

)

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

)

)

MAG. JUDGE HEMANN

NATURE OF THE ACTION

This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and Title I of

the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of race and

national origin and to provide appropriate reliefto Charging Party Samuel Rodriguez, Charging Party

Roberto Reimundi, Charging Party Domingo Lugo, Norberto Ramirez, Edwin Vasquez, Raul Silva,

German Lugo, Fidel Rosario, Samuel Rosario, Michael Brock, and other presently unidentified

Hispanic, Puerto Rican, and Black employees who were adversely affected by such practices. As

alleged with greater particularity in paragraphs 7-44, below, the United States Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission ("the Commission") alleges that the Defendant American Metal Coatings, Inc. has engaged in a continuous course ofrace and national origin discrimination that has persisted since at least April 15, 1996.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Jurisdiction ofthis Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§451, 1331, 1337, 1343 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Section 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3) ("Title VII"), and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a. 2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were and are now being committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division.
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "Commission"), is the Agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title VII and the ADA, and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Section 706(f)(1) and (3) ofTitle VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3). 4. At all relevant times, Defendant American Metal Coatings, Inc. ("Defendant"), an Ohio corporation, has continuously been doing business in the State of Ohio and the City of Cleveland, and has continuously had at least 15 employees. 5. At all relevant times, Defendant has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 701(b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b), (g) and (h).
2

STATEMENT OF CLAIMS

6. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Samuel Rodriguez, Roberto Reimundi and Domingo Lugo filed charges ofdiscrimination with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by Defendant. All conditions precedent to the institution ofthis lawsuit have

been fulfilled. 7. Since at least April 15, 1996, Defendant has engaged in unlawful employment

practices at its Cleveland, Ohio facility in violation of Section 703(a)(I) and (a)(2) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(l) and (a)(2).

8.

Throughout his employment during the period 1996-1998, Defendant subjected

Samuel Rodriguez to harassment because ofhis race, Hispanic, and/or national origin, Puerto Rican,

in violation of Title VII.

9. Throughout his employment during the period 1996-1998, Defendant subjected

Samuel Rodriguez to different terms and conditions of employment, such as lunch periods and

breaks of shorter duration than White employees, inferior access to safety equipment as compared

to White employees, more difficult and demanding job assignments than those given to White

employees, and being denied access to a restroom used by White employees, because of his race,

Hispanic, and/or his national origin, Puerto Rican, in violation of Title VII.

10. On or about March 10, 1998, Defendant discharged Samuel Rodriguez because ofhis race, Hispanic, and/or national origin, Puerto Rican, in violation of Title VII.

II. Throughout his employment during the period 1997-1999, Defendant subjected

Roberto Reimundi to harassment because ofhis race, Hispanic, and/or national origin, Puerto Rican,

in violation of Title VII.

3

12. Throughout his employment during the period 1997-1999, Defendant subjected Roberto Reimundi to different terms and conditions of employment, such as lunch periods and breaks of shorter duration than White employees, inferior access to safety equipment as compared to White employees, more difficult and demanding job assignments than those given to White employees, and being denied access to a restroom used by White employees, because of his race, Hispanic, and/or his national origin, Puerto Rican, in violation of Title VII.
13. On or about March 4, 1999, Defendant constructively discharged Roberto Reimundi because of his race, Hispanic, and/or national origin, Puerto Rican, in violation of Title VII. Throughout the course ofMr. Reimundi's employment, Defendant, acting with the intent to cause Mr. Reimundi' s resignation, deliberately created working conditions that Mr. Reimundi reasonably viewed as intolerable and that compelled Mr. Reimundi to resign.
14. Throughout his employment in 1999, Defendant subjected Domingo Lugo to harassment because of his race, Hispanic, and/or national origin, Puerto Rican, in violation ofTitle VII.
15. Throughout his employment in 1999, Defendant subjected Domingo Lugo to different terms and conditions ofemployment, such as lunch periods and breaks of shorter duration than White employees, inferior access to safety equipment as compared to White employees, more difficult and demanding job assignments than those given to White employees, and being denied access to a restroom used by White employees, because of his race, Hispanic, and/or his national origin, Puerto Rican, in violation of Title VII.
16. On or about March 4,1999, Defendant constructively discharged Domingo Lugo because of his race, Hispanic, and/or national origin, Puerto Rican, in violation of Title VII.
4

Throughout the course ofMr. Lugo's employment, Defendant, acting with the intent to cause Mr. Lugo's resignation, deliberately created working conditions that Mr. Lugo reasonably viewed as intolerable and that compelled Mr. Lugo to resign.
17. Throughout his employment in 1997, Defendant subjected Norberto Ramirez to harassment because ofhis race, Hispanic, and/or national origin, Puerto Rican, in violation ofTitle VII.
18. Throughout his employment in 1997, Defendant subjected Norberto Ramirez to different terms and conditions of employment, such as lunch periods and breaks of shorter duration than White employees, inferior access to safety equipment as compared to White employees, more difficult and demanding job assignments than those given to White employees, and being denied access to a restroom used by White employees, because of his race, Hispanic, and/or his national origin, Puerto Rican, in violation of Title VII.
19. On or about November 1997, Defendant discharged Norberto Ramirez because ofhis race, Hispanic, and/or national origin, Puerto Rican, in violation of Title VII.
20. Throughout-his employment during the period 1997-1998, Defendant subjected Edwin Vasquez to harassment because of his race, Hispanic, and/or national origin, Puerto Rican, in violation of Title VII.
21. Throughout his employment during the period 1997-1998, Defendant subjected Edwin Vasquez to different terms and conditions of employment, such as lunch periods and breaks ofshorter duration than White employees, inferior access to safety equipment as compared to White employees, more difficult and demandingjob assignments than those given to White employees, and being denied access to a restroom used by White employees, because of his race, Hispanic, and/or
5

his national origin, Puerto Rican, in violation of Title VII. 22. On or about April 26, 1998, Defendant constructively discharged Edwin Vasquez
because of his race, Hispanic, and/or national origin, Puerto Rican, in violation of Title VII. Throughout the course ofMr. Vasquez's employment, Defendant, acting with the intent to cause Mr. Vasquez's resignation, deliberately created working conditions that Mr. Vasquez reasonably viewed as intolerable and that compelled Mr. Vasquez to resign.
23. Throughout his employment in 1997, Defendant subjected Raul Silva to harassment because of his race, Hispanic, and/or national origin, Puerto Rican, in violation of Title VII.
24. Throughout his employment in 1997, Defendant SUbjected Raul Silva to different terms and conditions of employment, such as lunch periods and breaks of shorter duration than White employees, inferior access to safety equipment as compared to White employees, more difficult and demanding job assignments than those given to White employees, and being denied access to a restroom used by White employees, because of his race, Hispanic, and/or his national origin, Puerto Rican, in violation of Title VII.
25. On or about April 1997, Defendant constructively discharged Raul Silva because of his race, Hispanic, and/or national origin, Puerto Rican, in violation of Title VII. Throughout the course ofMr. Silva's employment, Defendant, acting with the intent to cause Mr. Silva's resignation, deliberately created working conditions that Mr. Silva reasonably viewed as intolerable and that compelled Mr. Silva to resign.
26. Throughout his employment in 1997, Defendant subjected German Lugo to harassment because ofhis race, Hispanic, and/or national origin, Puerto Rican, in violation of Title VII.
6

27. Throughout his employment in 1997, Defendant sUbjected Gennan Lugo to different tenns and conditions of employment, such as lunch periods and breaks of shorter duration than White employees, inferior access to safety equipment as compared to White employees, more difficult and demanding job assiguments than those given to White employees, and being denied access to a restroom used by White employees, because of his race, Hispanic, and/or his national origin, Puerto Rican, in violation of Title VII.
28. On or about November1997, Defendant constructively discharged Gennan Lugo because of his race, Hispanic, and/or national origin, Puerto Rican, in violation of Title VII. Throughout the course of Mr. Lugo's employment, Defendant, acting with the intent to cause Mr. Lugo's resignation, deliberately created working conditions that Mr. Lugo reasonably viewed as intolerable and that compelled Mr. Lugo to resign.
29. Throughout his employment during the period 1996-1999, Defendant SUbjected Fidel Rosario to harassment because of his race, Hispanic, and/or national origin, Puerto Rican, in violation of Title VII.
30. Throughout his employment during the period 1996-1999, Defendant subjected Fidel Rosario to different tenns and conditions ofemployment, such as lunch periods and breaks ofshorter duration than White employees, inferior access to safety equipment as compared to White employees, more difficult and demandingjob assiguments than those given to White employees, and being denied access to a restroom used by White employees, because of his race, Hispanic, and/or his national origin, Puerto Rican, in violation of Title VII.
31. On or about August 8, 1999, Defendant constructively discharged Fidel Rosario because of his race, Hispanic, and/or national origin, Puerto Rican, in violation of Title VII.
7

Throughout the course ofMr. Rosario's employment, Defendant, acting with the intent to cause Mr. Rosario's resignation, deliberately created working conditions that Mr. Rosario reasonably viewed as intolerable and that compelled Mr. Rosario to resign.
32. Throughout his employment in 1998, Defendant subjected Samuel Rosario to harassment because ofhis race, Hispanic, and/or national origin, Puerto Rican, in violation of Title VII.
33. Throughout his employment in 1998, Defendant subjected Samuel Rosario to different terms and conditions of employment, such as lunch periods and breaks ofshorter duration than White employees, inferior access to safety equipment as compared to White employees, more difficult and demanding job assignments than those given to White employees, and being denied access to a restroom used by White employees, because of his race, Hispanic, and/or his national origin, Puerto Rican, in violation of Title VII.
34. On or about July 26,1998, Defendant discharged Samuel Rosario because of his race, Hispanic, and/or national origin, Puerto Rican, in violation of Title VII.
35. Throughout his employment during the period 1998-2000, Defendant subjected Michael Brock to harassment because of his race, Black, in violation of Title VII.
36. Throughout his employment during the period 1998-2000, Defendant subjected Michael Brock to different terms and conditions of employment, such as lunch periods and breaks ofshorter duration than White employees, inferior access to safety equipment as compared to White employees, more difficult and demandingjob assignments than those given to White employees, and being denied access to a restroom used by White employees, because ofhis race, Black, in violation of Title VII.
8

37. On or about January 2000, Defendant constructively discharged Michael Brock because of his race, Black, in violation of Title VII. Throughout the course of Mr. Brock's employment, Defendant, acting with the intent to cause Mr. Brock's resignation, deliberately created working conditions that Mr. Brock reasonably viewed as intolerable and that compelled Mr. Brock to resign.
38. During the period April 15, 1996 to present, Defendant subjected a class ofpresently unidentified, similarly-situated Hispanic, Puerto Rican, and Black employees to harassment, different terms and conditions ofemployment, discharge, and constructive discharge because oftheir race and/or national origin in violation of Title VII.
39. The harassment complained ofin paragraphs 8,11,14,17,20,23,26,29,32,35, and 38, above, created ahostile and abusive work environment on the basis ofrace and/or national origin and included, but is not limited to, the following unwelcome and offensive conduct: constant use of racial and national origin epithets and slurs, as well as other race and national origin-motivated comments; persistent, discriminatory use of hostile language and profane forms of address; physically threatening gestures and comments; and excessive, discriminatory monitoring of work.
40. The harassment complained ofin paragraphs 8,11,14,17,20,23,26,29,32,35, and 38, and described with greater particularity in paragraph 39, above, was perpetrated by Defendant through its proxy, Vice President and Plant Manager Francis P. Monaco, and other White employees. Defendant failed to take reasonable action to prevent the harassment complained ofabove, and failed to take prompt and reasonable corrective action upon notice of the harassment. Defendant also caused the harassment to culminate in tangible employment actions.
41. The effect of the practices complained of in paragraphs 7-40, above, has been to 9

deprive Samuel Rodriguez, Roberto Reimundi, Domingo Lugo, Norberto Ramirez, Edwin Vasquez, Raul Silva, German Lugo, Fidel Rosario, Samuel Rosario, Michael Brock, and other presently unidentified, similarly-situated Hispanic, Puerto Rican, and Black employees ofequal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees, because of their race and national origin.
42. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs 7-41, above, are part of a continuing course of race and national origin discrimination perpetrated against Hispanic, Puerto Rican, and Black employees by Defendant that has persisted since at least April 15, 1996.
43. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs 7-42, above, were and are intentional.
44. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs 7-42, above, were and are done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Samuel Rodriguez, Roberto Reimundi, Domingo Lugo, Norberto Ramirez, Edwin Vasquez, Raul Silva, German Lugo, Fidel Rosario, Samuel Rosario, Michael Brock, and other presently unidentified, similarly-situated Hispanic, Puerto Rican, and Black employees.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant, its officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in race and national origin discrimination, including racial and national origin-based harassment, discharge, constructive discharge, imposition ofdifferent terms and conditions of employment, and any other employment practice which discriminates on the basis of race or national origin.
10

B. Order Defendant to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for Hispanic, Puerto Rican, and Black persons, and which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices.
C. Order Defendant to make whole Samuel Rodriguez, Roberto Reimundi, Domingo Lugo, Norberto Ramirez, Edwin Vasquez, Raul Silva, German Lugo, Fidel Rosario, Samuel Rosario, Michael Brock, and other presently unidentified, similarly-situated Hispanic, Puerto Rican, and Black employees 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, including but not limited to reinstatement and front pay.
D. Order Defendant to make whole Samuel Rodriguez, Roberto Reimundi, Domingo Lugo, Norberto Ramirez, Edwin Vasquez, Raul Silva, German Lugo, Fidel Rosario, Samuel Rosario, Michael Brock, and other presently unidentified, similarly-situated Hispanic, Puerto Rican, and Black employees by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described in paragraphs 7-44, above, in amounts to be determined at trial.
E. Order Defendant to make whole Samuel Rodriguez, Roberto Reimundi, Domingo Lugo, Norberto Ramirez, Edwin Vasquez, Raul Silva, German Lugo, Fidel Rosario, Samuel Rosario, Michael Brock, and other presently unidentified, similarly-situated Hispanic, Puerto Rican, and Black employees by providing compensation for past and future non-pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices complained ofin paragraphs 7-44, above, including emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss ofenjoyment oflife, and other non-pecuniary losses, in amounts to be determined at trial.
11

F. Order Defendant to pay Samuel Rodriguez, Roberto Reimundi, Domingo Lugo,
Norberto Ramirez, Edwin Vasquez, Raul Silva, German Lugo, Fidel Rosario, Samuel Rosario,
Michael Brock, and other presently unidentified, similarly-situated Hispanic, Puerto Rican, and
Black employees punitive damages for the malicious and reckless conduct described in paragraphs
7-44, above, in amounts to be determined at trial.
G. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public
interest.
H. Award the Commission its costs of this action.
JURY TRIAL DEMAND
The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its complaint.
Respectfully submitted,
GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 1801 L Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20507
(?da:~aJ.'~-
C. LARRYWA~ (Reg:No. 0031443)
Regional Attorney Telephone number: (216) 522-7455 Facsimile number: (216) 522-7430 E-mail address: C Larry.Watson@eeoc.gov
/?A~~~ >~CJ
RONALD L. PHILLIPS (Reg. No. 0070263) Trial Attorney Telephone number: (216) 522-7451
12

Facsimile number: (216) 522-7430 E-Mail address:RON.Phillips@eeoc.gov EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Cleveland District Office 1660 West Second Street, Suite 850 Cleveland, Ohio 44113
l3

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

)

COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

AMERICAN METAL COATINGS, INC.

)

and DINO LAND PROPERTIES, INC.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

__________________________________________)

Civil Action No. 1:01CV2235
Judge O’Malley
AMENDED COMPLAINT AND JURY TRIAL DEMAND

NATURE OF THE ACTION

This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and Title I of the Civil

Rights Act of 1991 to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of race and national origin and

to provide appropriate relief to Charging Party Samuel Rodriguez, Charging Party Roberto Reimundi,

Charging Party Domingo Lugo, Norberto Ramirez, Edwin Vasquez, Raul Silva, German Lugo, Fidel

Rosario, Samuel Rosario, Michael Brock, Diego Quintero, Emmett Capito, III and other presently

unidentified Hispanic, Puerto Rican, and Black employees who were adversely affected by such practices.

As alleged with greater particularity in paragraphs 9-52, below, the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“the Commission”) alleges that the Defendants American Metal Coatings, Inc. and Dino Land Properties, Inc. have engaged in a continuous course of race and national origin discrimination that has persisted since at least April 15, 1996.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Jurisdictionof this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 451, 1331, 1337, 1343 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Section 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3) ("Title VII"), and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a. 2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were and are now being committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division.
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "Commission"), is the Agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title VII, and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Section 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3). 4. At all relevant times, Defendant American Metal Coatings, Inc., an Ohio corporation, has continuously been doing business in the State of Ohio and the City of Cleveland, and has continuously had at least 15 employees. 5. At all relevant times, Defendant American Metal Coatings, Inc. has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 701(b), (g) and (h) of
2

Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b), (g) and (h). 6. At all relevant times, Defendant Dino Land Properties , Inc., an Ohio corporation, has
continuously been doing business in the State of Ohio and the City of Cleveland and has operated, in conjunction with Defendant American Metal Coatings , Inc., as an integrated enterprise/single “employer” within the meaning of Title VII. At all relevant times, Defendants have maintained interrelated operations, common management and directors, centralized control of labor relations and personnel, and common ownership and financial control.
7. At all relevant times, Defendant Dino Land Properties , Inc. has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 701(b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b), (g) and (h).
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 8. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Samuel Rodriguez, Roberto Reimundi and Domingo Lugo filed charges of discrimination with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by Defendant American Metal Coatings, Inc. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled. 9. Since at least April 15, 1996, Defendants have engaged in unlawful employment practices at their Cleveland, Ohio facility in violation of Section 703(a)(1) and (a)(2) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1) and (a)(2). 10. Throughout his employment during the period 1996-1998, Defendants subjected Samuel Rodriguez to harassment because of his race, Hispanic, and/or national origin, Puerto Rican, in violation of Title VII.
3

11. Throughout his employment during the period 1996-1998, Defendants subjected Samuel Rodriguez to different terms and conditions of employment, such as lunch periods of shorter duration and breaks of shorter duration and less frequency than White employees, inferior access to safety equipment as compared to White employees, more difficult and demanding job assignments than those given to White employees, and being denied access to a restroom used by White employees, because of his race, Hispanic, and/or his national origin, Puerto Rican, in violation of Title VII.
12. On or about March 10, 1998, Defendants discharged Samuel Rodriguez because of his race, Hispanic, and/or national origin, Puerto Rican, in violation of Title VII.
13. Throughout his employment during the period 1997-1999, Defendants subjected Roberto Reimundi to harassment because of his race, Hispanic, and/or national origin, Puerto Rican, in violation of Title VII.
14. Throughout his employment during the period 1997-1999, Defendants subjected Roberto Reimundi to different terms and conditions of employment, such as lunch periods of shorter duration and breaks of shorter duration and less frequency than White employees, inferior access to safety equipment as compared to White employees, more difficult and demanding job assignments than those given to White employees, and being denied access to a restroom used by White employees, because of his race, Hispanic, and/or his national origin, Puerto Rican, in violation of Title VII.
15. On or about March 4, 1999, Defendants constructively discharged Roberto Reimundi because of his race, Hispanic, and/or national origin, Puerto Rican, in violation of Title VII. Throughout the course of Mr. Reimundi’s employment, Defendants, acting with the intent to cause Mr. Reimundi’s resignation, deliberately created working conditions that Mr. Reimundi reasonably viewed as intolerable
4

and that compelled Mr. Reimundi to resign. 16. Throughout his employment in 1999, Defendants subjected Domingo Lugo to harassment
because of his race, Hispanic, and/or national origin, Puerto Rican, in violation of Title VII. 17. Throughout his employment in 1999, Defendants subjected Domingo Lugo to different
terms and conditions of employment, such as lunch periods of shorter duration and breaks of shorter duration and less frequency than White employees, inferior access to safety equipment as compared to White employees, more difficult and demanding job assignments than those given to White employees, and being denied access to a restroom used by White employees, because of his race, Hispanic, and/or his national origin, Puerto Rican, in violation of Title VII.
18. On or about March 4, 1999, Defendants constructively discharged Domingo Lugo because of his race, Hispanic, and/or national origin, Puerto Rican, in violation of Title VII. Throughout the course of Mr. Lugo’s employment, Defendants, acting with the intent to cause Mr. Lugo’s resignation, deliberately created working conditions that Mr. Lugo reasonably viewed as intolerable and that compelled Mr. Lugo to resign.
19. Throughout his employment in 1997, Defendants subjected Norberto Ramirez to harassment because of his race, Hispanic, and/or national origin, Puerto Rican, in violation of Title VII.
20. Throughout his employment in 1997, Defendants subjected Norberto Ramirez to different terms and conditions of employment, such as lunch periods of shorter duration and breaks of shorter duration and less frequency than White employees, inferior access to safety equipment as compared to White employees, more difficult and demanding job assignments than those given to White employees, and being denied access to a restroom used by White employees, because of his race, Hispanic, and/or his
5

national origin, Puerto Rican, in violation of Title VII. 21. On or about November 1997, Defendants discharged Norberto Ramirez because of his
race, Hispanic, and/or national origin, Puerto Rican, in violation of Title VII. 22. Throughout his employment during the period 1997-1998, Defendants subjected Edwin
Vasquez to harassment because of his race, Hispanic, and/or national origin, Puerto Rican, in violation of Title VII.
23. Throughout his employment during the period 1997-1998, Defendants subjected Edwin Vasquez to different terms and conditions of employment, such as lunch periods of shorter duration and breaks of shorter duration and less frequency than White employees, inferior access to safety equipment as compared to White employees, more difficult and demanding job assignments than those given to White employees, and being denied access to a restroom used by White employees, because of his race, Hispanic, and/or his national origin, Puerto Rican, in violation of Title VII.
24. On or about April 26, 1998, Defendants constructively discharged Edwin Vasquez because of his race, Hispanic, and/or national origin, Puerto Rican, in violation of Title VII. Throughout the course of Mr. Vasquez’s employment, Defendants, acting with the intent to cause Mr. Vasquez’s resignation, deliberately created working conditions that Mr. Vasquez reasonably viewed as intolerable and that compelled Mr. Vasquez to resign.
25. Throughout his employment in 1997, Defendants subjected Raul Silva to harassment because of his race, Hispanic, and/or national origin, Puerto Rican, in violation of Title VII.
26. Throughout his employment in 1997, Defendants subjected Raul Silva to different terms and conditions of employment, such as lunch periods of shorter duration and breaks of shorter duration and
6

less frequency than White employees, inferior access to safety equipment as compared to White employees, more difficult and demanding job assignments than those given to White employees, and being denied access to a restroom used by White employees, because of his race, Hispanic, and/or his national origin, Puerto Rican, in violation of Title VII.
27. On or about April 1997, Defendants constructively discharged Raul Silva because of his race, Hispanic, and/or national origin, Puerto Rican, in violation of Title VII. Throughout the course of Mr. Silva’s employment, Defendants, acting with the intent to cause Mr. Silva’s resignation, deliberately created working conditions that Mr. Silva reasonably viewed as intolerable and that compelled Mr. Silva to resign.
28. Throughout his employment in 1997, Defendants subjected German Lugo to harassment because of his race, Hispanic, and/or national origin, Puerto Rican, in violation of Title VII.
29. Throughout his employment in 1997, Defendants subjected German Lugo to different terms and conditions of employment, such as lunch periods of shorter duration and breaks of shorter duration and less frequency than White employees, inferior access to safety equipment as compared to White employees, more difficult and demanding job assignments than those given to White employees, and being denied access to a restroom used by White employees, because of his race, Hispanic, and/or his national origin, Puerto Rican, in violation of Title VII.
30. Onor about November1997, Defendants constructively discharged German Lugo because of his race, Hispanic, and/or national origin, Puerto Rican, in violation of Title VII. Throughout the course of Mr. Lugo’s employment, Defendants, acting with the intent to cause Mr. Lugo’s resignation, deliberately created working conditions that Mr. Lugo reasonably viewed as intolerable and that compelled Mr. Lugo to resign.
7

31. Throughout his employment during the period 1996-1999, Defendants subjected Fidel Rosario to harassment because of his race, Hispanic, and/or national origin, Puerto Rican, in violation of Title VII.
32. Throughout his employment during the period 1996-1999, Defendants subjected Fidel Rosario to different terms and conditions of employment, such as lunch periods of shorter duration and breaks of shorter duration and less frequency than White employees, inferior access to safety equipment as compared to White employees, more difficult and demanding job assignments than those given to White employees, and being denied access to a restroom used by White employees, because of his race, Hispanic, and/or his national origin, Puerto Rican, in violation of Title VII.
33. On or about August 8, 1999, Defendants constructively discharged Fidel Rosario because of his race, Hispanic, and/or national origin, Puerto Rican, in violation of Title VII. Throughout the course of Mr. Rosario’s employment, Defendants, acting with the intent to cause Mr. Rosario’s resignation, deliberately created working conditions that Mr. Rosario reasonably viewed as intolerable and that compelled Mr. Rosario to resign.
34. Throughout his employment in 1998, Defendants subjected Samuel Rosario to harassment because of his race, Hispanic, and/or national origin, Puerto Rican, in violation of Title VII.
35. Throughout his employment in 1998, Defendants subjected Samuel Rosario to different terms and conditions of employment, such as breaks of shorter duration and less frequency than White employees, inferior access to safety equipment as compared to White employees, more difficult and demanding job assignments than those given to White employees, and being denied access to a restroom used by White employees, because of his race, Hispanic, and/or his national origin, Puerto Rican, in
8

violation of Title VII. 36. On or about July 26, 1998, Defendants discharged Samuel Rosario because of his race,
Hispanic, and/or national origin, Puerto Rican, in violation of Title VII. 37. Throughout his employment during the period 1998-2000, Defendants subjected Michael
Brock to harassment because of his race, Black, in violation of Title VII. 38. Throughout his employment during the period 1998-2000, Defendants subjected Michael
Brock to different terms and conditions of employment, such as lunch periods of shorter duration and breaks of shorter duration and less frequency than White employees, inferior access to safety equipment as compared to White employees, more difficult and demanding job assignments than those given to White employees, and being denied access to a restroom used by White employees, because of his race, Black, in violation of Title VII.
39. On or about January 2000, Defendants constructively discharged Michael Brock because of his race, Black, in violation of Title VII. Throughout the course of Mr. Brock’s employment, Defendants, acting with the intent to cause Mr. Brock’s resignation, deliberately created working conditions that Mr. Brock reasonably viewed as intolerable and that compelled Mr. Brock to resign.
40. Throughout his employment during the period 1998-2000, Defendants subjected Diego Quintero to harassment because of his race, Hispanic, in violation of Title VII.
41. Throughout his employment Defendants subjected Diego Quintero to different terms and conditions of employment, such as breaks of shorter duration and less frequency than White employees, inferior access to safety equipment as compared to White employees, and being denied access to a restroom used by White employees, because of his race, Hispanic, in violation of Title VII.
9

42. On or about May 2000, Defendants constructively discharged Diego Quintero because of his race, Hispanic, in violation of Title VII. Throughout the course of Mr. Quintero’s employment, Defendants, acting with the intent to cause Mr. Quintero’s resignation, deliberately created working conditions that Mr. Quintero reasonably viewed as intolerable and that compelled Mr. Quintero to resign.
43. Throughout his employment during the period March 2000-July 2000, Defendants subjected Emmett Capito, III to harassment because of his race, Black, in violation of Title VII.
44. The harassment of Capito alleged above culminated in suspension because of his race, Black, in violation of Title VII.
45. On or about July 2000, Defendants constructively discharged Emmett Capito, III because of his race, Black, in violation of Title VII. Throughout the course of Mr. Capito’s employment, Defendants, acting with the intent to cause Mr. Capito’s resignation, deliberately created working conditions that Mr. Capito reasonably viewed as intolerable and that compelled Mr. Capito to resign.
46. During the period April 15, 1996 to present, Defendants subjected a class of presently unidentified, similarly-situated Hispanic, Puerto Rican, and Black employees to harassment, different terms and conditions of employment, discharge, and constructive discharge because of their race and/or national origin in violation of Title VII.
47. The harassment complained of in paragraphs 10, 13, 16, 19, 22, 25, 28, 31, 34, 37, 40, 43, and 46, above, created a hostile and abusive work environment on the basis of race and/or national origin and included, but is not limited to, the following unwelcome and offensive conduct: constant use of racial and national origin epithets and slurs, as well as other race and national origin-motivated comments; persistent, discriminatory use of hostile language and profane forms of address; physically threatening
10

gestures and comments; and excessive, discriminatory monitoring of work. 48. The harassment complained of in paragraphs 10, 13, 16, 19, 22, 25, 28, 31, 34, 37, 40,
43, and 46, and described with greater particularity in paragraph 47, above, was perpetrated by Defendants through their alter ego/proxy, Vice President and Plant Manager Francis P. Monaco; Ronald Raymond; Lou Monaco; and other White employees. Defendants failed to take reasonable action to prevent the harassment complained of above, and failed to take prompt and reasonable corrective action upon notice of the harassment. Defendants also caused the harassment to culminate in tangible employment actions, such as discharge, constructive discharge, and disciplinary action and other discriminatory terms and conditions of employment such as those alleged in the preceding paragraphs.
49. The effect of the practices complained of in paragraphs 9-48, above, has been to deprive Samuel Rodriguez, Roberto Reimundi, Domingo Lugo, Norberto Ramirez, Edwin Vasquez, Raul Silva, German Lugo, Fidel Rosario, Samuel Rosario, Michael Brock, Diego Quintero, Emmett Capito, III and other presently unidentified, similarly-situated Hispanic, Puerto Rican, and Black employees of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees, because of their race and national origin.
50. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs 9-49, above, are part of a continuing course of race and national origin discrimination perpetrated against Hispanic, Puerto Rican, and Black employees by Defendants that has persisted since at least April 15, 1996.
51. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs 9-50, above, were and are intentional.
52. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs 9-51, above, were and 11

are done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Samuel Rodriguez, Roberto Reimundi, Domingo Lugo, Norberto Ramirez, Edwin Vasquez, Raul Silva, German Lugo, Fidel Rosario, Samuel Rosario, Michael Brock, Diego Quintero, Emmett Capito, III and other presently unidentified, similarly-situated Hispanic, Puerto Rican, and Black employees.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendants, their officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with them, from engaging in race and national origin discrimination, including racial and national origin-based harassment, discharge, constructive discharge, imposition of different terms and conditions of employment, and any other employment practice which discriminates on the basis of race or national origin. B. Order Defendants to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for Hispanic, Puerto Rican, and Black persons, and which eradicate the effects of their past and present unlawful employment practices. C. Order Defendants to make whole Samuel Rodriguez, Roberto Reimundi, Domingo Lugo, Norberto Ramirez, Edwin Vasquez, Raul Silva, German Lugo, Fidel Rosario, Samuel Rosario, Michael Brock, Diego Quintero, Emmett Capito, III and other presently unidentified, similarly-situated Hispanic, Puerto Rican, and Black employees 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 their unlawful employment practices, including but not limited to reinstatement and front pay. D. Order Defendants to make whole Samuel Rodriguez, Roberto Reimundi, Domingo Lugo,
12

Norberto Ramirez, Edwin Vasquez, Raul Silva, German Lugo, Fidel Rosario, Samuel Rosario, Michael Brock, Diego Quintero, Emmett Capito, III and other presently unidentified, similarly-situated Hispanic, Puerto Rican, and Black employees by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described in paragraphs 9-52, above, in amounts to be determined at trial.
E. Order Defendants to make whole Samuel Rodriguez, Roberto Reimundi, Domingo Lugo, Norberto Ramirez, Edwin Vasquez, Raul Silva, German Lugo, Fidel Rosario, Samuel Rosario, Michael Brock, Diego Quintero, Emmett Capito, III and other presently unidentified, similarly-situated Hispanic, Puerto Rican, and Black employees by providing compensation for past and future non-pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices complained of in paragraphs 9-52, above, including emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, and other non-pecuniary losses, in amounts to be determined at trial.
F. Order Defendants to pay Samuel Rodriguez, Roberto Reimundi, Domingo Lugo, Norberto Ramirez, Edwin Vasquez, Raul Silva, German Lugo, Fidel Rosario, Samuel Rosario, Michael Brock, Diego Quintero, Emmett Capito, III and other presently unidentified, similarly-situated Hispanic, Puerto Rican, and Black employees punitive damages for the malicious and reckless conduct described in paragraphs 952, above, in amounts to be determined at trial.
G. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public interest. H. Award the Commission its costs of this action.
13

JURY TRIAL DEMAND
The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its amended complaint.
Respectfully submitted,
GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 1801 L Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20507
s/ C. Larry Watson C. LARRY WATSON (Reg. No. 0031443) Regional Attorney Telephone number: (216) 522-7455 Facsimile number: (216) 522-7430 E-mail address: C Larry.Watson@eeoc.gov
s/ Lawrence Mays LAWRENCE MAYS (Reg. No. 0038288) Supervisory Trial Attorney Telephone number: (216) 522-4796 Facsimile number: (216) 522-7430 E-mail address: Lawrence.Mays@eeoc.gov
s/ Ronald L. Phillips RONALD L. PHILLIPS (Reg. No. 0070263) Trial Attorney Telephone number: (216) 522-7451 Facsimile number: (216) 522-7430 E-Mail address: RON.Phillips@eeoc.gov
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Cleveland District Office 1660 West Second Street, Suite 850 Cleveland, Ohio 44113
14

 
 .,...'.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )

COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

AMERICAN METAL COATINGS, INC.

)

and DINO LAND PROPERTIES, INC.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

)

Case No. 1:OlCV2235 Judge O'Malley CONSENT DECREE

INTRODUCTION 1. Plaintiff, the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "Commission"
or "EEOC"), commenced this action on September 21,2001, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (Eastern Division) against Defendant American Metal Coatings, Inc., and subsequently filed an Amended Complaintjoining Defendant Dino Land Properties, Inc. (Both of these defendants are hereinafter referred to collectively as "Defendants.") In its Amended Complaint, the Commission alleged that Defendants engaged

1

in unlawful employment practices by sUbjecting Charging Party Samuel Rodriguez, Samuel Rosario and Norberto Ramirez to race and/or national origin-motivated harassment, discriminatory terms and conditions of employment, and discharge, and by subjecting Charging Party Roberto Reimundi, Michael Brock, Charging Party Domingo Lugo, Edwin Vasquez, Raul Silva, German Lugo, Fidel Rosario, Diego Quintero, and Emmett Capito, III, to race and/or national origin-motivated harassment, discriminatory terms and conditions of employment, and constructive discharge, in violation of Title VII ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.c. § 2000e, et seq. ("Title VII"). 2. As a result of settlement discussions, the Commission and Defendants have resolved their differences and have agreed that this action should be settled by entry ofthis Consent Decree. It is the intent ofthe parties that this Consent Decree be a final and binding settlement in full disposition of any and all claims alleged in the Amended Complaint against Defendants and on behalf of the above-referenced individuals.
FINDINGS 3. The EEOC is the Agency of the United States Government authorized by Title VII to
investigate allegations ofunlawful employment discrimination based upon race and national origin, to bring civil actions to prohibit unlawful practices, and to seek relief for individuals affected by such practices. 4. Defendants are employers engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 701(b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e-(b), (g) and (h). Defendants have continuously had and do now have at least fifteen (15) employees. 5. Pursuant to Title VII, the parties acknowledge the jurisdiction of the United States District
2

Court for the Northern District of Ohio (Eastern Division) over the subject matter and over the parties to this case for the purpose of entering this Consent Decree and, if necessary, enforcing this Decree. 6. Venue is appropriate in the Northern District of Ohio (Eastern Division). For purposes of this Decree and any proceedings related to this Decree, the parties agree that all statutory conditions precedent to the institution ofthis lawsuit against Defendants have been fulfilled. 7. Having examined the terms and provisions of the Consent Decree and based on the pleadings, records, and stipUlations of the parties, the Court finds the following: A. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action against Defendants
and over the parties; B. The terms and provisions ofthis Consent Decree are fair, reasonable, and just. The
rights of Defendants, William Dotsikas, the EEOC, and those for whom the EEOC seeks relief are adequately protected by this Decree; C. The Consent Decree conforms with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Title VII, and is not in derogation of the rights and privileges of any person. The entry of this Consent Decree will further the objectives of Title VII and will be in the best interests of the parties and those for whom the EEOC seeks relief. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED THAT:
NON-DISCRIMINATION 8. Defendants, their owners, officers, agents, employees, successors, assigns, and all persons
in active concert or participation with them or any of them shall comply with all provisions of Title VII and are enjoined from any present or future violations of Title VII. Prohibited
3
-

discrimination includes, but is not limited to, any harassing conduct or other discrimination because of race, national origin, and/or color.
NON-RETALIATION 9. Defendants, their owners, officers, agents, employees, successors, assigns, and all persons
in active concert or participation with them or any of them shall not engage in reprisal or retaliation of any kind against any person because such person, either in the past or in the future: (a) opposed any practice made unlawful or reasonably believed to be unlawful under Title VII; (b) filed a charge of discrimination with the Commission or any fair employment practices agency; (c) was identified as a potential witness for the EEOC in an action; (d) requested and/or received relief in accordance with this Decree; (d) participated in any manner in an action under Title VII or in any investigation giving rise to such action; or (e) asserted any rights under this Decree. In this regard, Defendants shall not take any action against any person(s) which constitutes intimidation, coercion, retaliation, harassment, or interference with the exercise ofsuch person's rights under Title VII because ofthe filing of Charge Nos. 220-98-1058, 220-99-0724 or 220-99-0820 with the EEOC, which form the basis for this case, or because such person(s) gave testimony or assistance, or participated in any manner in any investigation or proceeding in connection with this case under Title VII.
RECORD-KEEPING 10. Defendants shall comply with all applicable record-keeping requirements of Title VII and
the Commission's regulations, including but not limited to, 29 c.P.R. § 1602.14. NON-ADMISSION
11. This Decree, being entered with the consent of the EEOC and Defendants, shall not
4

constitute an adjudication or finding on the merits ofthis case and shall not be construed as an admission of any violation of Title VII or any other law, rule or regulation dealing with or in connection with equal employment opportunity.
COVERED FACILITIES 12. The provisions of this Consent Decree shall apply to all of Defendants' facilities.
DURATION OF DECREE 13. This Consent Decree shall be in effect for a period of three (3) years from the date it is
entered by the Court. MONETARY RELIEF
14. Defendants shall pay compensatory damages for emotional distress to Samuel Rodriguez in the amount of $25,000.00. Of this monetary relief, $7575.00 shall be paid by Defendants within thirty (30) days after this Consent Decree has been entered by the Court. The remaining balance, $17,425.00, shall be paid by Defendants in twenty (20) monthly payments of $871.25 each. The first payment shall be paid on the last business day of the month following the month that this Decree is entered, with the remaining nineteen (19) payments to be paid on the last business day of each month thereafter. All payments ofmonetary relief shall be performed by check made payable to Samuel Rodriguez and mailed to Mr. Rodriguez by Certified Mail at an address to be provided by the EEOC. Within thirty (30) days of each payment, Defendants shall send a photocopy of the check sent to Samuel Rodriguez, along with a photocopy of the Certified Mail receipt, to the Regional Attorney of the EEOC's Cleveland District Office.
15. Defendants shall pay compensatory damages for emotional distress to Samuel Rosario in the
5

amount of$11 ,000.00. Ofthis monetary relief, $3330.00 shall be paid by Defendants within thirty (30) days after this Consent Decree has been entered by the Court. The remaining balance, $7670.00, shall be paid by Defendants in twenty (20) monthly payments of$383.50 each. The first payment shall be paid on the last business day of the month following the month that this Decree is entered, with the remaining nineteen (19) payments to be paid on the last business day of each month thereafter. All payments of monetary relief shall be performed by check made payable to Samuel Rosario and mailed to Mr. Rosario by Certified Mail at an address to be provided by the EEOC. Within thirty (30) days of each payment, Defendants shall send a photocopy of the check sent to Samuel Rosario, along with a photocopy ofthe Certified Mail receipt, to the Regional Attorney ofthe EEOC's Cleveland District Office. 16. Defendants shall pay compensatory damages for emotional distress to Norberto Ramirez in the amount of $12,000.00. Of this monetary relief, $3635.00 shall be paid by Defendants within thirty (30) days after this Consent Decree has been entered by the Court. The remaining balance, $8365.00, shall be paid by Defendants in twenty (20) monthly payments of $418.25 each. The first payment shall be paid on the last business day of the month following the month that this Decree is entered, with the remaining nineteen (19) payments to be paid on the last business day ofeach month thereafter. All payments ofmonetary relief shall be performed by check made payable to Norberto Ramirez and mailed to Mr. Ramirez by Certified Mail at an address to be provided by the EEOC. Within thirty (30) days of each payment, Defendants shall send a photocopy of the check sent to Norberto Ramirez, along with a photocopy of the Certified Mail receipt, to the Regional Attorney of the EEOC's
6

Cleveland District Office. 17. Defendants shall pay compensatory damages for emotional distress to Roberto Reimundi in
the amount of $25,000.00. Of this monetary relief, $7575.00 shall be paid by Defendants within thirty (30) days after this Consent Decree has been entered by the Court. The remaining balance, $17,425.00, shall be paid by Defendants in twenty (20) monthly payments of $871.25 each. The first payment shall be paid on the last business day of the month following the month that this Decree is entered, with the remaining nineteen (19) payments to be paid on the last business day ofeach month thereafter. All payments ofmonetary relief shall be performed by check made payable to Roberto Reimundi and mailed to Mr. Reimundi by Certified Mail at an address to be provided by the EEOC. Within thirty (30) days of each payment, Defendants shall send a photocopy of the check sent to Roberto Reimundi, along with a photocopy of the Certified Mail receipt, to the Regional Attorney of the EEOC's Cleveland District Office. 18. Defendants shall pay compensatory damages for emotional distress to Michael Brock in the amount of$25,000.00. Ofthis monetary relief, $7575.00 shall be paid by Defendants within thirty (30) days after this Consent Decree has been entered by the Court. The remaining balance, $17,425.00, shall be paid by Defendants in twenty (20) monthly payments of $871.25 each. The first payment shall be paid on the last business day of the month following the month that this Decree is entered, with the remaining nineteen (19) payments to be paid on the last business day ofeach month thereafter. All payments ofmonetary relief shall be performed by check made payable to Michael Brock and mailed to Mr. Brock by Certified Mail at an address to be provided by the EEOC. Within thirty (30) days of each
7

payment, Defendants shall send a photocopy ofthe check sent to Michael Brock, along with a photocopy ofthe Certified Mail receipt, to the Regional Attorney ofthe EEOC's Cleveland District Office. 19. Defendants shall pay compensatory damages for emotional distress to Domingo Lugo in the amountof$12,000.00. Ofthis monetary relief, $3635.00 shall be paid by Defendants within thirty (30) days after this Consent Decree has been entered by the Court. The remaining balance, $8365.00, shall be paid by Defendants in twenty (20) monthly payments of$418.25 each. The first payment shall be paid on the last business day of the month following the month that this Decree is entered, with the remaining nineteen (19) payments to be paid on the last business day of each month thereafter. All payments of monetary relief shall be performed by check made payable to Domingo Lugo and mailed to Mr. Lugo by Certified Mail at an address to be provided by the EEOC. Within thirty (30) days of each payment, Defendants shall send a photocopy of the check sent to Domingo Lugo, along with a photocopy ofthe Certified Mail receipt, to the Regional Attorney ofthe EEOC's Cleveland District Office. 20. Defendants shall pay compensatory damages for emotional distress to Edwin Vazquez in the amount of$ll ,000.00. Ofthis monetary relief, $3330.00 shall be paid by Defendants within thirty (30) days after this Consent Decree has been entered by the Court. The remaining balance, $7670.00, shall be paid by Defendants in twenty (20) monthly payments of$383.50 each. The first payment shall be paid on the last business day of the month following the month that this Decree is entered, with the remaining nineteen (19) payments to be paid on the last business day of each month thereafter. All payments of monetary relief shall be
8

perfonneq by check made payable to Edwin Vazquez and mailed to Mr. Vazquez by Certified Mail at an address to be provided by the EEOC. Within thirty (30) days of each payment, Defendants shall send a photocopy ofthe check sent to Edwin Vazquez, along with a photocopy ofthe Certified Mail receipt, to the Regional Attorney ofthe EEOC's Cleveland District Office. 21. Defendants shall pay compensatory damages for emotional distress to Raul Silva in the amount of $3000.00. Of this monetary relief, $905.00 shall be paid by Defendants within thirty (30) days after this Consent Decree has been entered by the Court. The remaining balance, $2095.00, shall be paid by Defendants in twenty (20) monthly payments of$l 04.75 each. The first payment shall be paid on the last business day of the month following the month that this Decree is entered, with the remaining nineteen (19) payments to be paid on the last business day of each month thereafter. All payments of monetary relief shall be perfonned by check made payable to Raul Silva and mailed to Mr. Silva by Certified Mail at an address to be provided by the EEOC. Within thirty (30) days of each payment, Defendants shall send a photocopy of the check sent to Raul Silva, along with a photocopy of the Certified Mail receipt, to the Regional Attorney of the EEOC's Cleveland District Office. 22. Defendants shall pay compensatory damages for emotional distress to Gennan Lugo in the amount of $9000.00. Ofthis monetary relief, $2725.00 shall be paid by Defendants within thirty (30) days after this Consent Decree has been entered by the Court. The remaining balance, $6275.00, shall be paid by Defendants in twenty (20) monthly payments of$313. 75 each. The first payment shall be paid on the last business day of the month following the
9

month that this Decree is entered, with the remaining nineteen (19) payments to be paid on the last business day of each month thereafter. All payments of monetary relief shall be performed by check made payable to German Lugo and mailed to Mr. Lugo by Certified Mail at an address to be provided by the EEOC. Within thirty (30) days of each payment, Defendants shall send a photocopy of the check sent to German Lugo, along with a photocopy ofthe Certified Mail receipt, to the Regional Attorney ofthe EEOC's Cleveland District Office. 23. Defendants shall pay compensatory damages for emotional distress to Fidel Rosario in the amount of$12,500.00. Ofthis monetary relief, $3785.00 shall be paid by Defendants within thirty (30) days after this Consent Decree has been entered by the Court. The remaining balance, $8715.00, shall be paid by Defendants in twenty (20) monthly payments of$435.75 each. The first payment shall be paid on the last business day of the month following the month that this Decree is entered, with the remaining nineteen (19) payments to be paid on the last business day of each month thereafter. All payments of monetary relief shall be performed by check made payable to Fidel Rosario and mailed to Mr. Rosario by Certified Mail at an address to be provided by the EEOC. Within thirty (30) days of each payment, Defendants shall send a photocopy of the check sent to Fidel Rosario, along with a photocopy ofthe Certified Mail receipt, to the Regional Attorney of the EEOC's Cleveland District Office. 24. Defendants shall pay compensatory damages for emotional distress to Diego Quintero in the amount of$12,000.00. Ofthis monetary relief, $3635.00 shall be paid by Defendants within thirty (30) days after this Consent Decree has been entered by the Court. The remaining
10

balance, $8365.00, shall be paid by Defendants in twenty (20) monthly payments of$418.25 each. The first payment shall be paid on the last business day of the month following the month that this Decree is entered, with the remaining nineteen (19) payments to be paid on the last business day of each month thereafter. All payments of monetary relief shall be performed by check made payable to Diego Quintero and mailed to Mr. Quintero by Certified Mail at an address to be provided by the EEOC. Within thirty (30) days of each payment, Defendants shall send a photocopy ofthe check sent to Diego Quintero, along with a photocopy ofthe Certified Mail receipt, to the Regional Attorney ofthe EEOC's Cleveland District Office. 25. Defendants shall pay compensatory damages for emotional distress to Emmett Capito, ill, in the amount of$7500.00. Of this monetary relief, $2295.00 shall be paid by Defendants within thirty (30) days after this Consent Decree has been entered by the Court. The remaining balance, $5205.00, shall be paid by Defendants in twenty (20) monthly payments of $260.25 each. The first payment shall be paid on the last business day of the month following the month that this Decree is entered, with the remaining nineteen (19) payments to be paid on the last business day ofeach month thereafter. All payments ofmonetary relief shall be completed by check made payable to Emmett Capito, III, and mailed to Mr. Capito by Certified Mail at an address to be provided by the EEOC. Within thirty (30) days ofeach payment, Defendants shall send a photocopy ofthe check sent to Emmett Capito, ill, along with a photocopy of the Certified Mail receipt, to the Regional Attorney of the EEOC's Cleveland District Office. 26. In the event that any ofthe above-referenced payments cannot be delivered to the individuals
11

designated because such person has moved from the address provided by the EEOC, Defendants shall promptly contact the Regional Attorney ofthe EEOC's Cleveland District Office to obtain a current address for such individual for purposes ofprompt Certified Mail delivery, or, ifa current mailing address is not available, to otherwise make arrangements for prompt payment to such individual. Defendants shall thereafter promptly report any efforts made to deliver payment and shall exercise due diligence to complete such delivery. Any payment(s) that has not been successfully delivered to the designated individual within thirtyfour (34) months ofthis Court's entry ofthe Consent Decree because such person cannot be located or is otherwise not available to receive delivery of payment shall be divided equally among the remaining individuals designated to receive monetary relief in this action. Such payment shall be made to each remaining individual, not later than twenty-one (21) days prior to expiration of this Decree, by a single check delivered by Certified Mail to the last known mailing address. Not later than twenty-one (21) days prior to the expiration of this Decree, Defendants shall send a photocopy of the checks, along with a photocopy of the Certified Mail receipt, to the Regional Attorney of the EEOC's Cleveland District Office. 27. William Dotsikas shall serve as guarantor of any and all monetary reliefpayments required to be made by Defendants under the terms of this Consent Decree. In the event that the Defendants are unable to pay any amount required to be paid in the foregoing paragraphs, such amount(s) shall be paid by William Dotsikas in accordance with the terms of this Decree. 28. An IRS Form 1099-Misc shall be issued to each aggrieved person for each calender year in which the aggrieved person receives anypayment(s) as outlined above. The Form 1099-Misc
12

shall be issued in the amount represented by the total amount ofpayments received by each aggrieved person in each calender year.
EQUITABLE RELIEF: REPORTS TO EEOC OF DISCRIMINATION ALLEGATIONS AND WITNESSED CONDUCT
29. Defendants shall submit written reports to the Commission regarding the following: (a) all written or verbal complaints ofrace and/or national origin and/or color harassment or other race and/or national origin and/or color discrimination made to any person with managerial and/or supervisory authority or any person designated by Defendants to receive such complaints, whether sufficient to state an actionable claim under Title VII or not, and any action taken in response to the complaints, and (b) regardless ofwhether any complaint was made or not, all circumstances about which a person with managerial and/or supervisory authority has actual knowledge and which would cause a reasonable person to suspect that race and/or national origin and/or color harassment or other race and/or national origin and/or color discrimination may have occurred, and any action taken in response to those circumstances. The reports must be sent to the Commission's Cleveland District Office, to the attention ofthe Regional Attorney, within thirty (30) days ofany complaints to managers, supervisors or person designated by Defendants or within thirty (30) days of a person with managerial and/or supervisory authority acquiring actual knowledge offacts that could give rise to an objectively reasonable suspicion that race and/or national origin and/or color harassment or other race and/or national origin and/or color discrimination may have occurred, whichever is first. Such reports shall contain the following: (a) a detailed narrative of the circumstances of the complaint or acquired knowledge; (b) the dates and times
13

pertinent to the complaint or knowledge being reported; (c) the allegations of race and/or national origin and/or color harassment or other race and/or national origin and/or color discrimination and the facts known and/or alleged that are relevant to such complaint; (d) a specific description ofthe knowledge ofpossible harassment and/or other discrimination that was acquired; (e) the full name, job title, social security number, work address, last known home address, and last known home telephone number ofany complainant; (f) the full name, job title, and work address of any person with managerial and/or supervisory authority with acquired knowledge ofpossible discrimination; (g) the full name, job title and work address of any persons who received any complaints; (h) ifother than the complainant, the full name, job title, social security number, work address, last known home address, and last known home telephone number of(1) any person alleged by a complainant to have been a victim of discrimination or, where there has been no complaint, (2) the potential discriminatee who is the subject of the knowledge acquired by a person with managerial and/or supervisory authority; (i) the full name, job title, work address, and professional relationship to the complainant or potential discriminatee ofthe person or persons whose conduct is the subject of a complaint or acquired knowledge being reported; (j) and the full name, job title, and work address of any known or alleged witnesses to the incidents alleged by a complainant or reported by a person with managerial and/or supervisory authority. Such reports must be updated and sent to the Commission's Cleveland District Office every thirty (30) days thereafter until final action is taken by Defendants on the complaint or the circumstances suggesting possible harassment and/or discrimination. Defendants shall append to all reports required by this provision ofthe Decree any and all documents generated or obtained in the
14

course of their investigations, including, but not limited to, any investigatory reports, memoranda, notes, witness statements, affidavits or other investigation-related materials.
EQUITABLE RELIEF: POLICIES AND TRAINING 30. Defendants shall adopt and adhere to the anti-harassmentlanti-discrimination policy set forth
in Attachment A. Defendants shall distribute a copy of their anti-harassment/antidiscrimination policy to all current officers, employees and independent contractors within twenty-one (21) days of the entry of this Consent Decree by the Court. Defendants shall provide a copy of this policy to all new officers, employees and independent contractors hired during the operation of this Decree on such person's first day of work. Defendants shall maintain a Spanish language translation of the above-referenced policy set forth in Attachment B and shall provide it to persons whom are limited in the ability to read and understand the English language but whom are able to read and understand the Spanish language. With regard to any persons whom Defendants determine are limited in the ability to read and understand the English language but whom are not able to read and understand the Spanish language, Defendants shall make all objectively reasonable efforts to explain the above-referenced policy to such persons by means of communication that such persons understand. 31. Defendants shall require William Dotsikas, Konstantinos Dotsikas, Vanco Najdenovski, Tome Pezulev, any and all persons designated to receive and/or investigate complaints of harassment and/or discrimination, and all current and future owners, officers, managers, supervisors, and persons designated to receive and/or investigate complaints of harassment and/or discrimination to attend training regarding the requirements of Title VII, with
15

particular emphasis on race, national origin, color and sex harassment and other forms of race, national origin, color and sex discrimination. Furthermore, Francis Monaco, Ronald Raymond, Lou Monaco, and Kimberly Romano shall attend such training if ever reemployed by Defendants. Such training is to be provided by a third-party at the expense of Defendants, with format and content oftraining subject to review by the Commission. The training must be conducted within three (3) months after entry of this Decree and six (6) months after the commencement of employment for all new hires in such positions. The EEOC must be notified, in writing, as to the identity and qualifications of the trainer, all content of such training (including training manuals and handout materials), method of presentation, length oftraining course(s) and the names and job titles ofattendees within one (1) month of such training. 32. Defendants shall provide a thirty (30) minute training session to all current and future employees regarding the anti-harassment/anti-discrimination policy set forth in Attachment A on each such employee's first day of work, or in the case of current employees, within thirty (30) days of entry ofthis Decree. Such training shall be provided by William Dotsikas or Konstantinos Dotsikas.
EQUITABLE RELIEF: REPORTING REQUIREMENTS REGARDING FRANCIS MONACO AND RONALD RAYMOND
33. Defendants shall notify the EEOC if Francis (Frank) Monaco or Ronald Raymond are ever again re-employed and hold supervisory authority of any type or degree. Such notification shall be provided within fourteen (14) days of either person acquiring supervisory authority, or any additional supervisory authority of any type or degree, by written report mailed to the
16

EEOC's Cleveland District Office, attention to the Regional Attorney. Each such report shall include the following infonnation: (a) job title; (b) full and complete description oftype and degree ofsupervisory authority newly acquired; (c) date(s) acquired; and (d) full name, home address, and home telephone number of any and an persons subject to such supervisory authority.
EQUITABLE RELIEF: POSTING OF NOTICE 34. Defendants shan post copies of the Notices attached as Attachments C and D in a
conspicuous location at all of their facilities and at an places where employee notices are posted. The Notices shall be posted for a period of three (3) years, with such period commencing upon entry of this Decree. Such Notices shall be typed legibly using not less than twenty-four (24) point font and posted in both English language and Spanish language versions. Ifmultiple pages are used for each such Notice, they shall not be displayed one page behind another but must be posted so that all pages are in order and simultaneously visible (i.e., in horizontal row or vertical column configuration). In addition, Defendants shall post notice of all applicable federal equal employment opportunity laws and all other notices required by law. In the event that any of aforementioned notices becomes defaced, marred or otherwise made unreadable, Defendants shall immediately post a readable copy of such notice(s).
DISPUTE RESOLUTION AND COMPLIANCE 35. This Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce the tenns of this Decree and will have all
available powers to enforce this Decree, including but not limited to monetary sanctions and injunctive relief.
17

36. Upon motion of the Commission, this Court may schedule a hearing for the purpose of reviewing compliance with this Consent Decree. The Commission, its agents and employees shall in their discretion have the legal right to enter any ofDefendants' facilities, without any prior notice to the Defendants, and conduct an on-site inspection to ensure compliance with Title VII and any of the terms ofthis Decree. Such inspections may, at the discretion ofthe Commission, include access to any and all relevant documents for the purposes ofinspection and duplication; ex parte interviews or depositions of any current employees (with the exception of those whom hold the position of, and actually exercise the functions of, President or Vice President); interviews or depositions of owners, directors, the President and/or the Vice President (including but not limited to William Dotsikas); inspection of any area within the facility; and any other investigatory technique or procedure permitted by Title VII or the Commission's regulations. The Commission may at any time move the Court for a hearing for the purpose of compelling Defendants to cooperate in any aspect of on-site inspection under the terms ofthis Decree. Neither the Commission's right to conduct on-site inspections nor any other provisions of this Decree shall be construed to limit or impair in any manner any other Commission right to conduct investigations of the Defendants that is provided by law, including, but not limited to, investigating charges of discrimination filed under Title VII, the Equal Pay Act ("EPA"), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"), Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and any statute over which the Commission is given jurisdiction in the future, and conducting directed investigations authorized under the EPA, the ADEA, and any future statute which authorizes directed investigations.
18

COURT COSTS AND ATTORNEY FEES 37. Each party shall bear its own court costs and attorneys' fees.
MISCELLANEOUS 38. If any provision(s) of this Consent Decree is found to be unlawful, only the specific
provision(s) in question shall be affected and the other provisions will remain in full force and effect. 39. All terms ofthe Consent Decree are and shall be binding upon (a) Defendants; (b) all present and future parents of either or both; (c) all present and future subsidiaries of either or both; and (d) all present and future owners, officers, directors, employees, independent contractors, creditors, agents, trustees, administrators, successors, representatives, or assigns ofeither or both Defendants. Defendants shall provide a copy of this Decree to all persons or entities that seek to acquire a controlling interest in any ofDefendants, and the contract ofsale shall require that the purchasing person or entity be subject to the provisions of this Decree. 40. Within twenty-one (21) days of entry ofthis Consent Decree by the Court, the Commission shall deliver releases, duly executed, to the attorney of record for Defendants, in the form previously agreed upon by the parties. 41. This Consent Decree constitutes the entire agreement and commitments ofthe parties. Any modifications to this agreement must be mutually agreed upon and memorialized in a separate writing signed by Defendants, Defendant William Dotsikas (when applicable), and the Commission and approved by this Court. 42. When this Consent Decree requires the submission of any documents to the EEOC, if not otherwise indicated in the Decree or Attachments, they shall be mailed by Certified Mail to
19

the Commission's Cleveland District Office and to the attention of the Regional Attorney.

43. Nothing in this Consent Decree or Attachments shall be construed to relieve Defendants of

their duty to comply with any requirement(s) of Title VII or other federal or state law.

IT IS AGREED:

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

AMERICAN METAL COATINGS, INC. AND DINO LAND PROPERTIES, INC.

GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel
Skylight Office Tower 1660 West Second Street Cleveland, OH 44113 Office #: (216) 522-7455 Facsimile #: (216) 522-7430 E-mail address: Larry.Watson@eeoc.gov
Dated: 6/J'2/P3

iJ:d~6f!
Taft, Stettinius & Hollister, LLP Attorneys for Defendants 3500 BP Tower 200 Public Square Cleveland, OH 44114-2302 Office #: (216) 241-2838 Facsimile #: (216) 241-3707 E-Mail address:mvalponi@taftlaw.com
Dated: 6/;D /0 '3

IT IS SO ORDERED:
DATE:~

WILLIAM DOTSIKAS Individually with respect to Paragraph 27
Dated: 5/at/o,
United States District J
20

ATTACHMENT A
AMERICAN METAL COATINGS, INC. AND DINO LAND PROPERTIES, INC. POLICY PROHIBITING HARASSMENT AND DISCRIMINATION
American Metal Coatings, mc. and Dino Land Properties, mc. have zero tolerance for harassment and discrimination. It is the policy of American Metal Coatings, mc. and Dino Land Properties, mc. to maintain a work environment that is free from harassment and discrimination based on (1) race, (2) national origin, (3) color, (4) sex (whether or not of a sexual nature), (5) religion, (6) age, (7) disability, and (8) pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions, and from (9) retaliatory harassment and discrimination based on opposition to harassment/discrimination or participation in harassment/discrimination complaint proceedings. m addition, it is company policy that no retaliation will be tolerated against any employee for reporting harassment or discrimination under this or any other policy or procedure, or for assisting in any investigation. Harassment and discrimination violates both federal and state law and will not be tolerated.
WHAT IS DISCRTh1INAnON?
The types of discrimination prohibited by this policy, and by federal and state law, include actions that relate to hiring, layoff, recall, firing, promotion, suspension and other discipline, pay, leave and other benefits, breaks, and all other aspects of the employment relationship. Decisions regarding these matters are not allowed to be based upon race, national origin, color, sex, religion, age, disability, pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions, or because someone has opposed harassment/discrimination or participated in harassment/discrimination complaint proceedings.
WHAT IS HARASSMENT?
Generally speaking, "harassment" is defined as any unwelcome verbal or physical conduct based on someone's race, national origin, color, sex (whether or not of a sexual nature), religion, age, disability, pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions, or because someone opposed harassment/discrimination or participated in harassment/discrimination complaint proceedings when: (1) the conduct negatively affects the work environment or (2) an employment decision affecting the employee is based on the employee's acceptance or rejection of such conduct. While there are many different kinds ofacts that can be harassment (because there are many different ways a person may be treated badly for illegal reasons), some examples include:
(a) name calling, teasing, slurs, offensive visual displays/pictures/gestures, or any negative comments orjokes about a person's race, national origin, color, sex, religion, age, disability, pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions, actions in opposition to discrimination or participation in a discrimination complaint process; (b) sexual advances, sexual comments, requests for sex, offensive touching, etc.; (c) acts of violence or threats of violence; (d) destruction or theft of another person's property; (e) interference with another person's work or attempts to interfere with that work;
1

(f) disciplinary actions and any other discriminatory acts; and (g) negative comments or offensive actions toward or about another person when the reason is the other person's race, national origin, color, sex, religion, age, disability, pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions, actions opposing harassment/discrimination or participation in a harassment/discrimination complaint process. This is harassment even if the victim's race, national origin, etc. are not mentioned by the person doing the harassment. An example ofthis would be treating a person ofone racial group or gender differently from persons of another group or gender by calling him/her vulgar or insulting names or cursing at himlher.
WHO IS PROTECTED BY THIS POLICY?
Both federal and state law and this policy protects all employees from harassment or discrimination by any person, including owners, directors, corporate officers, managers, supervisors, co-workers of any rank or position, contractors, vendors and customers.
WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES FOR VIOLATING THIS POLICY?
Any person who en~a~es in harassment or discrimination will be subject to appropriate disciplinary action, up to and includin~ immediate firing. Furthermore, failure of a supervisor or mana~er to perform any oftheir responsibilities under this policy will result in appropriate disciplinary action, up to and including immediate firin~.
WHAT SHOULD I DO IF I BELIEVE THAT I AM BEING HARASSED OR DISCRIMINATED AGAINST?
Persons who believe that they are being harassed or discriminated against should report it to any supervisor, any management official, any corporate officer, to [Defendants shall insert here name, title and telephone number ofperson designated to receive and take action regarding reports], or any owner, including Bill Dotsikas. IfBill Dotsikas is not in the office or traveling, you may reach him at [Defendants shall insert here telephone number at which Bill Dotsikas will be available]. You may call Bill using the company telephone ifyou prefer. In addition, you have a right under the law to report harassment or discrimination to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"), which is a U.S. Government agency that enforces the federal laws that prohibit harassment and discrimination. American Metal Coatings and Dino Land Properties respect your right to contact the EEOC and will not take any action against you because you have contacted the EEOC or have filed a written complaint (called a "Charge ofDiscrimination") with the EEOC. The EEOC can be reached at (216) 522-2001, toll free at 1-800-669-4000, or (216) 522-7445. For the hearing impaired, TTY numbers are (216) 522-8441 and 1-800-669-6820.
WHAT HAPPENS AFTER THERE IS A REPORT OF HARASSMENT OR DISCRIMINATION?
After a report of harassment or discrimination made by an employee, either about himlherself or
2

about another person who may be harassed or discriminated against, the company will conduct a prompt, fair, and complete investigation. Until it completes the investigation, the company will also take necessary steps to make sure that there is no further harassment or discrimination against you. When the investigation is completed, the company will take appropriate corrective action as warranted. Reports made by employees and investigations ofthose reports will be kept confidential unless disclosure is required to complete the investigation or by law. There will be absolutely no retaliation or ne2ative action taken against you for reporting harassment or discrimination.
WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ENFORCING THE POLICY?
The company and its owners, officers, managers, and supervisors are responsible for enforcing this policy. The company takes that responsibility very seriously. All employees of whatever rank are also responsible for obeying the policy and for cooperating fully in its enforcement.
WHAT RESPONSIBILITIES DO MANAGERS AND SUPERVISORS HAVE UNDER THIS POLICY?
First and foremost, it is the duty of all company supervisors and managers to obey this policy, including refraining from harassment and discrimination. You are expected to lead by example. The success of the company depends on this. Also, it is the duty of all supervisors and management officials to monitor the workplace for harassment and discrimination. Ifyou suspect that harassment or discrimination has taken place, even ifno one has reported it to you, it is your duty to promptly report your observations and suspicions to the owners and to [Defendants shall insert here name, title and telephone number of person designated to receive and take action regarding reports]. Furthermore, it is the duty of all supervisors and all management officials who receive a complaint of harassment or discrimination to promptly report the complaint to the owners and to [Defendants shall insert here name, title and telephone number of person designated to receive and take action regarding reports]. Moreover, it is the duty of all supervisors and managers to know and understand this policy, and to provide answers to questions that subordinates may ask about the policy.
WHAT RESPONSIBILITIES DO ALL EMPLOYEES HAVE UNDER THIS POLICY?
All employees must refrain from engaging in any harassment or discrimination. In addition, all employees should promptly report any incidents of harassment or discrimination that they witness and fully cooperate with any investigations.
WHAT DO I DO IF I HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS POLICY?
Ifyou have questions about this policy, you may ask any supervisor, any management official, any corporate officer, [Defendants shall insert here name ofperson designated to receive and take action regarding reports], or any owner, including Bill Dotsikas.
3

ATTACHMENT B
AMERICAN METAL COATINGS, INC. AND DINO LAND PROPERTIES, INC. POLIZA QUE PROHiBE HOSTIGAMIENTO Y DISCRIMINACION
American Metal Coatings, Inc. y Dino Land Properties, Inc. no toleran la Hostigamiento y Discriminacion. Es la paliza de la American Metal Coatings, Inc. y Dino Land Properties, Inc. el mantener un ambiente de trabajo libre de hostigamiento y discriminacion basado en (1) raza,(2) origen nacional (3) color,(4) sexo (no importa que sea sexual en naturaleza), (5) religion, (6) edad,(7) invalidez, y (8) embarazo, parto y condiciones medicas relacionadas con el embarazo, y (9) hostigamiento represalio y discriminacion basado en la oposicion del empleado contra la discriminaci6n 0 su participacion en el proceso de una querella. Ademas, la paliza de la empresa no tolerara ningun acto de represalia contra empleados que reporten hostigamiento y discriminacion bajo esta 0 cualquier otra p6liza 0 por cooperar y ayudar en cualquier investigacion. Hosti2amiento y discriminacion es una violacion federal y estatal por 10 tanto no sera tolerado.
QUE ES LA DISCRIMINACION?
Los tipos de discriminaci6n prohibidos por esta p6liza y por las leyes federales y estatales incluyen aquellas acciones relacionadas con empleo, despidos temporeros 0 permanentes, promociones, suspensiones y cualquier otro acto de disciplina, pago, excedencia y otros beneficios, tiempo de descanso y todos los otros aspectos de la relaci6n de empleo. Las decisiones tomadas en cuanto a los asuntos ya mencionados no pueden ser basados en la raza, origen nacional, color, sexo, religi6n, edad, invalido, embarazo, condiciones medicas relacionadas con el parto yporque el individuo esta opuesto a el hostigamiento I discriminacion 0 que haya participado en el proceso de una querella de hostigamiento I discriminaci6n.
QUE ES HOSTIGAMIENTO?
En terminos generales, "hostigamiento" es definido como cualquiera conducta verbal 0 fisica inapropiada e inoportuna basada en la raza del individuo, su origen nacional, color, sexo, ( sea 0 no sea sexual en naturaleza), religi6n, edad, invalido, embarazo, condiciones medicas relacionadas con el parto, y porque el individuo se opone al hostigamiento I discriminacion y a participado en la investigacion de una querella de hostigamiento I discriminacion Cuando (1) el acto y conducta afecta negativamente el ambiente de el trabajo, (2) cualquier decisi6n referente a el empleo/trabajo de el individuo esta basada en que el trabaj ador acepte 0 rechace esta conducta. Aunque ocurren muchos tipos de acciones que pueden llamarse hostigamiento ( ya que ocurren muchas maneras que una persona puede ser maltratado por razones ilegales) e agu} al2unos ejemplos:
(a) sobre nombres, burlas, afrentas, insultos, demostraciones visuales de naturaleza ofensivas, retratos, gestos 0 cualquier comentario negativo de naturaleza racial, de origen nacional, color, sexo, religion, edad, invalido, embarazo, condici6n medica relacionada con el parto, oposicion 0 acciones en contra de la discriminacion 0 la participacion en el proceso de una
I

querella de discriminacion.; (b) proposiciones de naturaleza sexual, comentarios sexuales, solicitar sexo, tocar la persona ofensivamente, ect..; (c ) actos de violencia fisica, 0 amenaza de violencia; (d) robo u destruccion de la propiedad de otra persona; (e) interferir 0 tratar de interferir con el trabaj0 de otra persona (f) acciones disciplinarias 0 cualquier otro acto disciplinario; y (g) comentarios negativos 0 acciones negativas contra otra persona cuando la razon es basada en la raza , origen nacional, color, sexo, religion, edad, invalido, embarazo, y condiciones medicas relacionados con el parto, participacion u oposicion a hostigamiento I descriminacion de una querella. Esto es hosti2amiento aunque la raza, ori2en nacional ect.. No sean mencionados por la persona cometiendo el hosti2amiento. Un ejemplo de esto es tratar a una persona de otro grupo racial 0 genero diferente que a otros grupos 0 personas llamandolo a el/ella sobre nombres e insultos.
QUIEN ES PROTEGIDO POR ESTA POLIZA?
Las leyes federales y estatales y esta poliza protege a todos los empleados contra el hostigamiento y discriminacion de cualquier persona, esto incluye los duenos, directores, oficiales de la corporacion, directores, supervisores, empleados de cualquier rango 0 posicion, contratistas, vendedores y c1ientes.
CUALES SON LAS CONSECUENCIAS POR VIOLAR ESTA POLIZA?
Cualquier persona que se dedique a actos de hosti2amiento y discriminacion sera sujeto a la disciplina adecuada, incluyendo despido inmediato del trabajo. Ademas, si un supervisor 0 mana2er fallara en implementar cualquiera de sus responsabilidades bajo esta poliza sera puede ser disciplinado y hasta despedido de su trabajo inmediatamente.
QUE DEBO HACER SI CREO QUE ESTOY SIENDO HOSTIGADO Y DISCRIMINANDO?
Aquellas personas que creen que estan siendo hostigadas 0 discriminadas deben reportar el acto a cualquier supervisor, manager 0 cualquier oficial de la corporacion [EI nombre de el oficial designado por los Acusados con su titulo y numero de telefono sera puesto aqui]. 0 cualquier dueno inc1uyendo a Bill Dotsikas. Si Bill Dotsikas no se encuentra en la oficina 0 esta viajando, se puede poner en contacto con el en el numero [Los Acusados pondran el numero de telefono donde Bill Dotsikas se puede encontrar]. Usted puede ponerse en contacto con Bill usando el telefono de la empresa si usted 10 prefiere. Tambien, bajo la ley, usted tiene el derecho de reportar actos de hostigamiento y discriminaci6n alIa Comisi6n de Derechos de Igualdad de Empleos, EEOC (por sus ciclas en Ingles), la cual es una agencia de el Gobiemo de los Estados Unidos la cual esta encargada de implementar y aplicar las leyes que prohiben el hostigamiento y discriminacion. American Metal Coatings y Dino Land Properties, respetan su derecho para que usted se ponga en contacto con la EEOC (por sus cic1as en Ingles) y no tomara ninguna accion contra usted por haber llamado la EEOC (por sus cic1as en
2

Ingles) 0 porque usted haya radicado un cargo de discriminaci6n por escrito con la EEOC (por sus cic1as en Ingles) El numero de telefono de la EEOC (por sus cic1as en Ingles) es, (216) 522-2001, el numero larga distancia gratuito es 1-800-669-4000,0 (216) 522-7445. Para aquellas personas con problemas del audio, el numero del ITT es (216) 522-8441 Y1-800-669-6820.
QUE SUCEDE DESPUES QUE UN REPORTE DE HOSTIGAMIENTO 0 DISCRJMINACION SE ARADICADO?
Luego que un reporte de hostigamiento u discriminaci6n se a radicado por un empleado sea la victima el/ella u otro empleado el cual a sido discriminado, La empresa investigara los hechos de una manera rapida, eficaz, justa y completa La empresa tomara medidas para que no haya mas actos de hostigamiento y discriminaci6n mientras lleva a cabo la investigaci6n. Una vez la investigaci6n se haya conc1uido, la empresa tomara las medidas adecuadas para corregir la situaci6n como sea mandado. Querellas e investigaciones echas por empleados seran mantenidas en confidencia a menos que haya necesidad de dar conocimiento como parte de la investigaci6n 0 por razones legales. no se tomara nineun acto neeativo 0 de represalia contra el empleado por reportar un acto de hostieamiento 0 discriminacion.
QUIEN ES LA PERSONA RESPONSABLE PARA IMPLEMENTAR LA POLIZA?
La empresa, sus dueiios, oficiales, managers, y supervisores son los responsables por la implementaci6n de la p6liza. La empresa toma esta responsabilidad muy en serio. Todos los empleados, no importa el rango, son responsables por obedecer esta p61iza y cooperar completamente con su implementaci6n.
CUALES SON LAS RESPONSABILIDADES DE LOS MANAGERS Y LOS SUPERVISORES BAJO ESTA POLIZA?
Primero y mas que nada, es el deber de todos los supervisores y managers de la empresa de obedecer la p6liza y abstenerse de hostigamiento y discriminaci6n. Se espera que usted sirva de ejemplo. EI exito de la empresa depende esto. Tambien, es el deber de todos los supervisores y oficiales de controlar el hostigamiento y discriminaci6n en el trabajo. Si usted sospecha que actos de hostigamiento y discriminaci6n an ocurrido, aunque ninguna persona 10 haya reportado a usted, es su deber reportar 10 que a visto inmediatamente a los dueiios y a [los Acusados pondran el nombre de persona responsable con el titulo y telefono]. Ademas, es el deber de todos los supervisores y oficiales de la empresa los cuales reciben querellas de hostigamiento y discriminaci6n, de reportar rapidamente la querella a los dueiios y a [Los Acusados pondran el nombre, titulo y telefono del individuo designado para recibir las querellas]. Ademas, es el deber de todos los supervisores y managers el saber y entender esta p61iza, y poder proveer respuestas a preguntas que sus empleados les hagan referentes ala p61iza.
3

CUAL ES LA RESPONSABILIDAD DE LOS EMPLEADOS BAJO ESTA POLIZA? Todos los empleados deben de abstenerse de no cometer ninglin acto de hostigamiento y discriminacian. Ademas, todos los empleados deben reportar nipidamente cualquier incidente de esta indole que ellos hayan presenciado y cooperar con cualquier investigacian. QUE PUEDO RACER SI TENGO ALGUNA PREGUNTA RESPECTO A ESTA POLIZA? Si usted tiene alguna pregunta respecto a esta paliza, debe hacer su pregunta a su supervisor, cualquier manager u oficial de la corporacian, [Los Acusados escribin'm el nombre de la persona designada para recibir y tomar accion en cuanto a las querellas] , 0 cualquiera de los duefios, incluyendo a Bill Dotsikas.
4

ATTACHMENT C
LEGAL NOTICE
On September 21, 2001, the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (Eastern Division) alleging that American Metal Coatings, Inc. ("American Metal") and Dino Land Properties, Inc. ("Dino Land") violated federal law by engaging in race and national origin harassment (including racial slurs and other harassment) and discrimination against 12 Hispanic and Black employees at the facility located at 1088 Ivanhoe Road in Cleveland, Ohio.
In accordance with the terms of a settlement between the EEOC and American Metal and Dino Land in that case, Case No. 1:01CV2235, this Notice is being posted to inform you of your rights guaranteed by federal law under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e, et seq. ("Title VII").

Title VII is a federal law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of race; national origin; color; religion; sex; and pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions with respect to any term or condition of employment, hiring, layoff, recall, promotion, firing, suspension and other discipline, pay, leave and other fringe benefits, and all other aspects of the employment relationship. In this regard, Title VII prohibits harassment on the basis ofrace; national origin; color; religion; sex; and pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions. Title VII also prohibits retaliation for opposing discrimination or because a person has made a complaint of discrimination (called a "charge of discrimination"), testified, assisted or participated in any manner in an investigation or lawsuit conducted by the EEOC. The EEOC is the federal government agency which investigates charges of unlawful employment discrimination and brings lawsuits in federal court to enforce Title VII.

American Metal Coatings and Dino Land Properties support and will obey Title VII in all respects and will not take any action against any employee because she/he has exercised her/his rights under this law. Race, national origin, and other types of harassment and discrimination are strictly prohibited by company policy and any person who engages in such conduct will be disciplined appropriately, up to and including immediate firing.

DATED

WILLIAM DOTSIKAS PRESIDENT

ATTACHMEN, T D
NOTIFICACION LEGAL
EL DiA 21 DE SEPTIEMBRE DEL 2001, LA COMISION DE DERECHOS DE IGUALDAD DE EMPLEOS DE LOS ESTADOS UNIDOS (EEOC) RADICO UNA DEMANDA EN LA CORTE DEL NOROESTE DE EL DISTRITO DE OHIO (DIVISION DE OESTE) ALEGANDO QUE AMERICAN METAL COATINGS, INC. ("AMERICAN METAL") Y DINO LAND PROPERTIES, INC. ("DINO LAND") VIOLARON LA LEY FEDERAL CUAND, O COMETIERON DISCRIMINACION BASADA EN RAZA Y ORIGEN NACIONAL (INCLUYENDO INSULTOS RACIALES Y OTROS HOSTIGAMIENTOS) Y DISCRIMINO CONTRA 12 EMPLEADOS HISPANOS Y NEGROS EN EL ESTABLECIMIENTO LOCALIZADO EN LA 1088 IVANHOE ROAD EN CLEVELAND, OHIO.

T
CONFORME A LOS TERMINOS DE EL ACUERDO ENTRE LA EEOC (por sus ciclas en ingles) Y AMERICAN METAL Y DINO LAND EN ESE CASO, CASO NUMERO
T
1:01CV2235, ESTA NOTIFICACION LEGAL ESTA PUBLICADA PARA INFORMARLE A USTED DE SUS DERECHOS LOS CUALES ESTAN GARANTIZADOS BAJO LA LEY DEL TITULO VII DE EL ACTO DE LOS DERECHOS CIVILES DEL 1964,
T
ENMENDADO, 42 U.S.C. SECCION 2000e et seq. ("TITULO VII")
EL TITULO VII ES UNA LEY FEDERAL QUE PROHIBE LA DISCRIMINACION BASADA EN LA RAZA; ORIGEN NACIONAL; COLOR; RELIGION; SEXO; EMBARAZO, PARTO Y CUALQUIER CONDICION MEDICA RESPECTO A
T
TERMINOS Y CONDICIONES DE EMPLEOS, RECLUTAMIENTO, DESPIDOS, REGRESO AL TRABAJO, PROMOCIONES, DESPIDOS, SUSPENSIONES, Y OTRAS

DISCIPLINAS, SUELDO, TIEMPO LIBRE,
OTROS BENEFICIOS
COMPLEMENTARIOS Y TODOS , LOS OTROS ASPECTOS DE LA RELACION DE
EMPLEO. EN ESTE RESPECTO, TITULO
VII PROHIBE EL HOSTIGAMIENTO
BASADO EN LA RAZA; , ORIGEN NACIONAL; COLOR; RELIGION; SEXO;
EMBARAZO, PARTO Y CONDICIONES
MEDICAS RELACIONADAS. EL TITULO
VII TAMBIEN PROHIBE REPRESAL,IA POR OPONERSE A LA DISCRIMINACION
o PORQUE LA PERSONA HAYA
RADICADO U, NA QUERELLA DE DISCRIMINACION ( "Ilamada un cargo de
discriminacion"),TESTIFICAR, AYUDAR 0
PARTICIPAR EN CUALQUIER MANERA
EN UNA INVESTIGACION 0 DEMANDA
RADICADA POR LA EEOC. LA EEOC IS
LA AGENCIA FEDERAL LA CUAL INVESTIGA CARGOS DE
DISCRIMINACION DE EMPLEOS Y RADICA DEMANDAS EN LA CORTE

T
FEDERAL PARA LA IMPLEMENTACION DEL TITULO VII.
AMERICAN METAL COATINGS Y DINO LAND PROPERTIES RESPALDAN Y OBEDECERAN EL TITULO VII EN TODOS LOS ASPECTOS Y NO TOMARAN NINGUNA ACCION CONTRA UN EMPLEADO PORQUE HAYA EJERCITADO SUS DERECHOS BAJO ESTA LEY. DISCRIMINACION Y OTROS TIPOS DE HOSTIGAMIENTO BASADOS EN RAZA, ORIGEN NACIONAL ESTAN ESTRICTAMENTE PROHIBIDOS POR LA
T
POLIZA DE LA EMPRESA. Y CUALQUIER PERSONA QUE SE DEDIQUE A ESTA FORMA DE CONDUCTA SERA APROPIADAMENTE DISCIPLINADO INCLUYENDO LA PERDIDA DE SU TRABAJO.

Fecha

WILLIAM DOTSIKAS PRESIDENTE

 
 Northern District of Ohio - Docket Report

https://ecf.ohnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?571363558699422-L_3...

CMECF, Cat03, Protect, Standard, Termed
U.S. District Court Northern District of Ohio (Cleveland) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:01-cv-02235-KMO

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. American Metal Date Filed: 09/21/2001

Coatings, Inc. et al

Date Terminated: 05/13/2003

Assigned to: Hon. Kathleen M. O'Malley

Jury Demand: Plaintiff

Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)

Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs

Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

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

Ronald L. Phillips Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 3rd Floor 10 South Howard Street Baltimore, DC 21201 410-209-2737 Fax: 410-962-4270 Email: ronald.phillips@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant American Metal Coatings, Inc.

represented by Andrew Agati Squire, Sanders & Dempsey - Cleveland 4900 Key Tower 127 Public Square Cleveland, OH 44114 216-479-8288 Fax: 216-479-8780 Email: aagati@ssd.com

1 of 5

5/30/2007 8:55 AM

Northern District of Ohio - Docket Report

https://ecf.ohnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?571363558699422-L_3...

Defendant Dino Land Properties, Inc.
Mediator Patricia A. Hemann TERMINATED: 11/22/2002

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark J. Valponi Taft, Stettinius & Hollister - Cleveland 3500 BP Tower 200 Public Square Cleveland, OH 44114 216-241-3141 Fax: 216-241-3707 Email: mvalponi@taftlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrew Agati (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Patricia Hemann TERMINATED: 11/22/2002 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 09/21/2001
09/21/2001 09/21/2001 09/21/2001 10/11/2001
10/17/2001
11/20/2001 11/20/2001

#

Docket Text

1 Complaint with waivers issued against American Metal Coatings, Inc.. Filed by Equal EMployment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(W, Jo) (Entered: 09/24/2001)
2 Random Assignment of Magistrate Judge Hemann. (Entered: 09/24/2001)
3 Case Information Statement (standard track) filed by Equal EMployment Opportunity Commission. (W, Jo) (Entered: 09/24/2001)
4 Notice of Placement of case in the CM/ECF Docketing System (Entered: 09/24/2001)
5 Attorney Appearance of Mark J. Valponi, Peter M. Poulos and Andrew Agati by Mark J. Valponi filed by on behalf of American Metal Coatings, Inc.. (E, P) (Entered: 10/12/2001)
6 Waiver of Summons by American Metal Coatings, Inc. returned. Waiver mailed on 9/21/01 filed by Equal EMployment Opportunity Commission. (M, EJ) (Entered: 10/18/2001)
7 Case Information Statement with Standard track request filed by American Metal Coatings, Inc.. (C, K A) (Entered: 11/21/2001)
8 Corporate Disclosure Statement filed by American Metal Coatings, Inc.. (C, K A) (Entered: 11/21/2001)

2 of 5

5/30/2007 8:55 AM

Northern District of Ohio - Docket Report

https://ecf.ohnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?571363558699422-L_3...

11/20/2001 01/04/2002
02/04/2002 02/13/2002
03/01/2002
03/14/2002 03/14/2002 04/05/2002 04/09/2002 04/18/2002 06/05/2002 06/06/2002 06/14/2002

9 Answer to Complaint ; jury demand (Related Doc # 1) filed by American Metal Coatings, Inc.. (C, K A) (Entered: 11/21/2001)
10 Case Management Conference Notice & Order. Case management conference to be held on 2/13/2002 at 12:30 PM at Chambers 135. Parties to file position statement prior to conference (Attachments: # 1 Position statement). Kathleen M. O'Malley(H, C) (Entered: 01/04/2002)
11 Joint Position Statement re: Case Management Conference Agenda filed by Equal EMployment Opportunity Commission. (Phillips, Ronald) (Entered: 02/04/2002)
12 Case Management Conference Plan/Order; this case is assigned to the standard case management track; non-expert discovery due by 11/22/2002, Parties to be Joined and Pleading Amendments due by 5/13/2002, Dispositive Motions due by 1/24/2003, with status hearing to be held on 10/11/2002 at 12:30 PM in Chambers 135; Judge Kathleen M. O'Malley (R, N) (Entered: 02/15/2002)
13 Motion to amend complaint filed by Equal EMployment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Brief in Support # 2 unsigned Amended Complaint )(Related document(s)1) (Phillips, Ronald) Modified text of entry on 4/8/2002 (M, EJ). (Entered: 03/01/2002)
14 Answer To Complaint Of Plaintiff Michael Brock filed by American Metal Coatings, Inc. (Related document(s)1) (Agati, Andrew) Modified on 3/16/2002 (S, R). (Entered: 03/14/2002)
15 Answer To Amended Complaint Of EEOC filed by American Metal Coatings, Inc.. (Related document(s)13) (Agati, Andrew) Modified on 3/16/2002 (S, R). (Entered: 03/14/2002)
16 Marginal entry order granting plaintiff leave to file amended complaint(Related Doc # 13). Judge Kathleen M. O'Mally (M, EJ) (Entered: 04/08/2002)
17 Amended complaint against all defendants. Filed by Equal EMployment Opportunity Commission. (Phillips, Ronald) (Entered: 04/09/2002)
18 Waiver of Summons by Dino Land Properties, Inc. returned. Waiver mailed on 4/9/02 filed by Equal EMployment Opportunity Commission. (Phillips, Ronald) (Entered: 04/18/2002)
19 Notice to take Deposition of Samuel Rosario on June 27, 2002 filed by American Metal Coatings, Inc., Dino Land Properties, Inc.. (Agati, Andrew) (Entered: 06/05/2002)
20 Joint Motion for Stipulated Protective Order For Confidential Information filed by all defendants. (Agati, Andrew) Modified on 6/7/2002 (S, R). Modified on 10/10/2002 (H, C). Order granted 6/14/2002. (Entered: 06/06/2002)
21 Stipulated Protective Order for Confidential Information; this Court, pursuant to Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby orders that this Stipulated Protective Order for Confidential Information shall govern the handling of confidential information produced by any party or non-party to this litigation; the terms and conditions of this Protective Order shall survive and remain in force and fact after the termination of this action; this order may be

3 of 5

5/30/2007 8:55 AM

Northern District of Ohio - Docket Report

https://ecf.ohnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?571363558699422-L_3...

08/14/2002 09/25/2002 10/02/2002 10/10/2002
10/31/2002
11/01/2002 11/01/2002
11/05/2002 11/22/2002 12/30/2002 05/13/2003
06/18/2003

amended as need may arise by the mutual written consent and agreement of counsel without prior leave of the Court; IT IS SO ORDERED; Kathleen M. O'MalleyOrder (R, N) (Entered: 06/19/2002)
22 Address Change Notice by Ronald L. Phillips filed by on behalf of Equal EMployment Opportunity Commission. (Phillips, Ronald) (Entered: 08/14/2002)
23 Notice of Hearing. Status hearing RESET to be held on 10/31/2002 at 12:00 PM at Chambers 16A (H, C) (Entered: 09/25/2002)
24 Joint Motion for extension of time for discovery filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Phillips, Ronald) (Entered: 10/02/2002)
Order (non-document) signed on 10/10/2002 Granting plaintiff's Motion for 60 day extension of non-expert discovery until 1/21/2003 and adjustment of all other dates set forth in Case Management Plan in accordance with new discovery period (Related Doc # 24). Kathleen M. O'Malley (H, C) (Entered: 10/10/2002)
25 Minutes of proceedings/Order before Judge Kathleen M. O'Malley held on 10/31/02. Mediation shall occur before Magistrate Judge Hemann on 11/21/02 at 9:00 a.m.; non-expert Discovery due by 2/20/2003, Dispositive Motions due by 4/21/2003. Judge Kathleen M. O'Malley. (H, D) (Entered: 11/04/2002)
26 Trial Order scheduling Jury Trial on 9/8/2003 at 09:15 AM in Courtroom 16A; Final Pre-Trial to be held on 8/28/03 at 12:30 p.m. Judge Kathleen M. O'Malley.(H, D) (Entered: 11/04/2002)
27 Order of Reference that this matter is referred to Magistrate Judge Patricia A. Hemann, pursuant to 28 USC 636 and L.R. 72.1 to conduct Mediation to occur no later than 11/30/02. Judge Kathleen M. O'Malley. (H, D) (Entered: 11/04/2002)
28 Notice of Mediation to be held on 11/21/2002 at 09:30 AM at Chambers 11B before Magistrate Judge Hemann. (W, Gloria) (Entered: 11/05/2002)
29 Minutes of proceedings before Judge Hemann. Mediation held. Case settled. Referral terminated. Magistrate Judge Hemann (W, Gloria) (Entered: 11/22/2002)
30 Transcript of proceedings taken on 11/21/02. Court Reporter: Staiduhar. Complete document (7 pages) on file in the Clerk's Office. (C, K A) (Entered: 01/02/2003)
31 Order closing this action; it shall be marked settled and dismissed, with prejudice, with each party to bear its own cost; the Court retains jurisdiction to vacate this Order and reopen the action upon cause shown that settlement has not been completed and further litigation is necessary or alter the terms of settlement and dismissal upon agreement of the parties. (Judge O'Malley) (M, J A) (Entered: 05/13/2003)
32 Post Judgment Motion for entry of consent decree filed by all parties. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Consent Decree# 2 Attachment A to the Consent Decree: American Metal Coatings, Inc. and Dino Land Properties, Inc. Policy Prohibiting Harassment and Discrimination# 3 Attachment B: to the Consent Decree American Metal Coatings and Dino Land Properties, Inc. Policy

4 of 5

5/30/2007 8:55 AM

Northern District of Ohio - Docket Report

https://ecf.ohnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?571363558699422-L_3...

07/08/2003

Prohibiting Harrassment and Discrimination (Spanish Version)# 4 Attachment C to the Consent Decree: Legal Notice# 5 Attachment D to the Consent Decree: Legal Notice (Spanish Version))(B, B) Modified text of docket entry on 6/20/2003 (B, B). (Entered: 06/20/2003)
33 Consent Decree & Order entered 7/8/2003. Kathleen M. O'Malley (H, C) (Entered: 07/08/2003)

PACER Login:
Description:
Billable Pages:

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt
05/30/2007 09:51:21

hs0328

Client Code: eeoc

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

1:01-cv-02235-KMO

3

Cost:

0.24

5 of 5

5/30/2007 8:55 AM