IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )

COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

and

)

)

STEPHON A. SCOTT,

)

)

Plaintiff Intervenor,

)

)

v.

)

)

JOHN Q. HAMMONS HOTELS, INC. and )

JOHN Q. HAMMONS HOTELS, L.P. d/b/a )

EMBASSY SUITES COLUMBIA

)

ATRIUM HOTEL,

)

)

Defendants.

)

)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:04-22067-CMC
CONSENT DECREE

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "Commission") instituted this

action pursuant to Section 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as

amended, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3) ("Title VII"), and Section 102 of the Civil

Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a. Thereafter, Stephon A. Scott intervened, through

counsel, alleging violations of Title VII and state law.

The Commission, Plaintiff-Intervenor and Defendants, John Q. Hammons Hotels, Inc.

and John Q. Hammons Hotels, L.P. d/b/a Embassy Suites Columbia Atrium Hotel

(“Defendants”), hereby stipulate to jurisdiction of the Court over the parties and agree that the

subject matter of this action is properly before the Court.

Defendants deny all allegations of discrimination and wrongdoing and maintain that at all

times they treated Stephon A. Scott lawfully.

The parties have advised this Court that they desire to resolve the allegations in the Complaint without the burden, expense, and delay of further litigation.
It is therefore the finding of this Court, made on the pleadings and the record as a whole, that: (1) the Court has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this action; (2) the purpose and provisions of Title VII will be promoted and effectuated by the entry of the Consent Decree; and (3) this Decree resolves all matters in controversy between the parties as provided in paragraphs 1 through 17 below.
It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED as follows: 1. Defendants shall not discriminate against any person on the basis of race or any other protected category within the meaning of Title VII. 2. Defendants shall not discriminate or retaliate against any person because of opposition to any practice made unlawful under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or because of the filing of a charge, the giving of testimony or assistance, or the participation in any investigation, proceeding or hearing under that statute. 3. Defendants shall be jointly and severally liable for payment of all sums set forth in this decree. 4. Defendants shall pay Stephon A. Scott the sum of twenty-eight thousand dollars ($ 28,000) in settlement of the claims raised in this action. Defendants shall make payment by issuing a check payable jointly to Stephon A. Scott and Holler, Dennis, Corbett, Ormond & Garner. Payment shall be made within fifteen (15) days after the Court approves this Consent Decree, and Defendants shall mail the check to Attorney J. Charles Ormond, Jr. at Holler, Dennis, Corbett, Ormond & Garner at 1777 Bull Street, Columbia, S.C. 29201. Within ten (10)
2

days after the check has been sent, Defendants shall mail to Lynette A. Barnes, Acting Regional Attorney, at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 129 W. Trade Street, Suite 400, Charlotte N.C., 28202, a copy of the check and proof of its delivery.
5. Within ten (10) days of the entry of this decree by the Court, Defendants shall eliminate from the employment records of Stephon A. Scott any and all documents, entries, or references of any kind relating to the facts and circumstances which led to the filing of Charge Number 14C-2002-01032 and the related events that occurred thereafter. Within fifteen (15) days of the entry of this decree by the Court, Defendants shall report compliance with this provision to the Commission.
6. Defendants agree to provide Stephon A. Scott with a neutral letter of reference, a copy of which is attached hereto. (Exhibit A). In addition, if Defendants receive any inquiries regarding the employment of Mr. Scott, in lieu of an oral response, Defendants shall provide a copy of the aforementioned letter. Within ten (10) days of responding to any inquiry regarding the employment of Mr. Scott, Defendant shall report compliance to the Commission.
7. Within thirty (30) days of the entry of this Consent Decree by the Court, Defendants shall distribute to each current Embassy Suites Columbia Atrium Hotel employee a copy of the document entitled “John Q. Hammons Hotels Sexual and Other Harassment Policy,” attached hereto as Exhibit B. Within forty five (45) days of the entry of this Decree, Defendants shall report compliance to the Commission. During the term of this Decree, Defendants shall distribute the policy to all new employees at the time of hire.
8. During the term of this decree, Defendants shall post a copy of the policy described in paragraph 7, supra, at their Embassy Suites Columbia Atrium Hotel, in a place
3

where it is visible to employees. If the policy becomes defaced or unreadable, Defendants will replace it by posting another copy of the policy. Within ten (10) days after the Consent Decree is entered, Defendants will post the policy and notify the Commission that it has been posted.
9. During the term of this Decree, Defendants shall provide an annual training program to all of its managers, supervisors and employees at their Embassy Suites Columbia Atrium Hotel. Each training program shall include an explanation of the requirements of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and its prohibition against racial harassment and retaliation in the workplace. Each training program shall also include an explanation of Defendants’s policy referenced in paragraph 8 above, and an explanation of the rights and responsibilities of employees and managers under the policy.
The first training program shall be completed within ninety (90) days after entry of the decree by the Court. Each subsequent training program shall be conducted at approximately oneyear intervals. At least fifteen (15) days prior to each program, Defendants shall provide the Commission with an agenda for the training program. Within ten (10) days after completion of each training program, Defendants shall certify to the Commission the specific training which was undertaken and shall provide the Commission with a roster of all employees in attendance.
10. Beginning within thirty (30) days after the entry of this Decree by the Court, and continuing throughout the term of this Decree, Defendants shall conspicuously post the attached Employee Notice (Exhibit C), hereby made a part of this Decree, in a place where it is visible to all employees at their Embassy Suites Columbia Atrium Hotel. If the Notice becomes defaced or unreadable, Defendants shall replace it by posting another copy of the Notice. Defendants shall report posting of the Notice to the Commission within ten (10) days of its posting.
4

11. During the term of this Consent Decree, Defendants shall provide the Commission with reports at six (6) month intervals, with the first being due four (4) months after approval by the Court of this Decree. The reports will include the following information:
A. The identities of all individuals who formally complained of or reported, to management, any conduct he/she believed to be unlawful racial harassment under Defendants’ anti-harassment policy and discrimination policies, including the policy attached hereto as Exhibit B. By way of identification, Defendants’ shall provide each person’s name, last known telephone number and address, and position;
B. The name of the alleged harasser and a detailed description of the alleged unlawful conduct reported/complained of under 11.A above;
C. What action, if any, Defendants took in response to the report/complaint made under 11.A above.
In the event there is no activity to report pursuant to this paragraph, Defendants shall send the Commission a “negative” report indicating no activity.
12. The Commission may review compliance with this Decree. As part of such review, upon seventy-two (72) hours’ notice to counsel for Defendants, the Commission may inspect Defendants’ premises, interview employees and examine and copy documents.
13. If anytime during the term of this Decree, the Commission believes that Defendants are in violation of the Decree, the Commission shall give notice of the alleged violation to Defendants. Defendants shall have ten (10) days in which to investigate and respond to the allegations. Thereafter, the parties shall then have a period of ten (10) days or such additional period as may be agreed upon by them, in which to engage in negotiation regarding such allegations before the Commission exercises any remedy provided by law.
14. The term of this Decree shall be for two (2) years from its entry by the Court. 15. All reports or other documents sent to the Commission by Defendants pursuant to
5

this Decree shall be sent to: Lynette A. Barnes, Acting Regional Attorney, at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 129 W. Trade Street, Suite 400, Charlotte N.C., 28202.
16. Except as otherwise provided in this Decree each party shall bear its own costs and attorney’s fees.
17. This Court shall retain jurisdiction of this cause for purposes of monitoring compliance with this Decree and entry of such further orders as may be necessary or appropriate.

June 21, 2005 Date
Columbia, South Carolina

s/Cameron McGowan Currie Judge, U.S. District Court District of South Carolina

6

The parties jointly request that the Court approve and enter the Consent Decree:
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff
ERIC S. DREIBAND General Counsel
JAMES L. LEE Deputy General Counsel
GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel
LYNETTE A. BARNES Acting Regional Attorney Charlotte District Office
_________________________ JESSICA DIXON Trial Attorney MARY RYERSE Trial Attorney 129 West Trade Street, Suite 400 Charlotte, N.C. 28202 (704) 344-6875
_______________________ ROBERT F. DALEY, JR. Assistant U.S. Attorney Local Bar No. 6460 District of South Carolina 1441 Main Street, Suite 500 Columbia, S.C. 29201 (803) 929-3054
7

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR
_____________________________ J. CHARLES ORMOND, JR. Holler, Dennis, Ormond & Garner 1777 Bull Street Columbia, SC 29201 (803) 765-2968
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS __________________________ WILLIAM L. DUDA Local Bar No. 7740 Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. 1201 Main Street, Suite 1230 Columbia, SC 29201-3227 (803) 799-7168
____________________________ PAUL D. SEYFERTH JOSEPH H. KNITTIG Seyferth Knittig LLC 4310 Madison Ave. Kansas City, MO 64111 (816) 753-7088
8

 
 3:04-cv-22067-CMC-JRM Date Filed 08/31/04 Entry Number 1 Page 1 of 6

FILED

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

AUG 312004

COLUMBIA DIVISION EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )

LARRY W. PROPES ClSIK COWMBIA,Sc

COMMISSION,

)

)

CIVIL ACTION NO.

Plaintiff,

) )

3 04 22067 22&-

v.

)

COMPLAINT

)

JOHN Q. HAMMONS HOTELS, INC. and )

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

JOHN Q. HAMMONS HOTELS, L.P. d/b/a )

EMBASSY SUITES COLUMBIA

)

ATRIUM HOTEL,

)

)

Defendants.

)

)

NATURE OF THE ACTION This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, to correct unlawful employment practices based on race and retaliation and to provide appropriate relief to Stephon A. Scott, who was adversely affected by such practices. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleges that Stephon A. Scott was subjected to a hostile work environment due to his race, African American, and discharged in retaliation for his complaints of racial harassment by John Q. Hanunons Hotels, Inc. and John Q. Hanunons Hotels, L.P. d/b/a Embassy Suites Columbia Atrium Hotel.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. Jurisdiction ofthis Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 451,1331,1337,1343 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Section 706(f) (1) and (3) ofTitle VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f) (1) and (3) ("Title VII"), and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991,42 U.S.C. § 1981a.

3:04-cv-22067-CMC-JRM
v

Date Filed 08/31/04 Entry Number 1
v

Page 2 of 6

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

jurisdictionofthe United States District Court forthe DistrictofSouth Carolina, Columbia Division.

PARTIES

3.

Plaintiff, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "Commission")

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

enforcement ofTitle VII and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Sections 706(t)(1) and (3) ofTitle VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(t)(I) and (3).

4. At all relevant times, Defendant, John Q. Hammons Hotels, Inc. has continuously

been a Delaware corporation doing business in the State ofSouth Carolina and the City ofColumbia,

and has continuously had at least fifteen employees.

5. At all relevant times, Defendant, John Q. Hammons Hotels, L.P. has continuously

been a Delaware Limited Partnership doing business in the State of South Carolina and the City of

Columbia, and has continuously had at least fifteen employees.

6. At all relevant times, Defendants have, jointly and severally, continuously been

•

employers engaged in an industry affecting commerce under Sections 701(b), (g) and (h) ofTitle VII,

42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(b), (g) and (h).

STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 7. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Stephon A. Scott filed a charge with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by Defendants. All conditions

precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled.

8. From around September 1993 until December 200 I, Defendants engaged in unlawful

employmentpractices at their Embassy Suites Columbia Atrium Hotel in Columbia, South Carolina

2

3:04-cv-22067-CMC-JRM
v

Date Filed 08/31/04 Entry Number 1

Page 3 of 6

in violation of Section 703(a)(I) ofTitle VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(I). The unlawful practices included subjecting Stephon A. Scott to racial harassment and a racially hostile work environment
due to his race, African American. The harassment included a co-worker making racist jokes and
racially derogatory comments and engaging in conduct that was based on racial stereotypes. Although Defendants knew or reasonably should have know about the racial harassment and racially
hostile work environment, Defendants failed to take appropriate action to stop it.
9. On or about December 7, 2001, Defendants engaged in unlawful employment practices at their Embassy Suites Columbia Atrium Hotel in Columbia, South Carolina, in violation ofSection 704(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a), by discharging Stephon A. Scott because he
opposed employment practices made unlawful by Title VII. Specifically, Mr. Scott opposed race discrimination by complaiuing that he was being subjected to racial harassment The Commission alleges that Defendant discharged Mr. Scott because of his complaints.
10. The effect of the practices complained of in paragraphs 8 and 9 above has been to deprive Stephon A. Scott of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee because of his race, African American, and because of his opposition to practices made unlawful under Title VII.
II. The unlawful employmentpractices complained ofin paragraphs 8 and 9 above were intentional.
12. The unlawful employment practices complained ofin paragraphs 8 and 9 above were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Stephon A. Scott.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court:

3

3:04-cv-22067-CMC-JRM
v

Date Filed 08/31/04 Entry Number 1

Page 4 of 6

A. Grant a pennanent injunction enjoining Defendants, their officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with them, from engaging in harassment or any other employment practice that discriminates on the basis of race.
B. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendants, their officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with them, from engaging in retaliation against employees because they have opposed employment practices or otherwise engaged in protected activity under Title VII.
C. Order Defendants to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs that provide equal employment opportunities for African Americans and which eradicate the effects of their past and present unlawful employment practices.
D. Order Defendants to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs that provide equal employment opportunities for employees who oppose, or have opposed unlawful employment practices or otherwise engage in protected activity under Title VII, and which eradicate the effects of their past and present unlawful employment practices.
E. Order Defendants to make whole StephonA. Scott by providing appropriate backpay with prejudgment interest, in amounts to be determined at trial, and other affirmative reliefnecessary to eradicate the effects of their unlawful employment practices, including but not limited to the reinstatement of Stephon A. Scott or, in the alternative, an award of front pay.
F. Order Defendants to make whole Stephon A. Scott by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices complained of in paragraphs 8 and 9 above, including but not limited to medical expenses and job search expenses.

4

3:04-cv-22067-CMC-JRM
v

Date Filed 08/31/04 Entry Number 1

Page 5 of 6

G. Order Defendants to make whole Stephon A. Scott by providing compensation for past and future non-pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices complained of in paragraphs 8 and 9 above, including but not limited to emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, loss ofearning capacity, loss ofenjoyment oflife, humiliation, loss ofself-esteem and loss ofcivil rights, in amounts to be determined at trial.
H. Order Defendants to pay Stephon A. Scott punitive damages for their malicious and reckless conduct described in paragraphs 8 and 9 above, in amounts to be determined at trial.
I. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public interest.
J. Award the Commission its costs of this action.

JURY TRIAL DEMAND The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions offact raised by its Complaint.

5

3:04-cv-22067-CMC-JRM Date Filed 08/31/04 Entry Number 1

L,\..I

DATED this

,~
day

of~~~1Ql....-"

2004.

Page 6 of 6

Respectfully submitted,
ERIC S. DREIBAND General Counsel
JAMES L. LEE Deputy General Counsel
GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 1801 L Street, N.W. Was· on, D.C. 20507

Acting Region,al Attorney

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Charlotte District Office 129 West Trade Street, Suite 400 Charlotte, North Carolina 28202 (704) 344-6875
ROBERT F. DALEY, JR. Assistant U.S. Attorney Local Bar No. 6460 District of South Carolina 1441 Main Street, Suite 500 Columbia, S.C. 29201 (803) 929-3054
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
6

 
 3:04-cv-22067-CMC-JRM Date Filed 10/28/04 Entry Number 11

Page 1 of 1
F I LED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OCT 28 2004

LARRY w. PROPES, CLERK

FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

COLUMBIA, S.C.

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JOHN Q. HAMMONS HOTELS, INC., AND JOHN Q. HAMMONS HOTELS L.P. d/b/a EMBASSY SUITES COLUMBIA ATRIUM HOTEL,
Defendants.

) Civil Action No. 3:04-22067-22BC

) ) )

)

)

)

)

ORDER

)

)

) ) )

)

The motion of Stephon A. Scott to intervene in the within case is granted pursuant to Fed.

R. Civ. P. 24(a). AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

Z1-, October

2004

Columbia, South Carolina

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

A072A (Rev.BIB2)

 
 3:04-cv-22067-CMC-JRM Date Filed 12/10/04 Entry Number 18 Page 1 of 13

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY)

COMMISSION

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

vs.

)

) JOHN Q. HAMMONS HOTELS, Inc. and )

JOHN Q. HAMMONS HOTELS L.P. d/b/a )

EMBASSY SUITES COLUMBIA

)

ATRIUM HOTEL,

)

)

Defendant/s.

)

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

STEPHON ALEXANDER SCOTT

)

)

Plaintiffl Intervener, )

)

vs.

)

) JOHN Q. HAMMONS HOTELS, Inc. and )

JOHN Q. HAMMONS HOTELS L.P. d/b/a )

EMBASSY SUITES COLUMBIA

)

ATRIUM HOTEL,

)

Defendant/s.

)

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

Civil Action No.: 3: 042206722
FILED
DEC 1 0 2004
LAARYW. PROPES, CLERK COWMBIA, SC
COMPLAINT OF STEHPON A. SCOTT PLAINTIFF

PlaintifflIntervener, Stephon A. Scott, by and through his undersigned attorney, for his Complaint, avers as follows:

INTRODUCTION I. This is a complaint authorized and instituted pursuant to the common law of the State of
South Carolina, South Carolina Statutory Law, Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, as
amended (herein "Title VIl"), 42 u. S. C. §2000 et. seq., the thirteenth amendment to the
United States Constitution, 42 U. S. C. §1981.

\~

3:04-cv-22067-CMC-JRM Date Filed 12/10/04 Entry Number 18 Page 2 of 13
PARTIES 2. Plaintiff /intervener (hereinafter "Scott" and/or "Plaintiff') is a black citizen of the United
States and, at all times relevant herein, was a resident ofthe County of Richland, and State of South Carolina. Plaintiff is currently a resident of the State of South Carolina. 3. Upon information and belief, John Q. Hammons, Inc. and John Q. Hammons L. P. D/B/A Embassy Suites Atrium Hotel, (hereinafter together referred to as "Hammons" or Defendant), is a corporationls incorporated in one of the states of the United States and transacts business in the state of South Carolina. Defendant is an employer under 42 U. S. C. §2000e. Said Defendant employs in excess of 500 employees for purposes of damages recoverable pursuant to 42 U. S. C. §1981a.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
5. The unlawful conduct alleged in this Complaint was committed in Richland County, South Carolina.
6. Plaintiff has motioned to intervene in this lawsuit brought by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (hereinafter "EEOC") pursuant to 42 U.S.C. e-5(f) as amended. Plaintiff has therefore satisfied all private, administrative and judicial prerequisites to the institution of this Complaint.
7. Jurisdiction and venue are proper in this Court under the following statutes: 28 U.S.c. §1391 (b); 42 U. S. C. §2000e, et. seq., 42 U.S.c. e-5(f), Section 15-7-10 et seq. Of the Code of Laws for South Carolina.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
8. Plaintiff (Scott) incorporates the allegations offact as set forth in the Complaint filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (hereinafter "EEOC") within paragraphs 7-12 as if set forth verbatim herein.
9. Plaintiffwas an employee with Defendant as a bartender/waiter and worked as an employee of Defendant for approximately, eight (8) years. During his tenure, Plaintiff Scott was considered to be one of the best employees and civic and other groups requiring bartenders
2

3:04-cv-22067-CMC-JRM Date Filed 12/10/04 Entry Number 18 Page 3 of 13
and doing business with the Defendant would ask for him personally. 10. During the time Plaintiff was employed by Defendant, he was subject to racial jokes, hate
statements, racial innuendos, racial hostility and disparate treatment based on his race by an agent and primary employee (head chef) of Defendant. II. Such racially hostile and disparate treatment increased greatly approximately two years prior to his termination and coincided with his promotion to a supervisory position within the waiters and bartenders. The racially motivated harassment began to interfere with Plaintiff's ability to perform his job duties and, prior to his termination, included physical abuse as well as emotional and mental abuse. 12. Within a short period of time, Plaintiff reported such harassment to upper management within the Hotel through the chain of command. Such reports resulted in no action taken and an increase in the racially hostile environment rather than a decrease. 13. On or about December 5, 2001, Plaintiffforwarded a written complaint to a higher level management employee and such letter was discovered the following day by management of the facility. Plaintiff was terminated immediately after the discovery of this complaint regarding his complaint of racial harassment and bias at the facility. 14. Stephon Scott further, during his last several years as an employee with Defendant, noticed that many of Defendant's practices and policies were discriminatory including but not limited to stricter requirements for black patrons regarding complimentary offerings, segregation of patrons, constraint of black patrons regarding amenities and increased identification and other requirements for black patrons versus white guests in addition to providing a lower level of service for black versus white groups renting or using the hotel. 15. Plaintiffnotified and complained to managing agents of the Defendant that he could not treat guests or patrons differently due to their race. He was told by a senior manager at the Hotel, within weeks of his termination, that he must continue with the practices as asked and would be disciplined or terminated if he did not. 16. On or about December 7, 200 I, after forwarding the racial discrimination complaint to a higher level official within the Company, Plaintiff was threatened with his job and held in a room against his will unless he retracted his complaint.
3

3:04-cv-22067-CMC-JRM Date Filed 12/10/04 Entry Number 18 Page 4 of 13
17. That evening, Defendant's senior managing agent at the facility tenninated Plaintiff without notice or cause.
FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (VIOLATION OF 42 U. S. C. §2000e, RetaliationlRace Discrimination)
18. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 17 as though fully set forth herein. 19. During all relevant times herein, Plaintiff and Defendant satisfied the Title VII definition of
employee and employer. 20. From the time of his employment, Plaintiff was subject to and required to endure a racially
hostile environment, racial discrimination and racially motivated disparate treatment. 21. Defendant discriminated against Plaintiff by treating him in a disparate manner, subjecting
him to a racially hostile environment, disparate treatment and failed to correct the environment after many reports and complaints to senior management regarding the ongoing situation and environment from Plaintiff and, upon information and belief, other employees of the Defendant. 22. Plaintiff made good faith complaints and opposition to such discrimination he was required to endure, through the chain of command, to increasing levels of management and his last complaint to corporate resulted in immediate termination. Plaintiffs complaints of discrimination and opposition to unlawfully discrimination were made in good faith and designed to notify and end such practices. 23. Defendant terminated Plaintiff as a result of his opposition to discriminatory practices and, upon information and belief, due to his race. Defendant allowed a pervasive and consistently severe hostile environment to exist at the facility and knew or should have known of such racially hostile environment for most of Plaintiff s tenure. 24. Defendant, with constructive knowledge and/or actual knowledge, allowed a severely hostile environment to exist during most of Plaintiffs employment causing Plaintiff severe emotional and mental stress. 25. Defendant by terminating Plaintiffs employment in contradiction to its own express policy ands allowing to exist and flourish a racially hostile environment in addition to retaliating
4

3:04-cv-22067-CMC-JRM Date Filed 12/10/04 Entry Number 18 Page 5 of 13
against Plaintiff for opposing such practices, violated the mandates against retaliation and racial discrimination set forth in Title VII. 26. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's reckless, willful and intentional acts of discriminatory treatment and retaliation, Plaintiff has experienced severe emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, embarrassment, humiliation, increased medical expenses, past, present and future loss of income, and other economic and non-economic damages including direct and consequential damages. 27. Plaintiff has no plain, adequate or complete remedy at law to correct Defendant's unlawful discrimination and seeks injunctive relief as his only means of securing full relief from Defendant's unlawful conduct. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffrequests that this Court: A. Award Plaintiffbackpay, with interest thereon, from the date of discharge until the Plaintiff is restored to his former job and benefits; B. Order Defendant to reinstate Plaintiff to his former job with the employee benefits attendant to that job; C. Award Plaintiff compensatory and punitive damages in an amount to be determined by a jury, but not less than $300,000 pursuant to 42 U. S. C §1981 a for Defendant's discriminatory conduct, race discrimination and retaliation, against him; D. Permanently enjoin Defendant, their agents, officers and employees from engaging in all practices found by this Court to be in violation of 42 U. S. C. §2000e et. seq.; E. Award Plaintiff the costs and disbursements of this action, including his reasonable attorney's fees, pursuant to 42 U. S. C. §1988 and 2000e-5 (k); F. Award such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.
FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (VIOLATION OF THE THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES
CONSTITUTION AND 42 U. S. C. §I98J)
28. Plaintiff, incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 27 as though fully set forth herein. 29. Plaintiff, a black person, was employed by Defendant under a contract of employment. 30. As set forth above, Defendant allowed the conditions Plaintiff's employment contract to
become racially hostile after constructive and actual knowledge of such conditions. Defendant further terminated Plaintiff's employment and the motivation for such termination was based on retaliation for opposing racial discrimination practices and his race, African American. Said actions and termination were based on Plaintiffs race and violate his
5

3:04-cv-22067-CMC-JRM Date Filed 12/10/04 Entry Number 18 Page 6 of 13
constitutional right to make and enforce contracts in the same manner as white persons. 31. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's reckless, willful and intentional acts of
discriminatory treatment, Plaintiff experienced severe emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, embarrassment, humiliation, increased medical expenses, past, present and future loss of income, and other economic damages. 32. Plaintiff has no plain, adequate or complete remedy at law to correct Defendant's unlawful discrimination and seeks il'\iunctive relief as his only means of securing full relief from Defendant's unlawful conduct. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that this Court: A. Award Plaintiff backpay, with interest thereon, from the date of discharge until the Plaintiff is restored to his former job and benefits; B. Order Defendants to reinstate Plaintiff to his former job with the employee benefits attendant to that job; C. Award Plaintiff punitive damages in an amount sufficient to impress upon Defendant the seriousness of its misconduct and to deter such similar misconduct in the future as determined by the jury. D. Permanently enjoin Defendant, its agents, officers and employees from engaging in all practices found by this Court to be in violation of the thirteenth amendment to the United States Constitution and 42 U. S. C. §1981 et. seq.; E. Award Plaintiff the costs and disbursements of this action, including his reasonable attorney's fees, pursuant to 42 U. S. C. §1988; F. Award such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.
FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (WRONGFUL DISCHARGE IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICy)
33. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs I through 32 as though fully set forth herein. 34. Defendant was engaging in practices and policies which discriminated against African
American patrons as they were not treated the same as white patrons in their contractual relationship/s in Defendant. 35. Plaintiff notified Defendant's management of this discrimination and stated he could not engage in discriminatory behavior. Such notification and opposition was prior to his unfounded termination with Defendant and Defendant threatened Plaintiff with discipline in
6

3:04-cv-22067-CMC-JRM Date Filed 12/10/04 Entry Number 18 Page 7 of 13
his position ifhe did not continue to support such practices and policies. 36. Such discrimination of contracting parties regarding the conditions and terms of contractual
relations is violative of public policy and illegal as codified in 42 U.S.C. §1981 and other federal and state laws. 37. Upon information and belief, Plaintiffs termination was in part caused by his opposition and refusal to condone and participate in such policies. 38. Plaintiffs discharge, violates express and implicit public policy and termination for Plaintiffs actions is in violation of such public policy. 39. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's wrongful discharge, Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount to be determined by the jury. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that this Court: A. Award Plaintiff backpay, with interest thereon, and front pay from the date of discharge or until the Plaintiff is restored to his former job and benefits; B. Award Plaintiff punitive damages in an amount sufficient to impress upon Defendant the seriousness of its misconduct and to deter such similar misconduct in the future as determined by the jury; C. Award Plaintiff the costs and disbursements of this action D. Award such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.
FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (ASSAULT AND BATTERY)
40. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs I through 39 as though fully set forth herein. 41. Defendant's agent, the head chef for the facility (hereinafter "Chef') was a primary and key
employee of the Defendant. Defendant knew or should have known the hostility and racist attitude and actions by "Chef' toward and against Plaintiff. 42. After Plaintiffs Complaints to senior management at the facility, Chef, while at work, threatened and indicated an intent to do bodily harm to Plaintiff on several occasions. 43. Chefs conduct placed Plaintiff, on several occasions, in reasonable fear of bodily harm. 44. Chef, on one occasion while at work and several weeks prior to Plaintiffs termination, stuck Plaintiff physically on several occasions. 45. Such infliction of forcible contact on Plaintiff was without justification or cause.
7

3:04-cv-22067-CMC-JRM Date Filed 12/10/04 Entry Number 18 Page 8 of 13
46. Such actions by Defendant's agent, caused actual damages to Plaintiff including but not limited to severe emotional stress and mental anguish.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that this Court: A. Award Plaintiff actual damages; B. Award Plaintiffpunitive damages in an amount sufficient to impress upon Defendant the seriousness of its misconduct and to deter such similar misconduct in the future as determined by the jury; C. Award Plaintiff the costs and disbursements of this action D. Award such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.
FOR A FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (WRONGFUL DISCHARGE / BREACH OF CONTRACT)
47. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs I through 46 as though fully set forth herein. 48. P!aintiffwas an employee of Defendant for approximately eight (8) years and throughout his
tenure, he met or exceeded the legitimate expectations of his employer. 49. Defendant distributed a handbook to Plaintiff and other employees, subsequent to his hire, and
was informed by his supervisor at the time that the provisions of the handbook would be followed by the Company and must be followed by employees. Plaintiff was further assured that no employee would be terminated without cause and the provisions of the policy manual (handbook) would be followed in pursuing discipline. 50. The handbook contained prohibitions and a code of conduct stated in mandatory language and the stated and course of dealing practice of Defendant was to use progressive discipline. 5I. Plaintiff was terminated without notice or cause and contrary to express and implied provisions within the handbook, including the implicit covenant of good faith and fair dealing. 52. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant' s breach of contract, Plaintiffhas been damaged in an amount to be determined by the jury. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that this Court: A. Award Plaintiff backpay, with interest thereon, and front pay from the date of discharge or until the Plaintiff is restored to his former job and benefits B. Award Plaintiff the costs and disbursements of this action C. Award such other and hlrther relief as this Court may deem just and proper.
8

3:04-cv-22067-CMC-JRM Date Filed 12/10/04 Entry Number 18 Page 9 of 13
FOR A SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION (BREACH OF CONTRACT IAccompanied by a Fraudulent Act)
53. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 52 as though fully set forth herein. 54. Defendant, through its handbook and other company policies with mandatory and promissory
language, created a unilateral contract which altered the legally presumed at will relationship between Defendant and Plaintiff. 55. Defendant breached such language by terminating him using a false and defamatory accusation and immediately prior to the false accusation, Defendant unlawfully restrained Plaintiff until he would agree to retract a written complaint regarding discriminatory treatment. 56. Such breach/s, upon information and belief, was taken in bad faith and was a fraudulent act made and taken with fraudulent intent. 57. Defendant's wrongful discharge accompanied with these acts and fraudulent intent directly and proximately caused Plaintiff to be damaged in an amount to be determined by the jury.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that this Court: A. Award Plaintiff backpay, with interest thereon, and front pay from the date of discharge or until the Plaintiff is restored to his former job and benefits; B. Award Plaintiff punitive damages in an amount sufficient to impress upon Defendant the seriousness of its misconduct and to deter such similar misconduct in the future as determined by the jury; C. Award Plaintiffthe costs and disbursements of this action D. Award such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.
FOR A SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (DEFAMATION)
58. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs I through 57 as though fully set forth herein. 59. Defendant stated, published and articulated expressly and implicitly, to third parties,
representations about the Plaintiffs employment performance, his trade and inadequacy in performing his trade while employed and subsequent to his termination of employment. 60. Such published messages and/or statements were of a defamatory nature and such express and
9

3:04-cv-22067-CMC-JRM Date Filed 12/10/04 Entry Number 18 Page 10 of 13
implicit statements and messages about Plaintiff had a defamatory meaning. 61. Such statements were and are false. 62. The messages defaming Plaintiffs ability in his trade and work ethic and employment were
about and concerned Plaintiff and were made with actual or implied malice. 63. Plaintiff has suffered special damages including but not limited to his decreased ability to
continue working under contracts for bartending not associated with Defendant and employment after his termination, and legally presumed damages as a result of such messages/statements regarding his trade.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that this Court: A. Award Plaintiff backpay, with interest thereon, and front pay from the date of discharge or until the Plaintiff is restored to his former job and benefits; B. Award Plaintiffpunitive damages in an amount sufficient to impress upon Defendant the seriousness of its misconduct and to deter such similar misconduct in the future as determined by the jury; C. Award Plaintiff the costs and disbursements of this action D. Award such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.
FOR AN EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION (INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS)
64. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs I through 63 as though fully set forth herein. 65. Defendant, through its agent Chef, by assaulting, harassing, discriminating, chastising,
striking, and otherwise creating an atmosphere of hate and hostility, intentionally, willfully and recklessly caused Plaintiff severe emotional distress. 66. Defendant, had actual and/or constructive knowledge of such actions by its agents and ratified such behavior. 67. Such conduct was so extreme and outrageous as to exceed all possible bounds of decency, was atrocious and intolerable in a civilized society. 68. The emotional distress suffered by Plaintiff was severe and no reasonable person should be expected to endure or tolerate such distress. 69. Defendant, through its agent/s, was substantially certain that severe distress would result from such actions and such actions did, as a direct and proximate result, cause Plaintiff emotional
10

3:04-cv-22067-CMC-JRM Date Filed 12/10/04 Entry Number 18 Page 11 of 13
distress.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that this Court: A. Award Plaintiff actual damages; B. Award Plaintiffpunitive damages in an amount sufficient to impress upon Defendant the seriousness of its misconduct and to deter such simil ar misconduct in the future as determined by the jury; C. Award Plaintiff the costs and disbursements of this action D. Award such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.
FOR A NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION (FALSE IMPRISONMENT)
70. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs I through 69 as though fully set forth herein. 71. On the date of Plaintiffs termination and after Plaintiff had sent the letter opposing the
discriminatory practices to corporate offices, Defendant/s, through its agents Brayton and Parsons, forcibly took Scott to a room and demanded that Plaintiff rescind the complaint and state that the content of the letter was not accurate. Mr. Scott declined stating he had reported the actions and discrimination to all levels of management within the facility. 72. Defendant/s, through its agents, would not allow Scott to leave the room despite his stated desire to leave the room. Scott reasonably believed that he could not leave the room. 73. Defendant restrained Plaintiff from exiting a room despite his desire to leave. 74. Such restraint was intentional and unlawful.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that this Court: A. Award Plaintiff actual or nominal damages; B. Award Plaintiff punitive damages in an amount sufficient to impress upon Defendant the seriousness of its misconduct and to deter such similar misconduct in the future as determined by the jury; C. Award Plaintiffthe costs and disbursements of this action D. Award such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.
II

3:04-cv-22067-CMC-JRM Date Filed 12/10/04 Entry Number 18 Page 12 of 13 September 9, 2004
Law Offices Holler Dennis Corbett Ormond & Gamer
By):~4~~~::::=--,--_
. ~arles Ormond, Jr. Fed # 5276 1777 Bull Street Columbia, SC 29201 (803) 765-2968 II 933-9000
12

3:04-cv-22067-CMC-JRM Date Filed 12/10/04 Entry Number 18 Page 13 of 13

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY)

COMMISSION

)

Plaintiff.

)

)

vs.

)

)

JOHN Q. HAMMONS HOTELS, Inc. and )

JOHN Q. HAMMONS HOTELS L.P. d/b/a)

EMBASSY SUITES COLUMBIA

)

ATRIUM !lOTEL,

)

)

Defendant/s.

)

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

Civil Action No.: 3: 04 22067 22

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

~ De..... The undersigned hereby certifies that on the

day of

,2004, a copy of

Plaintiff's I Intervening Pleading I Complaint was served upon Defendant by

depositing the same in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, and addressed

to:

Via U.S. Mail .lcssica Dixon, Esq., Regional Attorney U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity C0111mission
129 West Trade Street, Suite 400 Charlotte, NC 28202
William Duda, Esquire Olgetree Deakins et al.
120 I Main Street, 1230
Columbia, SC 29201
'+',"""."'.H1S276)

 
 Case: 3:04-cv-22067-CMC-JRM As of: 10/14/2009 09:52 AM EDT 1 of 5
CLOSED, JURY
U.S. District Court District of South Carolina (Columbia) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:04−cv−22067−CMC−JRM

EEOC, et al v. John Q Hammons Hotel, et al Assigned to: Judge Cameron M Currie Referred to: Magistrate Judge Joseph R McCrorey Demand: $0 Cause: 42:2000 Job Discrimination (Race)
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 08/31/2004 Date Terminated: 06/22/2005 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by Robert F Daley , Jr US Attorneys Office 1441 Main Street Suite 500 Columbia, SC 29201 803−929−3000 Fax: 803−252−2759 Email: bob.daley@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jessica L Dixon US Equal Opportunity Commission 129 W Trade Street Suite 400 Charlotte, NC 28202 704−344−6875 Email: jessica.dixon@eeoc.gov

Lynette A Barnes Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 129 W Trade Street Suite 400 Charlotte, NC 28202 704−344−6880

Mary M Ryerse US Equal Opportunity Commission 129 W Trade Street Suite 400 Charlotte, NC 28202 704−344−6886 Fax: 704−344−6780 Email: mary.ryerse@eeoc.gov

V. Intervenor Plaintiff Stephon A Scott

represented by John Charles Ormond , Jr Holler Dennis Corbett Ormond Plante and Garner PO Box 11006 Columbia, SC 29211 803−765−2968 Fax: 803−252−8290 Email: cormond@aol.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:04-cv-22067-CMC-JRM As of: 10/14/2009 09:52 AM EDT 2 of 5

V. Movant Stephon A Scott
V. Defendant John Q Hammons Hotels Inc
Defendant John Q Hammons Hotels LP doing business as Embassy Suites Columbia Atrium Hotel
V. Intervenor Defendant John Q Hammons Hotels LP doing business as

represented by John Charles Ormond , Jr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by William L Duda Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak and Stewart 1320 Main Street Suite 600 Columbia, SC 29201 803−252−1300 Fax: 803−254−6517 Email: bill.duda@ogletreedeakins.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph H Knittig Seyferth and Knittig 4310 Madison Avenue Kansas City, MO 64111 816−756−0700
Kelly S Moothart Seyferth and Knittig 4310 Madison Avenue Kansas City, MO 64111 816−756−0700
Paul D Seyferth Seyferth and Knittig 4310 Madison Avenue Kansas City, MO 64111 816−756−0700
represented by William L Duda (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph H Knittig (See above for address)
Kelly S Moothart (See above for address)
Paul D Seyferth (See above for address)
represented by William L Duda (See above for address)

Case: 3:04-cv-22067-CMC-JRM As of: 10/14/2009 09:52 AM EDT 3 of 5

Embassy Suites Columbia Atrium Hotel

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph H Knittig (See above for address)

Kelly S Moothart (See above for address)

Paul D Seyferth (See above for address)

Intervenor Defendant John Q Hammons Hotels Inc

represented by William L Duda (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph H Knittig (See above for address)

Kelly S Moothart (See above for address)

Paul D Seyferth (See above for address)

Date Filed 08/31/2004 08/31/2004 08/31/2004 08/31/2004 08/31/2004 09/02/2004 09/02/2004 09/09/2004 10/01/2004 10/01/2004

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT; Service due by 12/29/04 for John Q Hammons Hotel, for John Q Hammons Hotel (cqui) (Entered: 09/01/2004)
2 ANSWER to Local Rule 26 Interrogatories by plaintiff EEOC; jury demand (cqui) (Entered: 09/01/2004)
3 MOTION by plaintiff EEOC for Jessica L. Dixon and Lynette A Barnes to appear pro hac vice FILING FEE AMOUNT waived per statue (cqui) (Entered: 09/01/2004)
4 AFFIDAVIT of Jessica Dixon by plaintiff EEOC Re: [3−1] motion for Jessica L. Dixon and Lynette A Barnes to appear pro hac vice FILING FEE AMOUNT waived per statue (cqui) (Entered: 09/01/2004)
5 AFFIDAVIT of Lynette A Barnes by plaintiff EEOC Re: [3−1] motion for Jessica L. Dixon and Lynette A Barnes to appear pro hac vice FILING FEE AMOUNT waived per statue (cqui) (Entered: 09/01/2004)
6 ORDER granting [3−1] motion for Jessica L. Dixon and Lynette A Barnes to appear pro hac vice FILING FEE AMOUNT waived per statue ( signed by Magistrate Judge Joseph R. McCrorey ) (gpea) (Entered: 09/03/2004)
7 ORDER granting [3−1] motion for Jessica L. Dixon and Lynette A Barnes to appear pro hac vice FILING FEE AMOUNT waived per statue ( signed by Magistrate Judge Joseph R. McCrorey ) (gpea) (Entered: 09/03/2004)
8 MOTION by movant Stephon A Scott to intervene by Stephon A Scott with proposed complaint attached (gpea) Modified on 12/08/2004 (Entered: 09/10/2004)
9 WAIVER OF SERVICE as to John Q Hammons Hotel Answer due on 11/15/04 for John Q Hammons Hotel, for John Q Hammons Hotel (gpea) (Entered: 10/04/2004)
10 WAIVER OF SERVICE as to John Q Hammons Hotel Inc (gpea) (Entered: 10/04/2004)

Case: 3:04-cv-22067-CMC-JRM As of: 10/14/2009 09:52 AM EDT 4 of 5

10/28/2004 11/08/2004 11/08/2004 11/09/2004
11/17/2004 11/19/2004 12/07/2004 12/10/2004 12/13/2004 12/13/2004 12/13/2004 02/25/2005
03/18/2005 04/04/2005 05/05/2005 05/09/2005

11 ORDER granting [8−1] motion to intervene by Stephon A Scott ( signed by Magistrate Judge Joseph R. McCrorey ) d 10/28/04 mld (cqui) (Entered: 10/28/2004)
12 ANSWER to Complaint by defendant John Q Hammons Hotel, defendant John Q Hammons Hotel (Attorney William L Duda), Assignment Interrogatories due on 11/18/04 for John Q Hammons Hotel, for John Q Hammons Hotel ; (cqui) (Entered: 11/09/2004)
13 ANSWER to Local Rule 26 Interrogatories by defendant John Q Hammons Hotel, defendant John Q Hammons Hotel (cqui) (Entered: 11/09/2004)
14 SCHEDULING ORDER setting 26(f) Conference no later than 11/29/04 ; 26(a) Initial Disclosures served by 12/13/04 ; 26(f) Report filed by 12/13/04 ; Joining of parties,amending of pleadings on 1/7/05 ; Plaintiff's ID of Experts set for 2/7/05 ; Defendant's ID of Experts set for 3/8/05 ; Records Custodian Affidavit filed by 3/8/05 ; Discovery cutoff 5/9/05 ; Motion In Limine filed by 5/23/05 ; Deadline for filing of all motions 5/23/05 ; Mediation deadline for 4/11/05 ( signed by Magistrate Judge Joseph R. McCrorey )eod 11/9/04 mld (cqui) (Entered: 11/09/2004)
15 MOTION by defendant John Q Hammons Hotel, defendant John Q Hammons Hotel for Paul Seyferth, Joseph Knitting and Kelly Moothart to appear pro hac vice FILING FEE AMOUNT 150.00 Receipt # SCX300006329 (cqui) (Entered: 11/17/2004)
16 ORDER granting [15−1] motion for Paul Seyferth, Joseph Knitting and Kelly Moothart to appear pro hac vice FILING FEE AMOUNT 150.00 Receipt # SCX300006329 ( signed by Magistrate Judge Joseph R. McCrorey ) (ttil) (Entered: 11/19/2004)
17 ANSWER to Complaint of Stephon Scott by defendant John Q Hammons Hotel, defendant John Q Hammons Hotel (intervenor complaint not filed) (cqui) Modified on 12/08/2004 (Entered: 12/08/2004)
18 Intervenor's COMPLAINT by Stephon A Scott against defendant John Q Hammons Hotel, defendant John Q Hammons Hotel (cqui) (Entered: 12/10/2004)
19 JOINT 26(f) Report by Stephon A Scott, John Q Hammons Hotel, John Q Hammons Hotel, EEOC . Parties need additional time to Conference and Scheduling Order. (cqui) (Entered: 12/14/2004)
20 JOINT 26(f) Answers to Local Rule 26 Interrogatories by Stephon A Scott, John Q Hammons Hotel, John Q Hammons Hotel, EEOC . (cqui) (Entered: 12/14/2004)
21 JOINT 26(f) Outline of Discovery Plan by Stephon A Scott, John Q Hammons Hotel, John Q Hammons Hotel, EEOC . (cqui) (Entered: 12/14/2004)
22 CONSENT AMENDED CONFERENCE AND SCHEDULING ORDER Amended Pleadings due by 2/7/2005.Plaintiff ID of Expert Witness due by 3/9/2005.Defendants ID of Expert Witnesses Due by 4/7/2005.Records Custodian Affidavit due by 4/7/2005. Discovery due by 6/8/2005. Motions due by 6/22/2005.Mediation Due by 8/8/2005.. Signed by Judge Joseph R McCrorey on 02/25/2005. (ttil, ) (Entered: 03/02/2005)
23 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Robert F. Daley, Jr. of Mary M. Ryerse by United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Response to Motion due by 4/5/2005 (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Application of Mary Ryerse# 2 Proposed Order)(Daley, Robert) (Entered: 03/18/2005)
24 ORDER granting 23 Motion for Mary M. Ryerse to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Signed by Judge Joseph R. McCrorey on 4/1/05. (kpri, ) (Entered: 04/05/2005)
25 ADR STATEMENT/CERTIFICATION by United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission(Daley, Robert) (Entered: 05/05/2005)
26 Second MOTION to Amend/Correct 22 Scheduling Order, by United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Response to Motion due by 5/27/2005 (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Daley, Robert) (Entered: 05/09/2005)

Case: 3:04-cv-22067-CMC-JRM As of: 10/14/2009 09:52 AM EDT 5 of 5

05/11/2005 06/21/2005 06/22/2005
06/24/2005

27 SECOND AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER − Discovery due by 8/8/2005. Motions due by 8/22/2005. Motions terminated: 26 Second MOTION to Amend 22 Scheduling Order filed by United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission granted. Signed by Judge Joseph R. McCrorey on 5/11/05. (kpri, ) (Entered: 05/12/2005)
28 CONSENT DECREE. Signed by Judge Cameron McGowan Currie on 6/21/05. (Attachments: # 1 Consent Signature Pages# 2 Exhibit A# 3 Exhibit B# 4 Exhibit C)(gpea, ) (Entered: 06/22/2005)
29 JUDGMENT in favor of Plaintiff and Plaintiff−Intervenor against Defendants. The Plaintiff−Intervenor, Stephon A. Scott, shall recover of the Defendants, John Q. Hammons Hotels, Inc., and John Q. Hammons Hotels, L.P. d/b/a Embassy Suites Columbia Atrium Hotel, the sum of Twenty−Eight Thousand and 00/100 ($28,000.00) Dollars and this action is dismissed with prejudice. (gpea, ) (Entered: 06/22/2005)
30 AMENDED JUDGMENT in favor of Plaintiffs against Defendants. (gpea, ) (Entered: 06/24/2005)