UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

05 CV 8304

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY :

COMMISSION,

:

Civil Action No.

Plaintiff, -againstLA BRANCHE & Co., Inc.

:

:

:

COMPLAINT

:

AND

:

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

Defendant,

:

|U,.$..D.C.S.D.N. ¯ NATURE OF THE ACTION
This is an action under Title I of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, as well as Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, to correct unlawful employment practices On the basis of disability and to provide appropriate relief to Peter Servidio who was adversely affected by such practices. As alleged with greater particularity below, Defendant LaBranche & Co., Inc. ("Defendant") created a hostile work environment for Servidio based on his disability, retaliated against him when he complained of the harassment, and subjected him to constructive discharge.
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 107(a) of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12117(a), which incorporates by reference Section 706(0(1) and (3) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5(f)(1) and (3), and 42 U.S.C §2000e-6 and pursuant to Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. §1981a.

2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, and venue is therefore proper.
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("Commission" or "EEOC"), is the agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation, and enforcement of Title I of the ADA and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Section 107(a) of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. 812117(a), which incorporates by reference Section 706 (f)(1) and (3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. 82000e-5(f)(1). 4. At all relevant times, Defendant has continuously been a New York corporation doing business in the State of New York, and has continuously had at least fifteen employees. ~ 5. At all relevant times, Defendant has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce under Section 101 (5) of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. 8 12111 (5), and Section 101 (7) of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. 8 12111 (7), which incorporates by reference Sections 701(g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. 88 2000e-(g) and (h). 6. At all relevant times, Defendant has been a covered entity under Section 101 (2) of theADA, 42 U.S.C. 812111(2).
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 7. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Servidio filed a charge with the Commission alleging violations of Title I of the ADA by Defendant. All. conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled. 8. Sevidio is a qualified individual with a disability: (a) he has bipolar disorder/manic

depression which substantially limits him in one or more major life activities, including, but not limited to, sleeping; (b) Defendant regarded Servidio as disabled, and (e) Servidio has a record of a disability of bipolar disorder/manic depression since at least 1994.
9. Since at least 2000, Defendant has engaged in the creation of a hostile environment on the basis of Servidio’s disability, as set forth below:
a. Servidio was hospitalized for approximately one week in June, 2000 because of his disability, bipolar disorder/manic depression.
b. From the date of his hospitalization through his constructive discharge in December, 2003, Servidio’s supervisors and co-workers made him the frequent target of offensive comments about his disability and the fact that he had been hospitalized. For example, shortly after Servidio’s return to work, the Head Clerk questioned him about returning from a"mental ward" and teased him about his use of medication. Defendant’s supervisors often initiated or participated in the harassment themselves and failed to deter Servidio’s co-workers from contributing to the hostile environment. Supervisors and eoworkers frequently made comments to the effect that Servidio was crazy, suicidal, in and out of mental institutions, and ready to "go postal," meaning that he could potentially hurt or kill other people.
c. As early as December 2000, Servidio complained to the Head Clerk about the harassment. The Head Clerk told Servidio that when offensive comments were made to him, he should respond to the comments with similar insults. In July 2001, Servidio also complained to the Post Captain about the comments. In earlyNovember 2003, Servidio again complained to the Head Clerk. Defendant took no action to cease the harassment at any time. 10. Since at least November, 2003, Defendant has engaged in retaliation against Servidio. On or about November 24,

2003, Servidio complained to Defendant’s Human Resources Department conceming the abovereferenced offensive comments about his disability, hospitalization, and use of medication. On November 25 and 26, Servidio met with the Chief Executive Officer and the Specialist Supervisor, who made negative comments about his hospitalization, threatened him, stating that they would make his life and career extremely difficult if he pursued his complaints of discrimination, and directed him to stop pursuing the matter. This threatening behavior continued through Servidio’s last day on the premises. Defendant was particularly intimidating immediately after receiving a letter about Servidio’s complaints from an attorney.
11. As a result of the continued harassment and retaliation, Servidio’s working conditions became so intolerable that he could not continue to work for Defendant. Servidio suffered a panic attack and experienced high blood pressure on December 1, 2003. His condition deteriorated markedly in the next ten days. On December 12, 2003, Servidio was constructively discharged.
12. The effect of the practices complained of above has been to inflict emotional pain, suffering and inconvenience upon Servidio.
13. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs 9-11 above were and are intentional.
14. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs 9-11 above were done with malice or reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Servidio, in violation of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et sech.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court:
4

A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant, its of.ricers, successors, assigns and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in any employment practice which discriminates on the basis of disability.
B. Order Defendant to institute and carry out policies, practices and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for qualified individuals with disabilities, and which provide affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices.
C. Order Defendant to make whole Servidio by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from theunlawful employment practices described in paragraphs 9-111 above, including but not limited to appropriate back pay with prejudgment interest and job search expenses, in amounts to be determined at trial, and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices, including but not limited to, front pay and reinstatement.
D. Order Defendant to make whole Servidio by providing compensation for past and future nonpecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described in paragraphs 9-11 above, including but not limited to emotional pain, suffering and inconwmience, in amounts to be determined at trial.
E. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public interest. F. Award the Commission its costs in this action.
5

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

Dated:

September2.’~, 2005 New York, New York
Respectfully submitted,
James L. Lee Deputy General Counsel
Gwendolyn Young Reams Associate General Counsel
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 1801 L Street, N.W., 7th Floor
W.~hington, DC 205~)7 Elizabetl~ Grossman (EG 2478) Acting Regional Attorney

..~.~N~a E: Curtin (NC 5223) Acting Supervisory Trial Attomey

Senior Trial Attorney
New York District Office 33 Whitehall Street, 5th Floor New York, New York 10004 (212) 336-3701 (phone) (212) 336-3623 (facsimile)

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

Civil Action No

¢m
-agmnst-

Plaintiff,

LABRANCHE & CO., INC.,

Defendants.

PETER SERVIDIO,

Plaintiff,

-agmnst-

LABRANCHE & CO., INC., ANTHONY CORSO and ALFRED HAYWARD,

Defendams.

COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
X

Plaintiff-Intervenor, Peter Serv dio (here na er referred to as Servidio ), by his

attorneys Mark B o Stumer & Associates, P.C., as and for his Complaint in Intervention, allege as follows upon information and belief:

NATURE OF ACTION

................... _-_ ..... _’ ............. "_._ ........ =_.

. --.~.--

This is an action under Title I of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA"), Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, and the New York City Civil Rights Law, Administrative Code of New York, }} 8-101 et s_k_s_K . ("NYccRL"), to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of disability, and perceived disability, and to provide appropriate relief to Peter servidio who was adversely affected by such practices. As alleged with greater particularity below, the Defendants created a hostile work environment for servidio based on his disability, failed to

1

promote him based on his disability, retaliated against him when he complained of the

discrimination., and subjected him to constructive discharge.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

@

Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 UoS.C. 451,1331, 1337,

1343, and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Section 107(a) of the

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. 12117(a), which incorporates by reference Section 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C.

{ 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3), and 42 U.S.C 2000e-6 and pursuant to Section 102 of the Civil Rights

Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. 1981a,

The Court has supplemental jurisdiction of the claims arising under the NYCCRL pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367, because the NYCCRL claims arise from the same operative facts

as the federal claims and are so related as to form part of the same case or controversy.

Servidio is entitled to file this Complaint in Intervention pursuant to Rule 24 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(f)(l) and "(3).

Venue is appropriate as the alleged unlawful employment practices were and are now being committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the

Southern District of New York.

The claims asserted in this Complaint in Intervention and the claims asserted in the EEOC Complaint arise from a common nucleus of operative facts.

Servidio’s proposed intervention is timely. No other motions have been filed with the Court, discovery has not commenced, and the issues have not yet been joined.

2

Copies of this Complaint were served on the Corporation Counsel of the City of New York and the New York City Commission on Human Rights prior to being filed in this Court, pursuant to {} 8 502(c) of the NYCCRL.

PARTIES At all relevant times, the Plaintiff was an "employee" covered by the ADA and a

person" within the meaning of the NYCCRL.

At all relevant times, Servidio has been disabled within the meaning of the ADA

and the NYCCRL.

10o

At all relevant times, Servidio has been regarded by the Defendants as having a

disability within the meaning of the ADA and the NYCCRL.

At all relevant times, Servidio has a record having a disability within the meaning

of the ADA and the NYCCRL.

At all relevant times, Defendant LaBranche & Co., Inc., (’ LaBranche") has continuously been a New York corporation doing business in the State of New York, and has

continuously had at least fifteen employees.

At all relevant times, Defendant LaBranche has continuously been an employer

engaged in an industry affecting commerce under Section 101(5) of the ADA, 42 U.S.C.

12111 (5), "and Section 101 (7) of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. } 12111 (7), which incorporates by

reference Sections 701 (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-(g) and (h).

At all relevant times, Defendant LaBranche has been a covered entity under

Section I 01 (2) of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. {} 12111 (2) and the NYccRL.

3

At all relevant times, Defendant Alfred Hayward ( °Hayward") was the Chief Executive Officer of Defendant LaBranche and is liable in his individual capacity pursuant to the NYCCRL.
16. At all relevant times, Defendant Anthony Corso ( Corso") was a Manager of Defendant LaBranche and is liable in his individual capacity pursuant to the NYCCRL.
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Servidio filed a charge with the Commission alleging violations of Title I of the ADA by Defendant. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled. Servid o a qualified lndlv dual w th a disab iity pursuant: (a) he has b polar disorder/manic depression which substantially limits him. in one or more major life activities, including, but not limited to, sleeping; (b) Defendants regarded Servidio as being disabled, and (c) Servidio has a record of a disability of bipolar disorder/manic depression. 19. Since at least 2000, Defendants have engaged in the creation of a hostile environment on the basis of Servidio’s disability, including but not limited to, the incidents set forth below:
Servidio was hospitalized for approximately one week in June of 2000 because of his disability, bipolar disorder/manic depression.
From the date of his hospitalization through his constructive discharge in December, 2003, Servidio’s supervisors and co-workers made him the frequent target of offensive comments about his disability and the fact that he had been hospitalized. For example, shortly after servidio’s return to work, the Head Clerk questioned him about returning from a
4

"mental ward," and teased him about his use of medication. Defendant supervisors often initiated

or participated in the harassment themselves and failed to deter Servidio’s co-workers from

contributing to the hostile environment. Supervisors and coworkers frequently made comments

to the effect that Servidio was a nut, murderer, psycho, psychotic, crazy, suicidal, constantly in

and out of mental institutions, and ready to get a gun and postal," meaning that he could

potentially hurt or kill other people.

Servidio was often referred to, by his coworkers and supervisors, as

°°Crazy

’ Pete,’

’

the

Lunatic",

and

’the Psycho, " and was often told that he belonged in a straight

jacket and a mental institution.

Throughout Servidio’s employment with LaBranche, Servidio had

repeatedly requested a promotion to the Specialist position. Despite being qualified for the position, Servidio was passed over for said promotion on about forty-five (45) separate

occasions. He was informed by his Manager that he was not getting that promotion because he

did not have the "right mental temperament."

As early as December 2000, Servidio complained to the Head Clerk about

the harassment. The Head Clerk told Servidio that when offensive comments were made to him, he should respond to the comments with similar insults, in July 2001, Servidio also complained

to the Post Captain about the continual comments. In approximately early November 2003, Servidio again complained to the Head Clerk. Defendants took no action to cease the harassment at any time.

Since at least November, 2003, Defendant has engaged in retaliation against

serv dio. On or about November 24, 2003, servidio complained to Defendant’s Human

Resources Department concerning the above-referenced offensive comments about his disability,

5

hospitalization, use of medication, and failure to receive the Specialist position on account of his disability. On November 25 and 26, Servidio met with the Chief Executive Officer and the Specialist Supervisor, and those individuals made negative comments about his disability and hospitalization, threatened him, stating that they would make his life extremely difficult and that they would personally ruin his career if he pursued his complaints of discrimination, and directed him to stop pursuing the matter.
Until the date of his constructive discharge, the Defendants continued to treat Servidio in a threatening and hostile manner, especially after receiving a letter about his complaints from his attorney.
As a result of the continued harassment and retaliation, Servidio’s working conditions became so intolerable that he could not continue to work for the Defendants. result of the harassment, Servidio suffered a panic attack and experienced high blood pressure on December 1, 2003, and his condition deteriorated markedly in the next ten days. On December 12, 2003, Ser zidio was constructively discharged.
The effect of the practices complained of above has been to inflict emotional pain, suffering and inconvenience upon Servidio.
The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs 9-11 above were and are intentional.
25. The unlawful employment practic.es complained of paragraphs 9-11 above were done with malice or reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Servidio, in violation of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq. and the NYCcRL
6

AS AND FOR THE FIRST CLAIM

HOSTILE ENVIRONMENT

AGAINST DEFENDANT LABRANCHE Servidio hereby realleges and incorporates by reference, as if fully set forth herein, all of the allegations of the EEOC Complaint in this action and paragraphs 1-25 above.

Servidio was forced to endure discrimination and h.arassment in violation of the

ADA.

Defendant’s unlawft l employment practices resulted in a hostile work

environment xn violation of the ADA.

The unlawful employment practices complained of above were intentional and

were performed with malice and reckless indifference to Servidio’s federally protected rights.

As a proximate result of Defendant’s acts and practices described above, Servidio

suffered and endured, and will continue to suffer and endure, serious and possibly permanent

emotional pain, suffering and anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of personal dignity, loss of self-esteem, embarrassment, humiliation, and other damages.
Defendants are therefore liable to Servidio for compensatory damages, punitive

damages, other affirmative relief, costs and attorney’s fees, in a sum to be awarded by Court

and jury.

AS AND FOR

-~-~ ........................... :’-" ----:; - -: ...................... Z .... . .......... ":--- - --- ..... " "

- --L.. I~l-Li~-~’~- - ~ --’--.------ ..... i t

THE

~_

-

~

SECOND CLAIM

., _~_’_ .......

_-_’_’_’__-_’_ .......................................

= ..............

~.-;

DENIAL OF TERMS. AND CONDITIONS-
-----------,_---.----------.-- .................... ’_’_’_’_’___’____’_ ..................... Z-_’_-’__-___ "__ "_ ................ __..:=______ _- .... -.~:~-~:.--~_ .... _ ....... _-___.,_,_~__.~.~ ........................ -_~..._~__-___ -._ .................... .: - - :-.-.- =~=: ....

ADA

AGAINST DEFENDANT LABRANcHE ;’~- .--- ......... ~ ....................................... -_ _-~_ _ "7_ _’" _ .’_. _ _ "_-_-_ _ _’. _ "_ ................. .____’_-’_z_’]_-__:’__-=-__:’__-_. .... .-_-’__: ........ =_:__:_’_ ...... : .... " ...... v__2.-_

7

Servidio hereby realleges and incorporates by reference, as if fully set forth herein, all of the allegations of the EEOC Complaint in this action and paragraphs 1-31 above.
Servidio was forced to endure discrimination and harassment in violation of the ADA.
Defendant LaBranche have engaged in unlawful employment practices in violation of the ADA.
In violation of the ADA, Defendant LaBranche has denied Servidio equal terms, conditions and privileges of employment.
The unlawful employment practices complained of above were intentional and were performed with malice and reckless indifference to Servidio’s federally protected rights.
37. As a proximate result of Defendant’s acts and practices described above, Servidio has suffered and endured, and will continue to suffer and endure, serious and possibly permanent emotional pain, suffering and anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of personal dignity, loss of self-esteem, embarrassment, humiliation, and other damages.
Defendant LaBranche is therefore liable to Servidio for compensatory damages, punitive damages, other affirmative relief, costs and attorney’s fees, in a sum to be awarded by Court and jury.
AS AND FOR THE THIRD CLAIM

AGAINST DEFENDANT LABRANcHE

39. Servidio hereby re’alleges and incorporates by reference, as if fully set

forth

herein., all of the allegations of the EEOC complaint in this action and paragraphs 1-38 above.

8

In violation of the ADA, Defendant LaBranche retaliated against Servidio by subjecting him to adverse actions in his employment as a result of his discrimination complaints.
As a proximate result of Defendant’s acts and practices described above, Servidio suffered and endured., and will continue to suffer and endure, serious and possibly permanent emotional pain, suffering and anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of personal dignity, loss of self-esteem_, embarrassment, humiliation, and other damages.
Defendant LaBranche is therefore liable to Servidio for compensatory damages, punitive damages, other affirmative relief, costs and attorney’s fees, in a sum to be awarded by Court and jury.

AS.
N

AND.

II~ IJ I

----

FOR THE FOURTH CLAIM

.~....................

_ ...............

__~_____’_" ................._’~_ "_-__L~,~____’_’___ . . ___.___:__~.~= ......

__~’ ......

~’ ..... _" ......

.. --~-. ~-------- ..............

~.._’..; .......................

-

HOSTILE ENVIRONMENT NYCCRL

AGAINST. ALL DEFENDANTS

Servidio hereby realleges and incorporates by reference, as if fully set forth

herein, all of the allegations of the EEOC Complaint in this action and paragraphs 1-42 above.

Servidio was forced to endure discrimination and harassment in violation of the

NYCcRL.

The Defendants unlawful employment practices resulted in a hostile work

environment in violation of the NYCcRL.

46° The unlawful employment practices complained of above were intentional and

were performed with malice and reckless indifference to Servidio’s rights.

As a proximate result of the Defendants acts and practices described above,

servidio suffered and endured, and will continue to suffer and endure, serious and possibly

9

permanent emotional pain, suffering and anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of personal dignity, loss of self-esteem, embarrassment, humiliation, and other damages.
48. Defendants are therefore liable to Servidio for compensatory damages, punitive damages, other affirmative relief, costs and attorney’s fees, in a sum to be awarded by Court

and jury.

AS AND FOR THE FIFTH CLAIM

DENIAL OF TE S AND CONDITIONS- N¥CCRL

.............. ~llY~ ................ " ..... 2"-------_’__-" __-- .....................lll--L ............

_ .... ------ --’~’~-~:.~...-~-=’~ --~ ..... = ~-~ .......................... -~-:_: ..... =___-_~: .... ~__~ ~-_~_~----~_.--.~ ......................................

q am a a

III~.~I~_L .~. _=_=~____...~.~ .....

~.:--

AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
~ [ I Ill =~] ~ I I~ .... [ } : ~TZ Z ..... 2~I~I: YI .............. : ~II ........... 7 ..... ’-I-I-EL ......
Servidio hereby realleges and incorporates by reference, as if fully set forth

herein., all of the allegations of the EEOC Complaint in this action and paragraphs 1-48 above.

Servidio was forced to endure discrimination and harassment in violation of The

NYCCRL.

The Defendants have engaged in un’lawful employment practices in violation of

The NYCCRL.

52°

In violation of The NYCCRL, the Defendants have denied Servidio equal terms,

conditions and privileges of employment.

The unlawful employment practices complained of above were intentional and

were performed with malice and reckless indifference to Servidio’s rights.

54°

As a proximate result of Defendants’ acts and practices described above, Servidio

suffered and endured, and will continue to suffer and endure, serious and possibly permanent

emotional pain, suffering and anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of personal dignity, loss of

self-esteem, embarrassment, humiliation, and other damages.

10

Defendants are therefore liable to Servidio for compensatory damages, punitive damages, other affirmative relief, costs and attorney’s fees, in a sum to be awarded by Court and
jury.

AS AND FOR THE SIXTH CLAIM RETALIATION- N¥CCRL
AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS Servidio hereby realleges and incorporates by reference, as if fully set forth herein., all of the allegations of the EEOC Complaint in this action and paragraphs 1- 55 above. In violation of the NYCCRL, the Defendants have retaliated against Servidio by subjecting him to adverse actions in his employment as a result of his discrimination complaints.

58. As

a proximate result of the Defendants acts and practices described above,

Servidio suffered and endured, and will continue to suffer and endure, serious and possibly

permanent emotional pain,, suffering and anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of personal

d gn ty, loss of self-esteem, embarrassment, humiliation, and other damages.

The Defendants are therefore liable to Servidio for compensatory damages, punitive damages, other affirmative relief, costs and attorney’s fees, in a sum to be awarded by Court and jury.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs request judgment against the Defendants as follows: On the First and Second Claims, for discrimination in violation of the ADA, against Defendant LaBranche, in a sum to be awarded by a court and/or a jury for compensatory

11

(including, but not limited to back pay, front pay and emotional distress) and punitive damages,

costs and reasonable attorney’s and experts fees;

2) On the Third Claim, for retaliation in violation of the ADA, against Defendant LaBranche, in

a sum to be awarded by a Court and/or a jury for compensatory (including, but not limited to

back pay, front pay and emotional distress) and punitive damages, costs and reasonable

attorney’s and experts fees;

3) On the Fourth and Fifth Claims, for discrimination in violation of the NYCCRL, against all

De’fendants, in a sum to be awarded by a Court and/or a jury for compensatory (including, but

not limited to back pay, front pay and emotional distress) and punitive damages, costs and

reasonable attorney’s and experts fees;

4)

On the Sixth Claim, for retaliation in violation of the NYCCRL, against all Defendants,

in a sum to be awarded by a Court and/or a jury for compensatory (including, but not limited to

back pay, front pay and emotional distress) and punitive damages, costs and reasonable

attorney’s and experts fees;

for such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

The Plaintiffs demand a jury trial of all issues properly triable by a jury.

Dated: September 28, 2005 New York, New York

MARK B. STuMER & ASSOCIATES, PC

B. Stumer, Esq (MS-6027) Attorney for Intervening Plaintiff 200 Park Avenue South, Suite 1511 New York, New York 10003

12

 
 ~J,.";.~",~""",,,Ii''''''''''.'. 't~,#,J'" ,,~ \ Jr.'
r;::====== r--

.. --~-.'

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY: COMMISSION,

and

PETER SERVIDIO

Plaintiffs,

Civil Action. No. 05-CV -8304(SAS)

v.

LABRANCHE & CO., INC.

CONSENT DECREE

Defendant.
------------------------------------------------------)(

This action was initiated on September 27, 2005 by Plaintiff, the Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission (hereinafter the "EEOC"), an agency of the

United States Government, alleging that LaBranche & Co Inc. (hereinafter "LaBranche")

discriminated against claimant Peter Servidio ("Servidio") in violation of Title I of the

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 by engaging in harassment toward him on the

basis of his disability, retaliating against him and constructively discharging him from his

employment. The Complaint alleges that LaBranche created a hostile work environment

for Servidio on the basis of his mental disability by permitting him to be subjected to

frequent, hostile comments about his disability by his supervisors and co-workers. The

Complaint also alleges that LaBranche retaliated against Servidio after he complained of

the harassment by threatening to ruin his career and constructively discharging him from

his employment. LaBranche denies that Mr. Servidio was subjected to a hostile work

environment during his employment. LaBranche further denies that it retaliated against

:">IYI :\1 397I'3\09\TYIT09'.DOC\57500,OOI3

Mr. Servidio or subjected him to constructive discharge after Mr. Servidio complained about alleged harassment.
EEOC and LaBranche (hereinafter "the parties") desire to settle this action, and therefore do hereby stipulate and consent to the entry of this Decree as final and binding between the signatories hereto, and their successors or assigns. The parties have agreed that this Decree may be entered into without Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law having been made and entered by the Court.
In consideration of the mutual promises of each party to this Decree, the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows, the Court finds appropriate, and it is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that:
1. This Decree resolves all issues raised in EEOC Charge Number 160-200401358 and in EEOC's Complaint in this case.
2. The parties agree and the Court finds that this Court has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this action and of the parties, that venue is proper, and that all administrative prerequisites have been met. No party shall contest the validity of this Decree, or the jurisdiction of the federal district court to enforce this Decree and its terms.
3. This Decree is being issued with the consent of the parties and does not constitute an adjudication or finding by this Court on the merits of the allegations of the Complaint.

NY1 :\13971 53\09\TYI T09 !. 00057500 0013

2

4. Nothing in this Decree shall be construed to preclude the EEOC from enforcing this Decree in the event that LaBranche fails to perform the promises and representations contained herein.
5. LaBranche, its managers, officers, agents, successors, and assIgns, are enjoined from discrimination against any employee because of that individual's disability, harassment of any employee because of his or her status as a disabled employee, or retaliation against any employee because of her or his assertion of rights under the ADA. LaBranche and its agents further are enjoined from retaliation against any individual who has participated in this matter in any way.
A. PAYMENT
6. Within ten (10) business days of the Court's entry ofthis Consent Decree, LaBranche shall make payment to Servidio in the total amount of five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000), payment to be made in the manner specified in the Settlement Agreement between plaintiff-intervenor Peter Servidio and LaBranche entered into concurrently with the parties' execution of this Consent Decree.
7. LaBranche shall send copIes of the checks compnsmg the payment described in Paragraph 6 above (and applicable 1099s) to Michael Ranis, New York District Office of the EEOC, 33 Whitehall Street, 5th Floor, New York, New York 10004, at the time it sends same to Servidio.

NY I :\1 3971 53,09\TY IT09 LDOC\57500.001 3

3

B. NOTICE AND POSTING
8. Within ten (10) business days of the Court's entry of this Consent Decree, LaBranche shall post a copy of a remedial notice, printed on LaBranche letterhead and signed by its Executive Vice President, Alfred Hayward, in conspicuous places where employee notices are posted. A copy of the remedial notice is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
c. WRITTeN POLICIESAND PROCEDURES
9. Upon the Court's entry of this Consent Decree, LaBranche will adopt the modifications to its written policies and procedures prohibiting employment discrimination, including disability discrimination, harassment and discrimination on the basis of race, national origin, and religion, and retaliation, which are attached as Exhibit B.
10. Upon the Court's entry of this Consent Decree, LaBranche will adopt the modifications to its written complaint procedures for employees who believe that they have been discriminated against, harassed, or retaliated against, which are attached as Exhibit B. As part of these complaint procedures, employees of LaBranche will be able to report incidents of discrimination, harassment or retaliation to their supervisor or manager at LaBranche, to LaBranche's Human Resources Manager, or to a toll-free number for reporting incidents of discrimination, harassment or retaliation. In addition, as part of these complaint procedures, it shall be the duty of any LaBranche manager to promptly report any allegations of or suspected incidents of discrimination, harassment or retaliation to the LaBranche Human Resources Office.

NY I ,II 397 I53\09\TY IT09!.DOC\57500.0013

4

11. Upon the Court's entry of this Consent Decree, LaBranche will continue to maintain a toll-free telephone number for reporting incidents of discrimination, harassment, or retaliation. During the hours of 9:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, the toll-free telephone number will enable employees to report incidents of discrimination, harassment or retaliation to personnel who are trained to investigate such incidents. During all other hours, this telephone line will have an outgoing recorded message containing information about the complaint reporting procedure and a listing of staffed hours, and will accept recorded messages and complaints.
12. Upon the Court's entry of this Consent Decree, LaBranche will adopt the modifications to its written procedures for the investigation and handling of reported allegations of or suspected incidents of discrimination, harassment or retaliation, and a disciplinary policy for employees who engage in discriminatory, harassing or retaliatory behavior; such procedures and policy are attached as Exhibit C.
13. Defendant has distributed a copy of the written policies and procedures described in paragraphs 9, 10, and 12 above to all employees, and defendant agrees to distribute copies of these written policies and procedures to all future employees at or near the time of commencement of their employment.

D. TRAINING

14. LaBranche shall provide no fewer than two hours training in Federal laws prohibiting discrimination in employment for all employees, including all management and supervisory employees at LaBranche. The training shall include disability discrimination and harassment as a topic, but will also consist of anti-discrimination training about other areas of prohibited discrimination, including discrimination on the

NY! :\1397153\09\TY i T09!.DOC\57500.0013

5

basis of race, sex, national origin, and religion, harassment in general, and retaliation. LaBranche shall provide the curriculum for the training to the EEOC at least 30 days prior to the day upon which the training is given, and such curriculum must meet the approval of the EEOC. The seminar will be conducted no later than six months after the entry of this Consent Decree and must be repeated again for the same group of employees no later than two years after the seminar is provided.
15. In addition to attending the training set forth in Paragraph 14 above, all LaBranche Managing Directors, Floor Captains, Post Managers and Supervising Trading Assistants shall be required to attend a training program, no less than two hours in duration, regarding harassment on the basis of disability, as well as on the bases of sex, race, national origin and religion. The training will be developed by an outside consultant and employ role plays, examples of discriminatory attitudes and positions, and sensitivity training, with the consultation of defendant's counsel and the EEOC. The training shall discuss the importance of maintaining respect for other individuals-even when working in a stressful environment, such as the trading floor. The training should include topics regarding disability harassment, such as unwelcome remarks, making employees uncomfortable with remarks about their disabilities, and harassment on the basis of disability. It should define what makes comments "unwelcome," and how that is determined by the person being addressed, and not by the speaker making the comment. The training should also include a discussion of stereotyped assumptions regarding disabled individuals and how to treat such individuals. LaBranche shall provide the curriculum for the training to the EEOC at least 30 days prior to the day upon which the training is given, and such curriculum must meet the approval of the EEOC. The training will be conducted no later than six months after the entry of this Consent Decree, and

NY1 :\1 3971531091TYI T091DOCl575000013

6

must be repeated again for the same group of employees no later than two years after the training occurs.
16. LaBranche will train all Human Resource personnel, all in-house legal counsel, and its Regulatory Officer, on how to conduct investigations of complaints of discrimination and harassment, including harassment on the basis of disability. This training, no less than two hours in duration, will emphasize how to conduct such an investigation without pennitting retaliation against the complainant. LaBranche shall provide the curriculum for the training to the EEOC at least 30 days prior to the day upon which the training is given, and such curriculum must meet the approval of the EEOC. The training is to be completed no later than six months after the entry of this Decree, and must be repeated again for the same group of employees no later than two years after the training occurs.

E. MONITORING AND REPORTING

17. The EEOC has the right to monitor and review compliance with this Consent Decree. Accordingly:

18. Within (60) sixty days of the Court's entry of this Consent Decree, LaBranche shall appoint an Equal Employment Office Coordinator who shall be responsible for investigating discrimination complaints. That officer is responsible for fully investigating any such complaints about discrimination on the basis of disability, race, national origin, sex, and religion, and assuring that such is done in a manner that does not retaliate against the individual who made the complaint in the first place. Within (30) thirty days of the Court's entry of this Consent Decree, LaBranche shall

NYl :ll3971531091TY IT09LDOCIS7S00.0013

7

provide the name of its proposed Equal Employment Office Coordinator, and the curriculum vitae and any other information regarding that individual's experience, to the EEOC. The individual proposed must meet the approval of the EEOC.
19. Every six (6) months for the duration of this Decree, LaBranche shall provide periodic reports to EEOC regarding any complaints by employees about discrimination on the basis of disability, whether those complaints are made orally or in writing. If LaBranche receives a complaint in writing, it is to include and attach that written complaint as part of the report to the EEOC.
20. Within ten (10) business days of the completion of each training session referenced in '-)~114-16 above, LaBranche shall provide EEOC sign-in sheets showing who attended the training(s), the job title of each such individual, and indicate the subject matter of the training and its beginning and ending time.
21. In addition to the monitoring provisions set forth elsewhere in this Decree, EEOC may monitor compliance during the duration of this Decree by inspection of defendant's premises, records, and interviews with employees at reasonable times, and upon reasonable advance notice. Upon five days' notice by the EEOC, defendant will make available for inspection and copying any records requested by EEOC, facilities sought to be inspected by EEOC, and employees.

NYI :113971 53109\TYI T09!.DOC157500.0013

8

F. -=-=-==
22. The EEOC and LaBranche agree to bear their own attorneys' fees and costs in connection with this case.
23. This Decree will remain in effect until three years from the date of entry.
AugUst/), 2006

APPROVED IN FORM AND CONTENT:

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

COMMISSION

U t',/1{ 1I (Li

(
L'i

L\

,I

\1~~[ l~'-"

ELIZABETH GROSSMAN Regional Attorney

JUDY KEENAN Supervisory Trial Attorney

l':Y 1:\1 3971 53109\TY IT09LDOC:575000013

9

Michael B. Ranis Trial Attorney
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
New York District Office 33 Whitehall Street New York, NY 10004 (212) 336-3701
JEFFREY KLEIN, Esq. Attorney for Defendant LABRANCHE & CO INC.
WElL, GOTSHAL & MANGES, LLP 767 Fifth Avenue New York, New York 10153
(212) 310-8000
ALFRED HAYWARD Executive Vice President LABRANCHE & CO INC. One Exchange Plaza New York, New York 10006

NY 1:\1 397153\09\TY 1T09'.DOC\57500.00 13

10

Michael B. Ranis
Trial Attorney
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
New York District Office 33 Whitehall Street New York, NY 10004 (212) 336-3701
JEFFRE K EIN, Esq. Attorney for Defendant LABRANCHE & CO INC.
WElL, GOTSHAL & MANGES, LLP 767 Fifth Avenue New York, New York 10153
(212) 310-8000
ALFRED HAYWARD Executive Vice President LABRANCHE & CO INC. One Exchange Plaza New York, New York 10006

NY 1.\1397153\09\TY IT09 LDOC157500.00 13

10

Aug. 8. 2006 5: 22 PM RITZ_CARLTON EXEC
AUG. 8. 2006 5: 16 PM

No.5357 p. 2
NU.2/1 P. J

Michael B. Ranis Trial Attorney
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
New York District Office 33 Whitehall Street New Yor~ NY 10004 (212) 336-3701
JEFFREY KLEIN~ Esq. Attomey for Defendant LABRANCHE & CO INC.
WEn.., GOTSHAL & MANGES, LLP 767 Fifth A'\renue New York, New York 10153
(212) 310-8000
£td:~
Executive Vice President LABRANCHE & CO INC. One Exchange Plaza New York, New York 10006

NYl,\13971~~\09\1Y1T091.JXlC\57500.0013

10

Pot'",\,,,..! Titr.o AnI': R ~'l~DI1

 
 SDNY CM/ECF Version 3.0L - Docket Report

https://ecf.nysd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?346433390989121-L_3...

CASREF, CLOSED, ECF
U.S. District Court United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley Square)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:05-cv-08304-SAS

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. LA Branche & Co., Inc. Assigned to: Judge Shira A. Scheindlin Cause: 28:1331 Fed. Question

Date Filed: 09/27/2005 Date Terminated: 08/15/2006 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by Elizabeth Anne Grossman U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 33 Whitehall St., 5th Floor New York, NY 10004 (212) 336-3721 Fax: (212) 336-3623 Email: elizabeth.grossman@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael Bruce Ranis Equal Employment Opportunity Commission(NYC) 33 Whitehall Street, 5th Flr. New York, NY 10004 (212) 336-3701 Fax: (212) 336-3623 Email: michael.ranis@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nora Ellen Curtin U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 33 Whitehall St., 5th Floor New York, NY 10004 (212) 336-3693 Fax: (212) 336-3623 Email: nora.curtin@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.

1 of 5

5/31/2007 1:51 PM

SDNY CM/ECF Version 3.0L - Docket Report

https://ecf.nysd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?346433390989121-L_3...

Defendant LA Branche & Co., Inc.
Defendant Anthony Corso
Defendant Alfred Hayward
Intervenor Plaintiff Peter Servidio

represented by Jeffrey S. Klein Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP(NYC) 767 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10153 (212) 310-8000 Fax: (212) 833-3148 Email: jeffrey.klein@weil.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jeffrey S. Klein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jeffrey S. Klein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Mark B. Stumer, Sr Mark B. Stumer & Associates, P.C. 200 Park Avenue South New York, NY 10003 (212) 633-2225 Fax: (212)-691-3642 Email: wwym@aol.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 09/27/2005
09/27/2005 09/27/2005 09/27/2005 10/14/2005

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT against LA Branche & Co., Inc.. Document filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.(jmi, ) Additional attachment(s) added on 9/29/2005 (kco, ). (Entered: 09/28/2005)
SUMMONS ISSUED as to LA Branche & Co., Inc.. (jmi, ) (Entered: 09/28/2005)
Magistrate Judge Douglas F. Eaton is so designated. (jmi, ) (Entered: 09/28/2005)
Case Designated ECF. (jmi, ) (Entered: 09/28/2005)
2 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Shira A. Scheindlin from Mark B. Stumer dated 10/6/05 re: No pre-motion conference is necessary. Mr. Servidio

2 of 5

5/31/2007 1:51 PM

SDNY CM/ECF Version 3.0L - Docket Report

https://ecf.nysd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?346433390989121-L_3...

10/25/2005 11/28/2005 11/28/2005 12/08/2005
12/22/2005 12/22/2005 03/01/2006
03/14/2006
03/14/2006 03/20/2006
04/03/2006
04/11/2006 04/27/2006

may intervene as of right. (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 10/13/05) (sac, ) (Entered: 10/17/2005)
3 FIRST MOTION to Intervene. Document filed by Peter Servidio. (Attachments: # 1 # 2 # 3 # 4)(Stumer, Mark) (Entered: 10/25/2005)
4 STIPULATION AND ORDER: the time for defendant to answer, move or otherwise respond to the complaint is extended to 12/22/05. (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 11/28/05) (db, ) (Entered: 11/28/2005)
Set Answer Due Date purs. to 4 Stipulation and Order as to LA Branche & Co., Inc. answer due on 12/22/2005. (db, ) (Entered: 11/28/2005)
5 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE of Notice of Motion, Memo of Law in Support of Motion to Intervene, Affirmation in Support and Complaint in Intervention served on LaBranche & Co., Inc. c/o Kenneth Gavsie, Esq. on December 8, 2005. Service was made by MAIL (FED EX). Document filed by Peter Servidio. (Stumer, Mark) (Entered: 12/08/2005)
6 RULE 7.1 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT. Document filed by LA Branche & Co., Inc..(Klein, Jeffrey) (Entered: 12/22/2005)
7 ANSWER to Complaint. Document filed by LA Branche & Co., Inc..(Klein, Jeffrey) (Entered: 12/22/2005)
8 ORDER FOR INITIAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE: Initial Conference set for 4/03/2006 at 03:30 PM before Judge Shira A. Scheindlin, at the United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, Courtroom 15C. (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 2/28/2006) (lb, ) (Entered: 03/02/2006)
9 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Shira A. Scheindlin from Jeffrey S. Klein dated 3/10/06 re: Application GRANTED. The 4/3/06 initial pretrial conference is adjourned to 4/26/06 at 5:00 p.m. (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 3/13/06) (db, ) (Entered: 03/15/2006)
Set/Reset Hearings: Initial Conference set for 4/26/2006 05:00 PM before Judge Shira A. Scheindlin. (db, ) (Entered: 03/15/2006)
10 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Scheindlin from Mark Stumer dated 3/16/06: Peter Servidio's motion to intervene is hereby granted. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this motion. (docket number 3). (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 3/17/06) (cd, ) (Entered: 03/20/2006)
11 WAIVER OF SERVICE RETURNED EXECUTED. Anthony Corso waiver sent on 4/3/2006, answer due 6/2/2006; Alfred Hayward waiver sent on 4/3/2006, answer due 6/2/2006; LA Branche & Co., Inc. waiver sent on 4/3/2006, answer due 6/2/2006. Document filed by Peter Servidio. (Stumer, Mark) (Entered: 04/03/2006)
12 ANSWER to Complaint. Document filed by Anthony Corso, Alfred Hayward, LA Branche & Co., Inc..(Klein, Jeffrey) (Entered: 04/11/2006)
13 ORDER REFERRING CASE TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE. Order that case be referred to the Clerk of Court for assignment to a Magistrate Judge for settlement. Referred to Magistrate Judge Douglas F. Eaton. (Signed by Judge

3 of 5

5/31/2007 1:51 PM

SDNY CM/ECF Version 3.0L - Docket Report

https://ecf.nysd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?346433390989121-L_3...

04/27/2006 04/27/2006 06/13/2006 06/13/2006 07/07/2006 08/11/2006 09/19/2006 10/04/2006
10/05/2006 10/25/2006
01/25/2007

Shira A. Scheindlin on 4/26/06) (kco, ) Modified on 5/1/2006 (kco, ). (Entered: 04/27/2006)
14 SCHEDULING ORDER: Discovery due by 1/9/2007. Final Pretrial Conference is set for 11/14/2006 at 4:30 PM before Judge Shira A. Scheindlin. Pretrial Order due by 2/21/2007. All other deadlines are set forth in this order. (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 4/26/06) (kco, ) (Entered: 04/27/2006)
15 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER...regarding procedures to be followed that shall govern the handling of confidential material. (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 4/26/06) (kco, ) (Entered: 04/27/2006)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Douglas F. Eaton : Settlement Conference held on 6/13/2006. (The parties were unable to reach a settlement. Judge Eaton made a recommendation for their consideration) (js, ) (Entered: 06/16/2006)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Douglas F. Eaton : Settlement Conference held on 6/13/2006. No settlement reached. (db, ) (Entered: 07/10/2006)
Judge Douglas F. Eaton is no longer assigned to case. (cd, ) (Entered: 07/10/2006)
16 CONSENT DECREE AND JUDGMENT settling action. (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 8/11/06) (Attachments: # 1 notice of right to appeal)(ml, ) (Entered: 08/15/2006)
17 STIPULATION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL: This action is dismissed with prejudice against LaBranche & Co. Inc., Anthony Corso and Alfred Hayward, without costs to either party. (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 9/19/2006) (lb, ) (Entered: 09/20/2006)
18 FILING ERROR - ELECTRONIC FILING FOR NON-ECF DOCUMENT FIRST MOTION to Amend/Correct 17 Stipulation and Order of Dismissal, 16 Consent Judgment Provide Administrative Closure(LETTER). Document filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Ranis, Michael) Modified on 10/5/2006 (kg). (Entered: 10/04/2006)
***NOTE TO ATTORNEY TO RE-FILE DOCUMENT - NON-ECF DOCUMENT ERROR. Note to Attorney Michael Bruce Ranis to MANUALLY RE-FILE Document No. 18 Letter. This document is not filed via ECF. (kg) (Entered: 10/05/2006)
19 ORDER the above-captioned case was settled by the parties in a Consent Decree approved by the Court on August 11,2006. The Consent Decree requires the Court to retain jurisdiction for three years from the date of entry. Therefore, this Court will retain jurisdiction until the Consent Decree expires on August 11, 2009. Until such time, the action may be reinstated as to defendant LaBranche & Co., Inc., if need be. So Ordered. (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 10/25/2006) (jmi, ) (Entered: 10/26/2006)
20 ORDER: intervenor-plaintiff Peter Servidio requested a pre-motion conference to resolve a fee dispute between himself and his former attorney, Mark Stumer. Because this fee dispute is not sufficiently related to the main action to fall within

4 of 5

5/31/2007 1:51 PM

SDNY CM/ECF Version 3.0L - Docket Report

https://ecf.nysd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?346433390989121-L_3...

this Court's ancillary jurisdiction under 28 USC 1367, Servidio's request is DENIED. (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 1/25/07) (db) (Entered: 01/26/2007)

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

05/31/2007 14:50:50

PACER Login:

hs0328

Client Code:

Description:

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

Billable Pages: 3

Cost:

eeoc 1:05-cv-08304-SAS 0.24

5 of 5

5/31/2007 1:51 PM