1 Mary Jo O’Neill AZ Bar No. 005924

Sally C. Shanley AZ Bar No. 012251

2 P. David Lopez DC Bar No. 426463

Valerie L. Meyer CA Bar No. 228586

3 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION, Phoenix District Office

4 3300 North Central Avenue, Suite 690
Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2504

5

Telephone: (602) 640-5016 E-Mail: mary.oneill@eeoc.gov

6

sally.shanley@eeoc.gov patrick.lopez.@eeoc.gov

7

valerie.meyer@eeoc.gov

8 Attorneys for Plaintiff

9

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

11

12

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

) )

13

)

Plaintiff,

)

14

vs.

) )

15

COLLEGEVILLE/ IMAGINEERING, a

) )

16

Delaware Limited Partnership, and RUBIE’S COSTUME COMPANY,

) )

17 INC., a New York corporation,

) )

Defendants.

)

18

Case No. CV05-3033-PHX-DGC
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (Jury Trial Demanded)

19

NATURE OF THE ACTION

20

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

21 Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to correct unlawful employment practices on the

22 basis of sex and retaliation, and to provide appropriate relief to Linda Honer, Rosa

23 Limon, Linda Avalos, and a class of women who were adversely affected by such

24 practices during their employment by Collegeville/ Imagineering LP (“Collegeville”) and

25 Rubie’s Costume Co., Inc. (“Rubie’s”), as joint employers and/or an integrated enterprise.

26 The Commission alleges that Linda Honer and a class of women were subjected to

27 unwelcome sexual comments and conduct by Defendants’ employees, which created a 28

1 hostile work environment because of their sex, female. The Commission also alleges that

2 Defendants subjected Ms. Honer and a class of women to retaliatory acts, including

3 reassignment of job duties and threats of disciplinary action, because they opposed the

4 unlawful employment practices of Defendants. As a result of Defendants’ conduct, the

5 conditions of Ms. Honer’s employment were made so intolerable that she was forced to

6 resign her position.

7

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

8

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

9 1337, 1343 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Section

10 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.

11 §2000e-5 (f)(1) and(3) ("Title VII") and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42

12 U.S.C. §1981a.

13

2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed within

14 the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona.

15

PARTIES

16

3. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the

17 "Commission"), is the agency of the United States of America charged with the
18 administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title VII, and is expressly authorized to
19 bring this action by Sections 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5(f)(1) and
20 (3).
21 4. At all relevant times, Defendant Collegeville, a Delaware limited
22 partnership, has continuously been doing business in the State of Arizona, including the
23 City of Phoenix, and has continuously had at least 15 employees.
24 5. At all relevant times, Defendant Collegeville has continuously been an
25 employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections
26 701(b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(b), (g) and (h).
27 6. At all relevant times, Defendant Rubie’s, a New York corporation, has
28

2

1 continuously been doing business in the State of Arizona, including the City of Phoenix,

2 and has continuously had at least 15 employees.

3

7. At all relevant times, Defendant Rubie’s has continuously been an employer

4 engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701(b), (g)

5 and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(b), (g) and (h).

6

STATEMENT OF CLAIMS

7

8. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Linda Honer

8 filed a charge with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by Defendant

9 Collegeville. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been

10 fulfilled.

11

9. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Linda Honer

12 filed a charge with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by Defendant Rubie’s.

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

14

FIRST CLAIM: SEXUAL HARASSMENT

15

10. Since at least April 1999, Defendant Collegeville has engaged in unlawful

16 employment practices at its Phoenix, Arizona facility in violation of Section 703(a) of

17 Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§2000e-2(a). These practices include the harassment of Linda
18 Honer and a class of women because of their sex, female, which created a hostile work
19 environment
20 11. Since at least April 1999, Defendant Rubie’s has engaged in unlawful
21 employment practices at its Phoenix, Arizona facility in violation of Section 703(a) of
22 Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§2000e-2(a). These practices include the harassment of Linda
23 Honer and a class of women because of their sex, female, which created a hostile work
24 environment.
25 SECOND CLAIM: RETALIATION
26 12. Since at least May 2002, Defendant Collegeville has engaged in unlawful
27 retaliatory employment practices at its Phoenix, Arizona facility in violation of 704(a) of
28

3

1 Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§2000e-3(a). These retaliatory employment practices include

2 subjecting Linda Honer and a class of women to adverse terms, conditions, and privileges

3 of employment and threats of disciplinary action after they expressed opposition to and

4 made complaints about unlawful employment practices.

5

13. Since at least May 2002, Defendant Rubie’s has engaged in unlawful

6 retaliatory employment practices at its Phoenix, Arizona facility in violation of 704(a) of

7 Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§2000e-3(a). These retaliatory employment practices include

8 subjecting Linda Honer and a class of women to adverse terms, conditions, and privileges

9 of employment and threats of disciplinary action after they expressed opposition to and

10 made complaints about unlawful employment practices.

11

THIRD CLAIM: CONSTRUCTIVE DISCHARGE

12

14. Because of the unlawful employment practices described in paragraphs 10

13 and 12 above, Linda Honer reasonably believed she had no choice but to resign her

14 employment and was constructively discharged by Defendant Collegeville in violation of

15 section 703(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a).

16

15. The unlawful employment practices described in paragraphs 11 and 13

17 above caused Linda Honer to be constructively discharged by Defendant Rubie’s in
18 violation of section 703(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a).
19 FOURTH CLAIM: REPORTING VIOLATION
20 16. Since at least 2002, Defendant Collegeville has failed to comply with the
21 reporting requirements of 29 C.F.R. § 1602.7 in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-8(c).
22 Defendant Collegeville has never filed Standard Form 100, as revised (otherwise known
23 as "Employer Information Report EEO-1").
24 17. Since at least 2002, Defendant Rubie’s has failed to comply with the
25 reporting requirements of 29 C.F.R. § 1602.7 in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-8(c).
26 Defendant Rubie’s has never filed Standard Form 100, as revised (otherwise known as
27 "Employer Information Report EEO-1").
28

4

1

18. The effect of the practices complained of in paragraphs 10, 12, and 14

2 above has been to deprive Linda Honer and a class of women of equal employment

3 opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees, because of their

4 sex, female.

5

19. The effect of the practices complained of in paragraphs 11, 13, and 15

6 above has been to deprive Linda Honer and a class of women of equal employment

7 opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees because of their

8 opposition to unlawful employment practices.

9

20. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs 10

10 through 17 above were intentional.

11

21. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs 10

12 through 15 above were done with malice and/or with reckless indifference to the federally

13 protected rights of Linda Honer and a class of women.

14

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

15

Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court:

16

A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant Collegeville, its officers,

17 successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from
18 engaging in the harassment of employees because of sex and any other employment
19 practice which discriminates on the basis of sex.
20 B. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant Rubie’s, its officers,
21 successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from
22 engaging in the harassment of employees because of sex and any other employment
23 practice which discriminates on the basis of sex.
24 C. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant Collegeville, its officers,
25 successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from
26 engaging in any employment practice which discriminates or retaliates against any
27 individual because of the individual’s opposition to perceived unlawful employment
28

5

1 practices and/or because the individual filed a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in

2 an investigation or proceeding under Title VII.

3

D. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant Rubie’s, its officers,

4 successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from

5 engaging in any employment practice which discriminates or retaliates against any

6 individual because of the individual’s opposition to perceived unlawful employment

7 practices and/or because the individual filed a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in

8 an investigation or proceeding under Title VII.

9

E. Order Defendant Collegeville to institute and carry out policies, practices,

10 and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for women and those who

11 oppose unlawful employment practices and/or file charges, testify, assist or participate in

12 an investigation or proceeding under Title VII, and which eradicate the effects of its past

13 and present unlawful employment practices.

14

F. Order Defendant Rubie’s to institute and carry out policies, practices, and

15 programs which provide equal employment opportunities for women and those who

16 oppose unlawful employment practices and/or file charges, testify, assist or participate in

17 an investigation or proceeding under Title VII, and which eradicate the effects of its past

18 and present unlawful employment practices.

19 G. Order Defendant Collegeville to make whole Linda Honer and a class of
20 women, by providing appropriate backpay with prejudgment interest, in amounts to be
21 determined at trial, and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its
22 unlawful employment practices, including, but not limited to, reinstatement.
23 H. Order Defendant Rubie’s to make whole Linda Honer and a class of
24 women, by providing appropriate backpay with prejudgment interest, in amounts to be
25 determined at trial, and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its
26 unlawful employment practices, including, but not limited to, reinstatement.
27 I. Order Defendant Collegeville to make whole Linda Honer and a class of
28

6

1 women, by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from

2 the unlawful employment practices described in paragraphs 10, 12 and 14 above, in

3 amounts to be determined at trial.

4

J. Order Defendant Rubie’s to make whole Linda Honer and a class of

5 women, by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from

6 the unlawful employment practices described in paragraphs 11, 13, and 15 above, in

7 amounts to be determined at trial.

8

K. Order Defendant Collegeville to make whole Linda Honer and a class of

9 women, by providing compensation for past and future nonpecuniary losses resulting

10 from the unlawful practices complained of in paragraphs 10, 12, and 14 above, including

11 but not limited to emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of

12 enjoyment of life, and humiliation, in amounts to be determined at trial

13

L. Order Defendant Rubie’s to make whole Linda Honer and a class of

14 women, by providing compensation for past and future nonpecuniary losses resulting

15 from the unlawful practices complained of in paragraphs 11, 13, and 15 above, including

16 but not limited to emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of

17 enjoyment of life, and humiliation, in amounts to be determined at trial.

18

M. Order Defendant Collegeville to pay Linda Honer and a class of women

19 punitive damages for its malicious and reckless conduct described in paragraphs 10, 12,

20 and 14 above, in amounts to be determined at trial.

21 N. Order Defendant Rubie’s to pay Linda Honer and a class of women punitive

22 damages for its malicious and reckless conduct described in paragraphs 11, 13, and 15

23 above, in amounts to be determined at trial.

24 O. Order Defendant Collegeville to comply with the reporting requirements of
25

42 U.S.C. § 2000e-8(c) as set forth by 29 C.F.R. § 1602.7. 26

P. Order Defendant Rubie’s to comply with the reporting requirements of 42 27

U.S.C. § 2000e-8(c) as set forth by 29 C.F.R. § 1602.7. 28

7

1

Q. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the

2 public interest.

3

R. Award the Commission its costs of this action

4

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

5

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

6 complaint.

7

Respectfully submitted,

8

JAMES L. LEE

9

Deputy General Counsel

10

GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel

11

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

12

OPPORTUNITYCOMMISSION 1801 L Street, NW

13

Washington, D.C. 20507 Regional Attorney

14

15

s/ Mary Jo O’Neill MARY JO O’NEILL

16

Regional Attorney

17

s/ Sally C. Shanley SALLY C. SHANLEY

18

Supervisory Trial Attorney

19

s/ P. David Lopez

P. DAVID LOPEZ

20

Trial Attorney

21

s/ Valerie L. Meyer

VALERIE L. MEYER

22

Trial Attorney

23

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

24

Phoenix District Office

3300 N. Central Ave.

25

Suite 690

Phoenix, Arizona 85012

26

Attorneys for Plaintiff

27

28

8

 
 1 WO

2

3

4

5

6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8

9 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,
10 Plaintiff,
11 vs.
12 Collegeville/Imagineering Ent., et al.,
13 Defendants.
14

) No. CV-05-3033 PHX-DGC ) ) ) ) ORDER ) ) ) ) ) )

15

The parties disagree on whether Defendants may communicate with class members

16 regarding possible settlement of this suit, or whether such communications are barred by an

17 attorney-client relationship between the EEOC and the class members. Defendants seek an

18 opportunity to settle with the five class members separately because of the individualized

19 nature of their claims. Dkt. #82 at 1. The EEOC argues that it has established an attorney-

20 client relationship with the class members and that defense contact with them would violate

21 Model Rule of Professional Conduct 4.2, which prohibits ex parte contact with represented

22 parties. Defendants argue that Rule 4.2 does not apply because the EEOC and the class

23 members have not established an attorney-client relationship. Dkt. #82 at 3.

24

Defendants assert that “[e]mployers routinely settle discrimination claims directly

25 with the individuals represented by the EEOC, without involving the EEOC in the settlement

26 process or obtaining approval from either the EEOC or the courts.” Dkt. #82 at 2.

27 Defendants cite cases in which parties who had previously filed a charge with the EEOC

28 either brought suit individually or settled with defendants. See, e.g., EEOC v. Harris

1 Chernin, Inc., 10 F.3d 1286, 1291 (7th Cir. 1993); EEOC v. UPS, 860 F.2d 372, 373 (10th

2 Cir. 1988); EEOC v. Goodyear Aerospace Corp., 813 F.2d 1539, 1541-42 (9th Cir. 1987).

3 There is a difference, however, between a claimant voluntarily departing from an attorney-

4 client relationship to settle or file a new suit and a defendant initiating contact with a

5 claimant already in an attorney-client relationship. None of Defendant’s cases permit the

6 latter form of contact.

7

The Court has reviewed the cases cited by both Plaintiffs and Defendants to discern

8 when an attorney-client relationship begins in a Title VII lawsuit brought by the EEOC. An

9 attorney-client relationship does not exist across an entire potential class merely when the

10 EEOC has filed a case and identified the class. See EEOC v. Albertson’s, Inc., No. CV-06-

11 1273, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72378, at *18 (D. Colo. October 4, 2006). Rather, an attorney-

12 client relationship commences when the aggrieved individuals take action to manifest their

13 intent to enter the relationship. Courts have found such a relationship to exist when an

14 individual contacted the EEOC through questionnaires and phone calls, EEOC v. Int’l Profit

15 Associates, Inc., 206 F.R.D. 215 (N.D. Ill. 2002), consulted the EEOC with an intent to seek

16 legal advice, EEOC v. Johnson & Higgins, Inc., CV-93-5481, 1998 WL 778369, at *5-6

17 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 6, 1998), or signed an affidavit stating a belief that an attorney-client

18 relationship existed, EEOC v. Chemtech Int’l Corp., CV-94-2848, 1995 WL 608333, at *2

19 (S.D. Tex. May 17, 1995); EEOC v. HBE Corp., No. CV-93-722, 1994 WL 376273, at *2

20 (E.D. Mo. May 19, 1994).

21

The EEOC bears the burden of showing an attorney-client relationship with each class

22 member. See Johnson & Higgins, Inc., 1998 WL 778369, at *4. The only evidence the

23 EEOC identifies in support of its claim is that the five class members were disclosed as a

24 class, two of the class members are current employees of Defendants, and three of the class

25 members filed administrative charges of discrimination with the EEOC. Dkt. #83, n.1. The

26 EEOC states that it “is prepared to obtain affidavits from each of the five class members

27 expressing their consent to representation by the EEOC,” but it has not done so. Id. at 2.

28

- 2 -

1

The fact that the individuals were disclosed as a class does not show that an attorney-

2 client relationship exists. See Albertson’s, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72378 at *16; EEOC v.

3 Dana Corp., 292 F.Supp.2d 827, 839 (N.D. Ind. 2002). Nor is such a relationship established

4 by the fact that two of the class members work for Defendants. While the EEOC cites cases

5 explaining that communications between a defendant and its current employees could have

6 a coercive effect, the EEOC has shown nothing to indicate what sort of coercive effect such

7 communications might have in this case, and the Court is confident that its order can alleviate

8 such concerns. See, e.g., EEOC v. TIC, No. CV-01-1776, 2002 WL 31654977, at *6 (E.D.

9 La. Nov. 21, 2002) (discussing coercion concerns but allowing defendant to communicate

10 with class members who were current employees); Albertson’s, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

11 72378, at *23-24.

12

The Court concludes that the filing of charges with the EEOC by three class members,

13 along with the EEOC’s subsequent filing of suit against Defendants, constitutes sufficient

14 evidence of an attorney-client relationship between the three charging parties and the EEOC.

15 See, e.g., EEOC v. Waffle House, Inc., 534 U.S. 279, 308 n. 9 (2002) (Thomas, J., dissenting)

16 (recognizing with approval that the EEOC believed attorney-client relationship existed

17 between charging parties and the Commission); EEOC v. TIC, 2002 WL 31654977, at *6;

18 EEOC v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 948 F.Supp. 54, 55 (E.D. Mo. 1996) (noting with

19 approval that defendant seeking to contact non-filing class members had agreed not to

20 contact class members who had filed charges with the EEOC). The Court therefore

21 concludes that Defendants should not initiate ex parte communications with Linda Honer,

22 Rosa Limon, and Linda Avalos.

23

Because the EEOC has not carried its burden of showing an attorney-client

24 relationship with the other two class members, the Court will not hold that Defendants are

25 precluded from communicating with them. To the extent that the two purported class

26 members are still employed by Defendants, Defendants shall advise them that it is unlawful

27 for Defendants to retaliate against employees for consenting to representation by the EEOC

28

- 3 -

1 and participating in the lawsuit. See TIC, 2002 WL 31654977, at *6.

2

The EEOC also argues that “[t]o the extent that Defendants seek to challenge the

3 EEOC’s ability to entertain only those settlement offers which afford complete relief for its

4 class members, this issue is not ripe[.]” Dkt. #83 at 1. The Court agrees, but does not view

5 Defendant’s brief as challenging the EEOC’s authority to control settlements with the class.

6 Defendants merely ask the Court to allow them to contact class members with independent

7 settlement offers.

8

IT IS ORDERED:

9

Defendants may communicate ex parte with class members other than Linda Honer,

10 Rosa Limon, and Linda Avalos. Before such communications commence, Defendants shall

11 inform the class members of the pending litigation by the EEOC, make them aware that they

12 are speaking to a representative of Defendants, and inform them that participation in the

13 EEOC lawsuit will not result in any retaliation by Defendants. If the class members express

14 a desire not to communicate with Defendants or otherwise indicate that they are represented

15 by the EEOC, Defendants shall terminate the ex parte communications.

16

DATED this 17th day of January, 2007.

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 4 -

 
 1 WO

2

3

4

5

6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8

9 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,
10 Plaintiff,
11 vs.
12 Collegeville/Imagineering, et al.,
13 Defendants.
14

) No. CV-05-3033-PHX-DGC ) ) ) ) ORDER ) ) ) ) ) )

15

On January 17, 2007, the Court issued an order permitting Defendants to

16 communicate ex parte with class members other than Linda Honer, Rosa Limon, and Linda

17 Avalos. Dkt. #106. The Court stated that before such communications commence,

18 Defendants shall inform the class members of the pending litigation by the EEOC, make

19 them aware that they are speaking to a representative of Defendants, and inform them that

20 participation in the EEOC lawsuit will not result in any retaliation by Defendants. Id. at 4.

21 The Court further stated that if the class members express a desire not to communicate with

22 Defendants or otherwise indicate that they are represented by the EEOC, Defendants shall

23 terminate the ex parte communications. Id.

24

Plaintiff has filed a “motion to reconsider in part” the order permitting ex parte

25 communications with class members. Dkt. #109. The Court does not construe Plaintiff’s

26 motion as a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s January 17 order. Plaintiff does not

27 ask the Court to reconsider any ruling made in that order. Rather, Plaintiff requests that the

28 ex parte communication requirements set forth in the order be extended to potential class

1 members disclosed by Plaintiff. Id. at 2. Plaintiff further requests that Defendants be

2 required “to specifically ask class members and potential class members if they believe

3 themselves to be represented by the EEOC, and to inform class members and potential class

4 members that they are not required to speak to Defendants’s representatives regardless of

5 whether they are represented by the EEOC.” Id.

6

The Court will grant Plaintiff’s request that the ex parte communication requirements

7 set forth in the Court’s January 17 order be extended to potential class members disclosed

8 by Plaintiff. The Court also will grant Plaintiff’s request that Defendants be required to

9 specifically ask class members and potential class members if they are represented by the

10 EEOC. This requirement furthers the purposes of Model Rule of Professional Conduct 4.2.

11 Plaintiff has cited no legal authority for the proposition that Defendant should be required

12 to inform class members and potential class members that they are not required to speak to

13 Defendants’s representatives regardless of whether they are represented by the EEOC. The

14 Court will deny this request.

15

IT IS ORDERED:

16

Plaintiff’s motion regarding ex parte contact with class members (Dkt. #109) is

17 granted in part and denied in part. The requirements set forth in the Court’s January 17

18 order (Dkt. #106) regarding Defendants’ ex parte communications with class members shall

19 apply to potential class members disclosed by Plaintiff. In addition, before any ex parte

20 communications commence, Defendants shall ask class members and potential class

21 members whether they are represented by the EEOC. If the class members or potential class

22 members express a desire not to communicate with Defendants or otherwise indicate that

23 they are represented by the EEOC, Defendants shall terminate the ex parte communications.

24

DATED this 13th day of February, 2007.

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

 
 1 WO

2

3

4

5

6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8

9

10 Equal Employment Opportunity

)

Commission,

)

11

)

Plaintiff,

)

12

)

vs.

)

13

)

)

14 Collegeville/Imagineering, a Delaware )

limited partnership; and Rubie’s

)

15 Costume Company, Inc., a New York )

corporation,

)

16

)

Defendants.

)

17

)

No. CV-05-3033-PHX-DGC ORDER

18

19

Pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment and

20 Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Dkt. ##148, 150. As explained below, the

21 Court will grant Plaintiff’s motion in part and deny Defendants’ motion.1

22 I. Background.

23

Defendant Collegeville/Imagineering (“Collegeville”) manufactures and sells costume

24 makeup. Collegeville is located in Phoenix, Arizona. Defendant Rubie’s Costume Company

25 (“Rubie’s”), a New York corporation, owns Collegeville.

26

27

1The request for oral argument is denied because the parties have thoroughly discussed

the law and evidence and oral argument will not aid the Court’s decisional process. See 28 Mahon v. Credit Bur. of Placer County, Inc., 171 F.3d 1197, 1200 (9th Cir. 1999).

1

Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) filed a complaint

2 against Defendants on September 30, 2005. The complaint asserted sexual harassment and

3 retaliation claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”). Plaintiff

4 sought to correct alleged unlawful employment practices and provide relief to the alleged

5 victim, Linda Honer. Dkt. #1.

6

Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on July 13, 2006. The amended complaint

7 asserts four claims under Title VII: sexual harassment, retaliation, constructive discharge,

8 and reporting violations. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, punitive damages, and

9 compensatory damages on behalf of Honer, Rosa Limon, Linda Avalos, and a class of

10 similarly situated women. Dkt. #35.

11

Defendants filed an answer on August 7, 2006, denying liability and asserting fifteen

12 affirmative defenses. Dkt. #39. Plaintiff subsequently identified Nohemi Landin, Lorena

13 Duarte, Maria Mata, Veronica Coronel, and Teresa Lopez as additional class members, and

14 Jessica Moore and Ana Lujan as potential class members.

15 II. Summary Judgment Standard.

16

Summary judgment is appropriate if the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable

17 to the nonmoving party, “show[s] that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and

18 that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56©).

19 “Only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit . . . will properly preclude

20 the entry of summary judgment.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).

21 The disputed evidence must be “such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the

22 nonmoving party.” Id. at 248. Summary judgment may be entered against a party who “fails

23 to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s

24 case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,

25 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986).

26 III. Discussion.

27

Plaintiff seeks summary judgment on Title VII’s conciliation requirement and nine

28 affirmative defenses: failure to exhaust administrative remedies, statute of limitations,

- 2 -

1 laches, unclean hands, lack of authority, good faith efforts, waiver and estoppel, after-

2 acquired evidence, and justification. Defendants cross-move for summary judgment on the

3 first six of these defenses. Defendants also seek summary judgment on Honer’s constructive

4 discharge claim, Limon’s retaliation claim, and all claims by Lopez, Moore, and Lujan.

5 Finally, Defendants argue that Plaintiff has not satisfied the jurisdictional prerequisites

6 for bringing a suit involving alleged sexual harassment by Collegeville’s plant manager,

7 Mark Nitz.

8

A. Conciliation.

9

Title VII provides that where the EEOC finds reasonable cause to believe that a

10 charge is true, it “shall endeavor to eliminate any such unlawful employment practice by

11 informal methods of conference, conciliation, and persuasion.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(b). The

12 EEOC may bring suit under Title VII only if it “has been unable to secure from the

13 [employer] a conciliation agreement acceptable to the [EEOC].” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1).

14 Given these requirements, a showing of some good faith effort at conciliation is a

15 “jurisdictional condition precedent to suit by the EEOC.” EEOC v. Pierce Packing Co., 669

16 F.2d 605, 608 (9th Cir. 1982).

17

Plaintiff argues that it is entitled to summary judgment because it made good faith

18 efforts to conciliate the charges in this case and ended conciliation only after Defendants

19 failed to make a monetary offer acceptable to Plaintiff. Dkt. #148 at 3-6. Defendants

20 contend that Plaintiff “did little more than go through the motions, without making the

21 requisite effort, flexibility or desire to resolve the matter through conciliation.” Dkt. #167

22 at 10. Defendants assert that Plaintiff was focused on obtaining large monetary relief for the

23 charging parties and abandoned the conciliation process when Defendants objected to paying

24 more than nominal damages. Id. at 11.

25

Conciliation in this case occurred in two rounds. The first round was initiated by

26 Plaintiff in September 2004 and involved the initial charges filed by Honer, Limon, and

27 Avalos. Plaintiff sent conciliation proposals to Defendants in January and February 2005.

28 On May 26, 2005, Plaintiff informed Defendants that their failure to offer monetary damages

- 3 -

1 to the charging parties would result in conciliation failure. Defendants provided Plaintiff

2 with a written counteroffer on July 14, 2005. Plaintiff rejected the offer on the ground that

3 it did not adequately compensate the charging parties. Plaintiff notified Defendants that

4 conciliation had failed in August 2005. Dkt. #149 ¶¶ 17-22; Dkt. #168 ¶¶ 133, 141-43.

5

The second round of conciliation began in January 2006 after Plaintiff had issued

6 determination letters finding reasonable cause to believe that Defendants had retaliated

7 against Limon and Avalos and had subjected a class of women to sexual harassment.

8 Plaintiff invited Defendants to participate in conciliation and provided Defendants with an

9 outline of Plaintiff’s proposed conciliation agreement. On April 13, 2006, Plaintiff informed

10 Defendants that their failure to indicate a willingness to conciliate or make a reasonable offer

11 would result in conciliation failure. Plaintiff ended the conciliation process on April 26,

12 2006. Dkt. #149 ¶¶ 24-31.

13

This undisputed evidence does not support Defendant’s contention that Plaintiff

14 “did little more than go through the motions.” Dkt. #167 at 10. Plaintiff invited Defendants

15 to conciliate this matter on two separate occasions, provided Defendants with conciliation

16 proposals, and filed suit only after it had determined that Defendants’ monetary offer was

17 insufficient and conciliation had failed. While Defendants may believe that Plaintiff acted

18 unreasonably in seeking more than nominal damages for the charging parties, case law makes

19 clear that the good faith requirement is an “easy burden to satisfy” and that the EEOC has

20 “substantial discretion” in determining that conciliation has failed. EEOC v. Mitsubishi

21 Motor Mfg. of Am., Inc., 990 F. Supp. 1059, 1091 (C.D. Ill. 1998); see EEOC v. N. Cent.

22 Airlines, 475 F. Supp. 667, 669 (D. Minn. 1979) (“[I]f some conciliation efforts have

23 occurred, substantial deference should be given to the EEOC’s determination that

24 conciliation efforts have failed[.]”); EEOC v. Wayside World Corp., 646 F. Supp. 86, 89

25 (W.D. Va. 1986) (rejecting argument that EEOC took an “all or nothing approach”;

26 deference must be given to the EEOC’s determination that conciliation had failed).

27

The Court concludes that Plaintiff satisfied the modest jurisdictional prerequisites to

28 filing this action. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) (“If . . . the Commission has been unable

- 4 -

1 to secure from the respondent a conciliation agreement acceptable to the Commission, the

2 Commission may bring a civil action against [the] respondent[.]”) (emphasis added); see also

3 29 C.F.R. § 1601.25 (“Where the Commission is unable to obtain voluntary compliance . . .

4 and it determines that further efforts to do so would be futile or non-productive, it shall . . .

5 so notify the respondent in writing.”) (emphasis added); EEOC v. Keco Indus., Inc., 748 F.2d

6 1097, 1101-02 (6th Cir. 1984) (“The EEOC is under no duty to attempt further conciliation

7 after an employer rejects its offer.”); EEOC v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 411 F. Supp. 97, 102

8 (W.D. Pa. 1976) (“Title VII does not define or require a standard conciliation process. . . .

9 It is enough that [the] EEOC attempted to conciliate this matter before the complaint was

10 filed.”). The Court will grant Plaintiff’s motion with respect to this issue.

11

B. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies and Statute of Limitations.

12

Plaintiff argues that Defendants have presented no evidence in support of their statute

13 of limitations and failure to exhaust administrative remedies defenses. Dkt. #148 at 15, 17.

14 Defendants address this argument only with respect to Lopez’s hostile work environment

15 claim. Defendants contend that this claim is time-barred because Lopez does not recall when

16 the harassment occurred. Dkt. #150 at 18. While it is true that Lopez could not recall the

17 exact date of each act of harassment, she testified that manager Paul Cooley pulled her up

18 by her pants on September 11, 2001. Dkt. #171 ¶ 205. Because this conduct occurred within

19 300 days of the filing of lead claimant Honer’s charge on July 5, 2002, Lopez’s claim is not

20 time-barred. See Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 117-18 (2002) (“In

21 order for the charge to be timely, the employee need only file a charge within . . . 300 days

22 of any act that is part of the hostile work environment.”); Williams v. Owens-Illinois, Inc.,

23 665 F.2d 918, 923 (9th Cir. 1982) (finding non-filing class members governed by the statute

24 of limitations of charging parties). Because there is no genuine issue of material fact as to

25 whether the charging parties exhausted their administrative remedies or filed timely claims,

26 the Court will grant summary judgment in Plaintiff’s favor with respect to these issues.

27

C. Laches.

28

To establish a laches defense, Defendants must show unreasonable delay on the part

- 5 -

1 of Plaintiff and prejudice to Defendants. See Bratton v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 649 F.2d

2 658, 666 (9th Cir. 1980). Defendants contend that the thirty-nine month period from the time

3 of Honer’s charge to the time Plaintiff commenced this action, and the forty-seven month

4 period from the filing of charges by Limon and Avalos and the filing of the amended

5 complaint, constitute unreasonable delay. Doc. #150 at 14-15. Defendants further contend

6 that during this delay several witnesses have become unavailable, memories have faded, and

7 certain evidence has been lost by the EEOC, resulting “in a one-sided preservation of

8 evidence.” Id.

9

Plaintiff argues that forty seven months is not an unreasonable period of time within

10 which to investigate, conciliate, and formally assert class claims of discrimination and

11 retaliation. Plaintiff further argues that any prejudice caused by the loss of evidence affects

12 both sides equally and resulted not from any delay on Plaintiff’s part, but from Defendants’

13 own failure to act diligently in preserving evidence once it received notice of the charges.

14 Dkt. #148 at 11-12; Dkt. #170 at 3-6.

15

“Laches is an equitable doctrine, its application depending on the facts of the

16 particular case.” Gifford v. Atchison, Topeka, & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 685 F.2d 1149, 1152

17 (9th Cir. 1982). The Ninth Circuit has made clear that “[l]aches questions are seldom

18 susceptible of resolution by summary judgment, because where laches is raised as a defense

19 the factual issues involved can rarely be resolved without some preliminary evidentiary

20 inquiry.” Bratton, 649 F.2d at 666 (quotation marks and citations omitted).

21

Having reviewed the voluminous record in this case (see Dkt. ##149, 153-55, 168-69,

22 171-72), the Court concludes that there are genuine issues of material fact as to whether

23 Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the doctrine of laches. This is so because issues of delay and

24 prejudice are intertwined closely, and the Court “must examine each claim alleged and

25 remedy sought to determine if sufficient prejudice and delay support [Defendants’] request

26 for dismissal[.]” Gifford, 685 F.2d at 1158 (Wright, J., concurring). The Court will deny

27 summary judgment on the laches defense. See id. at 1152.

28

- 6 -

1

D. Unclean Hands.

2

Defendants contend that Plaintiff’s delay in prosecuting this action constitutes

3 bad faith which bars its request for injunctive relief. Dkt. #150 at 15-16. Defendants

4 “rely on the ‘clean hands’ doctrine, which insists that one who seeks equity must come to the

5 court without blemish.” EEOC v. Recruit U.S.A., Inc., 939 F.2d 746, 752 (9th Cir. 1991).

6 “[T]he clean hands doctrine should not be strictly enforced when to do so would frustrate a

7 substantial public interest. In such cases, equity’s lodestar that ‘justice be done’ prevails.”

8 Id. at 753.

9

“The EEOC is charged with administering, interpreting, and enforcing Federal anti-

10 discrimination laws, and as such effectuates a compelling public interest.” EEOC v. Lexus

11 of Serramonte, No. C 05-0962 SBA, 2006 WL 2619367, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 12, 2006).

12 The Ninth Circuit has held that barring injunctive relief on “the basis of the EEOC’s unclean

13 hands would disserve the public interest in eliminating [sex] discrimination in employment,”

14 and “would ‘place a potent weapon in the hands of employers who have no interest in

15 complying voluntarily with [Title VII], who wish instead to delay as long as possible

16 investigations by the EEOC.’ Equity does not command such a result.” Recruit U.S.A., 939

17 F.2d at 754-55 (quoting EEOC v. Shell Oil Co., 466 U.S. 54, 81 (1984)); see also Lexus of

18 Serramonte, 2006 WL 2619367, at *3 (granting summary judgment in the EEOC’s favor on

19 the unclean hands defense). The Court accordingly will grant summary judgment in

20 Plaintiff’s favor with respect to the unclean hands defense.

21

E. Lack of Authority.

22

Defendants argue that Rubie’s cannot be held liable for the acts of Collegeville

23 because the two entities maintain separate operations. Dkt. #150 at 20-21; Dkt. #167 at 15.

24 Plaintiff contends that Rubie’s and Collegeville operate as a single enterprise. Dkt. #170

25 at 18; Dkt. #176 at 6-7.

26

This Circuit applies a four-part test to determine whether two entities are an integrated

27 enterprise for purposes of Title VII: (1) interrelation of operations, (2) common management,

28 (3) centralized control of labor relations, and (4) common ownership or financial control.

- 7 -

1 See Kang v. U. Lim Am., Inc., 296 F.3d 810, 815 (9th Cir. 2002). In this case, there are

2 genuine issues of fact as to the first three factors. See Dkt. #153 ¶¶ 120-23; Dkt. #117 ¶¶

3 239-92. The Court will deny summary judgment on the lack of authority defense.

4

F. Good Faith Efforts.

5

Defendants argue that punitive damages are not available in this case because

6 Defendants made good faith efforts to comply with Title VII by having a policy against

7 sexual harassment, investigating the claims of harassment, and disciplining the alleged

8 harassers. Dkt. #150 at 16; Dkt. #167 at 13-14. Plaintiff contends that Defendants did not

9 respond to Plaintiff’s discovery requests regarding this defense and therefore have

10 improperly asserted new factual bases in support of the defense. Dkt. #176 at 5. Plaintiff

11 further contends that the newly disclosed evidence does not create a triable issue as to

12 whether Defendants made good faith efforts to comply with Title VII. Dkt. #176 at 6;

13 Dkt. #170 at 8-11.

14

The Court will deny summary judgment on this issue. Plaintiff may, however, raise

15 objections to the purported newly disclosed evidence in a motion in limine filed prior to the

16 final pretrial conference. The Court will determine whether there is a triable issue with

17 respect the good faith efforts defense after it receives Plaintiff’s motion and Defendants’

18 response.

19

G. Waiver.

20

Defendants contend that this action is barred by the doctrine of waiver because

21 Plaintiff delayed filing suit and Honer failed to complain internally about the alleged

22 harassment. Dkt. #167 at 16-17. The Supreme Court has stated that a plaintiff does not

23 forfeit substantive rights under Title VII absent a voluntary and knowing waiver. Alexander

24 v. Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U.S. 36, 51 n.15 (1974); see Gibson v. Neighborhood Health

25 Clinics, Inc., 121 F.3d 1126, 1129 (7th Cir. 1997) (“[B]efore an employee cedes a

26 substantive right grounded in federal statutory law, she must understand and freely make the

27 decision to do so.”) (citing Alexander); Cox v. Allied Chem. Corp., 538 F.2d 1094, 1098 (5th

28 Cir. 1976) (expressing “deep concern over the necessity for establishing voluntariness before

- 8 -

1 finding an effective waiver of a plaintiff’s Title VII rights”).

2

Defendants have presented no evidence showing that Honer was aware of her Title

3 VII rights when she allegedly failed to complain to Defendants about the harassment. Nor

4 have Defendants presented any evidence showing a voluntarily relinquishment of Title VII

5 rights by the EEOC. The Court accordingly will grant Plaintiff’s motion with respect to the

6 waiver defense. See EEOC v. T.I.M.E.-D.C. Freight, Inc., 659 F.2d 690, 693 (5th Cir. 1981)

7 (“Title VII rights can be waived and Title VII rights can be settled. But there must be some

8 evidence of waiver or settlement. There is none here.”).

9

H. Estoppel and After-Acquired Evidence.

10

Prior to resigning her employment with Collegeville, Honer asked an EEOC

11 investigator whether quitting her job would hurt her case. The investigator advised Honer

12 against resigning. Dkt. #168 ¶¶ 126-28.

13

Defendants contend that “[b]ecause of the EEOC’s involvement in orchestrating

14 Honer’s constructive discharge claim, it is estopped from litigating this claim.” Dkt. #167

15 at 16. Equitable estoppel requires a showing that (1) the party to be estopped knew the facts,

16 (2) the party intended that its conduct be acted on, (3) the claimant was ignorant of the true

17 facts, and (4) the claimant detrimentally relied on the other party’s conduct. See Salgado-

18 Diaz v. Gonzales, 395 F.3d 1158, 1166 (9th Cir. 2005). Defendants fail to explain how the

19 instant facts support an equitable estoppel defense. The Court will grant Plaintiff’s motion

20 with respect to this defense.

21

Defendants contend that the “conspiracy” between Honer and the EEOC to

22 “orchestrate” Honer’s constructive discharge claim supports Defendants’ after-acquired

23 evidence defense. Dkt. #167 at 16. To prevail on this defense, Defendants must show that

24 Honer’s “wrongdoing was of such severity that [she] in fact would have been terminated on

25 those grounds alone if [Defendants] had known of it at the time of [her] discharge.”

26 McKennon v. Nashville Banner Publ’g Co., 513 U.S. 352, 362-63 (1995). Defendants have

27 presented no evidence that they would have terminated Honer for seeking advice from the

28 EEOC regarding her continued employment with Defendants. The Court will grant

- 9 -

1 Plaintiff’s motion with respect to the after-acquired evidence defense. See Shattuck v.

2 Kinetic Concepts, Inc., 49 F.3d 1106, 1109 (5th Cir. 1995) (“KCI did not establish that it

3 would have discharged Shattuck upon discovering that he was not a college graduate. It

4 therefore cannot obtain the relief it seeks solely on account of its after-acquired evidence.”).

5

I. Justification.

6

Defendants argue that Plaintiff cannot prevail on Honer’s claim of retaliation because

7 Defendants’ decision to move Honer to other departments was justified by legitimate

8 business considerations, namely, the need for extra coverage in those departments. Dkt. #167

9 at 17. Plaintiff argues that Defendants mistakenly couch what is a factual dispute – whether

10 the decision to move Honer was made for legitimate business reasons or in retaliation for her

11 protected activities – as an affirmative defense. Plaintiff argues that regardless of which

12 party bears the burden of proof on this issue, it is entitled to summary judgment. Dkt. #176

13 at 10. The Court disagrees.

14

As the party seeking summary judgment, Plaintiff “bears the initial responsibility of

15 . . . identifying those portions of [the record] which it believes demonstrate the absence of

16 a genuine issue of material fact.” Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323. Plaintiff has not met its burden.

17 Plaintiff has identified no evidence showing, as a matter of undisputed fact, that Defendants’

18 stated reason for moving Honer to other departments was mere pretext for retaliation. See

19 Ray v. Henderson, 217 F.3d 1234, 1240 (9th Cir. 2000) (stating that once the defendant

20 articulates a legitimate non-retaliatory reason for its decision, “the plaintiff bears the ultimate

21 burden of demonstrating that the reason was merely a pretext for a discriminatory motive”).

22 The Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion with respect to the justification defense.

23

J. Honer’s Constructive Discharge Claim.

24

Defendants contend that Honer’s constructive discharge claim fails because her

25 working conditions were not intolerable and the alleged sexual harassment had ceased prior

26 to her resignation. Dkt. #150 at 19-20. These factual issues must be resolved at trial.

27

“Constructive discharge occurs when, looking at the totality of the circumstances, a

28 reasonable person in the employee’s position would have felt that [she] was forced to quit

- 10 -

1 because of intolerable and discriminatory working conditions.” Wallace v. City of San

2 Diego, 479 F.3d 616, 625 (9th Cir. 2007) (citation and alterations omitted). “‘Whether

3 working conditions were so intolerable and discriminatory as to justify a reasonable

4 employee’s decision to resign is normally a factual question for the jury.’” Id. at 626

5 (citation omitted). Plaintiff has presented evidence from which a jury could conclude that

6 a reasonable person would find Honer’s working conditions so intolerable and discriminatory

7 as to justify resigning. See Dkt. #171 ¶¶ 210-38. The Court therefore will deny Defendants’

8 motion with respect to Honer’s constructive discharge claim. See Watson v. Nationwide Ins.

9 Co., 823 F.2d 360, 362 (9th Cir. 1987) (holding that three incidents of differential treatment

10 over a two month period created a triable issue); Nolan v. Cleland, 686 F.2d 806, 813-14 (9th

11 Cir. 1982) (holding that four incidents of differential treatment over a two year period created

12 a triable issue).

13

K. Limon’s Retaliation Claim.

14

Defendants contend that Limon has failed to make a prima facie case of retaliation

15 because there is no evidence that she was subjected to an adverse employment action.

16 Dkt. #150 at 17. The Supreme Court recently held that a plaintiff seeking to establish an

17 adverse employment action “must show that a reasonable employee would have found the

18 challenged action materially adverse, ‘which in this context means it well might have

19 dissuaded a reasonable worker from [engaging in protected activity].’” Burlington N. &

20 Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 126 S.Ct. 2405, 2415 (2006) (citations omitted). This test is the

21 same as that previously adopted by the Ninth Circuit. See Ray v. Henderson, 217 F.3d 1234,

22 1243 (9th Cir. 2000) (stating that “an action is cognizable as an adverse employment action

23 if it is reasonably likely to deter employees from engaging in protected activity”); Elvig v.

24 Calvin Presbyterian Church, 375 F.3d 951, 965 (9th Cir. 2004) (same).

25

Plaintiff has presented the following evidence in support of Limon’s retaliation claim:

26 Shortly after Limon and other supervisors complained to Rubie’s about the alleged

27 harassment, Nitz called a management meeting. Nitz was very angry at the meeting,

28 stating that “nobody was ever going to go around him again.” Nitz threatened to terminate

- 11 -

1 Limon if she was to “cause trouble” in the future. Limon felt threatened by these comments

2 and believed that her job was at risk. Limon and the other charging parties were later told

3 by Rubie’s general manager, John Clausen, that Nitz was “the man” at Collegeville and that

4 he “was going to run the company until the doors closed[.]” Dkt. #171 ¶¶ 186-99.

5

The Ninth Circuit has explained that “‘the requisite degree of proof necessary to

6 establish a prima facie case for Title VII on summary judgment is minimal and does not even

7 need to rise to the level of a preponderance of the evidence.’” Villiarimo v. Aloha Island Air,

8 Inc., 281 F.3d 1054, 1061-62 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Wallis v. J.R. Simplot Co., 26 F.3d

9 885, 889 (9th Cir. 1994)). Indeed, “[t]he amount of evidence that must be produced in order

10 to create a prima facie case is ‘very little.’” Wallis, 26 F.3d at 889 (citation and alterations

11 omitted). The Court concludes that Plaintiff has presented prima facie evidence of a

12 materially adverse action. Construed in Plaintiff’s favor, the evidence shows that Nitz

13 threatened to terminate Limon if she continued to engage in protected activity and that Nitz

14 had the power to carry out the threat. This might well have dissuaded a reasonable worker

15 in Limon’s position from engaging in protected activity. See Bergin v. N. Clackamas Sch.

16 Dist., No. CV-03-1412-ST, 2005 WL 66069, at *11 (D. Or. Jan. 12, 2005) (holding that “the

17 threat of transfer was an adverse employment action”); McGuire v. Miami-Dade County, 418

18 F. Supp. 2d 1354, 1359 (S.D. Fla. 2006) (“Viewing Plaintiff’s allegation that she was

19 threatened with demotion . . . in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, this Court finds that

20 this allegation is sufficient to meet the prima facie requirement that Plaintiff demonstrate an

21 adverse employment action taken against her.”); see also White, 126 S. Ct. at 2415 (“The

22 anti-retaliation provision seeks to prevent employer interference with ‘unfettered access’ to

23 Title VII’s remedial mechanisms.”) (citation omitted). The Court will deny Defendants’

24 motion with respect to Limon’s retaliation claim.

25

L. Lopez’s Hostile Work Environment Claim.

26

Defendants contend that Lopez’s hostile work environment claim fails because the

27 harassing conduct was neither severe nor pervasive. Dkt. #150 at 18-19. To establish a

28 hostile work environment based on sex, the plaintiff must prove that she was subjected to

- 12 -

1 verbal or physical conduct, that the conduct was unwelcome, and that the conduct was

2 sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the terms and conditions of her employment and

3 create an abusive work environment. See Rene v. MGM Grand Hotel, Inc., 305 F.3d 1061,

4 1065 (9th Cir. 2002) (en banc). The work environment “must be both objectively and

5 subjectively offensive, one that a reasonable [woman] would find hostile or abusive, and

6 one that the [plaintiff] in fact did perceive to be so.” Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524

7 U.S. 775, 787 (1998).

8

Construing the evidence in Plaintiff’s favor, the Court concludes that there is a triable

9 issue as to whether Lopez’s work environment was sufficiently hostile to violate Title VII.

10 On two or three occasions, Lopez’s immediate supervisor, Paul Cooley, walked up behind

11 her, grabbed the rear belt loop on her pants, and pulled upward. When Lopez was then

12 required to walk to the bathroom to readjust her pants and undergarments, Cooley said

13 “[w]hat are [you] gonna do? Get the wedgie out of your behind?” Dkt. #171, Ex. 40 at 113.

14 Cooley’s physical contact with Lopez and these subsequent remarks occurred in front of

15 coworkers. Dkt. #171 ¶¶ 205-08. Lopez also witnessed plant manager Mark Nitz throw

16 objects down the front of female employees’ blouses on five or six occasions. Id.

17

Defendants suggest that these acts were nothing more than mere pranks, Dkt. #150

18 at 19 n.10, but that is a question for the jury. A reasonable jury considering all the evidence

19 might find that the actions and comments of Cooley and Nitz were offensive sexual

20 harassment. The Court cannot simply adopt Cooley’s view of the events. See Ellison v.

21 Brady, 924 F.2d 872, 880-81 (9th Cir. 1991) (“Sexual harassment is a major problem in the

22 workplace. Adopting the victim’s perspective ensures that courts will not ‘sustain ingrained

23 notions of reasonable behavior fashioned by the offenders.’”) (citations omitted). The Court

24 will deny Defendants’ motion with respect to Lopez’s hostile work environment claim.

25

M. The Claim of Sexual Harassment by Nitz.

26

Defendants contend that the Court lacks jurisdiction over the claim of sexual

27 harassment by Nitz because it was not disclosed to Defendants during the EEOC

28 investigation of this matter. Dkt. #150 at 16-17.

- 13 -

1

The Court has jurisdiction over any claims of discrimination “that are ‘like or

2 reasonably related to’ the allegations made in the EEOC charge[s], or that fall within the

3 ‘EEOC investigation which can reasonably be expected to grow out of the charge[s] of

4 discrimination.’” Deppe v. United Airlines, 217 F.3d 1262, 1267 (9th Cir. 2000) (citations

5 omitted); see Oubichon v. N. Am. Rockwell Corp., 482 F.2d 569, 571 (9th Cir. 1973) (“[T]he

6 judicial complaint . . . may encompass any discrimination like or reasonably related to the

7 allegations of the EEOC charge, including new acts occurring during the pendency of the

8 charge before the EEOC.”); Gen. Tel. Co. of the N.W. v. EEOC, 446 U.S. 318, 331 (1980)

9 (“Any violations that the EEOC ascertains in the course of a reasonable investigation of the

10 charging party’s complaint are actionable.”).

11

The evidence in this case, construed in Plaintiff’s favor, shows the following:

12 The three original charges alleged sexual harassment by managers at the Collegeville plant

13 and retaliation by Nitz. Dkt. #171 ¶¶ 165-68. Honer asserted in her charge that the

14 Collegeville “plant manager began to verbally harass [her] and other females in retaliation

15 for [her] complaint.” Id. Ex. 1. The charges filed by Limon and Avalos mention Nitz

16 by name, alleging that he had verbally threatened them and had referred to them as

17 “trouble makers.” Id. Exs. 6 & 9. Honer told EEOC investigators that Nitz had tried to

18 unfasten her bra and had harassed other female employees. Id. ¶¶ 170-71. Limon told

19 investigators that Nitz had made her feel uncomfortable by touching her arm in an

20 inappropriate manner. Id. ¶ 174.

21

Plaintiff’s claim of sexual harassment by Nitz is related to the allegations made in the

22 original charges and arose out of Plaintiff’s investigation of those charges. Plaintiff notified

23 Defendants of the charges and sought to conciliate the sexual harassment claims. Dkt. #149

24 ¶¶ 26-31; Dkt. #171 ¶¶ 33-40, 183-85. While Plaintiff did not specifically identify any

25 alleged harasser by name in its determination letters and conciliation proposals, Defendant

26 has cited no legal authority suggesting that such disclosure is a prerequisite to filing suit.

27 The Court concludes that it has jurisdiction over the claim of sexual harassment by Nitz. The

28 Court accordingly will deny Defendants’ motion with respect to this issue. See EEOC v.

- 14 -

1 Occidental Life Ins. Co. of Cal., 535 F.2d 533, 541-42 (9th Cir. 1976) (holding that the

2 EEOC was allowed to litigate new claims of discrimination where the claims were

3 discovered during an investigation of the original charges and the employer had received

4 notice of the claims during the administrative process); EEOC v. Hearst Corp., 553F.2d 579,

5 580-81 (9th Cir. 1976) (same).

6

N. The Potential Class Members’ Claims.

7

Defendants request that the Court summarily adjudicate the potential class members’

8 claims for lack of standing or jurisdiction. Dkt. #150 at 4 n.3. Defendants alternatively

9 request that the Court strike Plaintiff’s disclosure of the potential class members. Id.

10 Defendants have presented no argument or legal authority in support of these requests. The

11 Court will deny the requests because Defendants have not met their summary judgment

12 burden. See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323.

13 IV. Conclusion.

14

The Court will grant summary judgment in Plaintiff’s favor on the conciliation

15 requirement and the affirmative defenses of failure to exhaust administrative remedies,

16 statute of limitations, unclean hands, waiver and estoppel, and after-acquired evidence. The

17 Court will deny summary judgment on the affirmative defenses of laches, lack of authority,

18 justification, and good faith efforts. The Court also will deny summary judgment on Honer’s

19 constructive discharge claim, Limon’s retaliation claim, Lopez’s hostile work environment

20 claim, the claim of sexual harassment by Nitz, and the claims of potential class members.

21

It is unclear whether Defendants would have asserted at trial each of the affirmative

22 defenses on which Plaintiff sought summary judgment. In future litigation before this Court,

23 the EEOC shall seek summary judgment only on issues that it reasonably believes will be

24 contested at trial. This will ensure the most efficient use of government and judicial

25 resources.

26

IT IS ORDERED:

27

1. Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment (Dkt. #148) is granted in

28

part and denied in part as set forth in this order.

- 15 -

1

2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Dkt. #150) is denied.

2

3. Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike (Dkt. #181) is denied.

3

4. The Court will set a final pretrial conference by separate order.

4

DATED this 16th day of July, 2007.

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 16 -

 
 1

2

3

4

5

6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

) Case No. CV05-3033-PHX-DGC

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

)

9

) CONSENT DECREE

Plaintiff,

)

10

)

)

11

vs.

)

)

12 COLLEGEVILLE/IMAGINEERING, a )

Delaware Limited Partnership, and

)

13 RUBIE'S COSTUME COMPANY, INC., )

a New York corporation,

)

14

)

)

15

Defendants.

)

)

16

)

17

The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the Commission or

18 EEOC) filed this action against Collegeville/Imagineering Ent. and Rubie's Costume

19 Company, Inc. to enforce Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.

20 (Title VII) and the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a. In its Complaint and

21 subsequent Amended Complaint, the Commission alleged hostile work environment sexual

22 harassment and retaliation by Collegeville's managers against a class of women comprised of

23 former and current employees.

24

The parties do not object to the jurisdiction of the Court over this action and waive

25 their rights to a hearing and the entry of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The parties

26 agree that this Consent Decree is fair, reasonable, and equitable and does not violate the law

27 or public policy.

28

1

1

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

2 comprehensive settlement negotiations, the parties have agreed that this action should be

3 finally resolved by entry of this Decree. This decree is final and binding on the parties, and

4 their successors and assigns.

5

It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:

6

1. This decree resolves all claims of the Commission against Defendants in this

7 action and the underlying EEOC Charges of Discrimination, Nos. 350A202523, 350A202579

8 and 350A202578, including but not limited to, back pay, compensatory and punitive

9 damages, interest, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and costs.

10

NO ADMISSION

11

2. This Decree, being entered with the consent of the Commission and

12 Defendants, shall not constitute an adjudication or finding on the merits of the case, and shall

13 not be construed as an admission of liability by Defendants. Defendants affirmatively deny

14 the allegations of sexual harassment and retaliation, and enter into this settlement for the

15 purpose of restoring peace to the workplace and avoiding further litigation.

16

INJUNCTION

17

3. Collegeville and its officers, agents, employees, successors, assigns and all

18 persons in active concert or participation with it, is enjoined for the duration of the Decree

19 from (a) discriminating against any employee on the basis of sex, including but not limited to

20 sexually harassing any employee and (b) retaliating against any employee because he or she

21 (i) opposed discriminatory practices made unlawful by Title VII, (ii) filed a charge or is

22 assisting or participating in the filing of a charge of sexual harassment, or (iii) assisted or

23 participated in an investigation or proceeding brought under Title VII.

24

MONETARY RELIEF

25

4. Judgment is entered in favor of the Commission and against Collegeville in the

26 amount of $299,000.00. Collegeville shall pay the gross sum of $299,000.00 (subject to

27 Rubie's guaranty letter, over which the Court shall retain jurisdiction) to be distributed

28 among the class members identified in Exhibit A. One-half of the total $299,000.00 is to be

2

1 paid to the identified claimants on the later of November 1, 2007 or within six business days

2 after the parties receive notice that this Consent Decree has been entered by the Court. The

3 remaining one-half of the total of $299,000.00 is to be paid on June 30, 2008. Collegeville's

4 obligation to make payments to each claimant is contingent upon each claimant executing a

5 release, as set forth in Exhibit D, regarding all claims that the claimant may have against

6 Defendants through the date of the release.

7

5. None of this $299,000.00 shall revert to Collegeville if the money is not

8 entirely distributed by payments to claimants. In that event, any remaining money shall be

9 distributed at the direction of the EEOC.

10

6. Collegeville shall pay the settlement amount separately to each class member,

11 identified in Exhibit A, by check, cashier's check, or money order, in accordance with

12 Paragraph Four of this Decree. These payments do not represent wages and represent

13 settlement of alleged compensatory damages. Collegeville shall make no deductions from

14 this amount. By January 31, 2008, Collegeville shall issue United States Internal Revenue

15 Service 1099 forms for all payments made in calendar year 2007, and by January 31, 2009,

16 Collegeville shall issue United States Internal Revenue Service 1099 forms for all payments

17 made in calendar year 2008.

18

7. The checks provided for in Paragraph Four of this Decree shall be mailed

19 directly by Collegeville to each class member, as identified in Exhibit A, at the addresses

20 supplied by the Commission. Within three business days of issuance of the checks,

21 Collegeville shall mail a copy of each check and related correspondence to the Regional

22 Attorney, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 3300 N. Central Avenue, Suite 690,

23 Phoenix, Arizona 85012. Collegeville shall also mail to the Regional Attorney a copy of

24 each recipient's canceled check promptly upon request.

25

8. Defendants will not condition the receipt of monetary relief on any class

26 member's agreement to: (a) maintain as confidential the terms of this Decree; (b) waive her

27 statutory right to file prospectively a charge with any federal or state anti-discrimination

28

3

1 agency; (c) refrain from applying for employment at Collegeville's facility; or (d) any

2 condition not included in this Decree.

3

OTHER RELIEF

4

9. All references to the filed charges of discrimination or participation in this

5 action by the class members identified in Exhibit A, derogatory documents which relate to

6 complaints, or investigation of complaints of sexual harassment shall be expunged from any

7 personnel file of any class member identified in Exhibit A that is maintained by either

8 Defendant.

9

10. Collegeville shall provide each class member identified in Exhibit A with a

10 personalized copy of the written statement attached as Exhibit B, signed and printed on

11 Collegeville's letterhead upon the entry of this Decree. Collegeville shall provide a copy of

12 this written statement whenever an employment reference is requested by the prospective

13 employer of a class member identified in Exhibit A, for the duration of this Decree.

14

11. Defendants allege that prompt, appropriate disciplinary action has been taken

15 against individuals who have been determined to have engaged in inappropriate conduct in

16 violation of Title VII, if any. However, Collegeville shall also provide all of its

17 management, including the Plant Manager, with an additional training session on preventing

18 sexual harassment in the workplace.

19

12. Collegeville shall review and revise, if necessary, policies and practices that

20 help assure a work environment free from sexual harassment of their employees and that

21 allow employees to raise concerns or complaints without retaliation about matters, whether

22 alleged, perceived, or actual, made unlawful by Title VII. To assist Collegeville in its efforts

23 to assure a work environment free of sexual harassment and retaliation, Collegeville shall

24 take the actions provided in Paragraphs Thirteen through Twenty-Five of this Decree.

25

COLLEGEVILLE'S CORRECTIVE POLICIES AND PRACTICES

26

13. Collegeville shall post for the duration of this Decree, in a prominent place

27 frequented by its employees at its facilities, the notice attached as Exhibit C in both English

28 and Spanish. It shall be Collegeville's responsibility to have the notice properly translated.

4

1 The notice shall be the same type, style, and size as Exhibit C. Collegeville shall also post at

2 least until the end of 2007, in a prominent place frequented by its employees at its facilities,

3 a statement from the parent company’s CEO or a high-ranking official reiterating the parent

4 company’s policy against sexual harassment. The statement shall be posted at least until the

5 end of 2007.

6

14. Collegeville shall provide training in both English and Spanish on sexual

7 harassment and retaliation to (a) its employees and (b) in 2008 only to its parent company's

8 management employees designated to receive and respond to sexual harassment complaints

9 from Collegeville employees, according to the following terms:

10

A. Collegeville shall retain and pay for a lecturer who shall provide

11 training for a period of two (2) years from the date of this Decree. During each of the next

12 two years, the lecturer shall conduct one live seminar training session each year.

13 Collegeville shall have an attorney from Winston & Strawn LLP, which individual shall have

14 knowledge of employment discrimination laws, including Title VII, as its trainer. The

15 following individuals shall attend the seminar session or the videotaped showing of the live

16 session in each of the two years: (a) Collegeville's employees not working through a staffing

17 agency (Collegeville may, at its election, have duplicative videotaped sessions to

18 accommodate staffing needs. Collegeville shall be responsible for any additional costs to

19 provide such duplicative sessions.); (b) In 2008 only, the parent company's management

20 employees designated to receive and respond to sexual harassment complaints from

21 Collegeville employees shall receive such training.

22

B. During the first year (as to Collegeville) the seminar-training session

23 shall be conducted within four (4) months of the entry of this Decree. For the second year,

24 the seminar-training session shall be conducted between ten (10) and twelve (12) months

25 after the completion of the preceding session. The parent company's training shall be any

26 time in 2008.

27

C. The seminar-training sessions shall be no less than ninety (90) minutes,

28 plus fifteen (15) to thirty (30) minutes of questions and answers. All personnel designated in

5

1 Paragraph Fourteen-A, shall both register and attend the seminar-training session or watch

2 the video of the seminar-training. The registry of attendance shall be retained by

3 Collegeville for the duration of the Decree.

4

D. The seminars shall include the subject of what constitutes sexual

5 harassment and retaliation; that sexual harassment and retaliation in the hiring, firing,

6 compensation, assignment, or other terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, violates

7 Title VII; how to prevent sexual harassment and retaliation; how to provide a work

8 environment free from sexual harassment and retaliation; and to whom and by what means

9 employees may complain if they feel they have been subjected to sexual harassment or

10 retaliation in the workplace. The session shall also review and explain Collegeville's policies

11 set out in Paragraph Sixteen of this Decree.

12

E. During the live training session, the lecturer shall speak to the

13 employees about the discipline that can be taken against supervisors, managers, and

14 employees who commit acts of sexual harassment or retaliation or allow sexual harassment

15 or retaliation to occur in the workplace, the importance of maintaining an environment free

16 of sexual harassment and retaliation, and Collegeville's policy in regard to sexual harassment

17 and retaliation referred to in Paragraph Sixteen of this Decree.

18

15. The Commission, at its discretion, may designate Commission representatives

19 to attend and participate in the seminar-training sessions, and the representative shall have

20 the right to attend and reasonably participate in the sessions. The EEOC will provide

21 Collegeville reasonable notice of its intent to attend the training session.

22

16. Collegeville shall review and revise, if necessary, its written policy concerning

23 sexual harassment and retaliation to conform with the law. The policy shall be written in

24 both Spanish and English and shall include, at a minimum:

25

A. A strong and clear commitment to a workplace free of sexual harassment and

26 retaliation;

27

B. Clear and complete definitions of sexual harassment, both quid pro quo and

28 environmental, and retaliation, with relevant examples;

6

1

C. A clear and strong encouragement of persons who believe they have been

2 harassed or retaliated against to come forward;

3

D. A description of the consequences, up to and including termination, that will be

4 imposed upon violators of the policy;

5

E. A promise of maximum feasible confidentiality for persons who believe that

6 they have been harassed or retaliated against;

7

F. An assurance of non-retaliation for witnesses of sexual harassment and persons

8 who in good faith believe they have been sexually harassed;

9

G. That sexual harassment by all persons, including management officials,

10 supervisors, vendors, suppliers, third parties, and customers is prohibited and will not be

11 tolerated;

12

H. The identification of specific individuals at each Defendant, with their names

13 and telephone numbers, to whom employees who claim to have been sexually harassed or

14 retaliated against can report the sexual harassment, including a written statement that the

15 employee may report the harassment to designated persons outside their chain of

16 management. At least one of the designated persons must be Spanish-speaking to facilitate

17 communication with Spanish-speaking employees, and must be designated as Spanish-

18 speaking in the materials;

19

I. That employees are not to discuss sexual conduct and/or sexual jokes while at

20 work;

21

J. That physical contact between employees that may be construed as sexual is

22 prohibited on the jobsite;

23

K. Assurances that Collegeville, with the knowledge and assistance of Rubie's, as

24 appropriate and reasonable, will investigate sexual harassment and retaliation allegations

25 promptly, fairly, reasonably, and effectively by appropriate investigators and that appropriate

26 corrective action will be taken to eradicate the sexual harassment and retaliation.

27

The current policy has been distributed to each current employee, and any revised

28 policy, if applicable, shall be re-distributed within sixty (60) days of its adoption. The policy

7

1 shall be distributed to all new employees when hired and reissued to each employee during

2 the second year of this Decree. These policies also shall be posted in both English and

3 Spanish in a prominent place frequented by the Collegeville employees.

4

17. Collegeville shall institute, and Rubie's shall approve and oversee, a procedure

5 which evaluates Collegeville supervisors, managers, and applicable human resources

6 personnel on their performance in responding to complaints of sexual harassment and

7 retaliation. Each of these employees shall be advised that the failure of such an employee to

8 enforce the sexual harassment and anti-retaliation policy may result in disciplinary action.

9

18. Collegeville, with the knowledge and assistance of Rubie's, as appropriate and

10 reasonable, shall promptly and appropriately respond to all complaints of sexual harassment

11 and/or retaliation. The response shall be a reasonable investigation and conclusion, which

12 must include a finding of whether sexual harassment and/or retaliation occurred, where

13 reasonably possible; a credibility assessment, if necessary and reasonably possible;

14 interviews of all potential victims and witnesses identified, where reasonable; and concurrent

15 notes of the investigation. The response also shall include immediate appropriate corrective

16 and remedial action.

17

19. Collegeville shall not retain documents related to any such investigation in the

18 personnel file of any employee who complains of harassment or retaliation. All disciplinary

19 actions taken against Collegeville employees for violation of its sexual harassment and/or

20 anti-retaliation policy will be retained in that employee's personnel file where a violation is

21 found and discipline is imposed.

22

20. Collegeville will forward its sexual harassment and/or anti-retaliation policy to

23 any agency that is providing temporary employees to its facility, and require that said agency

24 provide any applicant for a position at its facility with a copy of the policy. Collegeville

25 shall also add to its contracts with such agencies a provision stating that it will only hire an

26 applicant after his or her agency affirms that he or she has been provided with Collegeville's

27 sexual harassment and/or anti-retaliation policy.

28

8

1

REPORTING BY COLLEGEVILLE AND ACCESS BY EEOC

2

21. Collegeville shall report in writing to the Regional Attorney of the

3 Commission's Phoenix District Office at 3300 North Central Avenue, Suite 690, Phoenix,

4 Arizona 85012, beginning six (6) months from the date of the entry of this Decree, and

5 thereafter approximately every six (6) months for the duration of the Decree, the following

6 information:

7

A. Any changes, modifications, revocations, or revisions to Collegeville's policies

8 and procedures that concern or affect the subject of sexual harassment and/or retaliation;

9

B. The registry of persons (which the EEOC will keep confidential) attending the

10 seminar required in Paragraph Fourteen of this Decree and a signed, sworn statement by a

11 top management official of Collegeville that persons have attended a seminar as required by

12 Paragraph Fourteen of this Decree;

13

C. Confirmation that (i) the Notice required in Paragraph Thirteen of this Decree

14 was posted in both English and Spanish and the locations where it was posted, (ii) the

15 policies required in Paragraph Sixteen of this Decree were posted and distributed to each

16 current and new employee in both English and Spanish, and (iii) the expungement from the

17 class members' personnel files required in Paragraph Eight of this Decree took place, the date

18 of the expungement, and the specific documents expunged;

19

D. A copy of the revised policy required in Paragraph Sixteen of this Decree in

20 both English and Spanish;

21

E. One copy of each written statement drafted pursuant to Paragraph Ten of this

22 Decree.

23

22. Defendants, where applicable, shall comply with the reporting requirements of

24 Title VII, including but not limited to the filing of Standard Form 100 in accordance with 29

25 C.F.R. § 1602.7, commonly known as the "Employer Information Report EEO-1."

26

23. The Commission, upon reasonable notice, shall have the right to enter and

27 inspect Collegeville’s Arizona premises for sole purposes of (a) attending a seminar

28

9

1 specified above; and (b) reviewing the specific files or postings as necessary to ensure

2 compliance with this Decree.

3

COSTS AND DURATION

4

24. Each party shall bear its costs and attorneys' fees incurred as a result of this

5 action through the filing of this Decree.

6

25. The duration of this Decree shall be two (2) years from its entry. This Court

7 shall retain jurisdiction over this action for the duration of the Decree, during which the

8 Commission may petition this Court for compliance with this Decree. Should the Court

9 determine that either Defendant has not complied with its own obligations in this Decree,

10 appropriate relief may be ordered. This Decree shall expire by its own terms at the end of

11 twenty-four (24) months from the date of entry, without further action by the parties.

12

26. The parties agree to entry of this Consent Decree and judgment subject to final

13 approval by the Court and the respective attorneys have full authority to sign this Decree on

14 behalf of their respective clients.

15

AGREED TO FOR DEFENDANTS:

AGREED TO FOR THE EEOC:

16

17

_s/Anna Segobia Masters_________ Anna Segobia Masters

18

Julia Lapis Blakeslee

WINSTON & STRAWN LLP

19

333 South Grand Avenue

20

Los Angeles, CA 90071-1543

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

_s/Mary Jo O’Neill_________ Mary Jo O’Neill Regional Attorney
_s/Sally C. Shanley___________ Sally C. Shanley Supervisory Trial Attorney
_s/ Valerie L. Meyer_________ Valerie L. Meyer P. David Lopez Lucila Rosas Trial Attorneys
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 3300 N. Central Ave, Suite 690 Phoenix, AZ 85012 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

10

1 SO ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED, this 19th day of November 2007.
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
11

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
12

EXHIBIT A

1 List of Class Members as Defined by Paragraph Three of the Consent Decree 2 Linda Avalos
Veronica Coronel 3 Lorena Elizabeth Duarte
Linda Honer 4 Nohemi Landin
Rosa Limon 5 Teresa Lopez
Maria Socorro Mata, aka Maria del Carmen Nunez
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
13

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
14

EXHIBIT B

1 [Collegeville Letterhead]

2 To Whom it May Concern:

3

This letter will serve to confirm Ms. [Class Member]’s employment with

Collegeville/Imagineering Enterprises from _______ to ______. During this time, Ms.

4 [Class Member] held the position[s] of __________. At all times during this period, Ms.

[Class Member] performed her job duties in a capable and competent manner. In addition,

5 Ms. [Class Member] is eligible for rehire at Collegeville/Imagineering Enterprises.

6

7

Very truly yours,

8

9

Mark Nitz, Plant Manager

10

Collegeville/Imagineering Ent.

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

15

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
16

EXHIBIT C

1

NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF

COLLEGEVILLE/IMAGINEERING

2

This Notice is posted pursuant to a Consent Decree entered into in the case styled as

3 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) v. Collegeville/Imagineering and

Rubie's Costume Company, Inc.

4

It is unlawful under federal law, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and state law to

5 discriminate against an employee on the basis of sex, including sexual harassment, in the

recruitment, hiring, firing, compensation, assignment, or other terms, and conditions or

6 privileges of employment. Sexual harassment includes unwelcome or offensive sexual

advances or touching, requests for sexual favors, or other verbal or physical conduct directed

7 at a person because of her/his sex. It is also unlawful to retaliate against any person because

the person protested discriminatory practices or contacted the EEOC or the Arizona Civil

8 Rights Division (ACRD).

9

Collegeville shall not discriminate against any employee on the basis of sex, including

sexual harassment, and shall not retaliate against any employee for complaining about sexual

10 harassment.

11

If you believe you have been discriminated against or sexually harassed, you have the

right to seek assistance from:

12
(1) EEOC, 3300 North Central Avenue, Suite

13

690, Phoenix, Arizona 85012

Telephone: (602) 640-5000

14

TTY: (602) 640-5072

Website (national): www.eeoc.gov; or

15

(2) Arizona Civil Rights Division (“ACRD”)

16

of the Attorney General's Office

1275 W. Washington, Phoenix, Arizona, 85007

17

Telephone: (602) 542-5263

TDD: (602) 542-5002

18

Toll Free: (877) 491-5742

Toll Free TDD: (877) 624-8090
19

You have the right to file a charge with the EEOC or ACRD if you believe you are 20 being discriminated against, retaliated against or sexually harassed.

21

No Retaliation Clause. It is against the law for any action to be taken against you by

any supervisory or management official of Collegeville for: (1) opposing sexual harassment

22 or other discriminatory practices made unlawful by federal or state law; (2) filing a charge or

assisting or participating in the filing of a charge of discrimination; or (3) assisting or

23 participating in an investigation or proceeding brought under Title VII. Should any such

retaliatory actions be taken against you, you should immediately contact the EEOC or the

24 ACRD at the addresses or telephone numbers listed above.

25

26

27

28

17

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
18

EXHIBIT D

1

In consideration for $ XXXX paid to me by Collegeville, in connection with the

2 resolution of the lawsuit styled EEOC v. Collegeville/Imagineering, a Delaware Limited

3 Partnership, and Rubie’s Costume Company, Inc., a New York corporation, Defendants,

4 Case No. CV05-3033-PHX-DGC (D. AZ), I hereby waive any right I may have to recover

5 for any claims arising under Title VII, and any state and local anti-discrimination law, that I

6 had or could have had against Collegeville/ Imagineering Ent. and Rubie's Costume

7 Company, Inc. prior to the date of this release.

8
Date:
9

Signature:

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

19

 
 CM/ECF - azd

https://ecf.azd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?453268222127728-L_56...

U.S. District Court DISTRICT OF ARIZONA (Phoenix Division) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:05-cv-03033-DGC

CLOSED, STD

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Collegeville/Imagineering et al Assigned to: Judge David G Campbell Cause: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

Date Filed: 09/30/2005 Date Terminated: 11/19/2007 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by Mary Joleen O'Neill EEOC 3300 N Central Ave Ste 690 Phoenix, Az 85012-1848 602-640-5044 Fax: 602-640-5009 Email: mary.oneill@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

P David Lopez EEOC 3300 N Central Ave Ste 600 Phoenix, AZ 85012-1848 602-640-5016 Fax: 602-640-5009 Email: patrick.lopez@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sally Clifford Shanley EEOC 3300 N Central Ave Suite 690 Phoenix, AZ 85012-1848 602-640-5007 Fax: 602-640-5009 Email: sally.shanley@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

1 of 20

3/18/2008 3:41 PM

CM/ECF - azd
V. Defendant Collegeville/Imagineering a Delaware Limited Partnership
2 of 20

https://ecf.azd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?453268222127728-L_56...
Valerie Leigh Meyer US EEOC 3300 N Central Ave Ste 690 Phoenix, AZ 85012-2504 602-640-4988 Fax: 602-640-5009 Email: valerie.meyer@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
C Emanuel Smith EEOC 3300 N Central Ave Ste 690 Phoenix, AZ 85012-1848 602-640-5033 Fax: 602-640-5009 Email: emanuel.smith@eeoc.gov TERMINATED: 03/16/2006
Lucila G Rosas EEOC 3300 N Central Ave Ste 690 Phoenix, AZ 85012 602-640-5025 Fax: 602-640-5009 Email: lucila.rosas@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Anna Segobia Masters Winston & Strawn LLP 333 S Grand Ave Ste 3800 Los Angeles, CA 90071 213-615-1711 Fax: 213-615-1750 Email: amasters@winston.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julia Lapis Blakeslee Winston & Strawn LLP 333 S Grand Ave 38th Floor
3/18/2008 3:41 PM

CM/ECF - azd
Defendant Rubie's Costume Company, Inc. a New York Corporation
3 of 20

https://ecf.azd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?453268222127728-L_56...
Los Angeles, CA 90071 213-615-1803 Email: jblakeslee@winston.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Polina Friedland Bernstein Winston & Strawn LLP 333 S Grand Ave Ste 3800 Los Angeles, CA 90071 213-615-1801 Fax: 213-615-1750 Email: pbernstein@winston.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen L Sheinfeld Winston & Strawn LLP 200 Park Ave New York, NY 10166 212-294-2650 Fax: 212-294-4700 Email: ssheinfeld@winston.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Anna Segobia Masters (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julia Lapis Blakeslee (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Polina Friedland Bernstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen L Sheinfeld (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
3/18/2008 3:41 PM

CM/ECF - azd

https://ecf.azd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?453268222127728-L_56...

Date Filed 09/30/2005 10/04/2005 11/01/2005 11/07/2005 11/07/2005
11/07/2005 11/07/2005
11/08/2005 11/23/2005 12/01/2005 03/16/2006 03/16/2006

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Lopez, P) (Entered: 09/30/2005)
2 Summons Issued as to Collegeville/Imagineering, Rubie's Costume Company, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Rubies Costume Company)(ESH, ) (Entered: 10/04/2005)
3 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Collegeville/Imagineering served on 10/19/2005, answer due 11/8/2005; Rubie's Costume Company, Inc. served on 10/19/2005, answer due 11/8/2005. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Service to Rubie's Costume Co.)(Lopez, P) (Entered: 11/01/2005)
4 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice by Polina Friedland Bernstein on behalf of Collegeville/Imagineering, and Rubie's Costume Company, Inc.. (BAS, ) (Entered: 11/07/2005)
5 ORDER pursuant to General Order 05-25 granting 4 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice.Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. (BAS, )(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 11/07/2005)
6 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice by Anna Segobia Masters on behalf of Collegeville/Imagineering, and Rubie's Costume Company, Inc.. (BAS, ) (Entered: 11/07/2005)
7 ORDER pursuant to General Order 05-25 granting 6 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice.Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. (BAS, )(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 11/07/2005)
8 STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO ANSWER COMPLAINT by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Meyer, Valerie) (Entered: 11/08/2005)
9 ANSWER to Complaint by Collegeville/Imagineering, Rubie's Costume Company, Inc..(Masters, Anna) (Entered: 11/23/2005)
10 ORDER re 8 STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO ANSWER COMPLAINT by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Meyer, Valerie) filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 12/1/05. (DGC,nvj) (Entered: 12/01/2005)
11 ORDER re Rule 16 Scheduling Conference set for 4/26/2006 04:00 PM in Courtroom 603, 401 West Washington Street, Phoenix, AZ 85003 before Judge David G Campbell. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 3/16/06. (DGC,nvj) (Entered: 03/16/2006)
12 NOTICE of Attorney Substitution by Sally Clifford Shanley (Shanley, Sally) (Entered: 03/16/2006)

4 of 20

3/18/2008 3:41 PM

CM/ECF - azd

https://ecf.azd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?453268222127728-L_56...

04/17/2006 04/25/2006 04/25/2006 04/26/2006
04/28/2006 05/03/2006 05/03/2006 05/04/2006 05/11/2006 05/26/2006 06/01/2006
06/14/2006 06/15/2006 06/20/2006 06/22/2006

13 REPORT re: Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Meyer, Valerie) (Entered: 04/17/2006)
14 Notice re Service of Initial Rule 26 (a)(1) Disclosure Statement by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Meyer, Valerie) (Entered: 04/25/2006)
15 Notice re Notice of Service by Collegeville/Imagineering Defendants Collegeville/Imagineering Ent. and Rubie's Costume Co., Inc. Notice of Service of Intiial Disclosures (Bernstein, Polina) (Entered: 04/25/2006)
17 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge David G Campbell. Appearances: P. David Lopez and Valerie Meyer for pla; Anna Masters for dfts. Scheduling Conference held on 4/26/2006. Order to follow. This is a text only entry. There is no pdf document attached. (Court Reporter Patricia Lyons.) (LMR, ) (Entered: 05/02/2006)
16 Notice re Service of Rule 30(b)(6) Depositions and Rule 30(b)(5) Request for Documents by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Lopez, P) (Entered: 04/28/2006)
18 Notice re Service of Discovery Requests to Defendant by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Lopez, P) (Entered: 05/03/2006)
19 Notice re Defendants Collegeville/Imagineering Ent. and Rubie's Costume Co., Inc.'s Notice of Service of Deposition, Request for Production of Documents and Interrogatories by Collegeville/Imagineering (Bernstein, Polina) (Entered: 05/03/2006)
20 SCHEDULING ORDER: Discovery due by 1/26/2007. Dispositive motions due by 3/2/2007. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 05/03/06. (KCS) (Entered: 05/04/2006)
21 Notice re First Supplemental Disclosure by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Meyer, Valerie) (Entered: 05/11/2006)
22 First MOTION to Amend/Correct Complaint by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits A - C)(Meyer, Valerie) (Entered: 05/26/2006)
23 LODGED Proposed re: 22 First MOTION to Amend/Correct Complaint; Amended Complaint submitted on 05/26/06. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion to Amend is granted. filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Meyer, Valerie) (Entered: 06/01/2006)
24 Notice re Defendants' Notice of Service of Objections to Depositions and Objections to Requests for Production of Documents by Collegeville/Imagineering (Bernstein, Polina) (Entered: 06/14/2006)
25 RESPONSE in Opposition re 22 First MOTION to Amend/Correct Complaint filed by Collegeville/Imagineering. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits A - F)(Bernstein, Polina) (Entered: 06/15/2006)
26 Notice re Service of Discovery Responses to Defendant by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Meyer, Valerie) (Entered: 06/20/2006)
27 First MOTION for Extension of Time for Plaintiff's Reply to Motion to Amend Complaint by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Meyer, Valerie) (Entered: 06/22/2006)

5 of 20

3/18/2008 3:41 PM

CM/ECF - azd

https://ecf.azd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?453268222127728-L_56...

06/23/2006 06/26/2006
06/27/2006
06/29/2006 07/07/2006 07/10/2006
07/13/2006 07/13/2006 07/13/2006 07/28/2006 07/28/2006 08/07/2006

28 ORDERre extension of time to 6/29/06 to file reply to motion to amend 22 . Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 6/23/06. (NVJ) (Entered: 06/23/2006)
29 Notice re Defendants' Notice of Service of (1) Defendants' Responses to Plaintiff's First Request for Admissions; (2) Defendants' Responses to Plaintiff's First Set of Non-uniform Interrogatories; and (3) Defendants' Responses to Plaintiff's First Request for Production of Documents by Collegeville/Imagineering (Bernstein, Polina) (Entered: 06/26/2006)
30 Notice re Defendants' Notice of Service of (1) Subpoena in a Civil Case Addressed to Linda Honer; and (2) Defendant Collegeville/Imagineering Ent.'s Notice of Deposition of Oral and Videotaped Deposition of Linda Honer and Request for Production of Documents and Tangible Things at the Deposition [Fed. R. Civ. P. 30,45] by Collegeville/Imagineering (Bernstein, Polina) (Entered: 06/27/2006)
31 REPLY to Response to Motion re 22 First MOTION to Amend/Correct Complaint filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit D through P)(Meyer, Valerie) (Entered: 06/29/2006)
32 STIPULATION for Protective Order Re: Medical Documents of Linda Honer by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Meyer, Valerie) (Entered: 07/07/2006)
33 CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER re 32 STIPULATION for Protective Order Re: Medical Documents of Linda Honer by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # Text of Proposed Order)(Meyer, Valerie) filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 7-10-06. (NVJ) (Entered: 07/10/2006)
34 ORDER granting the Pla's 22 Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint. The Clerk is directed to file the Amended Complaint (Doc.#23). Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 7/12/06. (KMG, ) (Entered: 07/13/2006)
35 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT against Collegeville/Imagineering, Rubie's Costume Company, Inc.; Jury Demand, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.(KMG, ) (Entered: 07/13/2006)
36 Notice re Service of First Supplemental Responses to Discovery by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Meyer, Valerie) (Entered: 07/13/2006)
37 STIPULATION for Extension of Time for Respondents to Respond to First Amended Complaint by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Collegeville/Imagineering. (Bernstein, Polina) (Entered: 07/28/2006)
38 Additional Attachments to Main Document re 37 Stipulation Order re: Stipulation for Extension of Time for Defendants to Respond to First Amended Complaint (First Request) by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Defendant Collegeville/Imagineering. (Bernstein, Polina) (Entered: 07/28/2006)
39 ANSWER to Amended Complaint First Amended Complaint by Collegeville/Imagineering, Rubie's Costume Company, Inc..(Masters, Anna) (Entered: 08/07/2006)

6 of 20

3/18/2008 3:41 PM

CM/ECF - azd

https://ecf.azd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?453268222127728-L_56...

08/07/2006
08/11/2006 08/24/2006 08/25/2006
08/31/2006 09/06/2006 09/15/2006 09/15/2006 09/25/2006 09/25/2006 09/25/2006 09/27/2006 10/03/2006

40 ORDER re 37 STIPULATION for Extension of Time for Respondents to Respond to First Amended Complaint by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Collegeville/Imagineering. (Bernstein, Polina) filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Collegeville/Imagineering, Collegeville/Imagineering answer due 8/14/2006; Rubie's Costume Company, Inc. answer due 8/14/2006. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 8/7/06. (NVJ) (Entered: 08/07/2006)
41 Notice re Service of Second Supplemental Discovery by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Meyer, Valerie) (Entered: 08/11/2006)
42 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice by Julia Lapis Blakeslee on behalf of defendants Collegeville/Imagineering and Rubie's Costume Company, Inc.. (BAS, ) (Entered: 08/25/2006)
43 ORDER pursuant to General Order 05-25 granting 42 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice.Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. (BAS, )(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 08/25/2006)
44 STATEMENT of Summary of Defendant's Position Re Discovery Dispute by Defendants Collegeville/Imagineering, Rubie's Costume Company, Inc.. (Masters, Anna) (Entered: 08/31/2006)
45 ORDER re discovery conference call. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 9/6/06. (NVJ) (Entered: 09/06/2006)
46 REPORT JOINT REPORT ON SETTLEMENT TALKS by Defendants Collegeville/Imagineering, Rubie's Costume Company, Inc.. (Masters, Anna) (Entered: 09/15/2006)
47 STIPULATION Stipulation Regarding Confidentiality of Defendants' Records by Collegeville/Imagineering, Rubie's Costume Company, Inc.. (Masters, Anna) (Entered: 09/15/2006)
48 NOTICE of Deposition of Collegeville Imagineering Amended 30(b)(6), filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Lopez, P) (Entered: 09/25/2006)
49 NOTICE of Deposition of Rubie's Costume Co., Inc. Amended 30(b)(6), filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Lopez, P) (Entered: 09/25/2006)
50 ORDER re 47 STIPULATION Stipulation Regarding Confidentiality of Defendants' Records by Collegeville/Imagineering, Rubie's Costume Company, Inc. (Masters, Anna) filed by Collegeville/Imagineering, Rubie's Costume Company, Inc. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 9/25/06. (NVJ) (Entered: 09/25/2006)
51 Notice re Service of Third Supplemental Response to First Request for Documents by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Lopez, P) (Entered: 09/27/2006)
52 Notice re Service of Fourth Supplemental Response by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Meyer, Valerie) (Entered: 10/03/2006)

7 of 20

3/18/2008 3:41 PM

CM/ECF - azd

https://ecf.azd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?453268222127728-L_56...

10/03/2006 10/03/2006 10/09/2006 10/18/2006 10/18/2006 11/02/2006 11/09/2006 11/15/2006 11/17/2006 11/17/2006
11/17/2006 11/17/2006 11/17/2006 11/17/2006 11/17/2006

53 NOTICE of Deposition of Collegeville/Imagineering (Second Amended 30b6), filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Lopez, P) (Entered: 10/03/2006)
54 NOTICE of Deposition of Rubie's Costume Company, Inc. (Second Amended 30b6), filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Lopez, P) (Entered: 10/03/2006)
55 Notice re of Service of Supplemental Responses by Collegeville/Imagineering, Rubie's Costume Company, Inc. (Blakeslee, Julia) (Entered: 10/09/2006)
56 NOTICE of Deposition of Collegeville/Imagineering, Inc. (Third Amended 30b6), filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Lopez, P) (Entered: 10/18/2006)
57 NOTICE of Deposition of Foree Paul Cooley, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Lopez, P) (Entered: 10/18/2006)
58 Notice re Defendants Notice of Service of Second Set of Supplemental Responses to Plaintiff's First Set of Non-Uniform Interrogatories by Collegeville/Imagineering, Rubie's Costume Company, Inc. (Blakeslee, Julia) (Entered: 11/02/2006)
59 Notice re of Service of Deposition, Request for Production of Documents and Interrogatories by Collegeville/Imagineering, Rubie's Costume Company, Inc. (Blakeslee, Julia) (Entered: 11/09/2006)
60 Notice re Notice of Service of Deposition and Request For Production of Documents and Tangible Things at the Deposition by Collegeville/Imagineering, Rubie's Costume Company, Inc. (Blakeslee, Julia) (Entered: 11/15/2006)
61 NOTICE of Deposition of Frances Cooley, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Meyer, Valerie) (Entered: 11/17/2006)
62 AMENDED NOTICE of Deposition of Foree Paul Cooley re: 57 , filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Meyer, Valerie) Modified on 11/20/2006 (TLJ). INCORRECT DOCUMENT TYPE SELECTED. THIS ENTRY HAS BEEN MODIFIED FROM NOTICE OF DEPOSITION TO AMENDED NOTICE OF DEPOSITION. DOCKET TEXT MODIFIED TO REFLECT DOCUMENT LINKAGE. (Entered: 11/17/2006)
63 NOTICE of Deposition of Paul Taylor, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Meyer, Valerie) (Entered: 11/17/2006)
64 NOTICE of Deposition of Ricky L. Payne, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Meyer, Valerie) (Entered: 11/17/2006)
65 NOTICE of Deposition of Cynthia A. Payne, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Meyer, Valerie) (Entered: 11/17/2006)
66 NOTICE of Deposition of Jessica H. Moore aka Jessica H. Perez, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Meyer, Valerie) (Entered: 11/17/2006)
67 NOTICE of Deposition of Rosa E. Romero aka Rosie Romero, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Meyer, Valerie) (Entered: 11/17/2006)

8 of 20

3/18/2008 3:41 PM

CM/ECF - azd

https://ecf.azd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?453268222127728-L_56...

11/17/2006 11/17/2006 11/17/2006 11/17/2006 11/17/2006 11/17/2006 11/17/2006
11/17/2006
11/20/2006 11/20/2006 11/22/2006 11/30/2006
12/01/2006

68 NOTICE of Deposition of Gary L. Smith, SR., filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Meyer, Valerie) (Entered: 11/17/2006)
69 NOTICE of Deposition of Mark Nitz, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Meyer, Valerie) (Entered: 11/17/2006)
70 NOTICE of Deposition of Marc Beige, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Meyer, Valerie) (Entered: 11/17/2006)
71 NOTICE of Deposition of Ellen Gelb, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Meyer, Valerie) (Entered: 11/17/2006)
72 NOTICE of Deposition of John Clausen, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Meyer, Valerie) (Entered: 11/17/2006)
73 NOTICE of Deposition of Francine Robinson, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Meyer, Valerie) (Entered: 11/17/2006)
74 AMENDED NOTICE of Deposition of Rubie's Costume Company, Inc. re: 54 , filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Meyer, Valerie) Modified on 11/20/2006 (TLJ). INCORRECT DOCUMENT TYPE SELECTED. THIS ENTRY HAS BEEN MODIFIED FROM NOTICE TO AMENDED NOTICE. DOCKET TEXT MODIFIED TO REFLECT DOCUMENT LINKAGE. (Entered: 11/17/2006)
75 AMENDED NOTICE of Deposition of Collegeville/Imagineering, Inc. RE: 56 filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Meyer, Valerie) Modified on 11/20/2006 (TLJ). INCORRECT EVENT SELECTED. THIS ENTRY HAS BEEN MODIFIED FROM NOTICE TO AMENDED NOTICE. DOCKET TEXT MODIFIED TO REFLECT DOCUMENT LINKAGE. (Entered: 11/17/2006)
76 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCY re 62 Notice of Deposition filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,. Description of deficiency: Incorrect document type selected.. (TLJ) (Entered: 11/20/2006)
77 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCY re 74 Notice of Deposition filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,, 75 Notice of Deposition filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,. Description of deficiency: Incorrect document type selected.. (TLJ) (Entered: 11/20/2006)
78 Notice re Defendants' Notice of Service of Amended 2nd Demand For Inspection and Copying by Collegeville/Imagineering, Rubie's Costume Company, Inc. (Masters, Anna) (Entered: 11/22/2006)
80 Minute Entry. Proceedings held before Judge David G Campbell. Appearances: Sally Shanley and Valerie Meyer for pla; Ana Masters and Julia Blakeslee for dft. Telephonic discovery conferene held on 11/30/2006. Court orders as stated on the record. Order to issue. (Court Reporter Patricia Lyons.) This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (LMR, ) (Entered: 12/05/2006)
79 ORDER re discovery conference call. Discovery due by 2/26/2007. Dispositive motions due by 3/30/2007. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 12/1/06. (NVJ) (Entered: 12/01/2006)

9 of 20

3/18/2008 3:41 PM

CM/ECF - azd

https://ecf.azd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?453268222127728-L_56...

12/06/2006 12/08/2006 12/08/2006 12/22/2006 12/27/2006 12/29/2006
01/03/2007 01/03/2007
01/03/2007
01/08/2007 01/08/2007

81 Notice re Service of Second Discovery Requests by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Meyer, Valerie) (Entered: 12/06/2006)
82 MEMORANDUM re: Memorandum of Points and Authorities Re Plaintiff's Attempt to Bar Settlements with Individual Class Members by Defendants Collegeville/Imagineering, Rubie's Costume Company, Inc.. (Blakeslee, Julia) (Entered: 12/08/2006)
83 BRIEF re 79 Order, Set Deadlines, Terminate Deadlines Opposition To Defendants Request For Ex Parte Contact With Class Members by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Meyer, Valerie) (Entered: 12/08/2006)
84 MOTION for Extension of Time To Respond to Defendant's First Set of Requests for Admission and Second Set of Interrogatories by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Granting Extension of Time# 2 Exhibit A-C)(Meyer, Valerie) (Entered: 12/22/2006)
85 Notice re Service of Responses to Defendant's First Request for Admissions, Second Set of Interrogatories and Amended Second Demand for Documents by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Meyer, Valerie) (Entered: 12/27/2006)
86 REQUEST by Defendants Collegeville/Imagineering, Rubie's Costume Company, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit EXHIBIT A# 2 Text of Proposed Order ORDER)(Blakeslee, Julia) Modified on 1/3/2007 INCORRECT EVENT TYPE SELECTED AND DOCUMENT IS UNSIGNED. ATTORNEY NOTICED TO REFILE (KMG). (Entered: 12/29/2006)
87 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCY re 86 Request filed by Rubie's Costume Company, Inc., Collegeville/Imagineering. Description of deficiency: Incorrect document type selected AND Document does not contain a signature. Re-file document. (KMG) (Entered: 01/03/2007)
88 MOTION to Strike Plaintiff's Motion for An Extension of Time to Respond to Interrogatories and Requests for Admissions; and (2) Notice of Intent to Oppose the Motion by Collegeville/Imagineering, Rubie's Costume Company, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A# 2 Text of Proposed Order Order)(Blakeslee, Julia) (Entered: 01/03/2007)
89 RESPONSE to Motion re 88 MOTION to Strike Plaintiff's Motion for An Extension of Time to Respond to Interrogatories and Requests for Admissions; and (2) Notice of Intent to Oppose the Motion MOTION to Strike Plaintiff's Motion for An Extension of Time to Respond to Interrogatories and Requests for Admissions; and (2) Notice of Intent to Oppose the Motion filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Meyer, Valerie) (Entered: 01/03/2007)
90 STIPULATION Re: Confidentiality of Class Members' Medical Documents by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Collegeville/Imagineering, Rubie's Costume Company, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Meyer, Valerie) (Entered: 01/08/2007)
91 AMENDED DOCUMENT by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Amendment to 57 Notice of Deposition of Foree Paul Cooley. (Meyer, Valerie) (Entered: 01/08/2007)

10 of 20

3/18/2008 3:41 PM

CM/ECF - azd

https://ecf.azd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?453268222127728-L_56...

01/08/2007 01/08/2007 01/08/2007 01/08/2007 01/08/2007 01/08/2007 01/08/2007 01/08/2007 01/09/2007 01/09/2007 01/10/2007
01/10/2007 01/10/2007 01/16/2007

92 AMENDED DOCUMENT by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Amendment to 63 Notice of Deposition of Paul Taylor. (Meyer, Valerie) (Entered: 01/08/2007)
93 AMENDED DOCUMENT by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Amendment to 65 Notice of Deposition of Cynthia Payne. (Meyer, Valerie) (Entered: 01/08/2007)
94 AMENDED DOCUMENT by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Amendment to 61 Notice of Deposition of Frances Cooley. (Meyer, Valerie) (Entered: 01/08/2007)
95 AMENDED DOCUMENT by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Amendment to 67 Notice of Deposition of Rosa Romero. (Meyer, Valerie) (Entered: 01/08/2007)
96 AMENDED DOCUMENT by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Amendment to 66 Notice of Deposition of Jessica H. Moore aka Jessica H. Perez. (Meyer, Valerie) (Entered: 01/08/2007)
97 AMENDED DOCUMENT by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Amendment to 48 Notice of Deposition of Collegeville Imagineering 30(b)(6). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Meyer, Valerie) (Entered: 01/08/2007)
98 AMENDED DOCUMENT by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Amendment to 69 Notice of Deposition of Mark Nitz. (Meyer, Valerie) (Entered: 01/08/2007)
99 AMENDED DOCUMENT by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Amendment to 64 Notice of Deposition of Ricky L. Payne. (Meyer, Valerie) (Entered: 01/08/2007)
100 NOTICE of Deposition of Cathian Jones, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Meyer, Valerie) (Entered: 01/09/2007)
101 AMENDED DOCUMENT by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Amendment to 68 Notice of Deposition of Gary L. Smith, Sr.. (Meyer, Valerie) (Entered: 01/09/2007)
102 ORDER re 90 STIPULATION Re: Confidentiality of Class Members' Medical Documents by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Collegeville/Imagineering, Rubie's Costume Company, Inc.. (Attachments: # Text of Proposed Order)(Meyer, Valerie) filed by Rubie's Costume Company, Inc., Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Collegeville/Imagineering. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 1/10/07. (NVJ) (Entered: 01/10/2007)
103 ORDER finding as moot 84 Motion for Extension of Time; finding as moot 88 Motion to Strike. Discovery due by 3/30/2007, Dispositive motions due by 4/20/2007. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 1/10/07.(NVJ) (Entered: 01/10/2007)
104 Notice re of Service of Deposition Notices by Collegeville/Imagineering, Rubie's Costume Company, Inc. (Blakeslee, Julia) (Entered: 01/10/2007)
105 NOTICE of Appearance by Lucila G Rosas on behalf of all plaintiffs (Rosas, Lucila) (Entered: 01/16/2007)

11 of 20

3/18/2008 3:41 PM

CM/ECF - azd

https://ecf.azd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?453268222127728-L_56...

01/17/2007
01/22/2007 01/22/2007 01/31/2007 02/01/2007 02/07/2007 02/08/2007 02/12/2007 02/12/2007 02/13/2007 02/20/2007 02/20/2007 02/20/2007 02/20/2007

106 ORDER re 82 MEMORANDUM re: Memorandum of Points and Authorities Re Plaintiff's Attempt to Bar Settlements with Individual Class Members by Defendants Collegeville/Imagineering, Rubie's Costume Company, Inc.. (Blakeslee, Julia) filed by Rubie's Costume Company, Inc., Collegeville/Imagineering, 83 BRIEF re 79 Order, Set Deadlines, Terminate Deadlines Opposition To Defendants Request For Ex Parte Contact With Class Members by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Meyer, Valerie) filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 1/17/07. (NVJ) (Entered: 01/17/2007)
107 Notice re Service of Responses to Request for Production, Request for Admissions and Non-Uniform Interrogatories by Collegeville/Imagineering, Rubie's Costume Company, Inc. (Blakeslee, Julia) (Entered: 01/22/2007)
108 Notice re Service of Discovery by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Meyer, Valerie) (Entered: 01/22/2007)
109 MOTION for Reconsideration re Partial Reconsideration of Order Permitting Ex Parte Contact by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Meyer, Valerie) (Entered: 01/31/2007)
110 Notice re Service of Fourth Supplemental Disclosure and First Supplemental Discovery Response by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Meyer, Valerie) (Entered: 02/01/2007)
111 Notice re Service of Supplemental Discovery Responses by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Meyer, Valerie) (Entered: 02/07/2007)
112 AMENDED DOCUMENT by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Amendment to 64 Notice of Deposition of Ricky Payne. (Meyer, Valerie) (Entered: 02/08/2007)
113 Notice re Service of Discovery Responses and Fifth Supplemental Disclosure by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Meyer, Valerie) (Entered: 02/12/2007)
114 Notice re Service of Deposition Notices by Collegeville/Imagineering, Rubie's Costume Company, Inc. (Blakeslee, Julia) (Entered: 02/12/2007)
115 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 109 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 2/13/2007.(NVJ) (Entered: 02/13/2007)
116 AMENDED DOCUMENT by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Amendment to 16 Other Notice Fourth Amended Notice of Deposition of Rubie's Costume Company. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Lopez, P) (Entered: 02/20/2007)
117 AMENDED DOCUMENT by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Amendment to 70 Notice of Deposition of Marc Beige. (Lopez, P) (Entered: 02/20/2007)
118 AMENDED DOCUMENT by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Amendment to 71 Notice of Deposition of Ellen Gelb. (Lopez, P) (Entered: 02/20/2007)
119 AMENDED DOCUMENT by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Amendment to 72 Notice of Deposition John Clausen. (Lopez, P) (Entered: 02/20/2007)

12 of 20

3/18/2008 3:41 PM

CM/ECF - azd

https://ecf.azd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?453268222127728-L_56...

02/20/2007 02/21/2007 02/21/2007 02/27/2007 02/27/2007 03/05/2007 03/06/2007 03/06/2007
03/12/2007 03/13/2007 03/15/2007 03/20/2007 03/20/2007
03/20/2007

120 AMENDED DOCUMENT by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Amendment to 73 Notice of Deposition of Francine Robinson. (Lopez, P) (Entered: 02/20/2007)
121 Notice re Service of Third Discovery Requests to Defendant by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Meyer, Valerie) (Entered: 02/21/2007)
122 Notice re of Service by Collegeville/Imagineering, Rubie's Costume Company, Inc. (Blakeslee, Julia) (Entered: 02/21/2007)
123 AMENDED DOCUMENT by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Amendment to 16 Other Notice of 30(b)(6) Deposition of Collegeville/Imagineering. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Lopez, P) (Entered: 02/27/2007)
124 AMENDED DOCUMENT by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Amendment to 69 Notice of Deposition of Mark Nitz. (Lopez, P) (Entered: 02/27/2007)
125 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Stephen L Sheinfeld on behalf of defendants Collegeville/Imagineering and Rubie's Costume Company, Inc.. (BAS, ) (Entered: 03/06/2007)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 100, receipt number PHX055124 as to Stephen L Sheinfeld. (BAS, ) (Entered: 03/06/2007)
126 ORDER pursuant to General Order 05-25 granting 125 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice.Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. (BAS, )(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 03/06/2007)
127 ORDER re Discovery Conference call. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 3/12/07. (NVJ) (Entered: 03/12/2007)
128 AMENDED DOCUMENT by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Amendment to 64 Notice of Deposition of Ricky L. Payne. (Lopez, P) (Entered: 03/13/2007)
129 Notice re Service of Fourth Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff and Notices of Depositions by Collegeville/Imagineering, Rubie's Costume Company, Inc. (Masters, Anna) (Entered: 03/15/2007)
130 Notice re Service of Notice of Deposition of Linda Avalos and Request for Production of Documents and Tangible Things at the Deposition by Collegeville/Imagineering, Rubie's Costume Company, Inc. (Masters, Anna) (Entered: 03/20/2007)
131 STIPULATION to Allow Depositions of Alfred Aros and Linda Avalos to Commence within five working days of the Discovery Cut-Off (First Request) by Collegeville/Imagineering, Rubie's Costume Company, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order Re: Stipulation to Allow Depositions)(Masters, Anna) (Entered: 03/20/2007)
132 AMENDED DOCUMENT by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Amendment to 69 Notice of Deposition of Mark Nitz. (Meyer, Valerie) (Entered:

13 of 20

3/18/2008 3:41 PM

CM/ECF - azd

https://ecf.azd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?453268222127728-L_56...

03/20/2007 03/20/2007 03/23/2007
03/23/2007 03/27/2007
03/27/2007 03/27/2007
04/02/2007 04/02/2007 04/04/2007 04/04/2007 04/05/2007

03/20/2007)
133 Notice re Service of Sixth Supplemental Disclosure by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Meyer, Valerie) (Entered: 03/20/2007)
134 Notice re Service of Responses to Third Discovery Requests by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Meyer, Valerie) (Entered: 03/20/2007)
135 ORDER re 131 STIPULATION to Allow Depositions of Alfred Aros and Linda Avalos to Commence within five working days of the Discovery Cut-Off (First Request) by Collegeville/Imagineering, Rubie's Costume Company, Inc.. (Attachments: # Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order Re: Stipulation to Allow Depositions)(Masters, Anna) filed by Rubie's Costume Company, Inc., Collegeville/Imagineering. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 3/23/07. (NVJ) (Entered: 03/23/2007)
136 AMENDED DOCUMENT by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Amendment to 73 Notice of Deposition of Francine Robinson. (Meyer, Valerie) (Entered: 03/23/2007)
137 ORDER. Each party shall file a memorandum, no longer than 2 pages in length, addressing whether an interrogatory requiring disclosure of the identity of witnesses interviewed by opposing counsel may properly be objected to on work product grounds. The memoranda shall be filed simultaneously on April 4, 2007. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 3-27-07. (DGC)This is a text-only order; there is no corresponding.pdf document. (Entered: 03/27/2007)
138 ORDER re discovery conference call. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 3/27/2007. (NVJ) (Entered: 03/27/2007)
141 Minute Entry. Proceedings held before Judge David G Campbell. Appearances: David Lopez and Lucy Rosas for pla; Julia Blakeslee for dfts. Telephone Conference held on 3/27/2007. Discussion held. Orders entered as stated on the record. Separate order issued. (Court Reporter Patricia Lyons.) This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (LMR, ) (Entered: 04/03/2007)
139 Notice re 4th Sup Resp to Defendant's Collegeville/Imagineeringent's 2nd Set of Interog by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Lopez, P) (Entered: 04/02/2007)
140 Notice re 1st Sup Resp to Defendant's Collegeville/Imagineeringent's 3rd Set of Interogs by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Lopez, P) (Entered: 04/02/2007)
142 MEMORANDUM re: Points and Authorities re: Work Product re 137 Order, by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Lopez, P) (Entered: 04/04/2007)
143 MEMORANDUM re: Points and Authorities re Plaintiff's Refusal to Disclose the Identities of Witnesses Interviewed by Defendants Collegeville/Imagineering, Rubie's Costume Company, Inc.. (Blakeslee, Julia) (Entered: 04/04/2007)
144 Notice re of Service by Collegeville/Imagineering, Rubie's Costume Company, Inc. (Blakeslee, Julia) (Entered: 04/05/2007)

14 of 20

3/18/2008 3:41 PM

CM/ECF - azd

https://ecf.azd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?453268222127728-L_56...

04/06/2007 04/10/2007 04/18/2007 04/20/2007 04/20/2007
04/20/2007 04/20/2007 04/20/2007 04/20/2007 04/23/2007
04/23/2007
04/24/2007

145 Notice re Service of Seventh Supplemental Disclosure by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Meyer, Valerie) (Entered: 04/06/2007)
146 ORDER re discovery dispute. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 4/10/07. (NVJ) (Entered: 04/10/2007)
147 MOTION for Summary Judgment in Excess of Page Limitation by Collegeville/Imagineering, Rubie's Costume Company, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Order re Granting Motion re Excess Page Limitation)(Bernstein, Polina) (Entered: 04/18/2007)
148 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Lopez, P) (Entered: 04/20/2007)
149 STATEMENT of of Facts in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment re 148 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 List of Exhibits# 2 Exhibits 1 - 25# 3 Exhibits 26 47)(Lopez, P) Modified on 5/25/2007 to SEAL ATTACHMENT #3 PURSUANT TO ORDER FILED 5/25/07 (MAP). (Entered: 04/20/2007)
150 MEMORANDUM re: In Support of Defendnants' Motion for Summary Judgment or, alternatively, partial sj by Defendants Collegeville/Imagineering, Rubie's Costume Company, Inc.. (Masters, Anna) (Entered: 04/20/2007)
151 DECLARATION of Declarations of Mark Nitz and Julia Lapis by Defendants Collegeville/Imagineering, Rubie's Costume Company, Inc.. (Masters, Anna) (Entered: 04/20/2007)
152 SUPPLEMENT of Appendix of Unpublished Cases by Defendants Collegeville/Imagineering, Rubie's Costume Company, Inc.. (Masters, Anna) (Entered: 04/20/2007)
153 STATEMENT of Rule 56.1 Statement of Material Facts in support of summary judgment/partial summary judgment motion by Defendants Collegeville/Imagineering, Rubie's Costume Company, Inc.. (Masters, Anna) (Entered: 04/20/2007)
154 STATEMENT of Defendants' Statement/Appendix of Evidence in support of Motion for Summary Judgment or, Alternatively, partial Summary Judgment by Defendants Collegeville/Imagineering, Rubie's Costume Company, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1-7# 2 Exhibit Continuation of Exhibit 7# 3 Exhibit 8-9# 4 # 5 Exhibit 13-16# 6 Exhibit Continuation to Exhibit 16; 17-27# 7 Exhibit Continuation to Exh-27; 28-37# 8 Exhibit Continuation to Exh-37, Part 1 of 3# 9 Exhibit Continuation of Exh-37, Part 2 of 3# 10 Exhibit Continuation of Exh-37, Part 3 of 3; Exh-38)(Masters, Anna) (Entered: 04/23/2007)
155 Additional Attachments to Main Document re 154 Statement,, by Defendants Collegeville/Imagineering, Rubie's Costume Company, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 39-45# 2 Exhibit 46-52# 3 Exhibit Continuation to Exh-52; 53# 4 Exhibit 54-58# 5 Exhibit Continuation of Exh-58; Exhibits 59-60# 6 Exhibit 61-63# 7 Exhibit 64-67)(Masters, Anna) (Entered: 04/23/2007)
156 ORDER granting 147 Motion to exceed pages re Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 4/24/07.(NVJ) (Entered: 04/24/2007)

15 of 20

3/18/2008 3:41 PM

CM/ECF - azd

https://ecf.azd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?453268222127728-L_56...

04/27/2007 05/03/2007 05/08/2007
05/16/2007
05/16/2007 05/16/2007 05/21/2007 05/22/2007
05/24/2007 05/25/2007 06/01/2007 06/01/2007

157 MOTION to Strike re Defendants' Appendix of Evidence at Docs 154 & 155 or, Alternatively, for an Extension of Time to Respond to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Meyer, Valerie) (Entered: 04/27/2007)
158 Notice re From Non-Party to Court Regarding Potential Scheduling Conflict by Alamo Rent-A-Car LLC, ANC Rental Corporation (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Francis, Carrie) (Entered: 05/03/2007)
159 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 157 Motion to Strike. IT IS ORDERED granting Plaintiff's request for an additional three days in which to respond to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment; denying Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Defendants' Appendix of Evidence to their Motion for Summary Judgment. This is a TEXT only entry. No PDF is associated with it. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 5/8/07.(NVJ) (Entered: 05/08/2007)
160 ERRATA by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 149 Statement, (Attachments: # 1 Errata Corrected Exs 26-47 to Docket 149)(Meyer, Valerie) Modified on 5/21/2007 INCORRECT EVENT TYPE SELECTED. THIS ENTRY HAS BEEN MODIFIED FROM (Notice re Errata) TO (ERRATA) (KMG). (Entered: 05/16/2007)
161 ERRATA re 151 Declaration of Mark Nitz and Julia Lapis Blakeslee by Defendants Collegeville/Imagineering, Rubie's Costume Company, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit # 2 Exhibit)(Blakeslee, Julia) (Entered: 05/16/2007)
162 SEALED MOTION to Seal Document, re Attachment 3 to Docket #149 by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (REW, ) (Entered: 05/18/2007)
163 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCY re 160 Other Notice filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Description of deficiency: Incorrect document type selected. Do Not Refile. (KMG) (Entered: 05/21/2007)
164 Minute Entry. Proceedings held before Judge David G Campbell. Appearances: Valerie Meyer for pla; Julie Blakeslee for dfts. Telephone Conference held on 5/22/2007. Orders entered as stated on the record. Order to follow. (Court Reporter Patricia Lyons.) This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (LMR, ) (Entered: 05/23/2007)
165 ORDER re discovery conference call. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 5/24/07. (NVJ) (Entered: 05/24/2007)
166 SEALED ORDER granting 162 Motion. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 5/22/07. (cc: Pla's Cnsl)(MAP) (Entered: 05/25/2007)
167 RESPONSE in Opposition re 148 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Collegeville/Imagineering, Rubie's Costume Company, Inc.. (Blakeslee, Julia) (Entered: 06/01/2007)
168 STATEMENT of Controverting Facts in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment re 167 Response in Opposition to Motion for Partial Summary Judgment by Defendants Collegeville/Imagineering, Rubie's Costume Company, Inc.. (Blakeslee, Julia) (Entered: 06/01/2007)

16 of 20

3/18/2008 3:41 PM

CM/ECF - azd

https://ecf.azd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?453268222127728-L_56...

06/01/2007 06/08/2007 06/08/2007
06/08/2007 06/12/2007 06/14/2007 06/14/2007 06/15/2007 06/28/2007 06/28/2007 06/28/2007 06/28/2007

169 Additional Attachments to Main Document re 168 Statement, by Defendants Collegeville/Imagineering, Rubie's Costume Company, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 to 8# 2 Exhibit 9 to 20# 3 Exhibit 21 to 24)(Blakeslee, Julia) (Entered: 06/01/2007)
170 RESPONSE in Opposition re 147 MOTION for Summary Judgment in Excess of Page Limitation and Dkt 150 filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Lopez, P) (Entered: 06/08/2007)
171 STATEMENT of Plaintiffs Statement of Facts in Opposition to Defendant's Motion re 170 Response in Opposition to Motion by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit List and Exhibits 1-13# 2 Exhibit 14-21# 3 Exhibit 22-25p3# 4 Exhibit 25 p4 - 25 p.5# 5 Exhibit 25 p6# 6 Exhibit 26-31# 7 Exhibit 32# 8 Exhibit 33-39# 9 Exhibit 40-49# 10 Exhibit 50-59# 11 Exhibit 60-69# 12 Exhibit 70-79# 13 Exhibit 80-90# 14 Exhibit 91 p1-2# 15 Exhibit 91 p3-16# 16 Exhibit 91 p 17# 17 Exhibit 91 p 18# 18 Exhibit 91 p 19# 19 Exhibit 91 p 20# 20 Exhibit 91 pp 21-33# 21 Exhibit 92# 22 Exhibit 93# 23 Errata 94-97# 24 Exhibit 98 pp1-5# 25 Exhibit 98 p6 - 99# 26 Exhibit 100)(Lopez, P) (Entered: 06/08/2007)
172 STATEMENT of Plaintiffs Statement Controverting Defendants' Statement of Facts re 170 Response in Opposition to Motion, 171 Statement,,, by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Lopez, P) (Entered: 06/08/2007)
173 Notice re Filing of Exhibit 46: Signed Declaration of Alfred Aros by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 170 Response in Opposition to Motion, 172 Statement, 171 Statement,,, (Attachments: # 1)(Rosas, Lucila) (Entered: 06/12/2007)
174 ERRATA re 149 Statement, by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Corrected Exhibits 28, 37, and 42)(Meyer, Valerie) (Entered: 06/14/2007)
175 ERRATA re 171 Statement,,, of Facts Supporting Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Corrected Exhibit 26)(Meyer, Valerie) (Entered: 06/14/2007)
176 REPLY in Support re 148 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Lopez, P) (Entered: 06/15/2007)
177 Reply re 170 Response in Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment by Defendants Collegeville/Imagineering, Rubie's Costume Company, Inc.. (Blakeslee, Julia) (Entered: 06/28/2007)
178 DECLARATION of Stephen L. Sheinfeld and Julia Lapis Blakeslee by Defendants Collegeville/Imagineering, Rubie's Costume Company, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 68-70)(Blakeslee, Julia) (Entered: 06/28/2007)
179 OBJECTION re 170 Response in Opposition to Motion by Defendants Collegeville/Imagineering, Rubie's Costume Company, Inc. filed by Collegeville/Imagineering, Rubie's Costume Company, Inc.. (Blakeslee, Julia) (Entered: 06/28/2007)
180 OBJECTION re 148 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Defendants Collegeville/Imagineering, Rubie's Costume Company, Inc. filed by Collegeville/Imagineering, Rubie's Costume Company, Inc.. (Blakeslee, Julia) (Entered:

17 of 20

3/18/2008 3:41 PM

CM/ECF - azd

https://ecf.azd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?453268222127728-L_56...

07/09/2007 07/13/2007 07/16/2007 07/16/2007
07/30/2007 08/07/2007 08/07/2007
08/07/2007 08/15/2007 08/29/2007

06/28/2007)
181 MOTION to Strike re Docs 177, 178 (pps. 1-2), 179, 180 by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Meyer, Valerie) (Entered: 07/09/2007)
182 RESPONSE in Opposition re 181 MOTION to Strike re Docs 177, 178 (pps. 1-2), 179, 180 filed by Collegeville/Imagineering, Rubie's Costume Company, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit List# 2 Exhibit A through D)(Blakeslee, Julia) (Entered: 07/13/2007)
183 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 148 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; denying 181 Motion to Strike denying 150 Memorandum. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 7/16/07.(NVJ) (Entered: 07/16/2007)
184 ORDER re Final Pretrial Conference: Motions in Limine due by 8/24/2007, responses due 8/31/2007, no replies permitted. Proposed Pretrial Order due by 8/24/2007. Final Pretrial Conference set for 9/14/2007 at 04:00 PM in Courtroom 603, 401 West Washington Street, Phoenix, AZ 85003 before Judge David G Campbell. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 7/16/07. (NVJ) (Entered: 07/16/2007)
185 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time for Pretrial Deadlines and Final Pretrial Conference by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Collegeville/Imagineering, Rubie's Costume Company, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Meyer, Valerie) (Entered: 07/30/2007)
186 Joint MOTION to Appoint a Magistrate Judge to conduct a settlement conference. by Collegeville/Imagineering, Rubie's Costume Company, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Blakeslee, Julia) (Entered: 08/07/2007)
187 ORDER granting 185 Motion for Extension of Time. Motions in limine are due by 9/14/2007, responses due 9/21/2007, no replies permitted. Proposed Pretrial Order due by 9/14/2007. Pretrial Conference set for 9/14/2007 at 04:00 p.m. is VACATED and RESET to 10/4/2007 at 04:00 PM in Courtroom 603, 401 West Washington Street, Phoenix, AZ 85003 before Judge David G Campbell. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 8/7/07.(NVJ) (Entered: 08/07/2007)
188 ORDER granting 186 Motion to Appoint Settlement Judge - that Magistrate Judge Michelle H. Burns is designated as a settlement judge for this case. The parties shall contact Judge Burns' chambers immediately to schedule a settlement conference.. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 8/7/07.(KMG) (Entered: 08/07/2007)
189 SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE ORDER - Settlement Conference is set for 8/29/2007 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Michelle H Burns. Signed by Judge Michelle H Burns on 8/15/07. (KMG) (Entered: 08/15/2007)
190 Minute Order. Settlement Conference held on 8/29/2007. Proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Michelle H Burns. Present were plaintiffs Nohemi Landin, Veronica Coronel, Teresa Lopez, Rosa Limon, Lorena Elizabeth Duarte, Linda Avalos, Maria Socorro Mata, and Linda Honer appearing with counsel Valerie L. Meyer, Mary Jo O'Neill and interpeter Enedina Cruz; Attorney Anna S. Masters appearing for defendants. A court reporter was not present nor the court proceedings recorded. The settlement conference has been continued to September 10, 2007 at 9:00 a.m. Order to follow. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with

18 of 20

3/18/2008 3:41 PM

CM/ECF - azd

https://ecf.azd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?453268222127728-L_56...

09/04/2007 09/06/2007 09/10/2007 09/18/2007 09/21/2007 09/25/2007
10/17/2007 10/23/2007

this entry. (emc) (Entered: 08/30/2007)
191 ORDER re Motions in limine due by 10/10/2007, Proposed Pretrial Order due by 10/10/2007, Final Pretrial Conference set for 10/04/07 is VACATED and RESET to 10/26/2007 at 02:00 PM in Courtroom 603, 401 West Washington Street, Phoenix, AZ 85003 before Judge David G Campbell. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 9/4/07. (NVJ) (Entered: 09/04/2007)
192 Joint MOTION to Continue Final Pretrial Conference by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Collegeville/Imagineering, Rubie's Costume Company, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Meyer, Valerie) (Entered: 09/06/2007)
193 Minute Order. Settlement Conference held on 9/10/2007 before Magistrate Judge Michelle H Burns. Present were: Valerie Meyer and Mary Jo O'Neill for plaintiffs; and Anna Masters for defendants. A court reporter was not present nor the court proceedings recorded. A settlement was not reached. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (emc) (Entered: 09/10/2007)
194 ORDER granting 192 Motion to Continue. Final Pretrial Conference set for 10/26/07 is VACATED and RESET to 11/2/2007 at 04:00 PM in Courtroom 603, 401 West Washington Street, Phoenix, AZ 85003 before Judge David G Campbell. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 9/18/07.(NVJ) (Entered: 09/18/2007)
195 STIPULATION and Joint Motion to Continue Final Pre-Trial Conference and Related Deadlines to Permit the Parties to Engage in Settlement Discussions by Collegeville/Imagineering, Rubie's Costume Company, Inc.. (Blakeslee, Julia) (Entered: 09/21/2007)
196 ORDER re 195 STIPULATION and Joint Motion to Continue Final Pre-Trial Conference and Related Deadlines to Permit the Parties to Engage in Settlement Discussions by Collegeville/Imagineering, Rubie's Costume Company, Inc.. (Blakeslee, Julia) filed by Rubie's Costume Company, Inc., Collegeville/Imagineering. Motions in limine due by 10/31/2007, responses due by 11/07/2007, no replies permitted. Proposed Pretrial Order due by 10/31/2007. Final Pretrial Conference set for 11/15/2007 at 03:30 PM in Courtroom 603, 401 West Washington Street, Phoenix, AZ 85003 before Judge David G Campbell. No additional extensions will be granted. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 9/25/07. (NVJ, ) (Entered: 09/25/2007)
197 ORDER re Motions in limine due by 11/7/2007, responses due 11/15/07, no replies permitted. Proposed Pretrial Order due by 11/7/2007. Telephone Conference set for 10/23/2007 at 02:00 PM (Defendants to initiate call) in Courtroom 603, 401 West Washington Street, Phoenix, AZ 85003 before Judge David G Campbell. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 10/17/07. (NVJ) (Entered: 10/17/2007)
198 ORDER. The Court held a conference call with the parties on October 23, 2007. The Court set a final pretrial conference for November 27, 2007, at 3:00 p.m. Dates established in the Court's order of October 17, 2007 shall remain in effect. If the parties reach a final settlement, they shall contact the Court by telephone and the Court will adjust the final pretrial conference schedule to allow time to review the proposed settlement and consent decree. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 10-23-07. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (DGC) (Entered: 10/23/2007)

19 of 20

3/18/2008 3:41 PM

CM/ECF - azd

https://ecf.azd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?453268222127728-L_56...

11/07/2007 11/09/2007
11/14/2007 11/19/2007

199 NOTICE of Settlement by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Collegeville/Imagineering, Rubie's Costume Company, Inc. (Blakeslee, Julia) (Entered: 11/07/2007)
200 ORDER re 199 NOTICE of Settlement by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Collegeville/Imagineering, Rubie's Costume Company, Inc. (Blakeslee, Julia) filed by Rubie's Costume Company, Inc., Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Collegeville/Imagineering. Consent Decree and Motion for Entry of Consent Decree due 11/14/2007. Motions in limine due by 11/15/2007; responses due 11/21/07; no replies permitted. Proposed PretrialOrder due by 11/15/2007. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 11/9/07. (NVJ, ) (Entered: 11/09/2007)
201 Joint MOTION to Approve Consent Judgment by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Collegeville/Imagineering, Rubie's Costume Company, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Consent Decree)(Meyer, Valerie) (Entered: 11/14/2007)
202 CONSENT DECREE That this decree resolves all claims of the Commission against Dfts in this action and the underlying EEOC Charges of Discrimination, Nos. 350A202523, 350A202579 and 350A202578, including but not limited to, back pay, compensatory and punitive damages, interest, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and costs. Judgment is entered in favor of the Commission and against Collegeville in the amount of $299,000.00. Collegeville shall pay the gross sum of $299,000.00 (subject to Rubie's guaranty letter, over which the Court shall retain jurisdiction) to be distributed among the class members identified in Exhibit A. Other Relief as described herein. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 11/19/07. (KMG) (Entered: 11/19/2007)

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

03/18/2008 13:41:19

PACER Login:

wu0079 Client Code:

Description:

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

Billable Pages: 13

Cost:

eeoc 2:05-cv-03033-DGC 1.04

20 of 20

3/18/2008 3:41 PM