1 A. LUIS LUCERO, JR. BARBARAJ. STANDAL
2 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 909 FIRST AVENUE, SUITE 400
3 SEATTLE, WA 98104 TEl: (206) 220-6896
4

ORIGINAL

. , >: i;:; .' --,

,', -.! ,-. --r,

5

6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF IDAHO

9 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
10 COMMISSION,

a )
) I ClV 98 - 3 7 8 - S - BUN
)

II

Plaintiff,

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

)

12

v.

) COMPLAINT

)

13 THE AMALGAMATED SUGAR

) JURY TRIAL DEMAND

COMPANY LLC,

)

14

)

)

15

Defendants.

)

)

16

)

17

NATURE OF THE ACTION

18

This is an action under Title VII ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of the Civil

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

20 to provide appropriate relief to Baltazar Garza, Alfonso Baez, Sergio Hernandez, Pioquinto

21 Gomez and Felix Gonzalez who were adversely affected by such practices. The Equal

22 Employment Opportunity Commission alleges the defendant, The Amalgamated Sugar Company

23 LLC, violated Title VII by failing to hire or rehire Garza, Baez, Hernandez, Gomez and

24 Gonzalez, based on their national origin, Hispanic.

25

COMPLAINT - PAGE 1

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Seattle District Office

909 First Avenue. Suite 400

Seattle, Washington 98104-1061

Telephone: (206) 220-6883

Facsimile: (206) 220-6911 TOO: (206) 220-6882

\.

I

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2

1. Jurisdiction of this court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 451, 1331, 1337,

3 1343 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Section 706(t)(1) and (3) of

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

5 Section 102 of Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a.

6

2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were and are now being

7 committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for Idaho.

8

PARTIES

9

3. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "Commission"), is

10 the agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and

II enforcement of Title VII, and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Section 706(t)(1)

12 and (3) ofTitle VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(t)(1) and (3).

13

4. At all relevant times, defendant, The Amalgamated Sugar Company LLC, has

14 continuously been a corporation doing business in the State ofIdaho and has continuously had at

15 least 15 employees.

16

5. At all relevant times, defendant has continuously been an employer engaged in an

17 industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701(b), (g) and (h)

18 ofTitle VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e (b), (g) and (h).

19

STATEMENT OF CLAIMS

20

6. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Baltazar Garza filed a

21 charge alleging violations of Title VII by defendant, The Amalgamated Sugar Company LLC.

22 All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled.

23

7. On or about September 19,1996, defendant engaged in unlawful employment

24 practices at its facilities in Nampa, Idaho, in violation of Section 703 (a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C.

25 §2000-2(a). These practices included failure to hire or rehire Baltazar Garza, Alfonso Baez,

COMPLAINT - PAGE 2

u.s. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Seattle District Office 909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington 98104-1061 Telephone: {206) 220·6883
Facsimile: (206) 220-6911 TOO: (206) 220-6882

1 Sergio Hernandez, Pioquinto Gomez and Felix Gonzalez as seasonal, general laborers because

2 they spoke Spanish and were not proficient in English. The defendant excluded the above-

3 named five Hispanic workers who had worked as seasonal laborers successfully at defendant's

4 plant in the past.

5

8. The effect of the practice complained of in paragraph 7 haS been to deprive

6 Baltazar Garza, Alfonso Baez, Sergio Hernandez, Pioquinto Gomez and Felix Gonzalez of equal

7 employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees, and their

8 terms and conditions of employment because of their national origin.

9

9. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 7 were

10 intentional.

11

10. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 7 above were

12 done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Baltazar Garza,

13 Alfonso Baez, Sergio Hernandez, Pioquinto Gomez and Felix Gonzalez.

14

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

15

Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this court:

16

A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining defendant,The Amalgamated Sugar

17 Company LLC, its officers, agents, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or

18 participation with it, from engaging in any other employment practice which discriminates on the

19 basis of national origin.

20

B. Order defendant to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which

21 provide equal employment opportunities for Hispanic employees and eradicate the effects of its

22 past and present unlawful employment practices.

23

C. Order defendant to make whole Baltazar Garza, Alfonso Baez, Sergio Hernandez,

24 Pioquinto Gomez, and Felix Gonzalez, by providing appropriate back pay with prejudgment

25 interest, in amounts to be determined at trial, and other equitable and affirmative relief necessary

COMPLAINT - PAGE 3

u.s. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
SeaHle District Office 909 First Avenue, Suite 400
Seattle, Washington 98104-1061 Telephone: (206) 220-6883 Facsimile: (20B) 220-6911 TOO: (206) 220-6882

I to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices.

2

D. Order defendant, The Amalgamated Sugar Company LLC, to make whole

3 Baltazar Garza, Alfonso Baez, Sergio Hernandez, Pioquinto Gomez and Felix Gonzalez, by

4 providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful

5 employment practices described in paragraph 7 above, including past and future out-of-pocket

6 expenses, in amounts to be determined at trial.

7

E. Order defendant to make whole Baltazar Garza, Alfonso Baez, Sergio Hernandez,

8 Pioquinto Gomez and Felix Gonzalez by providing compensation for past and future

9 nonpecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices complained of in paragraph 7 above,

10 including without limitation to emotional pain, suffering, mental anguish and loss of enjoyment

11 of life, in amounts to be determined at trial.

12

F. Order defendant to pay Baltazar Garza, Alfonso Baez, Sergio Hernandez,

13 Pioquinto Gomez and Felix Gonzalez punitive damages for its malicious or reckless conduct

14 described in paragraph 7 above, in amounts to be determined at trial.

15

G. Grant such further relief as the court deems necessary and proper in the public

16 interest.

17

H. Award the Commission its costs of this action.

18 II

19 II

20 II

21 II

22 II

23 II

24 II

25 II

COMPLAINT - PAGE 4

u.s. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Seattle District Office
909 First Avenue, Suite 400
Seattle, Washington 98104-1061 Telephone: (206) 220-6883 Facsimile: (206) 220-6911 TOO; (206) 220-6882

1

JURY TRIAL DEMANP

2

The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its complaint.

3

thiS~ ~, DATED

day of

1998.

4 A. LUIS LUCERO, JR.
5 Regional Attorney

C. Gregory Stewart General Counsel

6 BARBARAJ. STANDAL

7

Trial At o~ . 11

By:~~~~~-2f~~~

8

EQUALEMPLO ENT OPPORTUNITY

9 COMMISSION

Seattle District Office

10 909 First Avenue, Suite 400

Seattle, Washington 98104

11 Telephone (206) 220-6896

Gwendolyn Young Reams Associate General Counsel
Office ofthe General Counsel 1801 "L" Street, NW Washington DC 20507

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

COMPLAINT - PAGE 5

u.s. EaUAl EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Seattle District Office
909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington 98104-1061
Telephone; (Z06) 220-6883
Facsimile: (206) 220-6911 TOD: (206) 220-6882

 
 / .' -,

"
, '('I

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plairttiff,
vs.
THE AMALGAMATED SUGAR COMPANY LLC,
Defendant.

Civil No. CV 98-0378-S-BLW PROTECTIVE ORDER

This matter having CClme before the Court upon the parties' Stipulation for Protective Order, and good cause appearing therefor;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the following confidentiality provisions shall pertain to do,;uments and information that are produced by the parties in connection with this action:
1. The parties are to keep confidential the following: a. The videotape taken ofAmalgamated's Nampafactory by the EEOC on January 17,1999; b. Medical or psychological information on Amalgamated's former or current

PROTECTNE ORDER - 1
f\

employees contained in Amalgamated reports, documents or other discovery prodw;ed in this litigation related to accidents or injuries occurring at Amalgamated's Nampa plant; c. Documents containing trade secrets, special formulas, customer lists, proprietary financial or security information; d. Managers' salaries; and e. Performance evaluations of former or current Amalgamated employees. 2. The parties shall designate in writing the documents and materials it desires be confidential 3. Documents or information contained in confidential materials shall not be disclosed to any persons other than: a. The parties, counsel for the parties, and counsel's employees to the extent reascnably necessary to render professional services in this litigation; and b. Prospective witnesses, including experts. 4. Theforegoing obligations ofconfidentiality shall not apply to any ofthe above persons or parties as to documents or information that were (a) previously known to or in the possession of such person or party (except to the extent it is subject to some other confidentiality obligation); (b) availableto the public at the time ofproduction; or (3) subsequently disclosed by the party seeking confidentiality to others who are not under obligations of confidentiality to the parties. 5. If any party to this litigation disputes the applicability ofthis Protective Order to any documents or information, then the parties shall attemptto resolve the dispute on an informalbasis. lithe dispute is not informally resolved, then the dispute may be submitted by amotion to the Courtofthe party seeking the designation of confidentiality to the Court for a decision.
PROTECTIVE ORDER - 2

6.

A party may de,igna1e as confidential specific portions ofa deposition transcript within ten

(10) days after the deposition IS received. This designation shall be in writing and served on opposing counsel. No objection shall b,~ interposed during the course ofthe deposition. Transcripts will be treated

as confidential for the I O-day period in accordance with this Protective Order.

7.

In filing materials with the Court in a pretrial proceeding, only those specific documents and

the deposition testimony counsel has designated confidential shall be filed under seal.
SO ORDERED this /:::'~ay of October, 1999.

PROTECTIVE ORDER - 3

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

U.S. DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF IDAHO

E.E.O.C.

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

)

AMALGAMATED SUGAR CO., INC., )

)

)

Defendant.

)

)

JAN 1 1 2000

,

Iv! Ht:.l':0-r:-J!7..../

LODGED -

C1Lm~

Civ. No. 98_0378_S_BLWA~8EnS OF B LYNN WI~~~ll.

MEMORANDUM DECISION, ORDER, REASSIGNMENT TO MAGISTRATE AND CHANGE OF CASE NUMBER.

INTRODUCTION

The Court has before it a motion for summary judgment filed by defendant

Amalgamated Sugar, and a motion to file a supplemental brief filed by plaintiff EEOC. The

Court granted from the bench the EEOC's motion to file supplemental brief, and took under

advisement Amalgamated's motion for summary judgment. The Court now finds that the

motion for summary judgment should be denied, and the Court's reasoning is expressed

below.

ANALYSIS

The EEOC brings this suit on behalf of four Hispanic seasonal employees of

Amalgamated who were not rehired in 1996. These employees, known in this suit as the

charging parties, worked as laborers, typically between September and January of each year.

They had varying abilities to speak English. When they reported to Amalgamated in

Memorandum Decision & Order - page 1

September each year for orientation, they had an interpreter to help them fill out forms. At the end of the 1995/1996 seasonal work, Ken Baumgartner, Amalgamated's Safety
Director, told the charging parties that they should be prepared the next season to take a written test in English without the assistance of an interpreter. When the next season arrived -in September, 1996 -- the charging parties appeared at Amalgamated's orientation session. What happened next is unclear.
It appears that Amalgamated gave its workers a written test, in English, on various aspects of workplace safety. It is not clear whether the charging parties were actually given the written test, or took any portion of the test. At some point, the charging parties were told by Baumgartner that they would not be hired because they did not have the ability to take the test without an interpreter. 1
Title VII prohibits discrimination based on national origin. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2. The EEOC defines national origin discrimination as including "the denial of equal employment opportunity because ... the individual has the linguistic characteristics of a national origin group." See 29 U .S.C. § 1606.1. Fluency-in-English requirements "may be discriminatory on the basis of national origin," according to the EEOC regulations, and hence the EEOC "will carefully investigate [such] charges ... for both disparate treatment and adverse impact
1 Amalgamated's counsel represented at oral argument that an employee could take a verbal version of the test if the employee was able to speak, but not read, English. It is unclear, however, whether the verbal test option was presented to the charging parties. In a summary judgment proceeding, the Court must construe the facts in favor of the non-filing party, and thus the Court must assume that the charging parties were not presented with the verbal test option.
Memorandum Decision & Order - page 2

on the basis of national origin." [d. at l606.6(b). In this case, tbe EEOC's counsel informed the Court at oral argument that the EEOC
was not pursuing a disparate impact claim, but was proceeding instead under two separate disparate treatment theories. First, the EEOC claims that the fluency-in-English requirement is discriminatory on its face. Second, tbe EEOC claims tbat even if tbe policy is not discriminatory on its face, it was applied with the intent to discriminate against Hispanics. 2 For ease of reference, the Court will refer to the first claim as the facial claim and the second claim as tbe applied claim.
The applied claim is governed by the well-known burden shifting framework set fortb in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). Under that framework - that shifts only the burden of production and never tbe burden of proof -- the EEOC must make a prima facie showing that (1) the charging parties belong to a protected class; (2) tbe charging parties were qualified for the positions; (3) the charging parties were not rehired; and (4) the positions remained open. See id. at 802. "The requisite degree of proof necessary to establish a prima facie case for Title VII ... claims on summary judgment is minimal and does not even need to rise to the level of a preponderance of the evidence." Wallis v. f.R.Simplot Co., 26 F.3d 885,889 (9th Cir. 1994). Establishing a prima facie case "creates a presumption tbat
2 Amalgamated argues in its briefing that the EEOC has "expressly acknowledged that there is no evidence of any intent by the company to discriminate." See Amalgamated's Reply Brief at 2, n.2. In support of tbis conclusion, Amalgamated cites a portion of the EEOC's brief that Amalgamated interprets as waiving the disparate treatment theory based on intentional discrimination. However, Amalgamated reads too much into that statement. In the briefing and at oral argument, the EEOC has pursued its claim that Amalgamated intentionally discriminated against Hispanics. Memorandum Decision & Order - page 3

the employer unlawfully discriminated against the employee." Id. Once the prima jacie case has been made, the burden of production shifts to
Amalgamated to offer a "legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its employment decision." [d. If Amalgamated meets this burden, "the McDonnell Douglas presumption of unlawful discrimination simply drops out of the picture," id., and the plaintiff "must produce specific, substantial evidence of pretext." !d. at 890.
The facial claim is analyzed differently. See International v. Johnson Controls, Inc., 499 U.S. 187, 197-200 (1991). The Court in Johnson Controls noted that the burden shifting framework required plaintiffs "to bear the burden of persuasion on all questions," and then held that "[f1or the plaintiff to bear the burden of proof in a case in which there is direct evidence of a facially discriminatory policy is wholly inconsistent with settled Title VII law." Id. at 198, 200 (internal quotations omitted). Accordingly, once a finding of facial discrimination has been made, the burden of proof ( as opposed to the burden of production) shifts to the employer to establish that the policy is based on a "bona fide occupational qualification" (BFOQ) under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(e)(l). [d. at 200 (stating that the employer's policy based on gender was discriminatory on its face and hence "forbidden under Title VII unless [the employer] can establish that sex is a [BFOQ] "). Johnson Controls observes that "[t]he business necessity standard is more lenient for the employer than the statutory BFOQ defense." Id. at 198.
Amalgamated seeks summary judgment on both the facial and applied disparate treatment claims. Turning first to the applied claim, the Court finds that the EEOC has made a primajacie case. The EEOC has established, in light of the minimal showing required to Memorandum Decision & Order - page 4

establish a prima facie case on summary judgment, that (1) the charging parties are Hispanics and hence protected; (2) the charging parties were qualified for their jobs as they have worked for many years with good work records;3 (3) the charging parties were not rehired; and (4) the positions remained open.
In response, Amalgamated has offered a legitimate business reason for the Englishfluency requirement: Amalgamated's expert, William R. Briscoe, concluded that "based on the hazards" at Amalgamated's plant, "it is appropriate to require that employees working [as laborers] to have demonstrated English speaking and comprehension abilities, both written and verbal." The EEOC counters with testimony from its expert, Earnest F. Harper, that "the plaintiffs were not employed in a work environment, job, or specific task requiring an ability to read or speak English in order to ensure their safety or to adequately perform the work assigned to them." This conflicting evidence creates questions of fact, rendering summary judgment improper on this disparate treatment theory.
The Court turns next to the EEOC's facial claim. Amalgamated asserts that "[t]here is simply no authority for the EEOC's proposition that a test, administered to all applicants in an identical manner, scored in an identical manner, and with identical pass/faiJ cutoffs for all applicants on its face expressly classifies persons on the basis of race or gender." See Amalgamated's Reply Brief at 3 (emphasis in original). However, the EEOC is not
3 Amalgamated points to conflicting evidence on this point. However, this Court must not weigh the evidence in a summary judgment proceeding. Instead, the Court examines the evidence proferred by the EEOC and, making all inferences in favor of the EEOC as the nonmoving party, determines whether that evidence amounts to a prima facie case.
Memorandum Decision & Order - page 5

challenging the test itself. Instead, the EEOC is challenging Amalgamated's English-fluency policy under which Amalgamated refuses to hire anyone who cannot take the test without the aid of an interpreter.
Cast in this light, Amalgamated is essentially seeking a ruling that its English-fluency program cannot, as a matter of law, be found to be discriminatory on its face. Facial discrimination occurs when the policy at issue expressly classifies persons on the basis of national origin. See Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200 (1995). The Englishfluency policy classifies persons on the basis of language, not national origin. Yet the Ninth Circuit has stated that language could be a proxy for national origin: "[TJhe cultural identity of certain minority groups is tied to the use of their primary tongue ... [and] rules which have a negative effect on ... non-English speakers may be mere pretexts for intentional national origin discrimination." Gutierrez v. Municipal Court, 838 F.2d 1031, 1039 (9tl' Cir. 1988), vacated as moot, 490 U.S. 1016 (1989). See also Yniguez v. ArizonansJor Official English, 69 F.3d 920, 947-48 (9th Cir. 1995) ("since language is a close and meaningful proxy for national origin, restrictions on the use of languages may mask discrimination against specific national origin groups, or more generally, conceal nativist sentiment. "), vacated on other grounds, 520 U.S. 43 (1997) ; see generally, Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, 369 (1991) (noting that in some contexts proficiency in particular languages might be "treated as a surrogate for race"); Fragante v. City and County oj Honolulu, 888 F.2d 591,596 (9tl' Cir. 1989) (observing that "accent and national origin are obviously inextricably intertwined in many cases," and encouraging district courts to conduct a "very searching look" at employers' claims that accents interfered with communication). Memorandum Decision & Order - page 6

While these cases are not directly on point, they recognize that language is a proxy for
national origin, and that restrictions on language could be a pretext for discrimination based on
national origin: Amalgamated counters that its policy cannot be facially discriminatory
because the policy turns on a mutable trait or ability -- that is, the ability to speak English -- as
opposed to an immutable characteristic such as race or place of birth. 5 This distinction,
however, is not found in Title VII or any of the implementing regulations. Amalgamated cites
no Ninth Circuit or Supreme Court authority holding that a policy is only facially
discriminatory when it makes a distinction based on an immutable characteristic. 6 And the
distinction would be almost impossible to apply. For example, skin color can be changed.
See Watkins v. U.S. Army, 875 F.2d 699, 725 (9th Cir. 1988) (en banc) (Norris, J.,
4 While the decisions vacated by the Supreme Court have no precedential value, their reasoning remains persuasive. Amalgamated cites other cases for the proposition that "language restrictions or requirements are facially neutral." See Amalgamated Reply Brief at 4. However, none of the cases cited by Amalgamated hold that an English-fluency policy must, as a matter of law, be deemed to be a facially neutral policy. The cases cited by Amalgamated either assume that the policy is facially neutral or make the finding without analysis. At any rate, those cases are not persuasive.
5 Amalgamated pursued this contention during oral argument.
6 The Fifth Circuit appears to have held that a trait related to national origin must be of an immutable nature in order to come within Title VII protections. See Garcia v. Gloor, 618 F.2d 264 (5th Cir. 1980). Gloor interpreted national origin as one's birthplace or the birthplace of one's ancestors, and stated that Title VII "does not support an interpretation that equates the language an employee prefers to use with his national origin." !d. at 270. This analysis appears directly contrary to that found in the Ninth Circuit cases of Gutierrez and Yniguez. Although both of those cases were vacated on other grounds, they give some indication that the Ninth Circuit is not willing to follow Gloor's immutability analysis. It should be noted that the Ninth Circuit has followed Gloor in holding that an English-only workplace policy did not violate the Title VII rights of a bilingual worker who had the ability to comply with the policy. Jurado v. Eleven-Fifty Corp., 813 F.2d 1406 (9th Cir. 1987). Jurado did not, however, adopt Gloor's immutability analysis.
Memorandum Decision & Order - page 7

concurring) (discussing the 1961 book Black Like Me that recounts the experiences of author John Howard Griffin who darkened his white skin and traveled throughout the South). Does this mean that an employment practice based entirely on skin color is not facially discriminatory because skin color is not immutable? That is not, and cannot be, the law.
On the other hand, it cannot be said that the mutability of the characteristic targeted by the employer's policy is completely irrelevant. In Fourteenth Amendment analysis, the more immutable the trait, the greater the chance that the policy may be found to be impinging on the rights of a "suspect class" and hence subject to stricter scrutiny. See Laurence H. Tribe, American Constitutional Law, 1616 (2d ed. 1988); Parham v. Hughes, 441 U.S. 347 (1979) (describing race, national origin, alienage, illegitimacy, and gender as immutable). Nevertheless "[t]he Supreme Court has never held that only classes with immutable traits can be deemed suspect." Watkins, 875 F.2d at 725 (Norris, J., concurring).
This Fourteenth Amendment analysis applies with equal strength to Title VII. See Sischo-Nownejad v. Merced Community College Dist., 934 F.2d 1104, 1112-13 (9th Cir. 1991) (equating Fourteenth Amendment with Title VII). Thus, Amalgamated's policy does not have to target an immutable trait to be discriminatory on its face under Title VII.
Amalgamated asserts, however that the policy is neutral on its face because it applies to all non-English speaking persons, and does not single out any specific group like Hispanics. This argument puts a twist in the term "facially neutral." The term is most accurately defined to include policies that "operate to disqualify members of both the majority class and the protected minority class." Perea, English-Only Rules, U.Mich.1.L.Ref.265, 289 (1990). For example, in Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433 U.S. 321 (1977) the facially neutral statutory height Memorandum Decision & Order - page 8

and weight requirements would disqualify at least some men as well as women. In contrast, Amalgamated's English-fluency policy will never operate to disadvantage the class of those fluent in English, but instead will operate exclusively to the detriment of non-English speakers. It is difficult to understand how a policy that operates to the exclusive disadvantage of one class could be a facially "neutral" policy. Because language may be a proxy for national origin, the Court cannot hold that a policy that adversely affects only non-English speakers is, as a matter of law, facially neutral.
The Court turns next to Amalgamated's motion to dismiss the EEOC's claim for punitive damages. To obtain punitive damages, the EEOC must show that Amalgamated discriminated on the basis of national origin" in the face of a perceived risk that its actions will violate federal law. " Kolstad v. American Dental Association, 119 S.C!. 2118, 2125 (1999). At first glance, this standard would appear to mean that punitive damages remain in the case so long as a claim of intentional discrimination remains. After all, it would seem that in this litigious age, any employer who intentionally discriminates against a well-defined minority certainly did so knowing that its actions would violate federal law. But in fact that may not be the case. Kolstad discussed specific situations where a finding of intentional discrimination would not warrant an award of punitive damages:
In some instances, the employer may simply be unaware of the relevant federal prohibition. There will be cases, moreover, in which the employer discriminates with the distinct belief that its discrimination is lawful. The underlying theory of discrimination may be novel or otherwise poorly recognized, or an employer may reasonably believe that its discrimination satisfies a bona fide occupational Memorandum Decision & Order - page 9

qualification defense or other statutory exception to liability. Id. at 2125.
Thus, punitive damages do not remain in the case simply because a claim of intentional discrimination remains. When an employer has raised the defenses discussed in the Kolstad quote above, the plaintiffs must respond with evidence sufficient to create a question of fact, or the punitive damages must be dismissed. In this case, Amalgamated has raised both the BFOQ defense, to the facial claim, and the legitimate business justification defense, to the applied claim. The EEOC has submitted testimony from its experts, discussed above, that creates issues of fact concerning those defenses. In other words, there is at least some question whether Amalgamated, in the words of Kolstad, "reasonably believe[d] that its discrimination satisfies a bona fide occupational qualification defense or other statutory exception to liability." Thus summary judgment on punitive damages is inappropriate.
For these reasons, the Court finds that the motion for summary judgment filed by Amalgamated must be denied. After oral argument on the motion, the EEOC's counsel encountered an emergency that required moving the trial date. Due to the congestion of the Court's calendar, the parties informed the Court that they had agreed to have the case transferred to Magistrate Judge Larry M. Boyle, who was available to try this case on a date more satisfactory to the parties. The Court will therefore reassign this case to Magistrate Judge Boyle, but cautions counsel that the reassignment will have no effect unless the parties sign and file the written consent form to proceed before the Magistrate Judge.
ORDER In accordance with the Memorandum Decision set forth above, Memorandum Decision & Order - page 10

NOW THEREFORE [T [S HEREBY ORDERED, that the motion for summary judgment (docket no.20) is hereby DENIED.
[T [S FURTHER ORDERED, that this case is hereby reassigned for all purposes, including trial and post-trial matters, to United States Magistrate Judge Larry M. Boyle.
[T [S FURTHER ORDERED, that the case number be changed to the following: CV 98-0378-S-LMB.
[T [S FURTHER ORDERED, that the present trial date before this Court of January 24, 2000, is hereby VACATED and that the matter is reset for trial before Magistrate Judge Larry M. Boyle on March 13, 2000 at 9:00 a.m. in the Federal Courthouse in Boise, Idaho.
f .
Dated this _1_,_ day of January, 2000.
. L NN WINMILL , U TED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Memorandum Decision & Order - page 11

19 United States District Court
for the District of Idaho
January 18, 2000
* * CLERK'S CERTIFICATE OF MAILING * *
Re: 1:98-cv-00378
I certify that a copy of the attached document was mailed to the following named persons:
Wesley Katahira, Esq. US EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Seattle District Office 909 First Ave #400 Seattle, WA 98104-1061
Zulema Hinojos-Fall, Esq. US EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Seattle District Office 909 First Ave #400 Seattle, WA 98104-1061
Candy W Dale, Esq. HALL FARLEY OBERRECHT & BLANTON PO Box 1271 Boise, ID 83701
Robert B White, Esq. HALL FARLEY OBERRECHT & BLANTON PO Box 1271 Boise, ID 83701
Michael J McDonagh, Esq. HALL FARLEY OBERRECHT & BLANTON PO Box 1271 Boise, ID 83701

Date: I ,(rdoo

Cameron S. Burke, Clerk
/~ BY: (IJepUty Clerk)

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

·fC;yJ

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
v.
THE AMALGAMATED SUGAR COMPANY LLC,
Defendant.

)

)

)

)

Case No. CV 98-378-S-LMB

)

)

)

JUDGMENT ON JURY VERDICT

)

)

)

)

)

This action came on for trial before the Court and a jury, the Honorable Larry M. Boyle presiding, and the issues having been duly tried and the jury having duly returned its verdict;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff take nothing, that the action be dismissed on the merits and that Defendant recover from Plaintiff the costs of action.
SO ORDERED this 11th day of May, 2000.

Bl'~~_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Deputy Clerk

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

ClER~
U.S. COURTS >ISTRICT OF IDAHO

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
vs.
THE AMALGAMATED SUGAR COMPANY LLC,
Defendant.

Civil No. CV 98-0378-S-LMB JUDGMENT

THIS MATTER having come before the Court, and the Court having issued a Memorandum Decision and Order on October 25,2000,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that judgment be entered against plaintiffin favor ofdefendant in the amount of$5, 479.85, pursuant to Defendant's Amended Cost Bill and the Court's Memorandum Decision and Order.
DATED this ft; 1!!. day of November, 2000.

mDGMENT-l

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGlSTRATE JUDGE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the ~ day of November, 2000, I caused to be served a true

copy of the foregoing JUDGMENT, by the method indicated below, and addressed to each of the

following:

A. Luis Lucero, Jr.

Y U.S. Mail, Postage Prepaid

Barbara J. Standal

Hand Delivered

Wesley Katahira

Overnight Mail

Zulema Hinojos-Fall

Telecopy

U.S Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission

909 First Avenue, Suite 400

Seattle, WA 98104 Candy W Dale

x U.S. Mail, Postage Prepaid

Tamsen L. Leachman

Hand Delivered

Hall, Farley, Oberrecht & Blanton, PA.

Overnight Mail

PO. Box 1271

Telecopy

Boise, ID 8370 I -1272

W:\14\14-055.30\Costs Judgment.wpd

JUDGMENT-2

 
 District of Idaho Live CM/ECF - Docket Report

https://ecf.idd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?631842676779813-L_35...

JURY, MTNDDL, TERMED
U.S. District Court District of Idaho (LIVE Database)Version 3.0.4 (Boise) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:98-cv-00378-LMB

EEOC v. Amalgamated Sugar Co Assigned to: Judge Larry M. Boyle Demand: $0 Case in other court: 00-35599
01-35018 Cause: 42:2000 Job Discrimination (Employment)

Date Filed: 09/25/1998 Date Terminated: 05/11/2000 Jury Demand: Defendant Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by A Luis Lucero, Jr US EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Seattle District Office 909 First Ave #400 Seattle, WA 98104-1061 (206) 220-6883 Fax: 1-206-220-6911 Email: luis.lucero@eeoc.gov TERMINATED: 11/29/1999 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Wesley Katahira US EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Seattle District Office 909 First Ave #400 Seattle, WA 98104-1061 (206) 220-6883 Fax: 1-206-220-6911 Email: wesley.katahira@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Zulema Hinojos-Fall US EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Seattle District Office 909 First Ave #400 Seattle, WA 98104-1061 (206) 220-6883 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

1 of 13

6/4/2007 11:02 AM

District of Idaho Live CM/ECF - Docket Report

https://ecf.idd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?631842676779813-L_35...

V. Defendant Amalgamated Sugar Company, Inc.

represented by Candy W Dale HALL FARLEY OBERRECHT & BLANTON PO Box 1271 Boise, ID 83701-1271 (208) 395-8500 Fax: 1-208-395-8585 Email: cwd@hallfarley.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael John McDonagh ConectL Corp. 12585 W. Explorer Drive Boise, ID 83713 208 323 1003 Email: mmcdonagh@conectl.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Blaine White GIVENS PURSLEY PO Box 2720 Boise, ID 83701-2720 (208) 388-1200 Fax: 1-208-388-1300 Email: rbw@givenspursley.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 09/25/1998 09/28/1998
10/15/1998 10/22/1998

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT (Summons(es) issued) (jml) Additional attachment(s) added on 3/17/2005 (ja, ). (Entered: 09/30/1998)
2 RETURN OF SERVICE/PROCESS executed upon defendant Amalgamated Sugar Co on 9/25/98 (jml) Additional attachment(s) added on 3/17/2005 (ja, ). (Entered: 09/30/1998)
3 ANSWER by dft; jury demand (wm) Additional attachment(s) added on 3/17/2005 (ja, ). (Entered: 10/16/1998)
4 AMENDED ANSWER [3-1] by def Amalgamated Sugar Co; jury demand (dkh) Additional attachment(s) added on 3/17/2005 (ja, ).

2 of 13

6/4/2007 11:02 AM

District of Idaho Live CM/ECF - Docket Report

https://ecf.idd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?631842676779813-L_35...

11/24/1998
01/20/1999
02/19/1999 02/19/1999 02/19/1999 02/26/1999 02/26/1999 03/31/1999 04/20/1999 07/19/1999 08/25/1999 09/02/1999
09/10/1999 09/10/1999 09/10/1999 09/24/1999 09/24/1999

5 NOTICE OF STATUS CONFERENCE ; Telephonic Status Conference set for 2:30 12/10/98 before BLW in Boise (wm) Additional attachment(s) added on 3/17/2005 (ja, ).
6 SCHEDULING ORDER by Honorable B. Lynn Winmill ; Telephonic Status Conference held 1/7/99 ; Discovery ddl set for 10/29/99 ; Disp Motion ddl set 9/24/99 ; Jury Trial 1/24/00 1:30 Boise ; Pretrial Conference set for 1/11/00 8:00 (cc: all counsel) (dkh) Additional attachment(s) added on 3/17/2005 (ja, ). (Entered: 01/22/1999)
7 NOTICE of taking deposition duces tecum of Alfonso Baez on 3/11/99 (wm) Additional attachment(s) added on 3/17/2005 (ja, ).
8 NOTICE of taking deposition duces tecum of Sergio Hernandez on 3/11/99 (wm) Additional attachment(s) added on 3/17/2005 (ja, ).
9 NOTICE of taking deposition duces tecum of Pioquinto Gomez on 3/12/99 (wm) Additional attachment(s) added on 3/17/2005 (ja, ).
10 NOTICE of taking deposition duces tecum of Baltazar Garza on 3/12/99 (wm) Additional attachment(s) added on 3/17/2005 (ja, ). (Entered: 03/01/1999)
11 NOTICE of cancelling deposition duces tecum of Pioquinto Gomez on 3/12/99 (wm) Additional attachment(s) added on 3/17/2005 (ja, ). (Entered: 03/01/1999)
12 STIPULATION to extend dates for disclosure of experts (wm) Additional attachment(s) added on 3/17/2005 (ja, ). (Entered: 04/01/1999)
13 ORDER by Honorable B. Lynn Winmill granting stipulation to extend dates for disclosure of experts [12-1] (cc: all counsel) (wm) (Entered: 04/21/1999)
14 DISCLOSURE OF EXPERT WITNESSES by pla (wm) (Entered: 07/20/1999)
15 STIPULATION to dismiss (wm)
16 ORDER by Honorable B. Lynn Winmill granting stipulation to dismiss all claims and all damage demands encompassed by pla's complaint which are pertinent to the employment of and failure to rehire Felix Gonzalez with prejudice, all parties to bear their own costs and attorney fees [15-1] (cc: all counsel) (dkh) (Entered: 09/07/1999)
17 NOTICE of taking deposition duces tecum of M. Peter Scontrino, PH.D. on 9/17/99 (wm) (Entered: 09/13/1999)
18 NOTICE of taking deposition duces tecum of Israel Ramirez on 9/16/99 (wm) (Entered: 09/13/1999)
19 NOTICE of taking deposition duces tecum of Earnest F. Harper on 9/22/99 (wm) (Entered: 09/13/1999)
20 MOTION by def Amalgamated Sugar Co for summary judgment (dkh) (Entered: 09/27/1999)
21 MEMORANDUM by def in support of motion for summary judgment [20-1] (dkh) (Entered: 09/27/1999)

3 of 13

6/4/2007 11:02 AM

District of Idaho Live CM/ECF - Docket Report

https://ecf.idd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?631842676779813-L_35...

09/24/1999 09/24/1999 09/24/1999 10/07/1999 10/12/1999 10/12/1999 10/15/1999 10/15/1999 10/25/1999 10/25/1999 10/25/1999 10/25/1999 10/27/1999 10/27/1999 10/28/1999 11/12/1999 11/16/1999 11/29/1999
11/30/1999 12/03/1999

22 STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS by def in support of motion for summary judgment [20-1] (dkh) (Entered: 09/27/1999)
23 AFFIDAVIT of Cheryl Searle regarding motion for summary judgment [20-1] (dkh) (Entered: 09/27/1999)
24 AFFIDAVIT of Michael J McDonagh regarding motion for summary judgment [20-1] (dkh) (Entered: 09/27/1999)
25 STIPULATION for protective order (wm)
26 RESPONSE by pla to motion for summary judgment [20-1] (wm)
27 DECLARATION of Barbara J. Standal re motion response [26-1], in accordian file not scanned in (wm)
28 ORDER by Honorable B. Lynn Winmill granting stipulation for protective order [25-1] (cc: all counsel) (wm) (Entered: 10/18/1999)
29 PROTECTIVE ORDER by Honorable B. Lynn Winmill : granting stipulation for protective order [25-1] (cc: all counsel) (wm) (Entered: 10/18/1999)
30 REPLY by dft to response to motion for summary judgment [20-1] (wm) (Entered: 10/26/1999)
31 AFFIDAVIT of Kenneth R. Baumgartner in support of motion for summary judgment [20-1] (wm) (Entered: 10/26/1999)
32 SUPPLEMENTAL AFFIDAVIT of Michael J. McDonagh in support of motion for summary judgment [20-1] (wm) (Entered: 10/26/1999)
33 SUPPLEMENTAL AFFIDAVIT of Cheryl Searle in support of motion for summary judgment [20-1] (wm) (Entered: 10/26/1999)
34 NOTICE of taking deposition duces tecum of Alfonso Baez on 11/3/99 at 1:30 (wm)
35 ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURE OF EXPERT WITNESSES by pla (wm)
36 NOTICE OF HEARING motion for summary judgment [20-1] set before BLW in 8:00 11/16/99 (cc: all counsel) (wm)
38 MEMORANDUM by dft in opposition to plas motion for leave to file supplemental brief (no motion on file) (wm) (Entered: 11/17/1999)
37 AMENDED NOTICE OF HEARING motion for summary judgment [20-1] set before BLW in Cd'A 8:00 12/3/99 (cc: all counsel) (wm) (Entered: 11/17/1999)
39 NOTICE OF ATTORNEY SUBSTITUTION: terminating attorney A Luis Lucero for EEOC and substituting attorney Wesley Katahira, Zulema Hinojos-Fall (wm)
40 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE by pla re memorandum [38-1] (wm)
41 MINUTES OF MOTIONS HEARING - granting plas motion to supplement the briefing (no motion on file) taking under advisement on 12/3/99 the motion for summary judgment [20-1] BLW (wm) (Entered: 12/06/1999)

4 of 13

6/4/2007 11:02 AM

District of Idaho Live CM/ECF - Docket Report

https://ecf.idd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?631842676779813-L_35...

12/21/1999 12/27/1999 01/03/2000 01/04/2000 01/06/2000 01/11/2000
01/12/2000 01/14/2000
02/09/2000 02/09/2000 02/09/2000
02/09/2000 02/09/2000 02/10/2000
02/15/2000 02/15/2000
02/16/2000
03/14/2000

42 REPLY by def to opposition to plas supplemental brief re motion for summary judgment [20-1] (wm) (Entered: 12/22/1999)
43 NOTICE OF STATUS CONFERENCE ; Telephonic Status Conference set for 10:00 1/6/00 before LMB in Boise (wm) (Entered: 12/28/1999)
44 CONSENT TO PROCEED BEFORE U.S. MAGISTRATE by dft (wm) (Entered: 01/04/2000)
45 CONSENT TO PROCEED BEFORE U.S. MAGISTRATE by dft (wm)
46 MINUTES OF SCHEDULING CONFERENCE HEARING - ; Jury trial set for 3/13/00 at 9:00 ; Teleconf held 1/6/00 LMB (wm) (Entered: 01/07/2000)
49 MEMORANDUM, DECISION, AND ORDER: by Honorable B. Lynn Winmill denying motion for summary judgment [20-1] ; Jury trial set for 3/13/00 at 9:00 , cs Case reassigned to Magistrate Larry M. Boyle (cc: all counsel) (wm) (Entered: 01/20/2000)
47 CONSENT TO PROCEED BEFORE U.S. MAGISTRATE by plas (wm) (Entered: 01/13/2000)
48 SCHEDULING ORDER by Magistrate Larry M. Boyle ; Jury Trial set for 3/13/00 at 9:00 ; Pretrial Conference set for 2/28/00 at 2:00 (cc: all counsel) (wm)
50 MOTION by def in limine precluding certain evidence (wm) (Entered: 02/10/2000)
51 MOTION by def to exclude certain witnesses (wm) (Entered: 02/10/2000)
52 MEMORANDUM by def in support of motion to exclude certain witnesses [51-1], of motion in limine precluding certain evidence [50-1] (wm) (Entered: 02/10/2000)
53 AFFIDAVIT of Michael J. McDonagh in support of motion to exclude certain witnesses [51-1] (wm) (Entered: 02/10/2000)
54 AFFIDAVIT of Candy W. Dale in support of motion to exclude certain witnesses [51-1] (wm) (Entered: 02/10/2000)
55 MINUTES OF STATUS CONFERENCE - ; Jury trial set for 3/13/00 is reset for 4/11/00 at 1:30 ; Pretrial conference set for 2/28/00 is reset for 4/4/00 at 1:30 LMB (wm)
56 ORAL MOTION by def to vacate trial (wm) (Entered: 02/16/2000)
56 MINUTES OF STATUS CONFERENCE - granting dfts oral motion to vacate trial [56-1] ; Jury trial reset for 5/1/00 at 9:00 ; Pretrial conference reset for 4/24/00 at 10:00 LMB (wm) (Entered: 02/16/2000)
57 AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER by Magistrate Larry M. Boyle ; Jury Trial set for 5/1/00 at 9:00 ; Pretrial Conference set for 4/24/00 at 10:00 (cc: all counsel) (wm) (Entered: 02/17/2000)
58 MOTION by pla in limine to exclude dft expert witness from testifying at trial (wm)

5 of 13

6/4/2007 11:02 AM

District of Idaho Live CM/ECF - Docket Report

https://ecf.idd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?631842676779813-L_35...

03/14/2000 03/14/2000 03/14/2000 03/15/2000 03/15/2000 03/15/2000 03/15/2000 03/15/2000 03/17/2000 03/24/2000
03/30/2000
03/30/2000 04/03/2000 04/13/2000
04/13/2000 04/13/2000 04/13/2000 04/13/2000

59 MEMORANDUM by pla in support of motion in limine to exclude dft expert witness from testifying at trial [58-1] (wm)
60 AFFIDAVIT of Barbara J. Standal in support of motion in limine to exclude dft expert witness from testifying at trial [58-1] (wm)
FILE DIVISION - File # 2 begins with document # 61 (wm) (Entered: 03/23/2000)
61 MOTION by pla for order denying dfts proposed order (wm) (Entered: 03/16/2000)
62 MEMORANDUM by pla in support of motion for order denying dfts proposed order [61-1] (wm) (Entered: 03/16/2000)
63 AFFIDAVIT of Barbara J. Standal in support of motion for order denying dfts proposed order [61-1] (wm) (Entered: 03/16/2000)
64 MEMORANDUM by pla in opposition re: motion in limine precluding certain evidence [50-1] (wm) (Entered: 03/16/2000)
65 AFFIDAVIT of Barbara J. Standal in opposition to dfts motion in limine precluding certain evidence [50-1] (wm) (Entered: 03/16/2000)
66 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by pla regarding motion to deny proposed order (wm)
67 NOTICE OF HEARING ; All Pending Motions Hrg set for 4/24/00 at 10:00 ; Pretrial conference set for 4/24/00 at 10:00 (cc: all counsel) (wm) (Entered: 03/27/2000)
68 MEMORANDUM by def Amalgamated Sugar Co in opposition re: motion in limine to exclude dft expert witness from testifying at trial [58-1] (dkh) (Entered: 03/31/2000)
69 AFFIDAVIT of Michael J McDonagh regarding motion in limine to exclude dft expert witness from testifying at trial [58-1] (dkh) (Entered: 03/31/2000)
70 REPLY by def to response to motion to exclude certain witnesses [51-1], motion in limine precluding certain evidence [50-1] (wm) (Entered: 04/04/2000)
71 MOTION by pla in limine to exclude prior EEOC no probable cause determinations , and in limine to exclude cumulative witnesses , and in limine to exclude dfts video and photos , and in limine to exclude EEOC atty letter to dfts atty (wm) (Entered: 04/14/2000)
72 MEMORANDUM by pla in support of motion in limine to exclude prior EEOC no probable cause determinations [71-1] (wm) (Entered: 04/14/2000)
73 AFFIDAVIT of Barbara J. Standal in support of motion in limine to exclude prior EEOC no probable cause determinations [71-1] (wm) (Entered: 04/14/2000)
74 MEMORANDUM by pla in support of motion in limine to exclude cumulative witnesses [71-2] (wm) (Entered: 04/14/2000)
75 AFFIDAVIT of Barbara J. Standal in support of motion in limine to exclude cumulative witnesses [71-2] (wm) (Entered: 04/14/2000)

6 of 13

6/4/2007 11:02 AM

District of Idaho Live CM/ECF - Docket Report

https://ecf.idd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?631842676779813-L_35...

04/13/2000
04/13/2000
04/13/2000
04/13/2000
04/13/2000
04/17/2000 04/17/2000 04/17/2000
04/17/2000 04/17/2000 04/17/2000
04/17/2000
04/17/2000 04/17/2000 04/17/2000 04/17/2000 04/17/2000 04/17/2000 04/18/2000
04/18/2000
04/18/2000 04/18/2000
04/18/2000

76 MEMORANDUM by pla in support of motion in limine to exclude dfts video and photos [71-3] (wm) (Entered: 04/14/2000)
77 AFFIDAVIT of Barbara J. Standal in support of motion in limine to exclude dfts video and photos [71-3] (wm) (Entered: 04/14/2000)
78 MEMORANDUM by pla in support of motion in limine to exclude EEOC atty letter to dfts atty [71-4] (wm) (Entered: 04/14/2000)
79 AFFIDAVIT of Barbara J. Standal in support of motion in limine to exclude EEOC atty letter to dfts atty [71-4] (wm) (Entered: 04/14/2000)
71 MOTION by pla in limine re sections from the 1995 EEOC compliance manual (wm) (Entered: 04/20/2000)
80 PRETRIAL STATEMENT by pla (wm) (Entered: 04/18/2000)
81 TRIAL BRIEF by def (wm) (Entered: 04/18/2000)
82 SUPPLEMENTAL REQUESTED JURY INSTRUCTIONS (proposed) by def with proposed special verdict included (wm) (Entered: 04/18/2000)
83 EXHIBIT AND WITNESS list by def (wm) (Entered: 04/18/2000)
84 PROPOSED VOIR DIRE by def (wm) (Entered: 04/18/2000)
85 EXPERT WITNESS DISCLOSURE AND REPORT by def (wm) (Entered: 04/18/2000)
86 SUBPOENA as to: Ryan Kuehmichel served on 4/12/00 (wm) (Entered: 04/18/2000)
92 NOTICE by pla of itemized list of special damages (wm) (Entered: 04/20/2000)
93 WITNESS list by pla (wm) (Entered: 04/20/2000)
94 TRIAL BRIEF by pla (wm) (Entered: 04/20/2000)
95 SPECIAL VERDICT (proposed) for pla (wm) (Entered: 04/20/2000)
96 PROPOSED VOIR DIRE by pla (wm) (Entered: 04/20/2000)
97 JURY INSTRUCTIONS (proposed) by pla (wm) (Entered: 04/20/2000)
87 REPLY by pla to response to motion in limine to exclude dft expert witness from testifying at trial [58-1] (wm) (Entered: 04/20/2000)
88 DECLARATION of Wesley Katahira in support of motion reply [87-1] (wm) (Entered: 04/20/2000)
89 PRETRIAL STATEMENT by pla (wm) (Entered: 04/20/2000)
90 MEMORANDUM by pla in support of motion in limine re sections from the 1995 EEOC compliance manual [71-1] (wm) (Entered: 04/20/2000)
91 AFFIDAVIT of Barbara J. Standal regarding motion in limine re sections from the 1995 EEOC compliance manual [71-1] (wm) (Entered: 04/20/2000)

7 of 13

6/4/2007 11:02 AM

District of Idaho Live CM/ECF - Docket Report

https://ecf.idd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?631842676779813-L_35...

04/21/2000 04/21/2000 04/21/2000 04/21/2000 04/21/2000 04/21/2000 04/23/2000 04/24/2000 04/24/2000 04/24/2000
04/24/2000 04/24/2000 04/26/2000 04/26/2000

98 MOTION by pla in limine to exclude ultimate opinion testimony (wm) (Entered: 04/24/2000)
99 MEMORANDUM by pla in support of motion in limine to exclude ultimate opinion testimony [98-1] (wm) (Entered: 04/24/2000)
100 AFFIDAVIT of Barbara J. Standal in support of plas motion in limine to exclude ultimate opinion testimony [98-1] (wm) (Entered: 04/24/2000)
101 MOTION by pla in limine to conduct an expedited voir dire of dfts records custodians in order to establish the foundation for the business records exception (wm) (Entered: 04/24/2000)
102 MEMORANDUM by pla in support of motion in limine to conduct an expedited voir dire of dfts records custodians in order to establish the foundation for the business records exception [101-1] (wm) (Entered: 04/24/2000)
103 AFFIDAVIT of Zulema Hinojos-Fall regarding motion in limine to conduct an expedited voir dire of dfts records custodians in order to establish the foundation for the business records exception [101-1] (wm) (Entered: 04/24/2000)
FILE DIVISION - File # 3 begins with document # 104 (wm) (Entered: 05/12/2000)
104 SUPPLEMENTAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS by pla to [97-1] (wm)
105 OBJECTIONS by pla to dfts jury instructions [82-1] (wm)
106 MINUTES OF PRETRIAL CONFERENCE AND MOTION - taking under advisement on 4/24/00 the motion in limine precluding certain evidence [50-1] and the motion to exclude certain witnesses [51-1] and the motion in limine to exclude dft expert witness from testifying at trial [58-1] and the motion for order denying dfts proposed order [61-1] and the motion in limine to exclude prior EEOC no probable cause determinations [71-1] and the motion in limine to exclude cumulative witnesses [71-2], and the motion in limine to exclude dfts video and photos [71-3] and the motion in limine to exclude EEOC atty letter to dfts atty [71-4] and the motion in limine re sections from the 1995 EEOC compliance manual [71-1] and the motion in limine to conduct an expedited voir dire of dfts records custodians in order to establish the foundation for the business records exception [101-1] and the motion in limine to exclude ultimate opinion testimony [98-1] ; Case Mgmt ddl set for 4/27/00 for pla to object to dfts voir dire and dft to respond to outstanding motions in limine; All Pending Motions Hrg held 4/24/00 ; Pretrial conference held 4/24/00 LMB (wm)
107 OBJECTIONS by def to jury [97-1] (wm) (Entered: 04/25/2000)
108 REVISED SUPPLEMENTAL jury instructions by def re jury [82-1] (wm) (Entered: 04/25/2000)
109 MEMORANDUM by def in opposition re: motion in limine to exclude dfts video and photos [71-3] (wm)
110 OBJECTION AND RESPONSE by def to motion in limine to exclude cumulative witnesses [71-2] (wm)

8 of 13

6/4/2007 11:02 AM

District of Idaho Live CM/ECF - Docket Report

https://ecf.idd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?631842676779813-L_35...

04/26/2000 04/26/2000 04/26/2000 04/26/2000 04/26/2000 04/26/2000 04/26/2000 04/27/2000
04/27/2000 04/27/2000

111 MOTION by pla in limine to exclude ultimate opinion testimony (wm) (Entered: 04/27/2000)
112 MEMORANDUM by pla in support of motion in limine to exclude ultimate opinion testimony [111-1] (wm) (Entered: 04/27/2000)
113 AFFIDAVIT of Barbara J. Standal in support of motion in limine to exclude ultimate opinion testimony [111-1] (wm) (Entered: 04/27/2000)
114 MOTION by pla in limine to conduct an expedited voir dire of dfts records custodians in order to establish the foundation for the business records excerpts (wm) (Entered: 04/27/2000)
115 MEMORANDUM by pla in support of motion in limine to conduct an expedited voir dire of dfts records custodians in order to establish the foundation for the business records excerpts [114-1] (wm) (Entered: 04/27/2000)
116 AFFIDAVIT of Zulema Hinojos-Fall regarding motion in limine to conduct an expedited voir dire of dfts records custodians in order to establish the foundation for the business records excerpts [114-1] (wm) (Entered: 04/27/2000)
117 SUPPLEMENTAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS by pla re jury [97-1] (wm) (Entered: 04/27/2000)
118 RESPONSE by def to motion plas in limine to conduct an expedited voir dire of dfts records custodians in order to establish the foundation for the business records excerpts [114-1], motion in limine to exclude ultimate opinion testimony [111-1], motion in limine to conduct an expedited voir dire of dfts records custodians in order to establish the foundation for the business records exception [101-1], motion in limine to exclude ultimate opinion testimony [98-1], motion in limine to exclude prior EEOC no probable cause determinations [71-1], motion in limine to exclude cumulative witnesses [71-2], motion in limine to exclude dfts video and photos [71-3], motion in limine to exclude EEOC atty letter to dfts atty [71-4], motion in limine re sections from the 1995 EEOC compliance manual [71-1], motion for order denying dfts proposed order [61-1], motion in limine to exclude dft expert witness from testifying at trial [58-1] (wm) (Entered: 04/28/2000)
119 OBJECTIONS by pla to dfts voir dire [84-1] (wm) (Entered: 04/28/2000)
120 MEMORANDUM, DECISION, AND ORDER: by Magistrate Larry M. Boyle granting motion in limine precluding certain [50-1], granting motion to exclude certain witnesses [51-1], granting motion for order denying dfts proposed order [61-1], deferred ruling on motion in limine to exclude dft expert witness from testifying at trial [58-1], denying motion in limine to exclude cumulative witnesses [71-2], deferred ruling on motion in limine to exclude prior EEOC no probable cause determinations [71-1], deferred ruling on motion in limine to exclude dfts video and photos [71-3], deferred ruling on motion in limine to exclude EEOC atty letter to dfts atty [71-4], deferred ruling on motion in limine re sections from the 1995 EEOC compliance manual [71-1], denying motion in limine to exclude ultimate opinion testimony [98-1], granting motion in limine to conduct an expedited voir dire of dfts records custodians in order to establish the foundation for the business records exception [101-1] (cc: all counsel) (wm) (Entered: 04/28/2000)

9 of 13

6/4/2007 11:02 AM

District of Idaho Live CM/ECF - Docket Report

https://ecf.idd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?631842676779813-L_35...

04/28/2000 04/28/2000
05/01/2000 05/01/2000 05/01/2000 05/01/2000 05/02/2000 05/02/2000 05/03/2000 05/04/2000 05/05/2000 05/08/2000 05/08/2000 05/08/2000 05/09/2000 05/09/2000 05/10/2000 05/10/2000 05/10/2000
05/11/2000

121 NOTICE by Magistrate Larry M. Boyle of trial schedule and location, trial is set for 5/1/00 (cc: all counsel) (wm)
122 MEMORANDUM, DECISION, AND ORDER: by Magistrate Larry M. Boyle denying motion in limine precluding certain evidence [50-1], deferred ruling on motion in limine to exclude prior EEOC no probable cause determinations [71-1], deferred ruling on motion in limine to exclude cumulative witnesses [71-2], deferred ruling on motion in limine to exclude dfts video and photos [71-3], deferred ruling on motion in limine to exclude EEOC atty letter to dfts atty [71-4], deferred ruling on motion in limine re sections from the 1995 EEOC compliance manual [71-1] (cc: all counsel) (wm) (Entered: 05/01/2000)
123 SECOND SET OF REVISED SUPPLEMENTAL JURY INTRUCTIONS by def [108-1] (wm)
124 STATEMENT by pla in support of supplemental jury instructions [117-1] (wm) (Entered: 05/02/2000)
125 MINUTES OF JURY TRIAL DAY ONE - jury trial began LMB (wm) (Entered: 05/02/2000)
140 PRELIMINARY JURY INSTRUCTIONS (wm) (Entered: 05/12/2000)
126 MINUTES OF JURY TRIAL DAY TWO - LMB (wm)
127 SUBPOENA as to: Dan Taylor served on 5/2/00 (wm) (Entered: 05/03/2000)
128 MINUTES OF JURY TRIAL DAY THREE - LMB (wm) (Entered: 05/04/2000)
129 MINUTES OF JURY TRIAL DAY FOUR - LMB (wm)
130 MINUTES OF JURY TRIAL DAY FIVE - LMB (wm)
131 MINUTES OF JURY TRIAL DAY SIX - LMB (wm)
132 MEMORANDUM of law by pla in support of its argument that objective evidence is not required for emotional damage awards under title VII (wm)
133 MEMORANDUM BY DFTS re: emotional distress damages (wm)
134 ORAL MOTION by def rule 50 motion (wm) (Entered: 05/10/2000)
134 MINUTES OF JURY TRIAL DAY SEVEN - granting in part and denying in part dfts oral motion rule 50 motion [134-1] LMB (wm) (Entered: 05/10/2000)
135 MINUTES OF JURY TRIAL DAY EIGHT - LMB (wm) (Entered: 05/11/2000)
136 MOTION by pla for judgment as a matter of law as to dfts bona fide occupational qualification defense (wm) (Entered: 05/11/2000)
137 MEMORANDUM by pla in support of motion for judgment as a matter of law as to dfts bona fide occupational qualification defense [136-1] (wm) (Entered: 05/11/2000)
138 MINUTES OF JURY TRIAL FINAL DAY NINE - plas written rule 50 motion orally denied and dfts oral renewed rule 50 motion orally denied, denying motion in limine to exclude dft expert witness from testifying at trial [58-1], denying motion in limine to exclude prior EEOC no probable cause determinations [71-1],

10 of 13

6/4/2007 11:02 AM

District of Idaho Live CM/ECF - Docket Report

https://ecf.idd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?631842676779813-L_35...

05/11/2000 05/11/2000 05/11/2000
05/25/2000 05/25/2000 05/25/2000 05/25/2000 06/09/2000 06/09/2000 06/09/2000 06/09/2000 06/19/2000 06/19/2000 07/07/2000
07/10/2000 07/21/2000

finding moot the motion in limine to exclude cumulative witnesses [71-2], denying motion in limine to exclude dfts video and photos [71-3], finding moot the motion in limine to exclude EEOC atty letter to dfts atty [71-4], denying motion in limine to exclude ultimate opinion testimony [111-1], finding moot the motion in limine to conduct an expedited voir dire of dfts records custodians in order to establish the foundation for the business records excerpts [114-1] LMB (wm) (Entered: 05/12/2000)
139 SPECIAL VERDICT FORM (wm) (Entered: 05/12/2000)
141 JURY INSTRUCTIONS (wm) Additional attachment(s) added on 3/17/2005 (ja, ). (Entered: 05/12/2000)
142 JUDGMENT: Judgment that pla take nothing against dft and that dfts recover from pla the costs of action; dismissing case (cc: all counsel) (JUDGMENT SCANNED) (wm) (Entered: 05/12/2000)
143 MOTION by def for attorney fees (wm) Modified on 05/26/2000 (Entered: 05/26/2000)
144 MEMORANDUM by def in support of motion for attorney fees [143-1] (wm) Modified on 05/26/2000 (Entered: 05/26/2000)
145 AFFIDAVIT of Candy W. Dale in support of dfts motion for attorney fees [143-1] (wm) (Entered: 05/26/2000)
146 BILL OF COSTS by def re judgment [142-2] ; Taxation ddl set for 6/14/00 (wm) (Entered: 05/26/2000)
147 MEMORANDUM by pla in opposition re: motion for attorney fees [143-1] (wm) (Entered: 06/12/2000)
148 AFFIDAVIT of Wesley Katahira in support of memorandum in opposition to petition for atty fees [147-1] (wm) (Entered: 06/12/2000)
149 MEMORANDUM by pla in opposition to bill of costs [146-1] (wm) (Entered: 06/12/2000)
150 AFFIDAVIT of Wesley Katahira in support of memorandum [149-1] (wm) (Entered: 06/12/2000)
151 REPLY by def to response to motion for attorney fees [143-1] (wm) (Entered: 06/20/2000)
152 REPLY by def to memorandum in opposition to bill of costs [149-1] (wm) (Entered: 06/20/2000)
153 NOTICE OF APPEAL by plaintiff EEOC from Dist. Court decision [142-2] (Receipt # Fees Not Applicable - Government Agency) (rr) (Entered: 07/10/2000)
Appeals packet to 9th Circuit; Attys. (rr)
NOTIFICATION by 9CCA re [153-1] of Appellate Docket Number 00-35599 (rr)

11 of 13

6/4/2007 11:02 AM

District of Idaho Live CM/ECF - Docket Report

https://ecf.idd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?631842676779813-L_35...

08/07/2000 09/27/2000 10/11/2000
10/13/2000 10/13/2000 10/13/2000 10/13/2000 10/13/2000 10/18/2000 10/20/2000 10/20/2000 10/20/2000 10/20/2000 10/20/2000 10/20/2000 10/25/2000
11/06/2000 11/16/2000

154 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION and Ordering Form - Transcripts Necessary 5/1/00, 5/1-10/00, 5/11/00, 4/24/00 (rr) (Entered: 08/09/2000)
155 AMENDED BILL OF COSTS by def re judgment [142-2] ; Taxation ddl set for 10/17/00 (wm)
159 ORDER of the 9th Circuit granting Court Reporter Vicki Jones's Motion for Extension of time to file transcripts. (rr) Modified on 12/04/2000 (Entered: 10/18/2000)
156 MEMORANDUM by pla in opposition to amended bill of costs [155-1] (wm) (Entered: 10/16/2000)
157 AFFIDAVIT of Wesley Katahira in support of memorandum [156-1] (wm) (Entered: 10/16/2000)
TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 5/2/00 (re: Notice of Appeal [153-1] ) (rr) (Entered: 10/18/2000)
TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 5/3/00 (re: Notice of Appeal [153-1] ) (rr) (Entered: 10/18/2000)
TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 5/5/00 (re: Notice of Appeal [153-1] ) (rr) (Entered: 10/18/2000)
158 CERTIFICATE of Record; cc: attys, 9CCA (rr)
TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 5/1/00 (re: Notice of Appeal [153-1] ) (rr) (Entered: 10/23/2000)
TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 5/4/00 (re: Notice of Appeal [153-1] ) (rr) (Entered: 10/23/2000)
TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 5/8/00 (re: Notice of Appeal [153-1] ) (rr) (Entered: 10/23/2000)
TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 5/9/00 (re: Notice of Appeal [153-1] ) (rr) (Entered: 10/23/2000)
TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 5/10/00 (re: Notice of Appeal [153-1] ) (rr) (Entered: 10/23/2000)
TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 5/11/00 (re: Notice of Appeal [153-1] ) (rr) (Entered: 10/23/2000)
160 MEMORANDUM, DECISION, AND ORDER: by Magistrate Larry M. Boyle denying motion for attorney fees [143-1] granting in part and denying in part bill of costs [155-1], dft shall be awarded costs in the amount of $5,479.85 (cc: all counsel) (wm) (Entered: 10/26/2000)
161 JUDGMENT: by Magistrate Larry M. Boyle Judgment for def in the amount of $ 5,479.85; terminating case (cc: all counsel) (JUDGMENT SCANNED) (dkh)
162 MOTION by pla to stay the Courts judgment awarding costs pending appeal (wm) (Entered: 11/17/2000)

12 of 13

6/4/2007 11:02 AM

District of Idaho Live CM/ECF - Docket Report

https://ecf.idd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?631842676779813-L_35...

11/16/2000 01/03/2001 01/04/2001 01/11/2001
01/16/2001 06/28/2001 05/25/2007

163 MEMORANDUM by pla in support of motion to stay the Courts judgment awarding costs pending appeal [162-1] (wm) (Entered: 11/17/2000)
164 NOTICE OF APPEAL by plaintiff EEOC from Dist. Court decision [161-2] (Receipt # Fees Not Paid - Government Agency) (rr) (Entered: 01/04/2001)
Appeals packet to 9th Circuit; Attys. (rr)
165 ORDER by Magistrate Larry M. Boyle granting motion to stay the Courts judgment awarding costs pending appeal [162-1] (cc: all counsel) (dkh) (Entered: 01/17/2001)
NOTIFICATION by 9CCA re [164-1] of Appellate Docket Number 01-35018 (rr)
166 MANDATE from Circuit Court of Appeals dismissing the appeal [164-1], dismissing the appeal [153-1] (rr)
167 NOTICE TO COUNSEL re Return of Exhibits (ks)

PACER Login:
Description:
Billable Pages:

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt
06/04/2007 10:05:20

hs0328

Client Code: eeoc

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

1:98-cv-00378-LMB

7

Cost:

0.56

13 of 13

6/4/2007 11:02 AM

 
 FI LED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
JUN 252001

FOR TIIE NIN1H CIRCUIT

eATHY A. CATIERSON, CLERK 11. S. COURT OF APPEALS

EQUALENWLOYMENTOPPOR~
COMMISSION,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
AMALGAMATED SUGAR CONWANY, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.

Nos. 00-35599, 01-35018 DC# C'I-98-00378-LMB District ofIdaho (Boise)
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
O. RDEl<"JOILED ADTIS_TR_ IOT _ OF I_ DAH_ O _M
By,_ _ _ _+__ Deputy

The court is in receipt of appellant's correspondence dated June 14,2001, requesting voluntary dismissal ofthis appeal. The court construes appellant's letter as a motion to dismiss. So construed, the motion is granted and these appeals are dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.
A certified copy of this order shall serve as the mandate ofthis court. FOR TIIE COURT

..--=-:-::::-;-:;:::----, A TRUE COpy CATHY A. CATIERSON
Clerk of Court ATIEST

JUN 25 2001
~gt-P

-. -.

.-~

-,'-- .., . ",..

by:

.. CIeI1< .. ... "

~ ,,-

I !Iv

:.' .. - .-, .

,-..---'--.~,

-.-

')

CONFAT

INTERNAL USE ONLY: Proceedings include all events. 01-35018 E.E.O.C. v. Amalgamated Sugar

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Plaintiff - Appellant

Caren I. Friedman, Esq.
202/663-4720 7th Floor [COR LD NTC gov] EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISION 1801 L Street N.W. Washington, DC 20507

Wesley Katahira, Esq.
206/220-6914 Suite 400 [COR LD NTC aus]
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 909 First Avenue Seattle, WA 98104

v.
AMALGAMATED SUGAR COMPANY, INC.
Defendant - Appellee

Candy W. Dale, Esq. 208/336-0404 [COR LD NTC ret] P.O. Box 1271 Boise, ID 83701

Docket as of May 31, 2001 11:16 pm

Page 2 NON-PUBLIC

, .'

CONFAT

INTERNAL USE ONLY: Proceedings include all· events. 00-35599 E.E.O.C. v. Amalgamated Sugar

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Plaintiff - Appellant

Caren I. Friedman, Esq. 202/663-4720 7th Floor [COR LD NTC gov] EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
COMMISION 1801 L Street N.W. Washington, DC 20507

v.
AMALGAMATED SUGAR COMPANY, INC.
Defendant - Appellee

Candy W. Dale, Esq. 208/336-0404 [COR LD NTC ret] P.O. Box 1271 Boise, ID 83701

~ocket as of May 31, 2001 11:12 pm

Page 2 NON-PUBLIC