Case 3:04-cv-04092-WHA Document 1 Filed 09/28/2004 Page 1 of 5

I WILLIAM R TAMAYO-#084965 (CA)

JONA'l1JAN T, PECK" #12303 (VA)

2 CINDY O'HARA" #114555 (CA)

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

3 COMMISSION

San Francisco District Office

4 350 Tbe Embarcadero. Suite 500 San Francisco, Califom.ia 94105

["filing

5 Telephone: (415) 625-5653

Facsimile: (415) 625-5657

6

Attorneys for Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 \0

I V NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALU'ORNIA

'

i}Lf

11 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY) Civil ~io~o,

COMMISSIO:>I,

)

12

)

A

Plaintiff,

) COMPLAINT

v, 14

l Civil Rights ~ EmpJoyment Discrimination

INTERSTATE HOTELS, L,L,C" 15
Defendants.

l DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

16

- - - - - _......_ )

17
NATURE OF THE AC'IJ.9N 18
This action is brought pursuant to Title VII or the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of 19
the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to COHeet unluwful employment practices on the basis of national 20
origin and retaliation, and to provide appropriate reIiefto Charging Party Raul Gutierrez, and
21 simllarly situated individuals who were adversely affected by such practices. Defendant

Interstate Hotels, L.L.C., which manages the Marriott Hotel at Ftshennan's Wharf, subjected the
23 above Charging Party and similarly situated llispanic!Latino individuals to unlawful hamssment
24 based on their national origin, and retaliateJ against them for opposing such harassment.
25 JURlSDICTIO:>l A:>ID VENUE
26
1, ,Jurisdiction of this COHrt is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.c. §§451, 1331, 1337.
27
t343 and 1345, This action js authorized and instituted pursuant to §706(f)O) and (3) of Title
28 VIl ofthe Civil Righ1S Act of 1964, as amended, 42 tlS.C. §2000e-5(f)(J) and (3) ("Title VII")

COMPLAINT FOR DISCRIM1NA'l'lON

Case 3:04-cv-04092-WHA Document 1 Filed 09/28/2004 Page 2 of 5

I and §102 of the Civil Rigllts Aet of1991. 42 U.S.C. §1981 •.

2

2. Venue is proper in the Northern District of California, as a substantial part oftbe

3 events and omissions giving rise to this claim occurred in the COWlty of San Francisco.

5

This action is appropriate for assignment to San Francisco/Oakland as this civil

6 action arose in the County of San Francisco.

7

PARTIES

8

4. Plaintifl". the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("Commission',) is the

9 tigency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and

10 enforcement of Title VII, and is expressly authorized to bring this action by §706(f)(1) and (3) of

II Title VII, §2000-e(f)(l) and (3).

12

5. . Defendant Interstate .Hotels, L.LC'. is a Delaware limited liability company, doing

13 business in San Francisco County in the State of California and has continuously had at least 15

14 employees,

15

6. At all relevant times, Defendant Interstate Hotels, LL.C (hereinafter

16 "Defendant") has continuously been an employer engaged in an jndustry affecting commerce,

17 within tlle meaning of Section 701 (bl, (B) and (h) ofTitle VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000-e(b), (g) and (11).

18

STATEMENT OF CI.,,AIMS

19

FIRST CLAIl\'l FOR RELIEf

20

Violation of Title VII of Civil Rights Act: National Origin Discrimination,

Harassment Based on National Origin

21

22

7. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Charging Patty Raul

23 Gutierrez ("Charging Party") filed a charge vvith Plaintiff Commission alleging violations of Title

24 VII by Defendants. All conditions preccOent to the institution of1hl$ lawsuit have been fuHilled,

25

8.

Since at least December 1, 2002, Defendant has engaged in tmiawful practices of

-26 discrimination based on national origin in violation §703(a) (l)ofTitle VII, 42 U.S.C §2000e-

27 2(a)(1) by $ubjecling the Charging Party and similarly situated Latino/Hispanic individuals to a

28 hostile, abusive, intimidating and offensive work environment because of their national origin.

COM1'LAINT FOR D1SCR1MINATlON

P"gc2

Case 3:04-cv-04092-WHA Document 1 Filed 09/28/2004 Page 3 of 5

1

9, The effect of the actions complained of in Paragraph S above has been 'to deprive

2 the Charging Party and simi!arly situated individuals of equal employment opportunities and

3 otherwise adversely affect their status as employees because of their national origin.

4

10. The unlawful employment practices complained of in Paragraph 8 above were

5 intentional.

6

11. The lmlawful employment practices complained of in Paragraph &above were

7 done with maljce or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Charging Party

8 and similarly situated individuals.

9

SECOND C{,AIM FOR RELIEF:

10

Violation of Title VII of Civil Rights Ad Based on Retaliation

11

12. PlaintilT Commission hereby incorporates the allegations of paragl1lphs 1 through

12 8 above as though fully set fQlih herein.

13

13. In addition to the above-referenced harassment, Defendant engaged in unla\\rfut

14 employment practices in violation of §704(a) ofTitIc VII, 42 U,S,C, §2000-e-3(a) by engaging in

15 adverse employment actions against Charging Party and similarly situated individuals in

16 retaliation for their opposition to andlor rejection of the discrimination referenced herein at

17 Paragraph 8, including but not limited to precluding Charging Party from working, resulting in

18 wage loss.

19

14, The effect of the action comp1ained of in Paragraph 13 above has been to deprive

20 Charging Party and similarly situated individuals of equal employment opportunities and

21 otherwise adversely affect their :;.iatus as employee because of their prote~ted activity,

22

15. '111C unlawful employment practice.s compJained of in Paragraph 13 above were

23 intentional.

24

16, The unlawful employment practices complained of in Paragraph 13 above were

25 done with malice or \<Vith reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Charging Party

26 and similarly situated individuals,

27

I'RAYER FOR RELIEF

28

Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests tJlat this Court:

COMPLAINT r:OR mSCHIMINATlON

Page 3:

Case 3:04-cv-04092-WHA Document 1 Filed 09/28/2004 Page 4 of 5

1

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

2 assigns, and all persons acting in concert or participation with it, from engaging in dis-crimination

3 against its employees including harassment based on national origin and retaliation.

4

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

5 prohibit harassment based on national otigin and retaliation, and which eradicate the effects ofits

6 unlawful employment practices.

7

c. Order Defendant to make whole Charging Parly and similarly situated individuals

8 by providing appropriate back pay, lost wages and benefits with prejudgment interest, and other

9 affinnative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices,

10 including but not llmited to reinstatement andlor front pay and other appropriate relief to be

11 determined at trial,

12

D. Order Defendant to make whole Charging Party and similarly situated individuals

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

14 employment practices complained ofabove. including but not limited w such out-of-pocket

15 expenses as medical care necessitated by Defendant's unlawful conduct; in amounts to be

16 determined at trial"

17

E. Order Defendant to make whole Charging Party and similarly situated individuals

18 by providing compem;ation for past and future nonpecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful

19 practices complained ofabove including. but not limited to emotional pain and suffering,

20 inconvenience. loss ofenjoyment oflitc, and humiliationl in amounls to be detennined at tria),

21

F. Order Defehdant to pay Charging Party and similarly situated indi"iduals by

22 providing pWlitive damages for the malicious and reckless conduct described above, in amounts

23 to be determined at trial.

24

G. Grant such further relief as the Court may deem just and proper in the public

25 interest.

26

H. Award the Commission its costs of this action,

" 27 "
28 II

CO\1I'LA!NT FOR DISCRIMlNAT10l\

Page 4

,, ',

Case 3:04-cv-04092-WHA Document 1 Filed 09/28/2004 Page 5 of 5

1

I)EMANP FOR JURY TRIAL

2

Pursuant to the provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b), Plaintiff hereby

3 demands a jury trial.

4

Eric S. Dreiband

Geneml Counsel

5

James L. Lee

6

Deputy General Counsel

7 8 9 10
11 Date: ~"--,~ --=-_ _,2004
12 13

Gwendolyn Young Reams
Associate General Counsel
Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission 1801 L Street, N,W,
~waShi:gtO: ~~:l ~~
r LAMR TAMAYO 10nm Attorney

J4 Date: ~,t 2.~ _ _,2004
15

16

=___ 17 Date:

_¥J1Y

,2004

18

19

20

Equal Employment Opportunity

21

Commission

San Francisco District Office

22

350 The Embarcadero, Suite 500

San Francisco, CA 94105

23

24

25

26

27

28

COMPtATh.TFOR DlSCRIMlNATION

Page- 5

 
 Case 3:04-cv-04092-WHA Document 67 Filed 06/07/2005 Page 1 of 2

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8

9

10 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

11

COMMISSION AND RAUL TOMAS GUTIERREZ,

12

Plaintiffs,

13

v.

14 INTERSTATE HOTELS, L.L.C., HMC

15

ACQUISITION PROPERTIES, INC., dba SAN FRANCISCO MARRIOTT AT

16

FISHERMAN’S WHARF; JOHN TROVATO; PENNY RICHARDSON,

17

Defendants.

18

/

No. C 04-04092 WHA
ORDER RE DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER SUBMITTED BY PLAINTIFF EEOC AND PLAINTIFF-ININTERVENTION RAUL GUTIERREZ

19

On May 23, 205, the parties appeared before the Court for a telephone hearing on

20 defendants’ request for a protective order prohibiting ex parte communications with its

21 managers and screening written notices to Interstate's current employees, as set forth in the

22 May 11, 2005, letter submitted by defendants’ counsel. On May 12, 2005, plaintiff and

23 plaintiff-in-intervention filed a joint letter objecting to the scheduling of the hearing. On

24 May 16, 2005, plaintiff filed its letter in opposition. On May 17, 2005, plaintiff-in-intervention

25 filed his letter in opposition. After reviewing the respective papers and hearing the argument of

26 counsel, the Court adopted the following rulings:

27

1. Defendants’ request for a protective order is denied.

28

Case 3:04-cv-04092-WHA Document 67 Filed 06/07/2005 Page 2 of 2

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

2. Defendants shall provide an updated list of persons considered to be or managers

2 or supervisors, which shall be reasonably tailored to the facts of this case. Counsel for plaintiffs

3 shall not contact or communicate with managers or supervisors employed by defendants

4 regarding the subject matter of this action during the pendency of this case and outside the

5 presence of defendants’ counsel in accordance with Rule 2-100 of the California Rules of

6 Professional Conduct. Prior to contacting or communicating with a manager or supervisor

7 identified on defendant’s list, counsel for plaintiffs shall:

8

(a) notify defendants’ counsel of the individuals to be contacted and

9

address the reasons why such persons should be excluded from the list;

10

(b) provide the defendants’ counsel with five (5) days to explain its

11

position on why those persons should not be contacted ex parte;

12

(c) meet and confer on any individual in dispute; and

13

(d) for those individuals who remain in dispute, plaintiffs may move

14

for relief from this order. The prohibition against contacting any disputed

15

individuals remains in effect while such a motion is pending.

16

3. Defendant’s request for an order excluding introduction of evidence located in

17 the personnel files of Alex Brena is denied without prejudice.

18

4. Plaintiffs shall not send any written notices or similar written communications to

19 any employees of defendants (other than those identified as a member of the proposed class)

20 without first disclosing it to defendants’ counsel and conferring in good faith on the content to

21 avoid undue prejudice or harm.

22

23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24

25 Dated: June 7, 2005. 26

WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

27

28

2

 
 Case 3:04-cv-04092-WHA Document 81 Filed 06/23/2005 Page 1 of 2

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8

9

10 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

11

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION AND RAUL TOMAS GUTIERREZ,

12

Plaintiffs,

13

v.

14 INTERSTATE HOTELS, L.L.C., HMC

15

ACQUISITION PROPERTIES, INC., dba SAN FRANCISCO MARRIOTT AT

16

FISHERMAN’S WHARF; JOHN TROVATO; PENNY RICHARDSON,

17

Defendants.

18

/

No. C 04-04092 WHA
ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF IN INTERVENTION’S REQUEST TO QUASH EMPLOYMENT RECORDS SUBPOENA AND NOTICES OF DEPOSITIONS OF FRANCISCO MELARA, DR. KROES, RON MALONE AND XIU MIN LI

19

On June 17, 2005, the parties appeared before the Court for a telephone hearing on the

20 June 14, 2005, request of plaintiff in Intervention Raul Gutierrez (“Gutierrez”) to quash

21 defendants’ employment records subpoena to the Sir Francis Drake Hotel and the notices of

22 depositions of Francisco Melara, Dr. Kroes, Ron Malone, and Xiu Min Li. After reviewing the

23 respective papers and hearing the argument of counsel, the Court adopted the following rulings:

24

1. Plaintiff in intervention’s request to quash Defendants’ subpoena

25

to the Sir Francis Drake Hotel is granted in part. Defendants’ subpoena to the

26

Sir Francis Drake Hotel is limited to the period covering September 1, 2003, to

27

December 31, 2004.

28

Case 3:04-cv-04092-WHA Document 81 Filed 06/23/2005 Page 2 of 2

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

2. Plaintiff in intervention’s request to quash the deposition notice of

2

Ron Malone is denied.

3

3. Plaintiff in Intervention’s request to quash the deposition notices

4

of Xiu Min Lin, Francisco Melara and Dr. Kroes is denied without prejudice.

5

Defendants, however, are limited to a maximum of ten depositions. It is the

6

Court’s understanding that at this time defendants have taken nine depositions

7

and that the deposition of Xiu Min Lin, noticed for June 22, if it goes forward,

8

would be the tenth deposition. Merely noticing a deposition, however, does not

9

count as a deposition. If defendants need more than ten depositions, they may

10

seek leave of court.

11

4. Plaintiffs shall have leave to conduct the deposition of Allen

12

Warner on June 27, 2005.

13

14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15

16 Dated: June 23, 2005. 17

WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

 
 Case 3:04-cv-04092-WHA Document 84 Filed 06/27/2005 Page 1 of 3

Case 3:04-cv-04092-WHA Document 84 Filed 06/27/2005 Page 2 of 3

UNITED S
UNITED S ALIFORNIA
ALIFORNIA

OURT OURT NORTH
NORTH

June 23, 2005

TATES DISTRICT C

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge

William

TATES DISTRICT C IT IS SO ORDERED
AlsupJudgeWilliamAlsup ERN DISTRICT OF C

ERN DISTRICT OF C

Case 3:04-cv-04092-WHA Document 84 Filed 06/27/2005 Page 3 of 3

 
 Case 3:04-cv-04092-WHA Document 119 Filed 08/25/2005 Page 1 of 3

1 WILLIAM R. TAMAYO – #084965 (CA) JONATHAN T. PECK -- #12303 (VA)
2 CINDY O'HARA -- #114555 (CA) EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
3 COMMISSION
San Francisco District Office
4 350 The Embarcadero, Suite 500 San Francisco, California 94105
5 Telephone: (415) 625-5653 Facsimile: (415) 625-5657
6
Attorneys for Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )

COMMISSION,

)

12

)

Plaintiff,

)

13 and

)

)

14 RAUL GUTIERREZ,

)

)

15

Plaintiff-Intervenor )

)

16 v.

)

)

17 INTERSTATE HOTELS, L.L.C., et al.,

)

)

18

Defendants.

)

_______________________________________ )

19

Civil Action No. C-04-4092 WHA
[proposed] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF EEOC’S REQUEST TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF PERSONNEL FILES

20

Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)’s July 5, 2005

21 request for an Order compelling Defendant Interstate Hotels, L.L.C. to produce the

22 personnel files of Caucasian employees in Defendant’s Food and Beverage Department

23 at the Marriott Fisherman’s Wharf hotel, including in particular the personnel file of

24 employee Allen Warner, was heard by the Court by telephone on August 16, 2005. All

25 parties appeared through their respective counsel. Having considered the letters and

26 evidence submitted, and heard the arguments of the parties, the Court now issues the

27 following Order:

28

The Court hereby grants the EEOC’s request to obtain information from the

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF EEOC’S REQUEST TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF PERSONNEL FILES

Page 1

Case 3:04-cv-04092-WHA Document 119 Filed 08/25/2005 Page 2 of 3

1 personnel files of Caucasian employees in Defendant’s Food and Beverage Department

2 subject to the following conditions:

3 1. Defendant is obligated to produce information regarding Food and Beverage

4

Department Caucasian employees who worked at least forty (40) days during the

5

time period of Department Manager Cushroo Elavia’s employment.

6 2. Defendant has two options for the manner of production of that information.

7

Defendant’s options are:

8

a. Produce the information in the form of a sworn interrogatory response.

9

Said response will contain, as to each employee: his or her full name; race;

10

national origin; primary language; dates of employment; career path

11

(including all job titles, promotions and demotions, and dates of same);

12

any disciplinary memos or actions; any documents reflecting

13

consideration of discipline or disciplinary possibilities; any complaints

14

about Elavia; performance evaluations; any references to national origin

15

or race; any request for, grants of, or other documents reflecting vacation,

16

personal time off, and sick leave.

17

If Defendant chooses this option, within three (3) days of

18

Defendant’s provision of its interrogatory response, Plaintiff EEOC can

19

designate five (5) files of its choosing to verify whether Defendant’s

20

response is an accurate summary of the files. If Plaintiff EEOC finds it to

21

be, Defendant has then fulfilled its obligation. If Plaintiff EEOC finds that

22

Defendant’s response is not a reasonable summary, then Defendant must

23

immediately produce all the files to Plaintiff EEOC.

24

The Court advises Defendant that if it intends to use material from

25

any of these files in its case in chief, the production of this interrogatory

26

response does not absolve Defendant of its disclosure obligations under

27

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 26(a).

28

b. As an alternative manner of production, Defendant may instead produce

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF EEOC’S REQUEST TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF PERSONNEL FILES

Page 2

Case 3:04-cv-04092-WHA Document 119 Filed 08/25/2005 Page 3 of 3

1

the actual personnel files to Plaintiff EEOC. Defendant may accomplish

2

this either by copying the files and providing the copies to Plaintiff

3

EEOC, or by making the files available to Plaintiff EEOC and allowing

4

Plaintiff EEOC to copy the documents it chooses. The Court advises

5

Plaintiff EEOC that its selection of documents for copying should be

6

reasonable, using the categories of information designated in Paragraph

7

2.a. above as guidelines for the types of documents to be copied. EEOC

8

trial attorney Cindy O’Hara should conduct the review of the documents.

9

Whichever option Defendant chooses, production should take place no later than

10 two weeks from the date of the hearing, in other words, no later than August 30, 2005.

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12

TATES DISTRICT C

UNITED S ALIFORNIA

OURT NORTH

13 14 Dated:___A_u_g__u_s_t _2_4_,_2_0_0_5______________ 15 16 17 18 Approved as to form:

IT IS SO ORDERED
____________________________________ HUnoint.eWd SiltlaiJatuemdsgeDHWi.silAltiralmicsutACplsuopurt Judge
ERN DISTRICT OF C

19 Dated: August 19, 2005

Dated August 19, 2005

20 _________/S/_______________________

_________/S/_______________________

21 Joan Herrington, Counsel for Plaintiff Intervenor Raul Gutierrez
22
23

Michael Hoffman, Counsel for Defendants Interstate Hotels, L.L.C.; HMC Acquisition Properties, Inc.; John Trovato;
and Penny Richardson

24 E-filing concurrence: I, Cindy O’Hara, attorney for Plaintiff EEOC, in submitting this proposed order, certify that I have obtained the concurrence as to form from Ms.
25 Herrington and Mr. Hoffman.
26

27

28

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF EEOC’S REQUEST TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF PERSONNEL FILES

Page 3

 
 Case 3:04-cv-04092-WHA Document 150 Filed 10/05/2005 Page 1 of 5

1 WILLIAM R. TAMAYO – #084965 (CA) JONATHAN T. PECK -- #12303 (VA)
2 CINDY O'HARA -- #114555 (CA) RAYMOND CHEUNG – #176086 (CA)
3 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION
4 San Francisco District Office 350 The Embarcadero, Suite 500
5 San Francisco, California 94105 Telephone: (415) 625-5653
6 Facsimile: (415) 625-5657

7 Attorneys for Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10

11

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )

12 COMMISSION,

)

)

13

Plaintiff,

)

and

)

14

)

RAUL GUTIERREZ,

)

15

)

Plaintiff-Intervenor )

16

)

v.

)

17

)

INTERSTATE HOTELS, L.L.C., et al.,

)

18

)

Defendants.

)

19 _______________________________________ )

Civil Action No. C-04-4092 WHA CONSENT DECREE

20

Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“Commission”) filed this

21 action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of

22 1991 to correct alleged unlawful employment practices, and to provide appropriate

23 relief to individuals who the Commission alleged were adversely affected by such

24 practices. The Commission alleged that Defendant Interstate Hotels, L.L.C.

25 (“Interstate”) subjected employees to unlawful harassment based on their national

26 origin and/or retaliation in violation of Title VII. Defendant Interstate denied all the

27 Commission’s allegations. The Commission and Defendant Interstate now seek to

28 resolve this action as to each other without further contested litigation through the

Consent Decree

Page 1

Case 3:04-cv-04092-WHA Document 150 Filed 10/05/2005 Page 2 of 5

1 instant Consent Decree. This resolution does not constitute an admission of liability on

2 the part of Interstate, nor constitute a finding on the allegations stated in the

3 Commission’s Complaint.

4

The Court has reviewed this Consent Decree in light of the pleadings, the record

5 herein, and the applicable law, and now approves this Consent Decree.

6

THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED:

7 GENERAL PROVISIONS

8

1. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties to this

9 action. This Court retains jurisdiction over this Consent Decree during its term.

10

2. This Consent Decree constitutes a full and final resolution of the

11 Commission’s claims against Defendant Interstate in this action.

12

3. This Consent Decree will become effective upon its entry by the Court.

13

4. This Consent Decree is final and binding upon the parties to it, their

14 successors and assigns.

15

5. The Commission and Interstate will each bear its own costs and attorneys

16 fees in this action.

17 GENERAL INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

18

6. Defendant Interstate and its current officers, agents, employees, and all

19 persons in active concert or participation with them will comply with all requirements

20 of Title VII with respect to providing a work environment free from discrimination,

21 including harassment, on the basis of national origin.

22

7. Defendant Interstate and its current officers, agents, employees, and all

23 persons in active concert or participation with them agree not to retaliate against Raul

24 Gutierrez (“Charging Party”) Juan Abrego, Rolando Amaya, Sylvana DeLosSantos,

25 Maria Escobar, Reynaldo Garcia, Ruben Gasca, Rose Gouveia, Reynaldo Largaespada,

26 Peter Marocco, Sergio Ortiz, Luis Pulido, Florencio Solis, Julio Vargas, and Carlos Vales,

27 or any other person who testified, was identified as a potential witness or claimant, or

28 otherwise participated in any manner in the Commission’s investigation and the

Consent Decree

Page 2

Case 3:04-cv-04092-WHA Document 150 Filed 10/05/2005 Page 3 of 5

1 proceedings in this case.

2 SPECIAL INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

3

Non-Discrimination Policies

4

8. Within sixty (60) days of the entry of this Consent Decree, Defendant

5 Interstate will redistribute its non-discrimination policy, in both English and Spanish, to

6 all current employees at its Marriott Fisherman’s Wharf facility (“Marriott FW”).

7

9. Upon the employment of new employees at Defendant Interstate,

8 Interstate will distribute its non-discrimination policy to those employees.

9

Training

10

10. No later than six (6) months from the entry of this Consent Decree,

11 Defendant Interstate will use an outside consultant, paid for by Interstate, to train all

12 employees responsible for supervising or managing employees at Marriott FW, and

13 former General Manager John Trovato, regarding national origin-based discrimination.

14 This training will be repeated once a year each year for the duration of this Consent

15 Decree.

16

11. No later than six (6) months from the entry of this Consent Decree,

17 Defendant Interstate will use an outside consultant, paid for by Interstate, to train its

18 human resources staff on how to conduct an investigation into complaints of

19 discriminatory harassment. This training will be repeated once a year each year for the

20 duration of this Consent Decree.

21

Record Keeping and Reports

22

12. Within thirty (30) days after completing the training described in

23 paragraphs 10 & 11, Interstate will mail to counsel for the Commission a report

24 containing the date(s) of training, list(s) of all attendees, and copies of all materials

25 distributed at the training.

26

13. Once every six (6) months to be measured beginning at the date of entry

27 of this Consent Decree and continuing for the duration of this Consent Decree,

28 Interstate will notify the counsel for the Commission whether it has received any

Consent Decree

Page 3

Case 3:04-cv-04092-WHA Document 150 Filed 10/05/2005 Page 4 of 5

1 complaints of discrimination and/or harassment based on national origin at Marriott

2 FW, what steps were taken in response to that information, and how the situation was

3 resolved.

4

14. If the documents referenced in paragraphs 12 & 13 are not timely received

5 by counsel for the Commission, then the Commission shall give written notice that the

6 documents have not been received, and shall give Interstate fifteen (15) calendar days to

7 submit the required documents. The failure of Interstate to provide said documents to

8 counsel for the Commission shall not be a violation of this Consent Decree unless and

9 until the passage of the fifteen (15) day period following the written notice from the

10 Commission to Interstate.

11 MONETARY RELIEF

12

15. Interstate will pay the sum of $320,000.00 in settlement of all claims

13 asserted in this action. The portion of that amount to be distributed to Plaintiff-

14 Intervenor Raul Gutierrez will be processed according to the provisions of a separate

15 agreement and release between Interstate and Gutierrez. The portion of that amount to

16 be distributed to the similarly situated individuals will be allocated among those

17 individuals as determined by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, as

18 damages and in complete satisfaction of the Commission’s claims against Interstate on

19 said individuals’ behalf as set forth in its Complaint. These sums will be paid by check

20 directly to each individual in his or her name, provided that the individual has executed

21 a separate release of claims. The checks will be sent to each individual via certified

22 mail, at addresses to be provided to Interstate by the Commission. A copy of said

23 checks and their transmittal letters will be sent to Commission counsel Cindy O’Hara at

24 the San Francisco District Office. Said checks will be transmitted by Defendant

25 Interstate no later than thirty (30) days after the entry of this Consent Decree, provided

26 that Interstate has received the individual’s aforementioned executed release.

27 EXPIRATION OF CONSENT DECREE

28

16. This Consent Decree constitutes a full and final resolution of all the

Consent Decree

Page 4

Case 3:04-cv-04092-WHA Document 150 Filed 10/05/2005 Page 5 of 5

1 Commission’s claims against Interstate in this action. This Consent Decree will expire

2 thirty (30) months after its entry by the Court, provided that Interstate has substantially

3 complied with the terms of this Consent Decree. The Commission agrees to give

4 Defendant Interstate advance written notice of any alleged failure to comply with the

5 terms of this Consent Decree and a reasonable opportunity to cure any alleged breach

6 before seeking court relief for breach of the Consent Decree. Defendant Interstate will

7 be deemed to have complied substantially if the Court has not made any findings or

8 orders during the term of the Decree that Defendant Interstate has failed to comply

9 with any of the terms of this Decree.

10

E-filing concurrence: I, Cindy O’Hara, attorney for Plaintiff Commission, attest

11 that I have obtained the concurrence of Michael Hoffman, attorney for Defendant

12 Interstate Hotels, L.L.C., for the lodging of this Consent Decree.

13 On Behalf of Plaintiff Commission:

On Behalf of Defendant Interstate:

14 Dated: October 3, 2005
15 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT
16 OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Dated: October 3, 2005 INTERSTATE HOTELS, L.L.C.

17
_______/S/__________________ 18 WILLIAM R. TAMAYO
Regional Attorney 19

_______/S/______________________
GREG SMITH Senior Vice President, Human Resources

20 _______/S/__________________ JONATHAN PECK
21 Supervisory Trial Attorney

22
_______/S/__________________ 23 CINDY O’HARA
Senior Trial Attorney 24

TATES DISTRICT C

UNITED S ALIFORNIA

OURT NORTH

25 26
It is so ordered. 27 28 Dated:_O__ct_o_b_e_r_5_,_2_0_0_5________
Consent Decree

ORDER

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge William Alsup
________________________________ UnitedESRtNateDsIDSTisRtrIicCtTCOouFrCt Judge
Page 5

 
 Case 3:04-cv-04092-WHA Document 152 Filed 11/25/2005 Page 1 of 2

Case 3:04-cv-04092-WHA Document 152 Filed 11/25/2005 Page 2 of 2

UNITED S ALIFORNIA

OURT NORTH

November 25, 2005

TATES DISTRICT C IT IS SO ORDERED
Judge William Alsup
ERN DISTRICT OF C

 
 E.E.O.C. v. Interstate Hotels, L.L.C., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)
2005 WL 885604 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
United States District Court, N.D. California.
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION and Raul Tomas Gutierrez, Plaintiffs, v.
INTERSTATE HOTELS, L.L.C., HMC Acquisition Properties, Inc., dba San Francisco Marriott at Fisherman’s Wharf; John Trovato; Penny Richardson, Defendants. No. C 04-04092 WHA. | April 14, 2005.
Attorneys and Law Firms
Cindy O’Hara, Jonathan T. Peck, William Robert Tamayo, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, San Francisco, CA, Joan Herrington, Bay Area Employment Law Office, Oakland, CA, for Plaintiffs.
Opinion
ORDER STRIKING DEFENDANTS’ FIRST, SECOND, SIXTH, NINTH, SIXTEENTH, SEVENTEENTH AND EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
ALSUP, J.
INTRODUCTION
*1 In this employment-discrimination case, intervenor Raul Tomas Gutierrez moves to strike portions of the answer of defendant HMC Acquisition Properties, Inc., and portions of the first amended answer of defendants Interstate Hotels, L.L.C., John Trovato, and Penny Richardson to his complaint in intervention. For the reasons stated below, this order strikes the first, second, sixth, ninth, sixteenth, seventeenth and eighteenth affirmative defenses of defendants’ answer and denies plaintiff’s motion to strike defendants’ third, fifth, seventh, eighth, tenth, eleventh, thirteenth, and fourteenth affirmative defenses.
STATEMENT
In 2004, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a complaint alleging that Interstate Hotels, LLC, which manages the Marriott Hotel at Fisherman’s Wharf in San Francisco, subjected charging party, Raul Tomas Gutierrez, and other Latino individuals to unlawful discrimination, harassment and retaliation based on their national origin pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Gutierrez moved to intervene and the motion was granted. Gutierrez then filed a complaint that included the original claims and alleged additional violations pursuant to the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. He served the complaint on HMC Acquisition Properties, Inc., John Trovato, and Penny Richardson in addition to the original defendant, Interstate.
Interstate answered EEOC’s complaint and the intervention complaint. Interstate then amended its answer to the intervention complaint by answering on behalf of the additional defendants, John Trovato and Penny Richardson. On the same date, HMC answered the intervention complaint. Both answers were identical in substance. Gutierrez informed defense counsel of his intent to move to strike; defense counsel replied with a detailed letter, stipulating to withdraw their seventeenth affirmative defense without prejudice (Herrington Exh. 1). In a timely manner, Gutierrez moved to strike HMC’s answer to the
1

E.E.O.C. v. Interstate Hotels, L.L.C., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)
intervention complaint and Interstate’s first amended complaint. While Gutierrez served separate motions they are identical in substance.1
ANALYSIS
FRCP 12(f) provides that “the court may order stricken from any pleading any insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Rule 12(f) motions are proper when a defense is insufficient as a matter of law. Cal. Dep’t of Toxic Substances Control v. Alco Pac. Inc., 217 F.Supp.2d 1028, 1032-33 (C.D.Cal.2002). To determine that a defense is insufficient as a matter of law, “the court must be convinced that there are no questions of fact, that any questions of law are clear and not in dispute, and that under no set of circumstances could the defense succeed. Colaprico v. Sun Microsystems, Inc., 758 F.Supp. 1335, 1339 (N.D.Cal.1991); SEC v. Sands, 902 F.Supp. 1149, 1165 (C.D.Cal.1995). While courts are split on whether the moving party must show that it will be prejudiced unless the challenged pleading is stricken, the Ninth Circuit has held that striking portions of pleadings are proper, absent prejudice, if granting the motion to strike would make the trial less complicated or otherwise streamline resolution. See Fantasy, Inc. v. Fogerty, 984 F.2d 1524, 1528 (9th Cir.1993).
*2 Rule 12(f) is a vehicle by which to “avoid the expenditure of time and money that must arise from litigating spurious issues by dispensing with those issues prior to trial.” Sidney Vinstein v. A.H. Robins Co., 697 F.2d 880, 885 (9th Cir.1983). When ruling on a motion to strike, a court must view the pleadings in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Xilinx Inc. v. Altera Corp. ., 33 U.S.P.Q.2d 1149, 1152 (N.D.Cal.1994). The grounds for a motion to strike must appear on the face of the pleading under attack.
1. DEFENDANTS’ FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE. Although lawyers often plead “failure to plead a claim” as an affirmative defense, it is not really an affirmative defense at all. Either the complaint states a claim for relief or it does not. If not, it can be challenged under Rule 12(b)(6). Inserting a so-called affirmative defense that no claim has been stated does not add or subtract from the complaint and failure to so defend in no way constitutes an admission that the complaint is well pled. The role of an affirmative defense under Rule 8(b) and (c) is to set forth additional matters beyond the four corners of the complaint constituting an “avoidance” to a well-pled claim. That is, a proper affirmative defense presumes that a claim has been stated and avers that, even so, additional circumstances bar or mitigate the claim, such as an accord and satisfaction not referenced in the complaint. Why lawyers continue to insert this counterfeit “defense” is strange and probably flows from an excess of caution. It is rarely challenged, however, because everyone recognizes that it is meaningless. But here plaintiff has taken the time to challenge it. It is surplusage. Therefore, the first affirmative defense is now STRICKEN.
2. DEFENDANTS’ SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE. Defendants’ second affirmative defense is that the conduct in the complaint is a just and proper exercise of management’s discretion. Plaintiff argues this defense is insufficient as a matter of law because the common-law “managerial privilege” does not apply to statutory claims. This order agrees and STRIKES the second affirmative defense. A managerial privilege means that “a person in a managerial or supervisory role for a company or client cannot be personally liable to an injured party for injury stemming from a contract between the company and the injured.” Dehorney v. Bank of America Nat. Trust & Sav. Asso., 879 F.2d 459, 464 (9th Cir.1989). This privilege is akin to the privileges associated with intentional interference with contract or economic relationship. Calero v. Unisys, 271 F.Supp.2d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir.2003). We are unaware of any published case holding that the managerial privilege applies to insulate a defendant from liability for conduct in violation of public policy. One unpublished case, however, holds that the managerial privilege does not apply to Title VII and FEHA cases. Ibironke v. Norpac Manufacturing Co. Inc., 1992 U.S. Dist. Lexis 8557, *17 (N.D.Cal.1992). There is no contractual dispute at issue here. Rather, plaintiff alleges that he was the target of harassment and discrimination. It appears from the pleadings that no scenario suitable for this defense will yet emerge. Therefore, the second affirmative defense is now stricken.
2

E.E.O.C. v. Interstate Hotels, L.L.C., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)
3. DEFENDANTS’ THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE. *3 Plaintiff argues that defendants’ third affirmative defense that plaintiff’s claims are barred by the statute of limitations is insufficient as a matter of law. The Court disagrees. As defendants point out, in order to determine whether this defense is insufficient as a matter of law the Court would need to analyze numerous facts regarding the time-line of the events that frame this litigation. Again, given the broad and liberal scope that must be accorded the complaint, it cannot now be said, as a matter of law, that no scenario will emerge for which a statute of limitations defense will not apply.
4. DEFENDANTS’ FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE. Defendants’ fifth affirmative defense is that plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages violates the state and federal constitutions. Plaintiff argues that this defense is premature. This affirmative defense is not redundant, immaterial or impertinent. Whether or not this defense is premature is irrelevant to the instant motion. Later on, plaintiff might seize on any such omission to argue that defendants’ point was waived by failure to raise it now. This order DENIES plaintiff’s motion to strike this portion of defendants’ answer.
5. DEFENDANTS’ SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE. Defendants’ sixth affirmative defense is that plaintiff’s claims are preempted by the Worker’s Compensation Act to the extent that the claims seek a remedy for any alleged mental, emotional, or physical injuries. Plaintiff moves to strike on the basis that defendants’ affirmative defense is insufficient as a matter of law. This order agrees and STRIKES defendants’ sixth affirmative defense. Unlawful employment practices, such as discrimination, retaliation, and harassment, are violations of public policy that fall outside of the compensation bargain. Cal. Gov.Code § 12920. Relying on Cole v. Fair Oaks Fire Protection, 43 Cal.3d 148, 233 Cal.Rptr. 308, 729 P.2d 743 (1987), defendants argue that if plaintiff were to testify that he was exclusively seeking to recover damages relating to emotional distress, then there would be a question as to whether plaintiff’s alleged emotional distress damages were encompassed within the compensation bargain and therefore preempted by WCA. This misstates the law. Cole states an employee may maintain an action against an employer for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Id. at 312. Furthermore, Cole did not decide whether the exclusive remedy provisions of the Labor Code bar causes of action created by statute. Id. at 157 n. 9, 233 Cal.Rptr. 308, 729 P.2d 743.
California’s WCA does not bar tort claims stemming from actions that violate public policy such as harassment and discrimination. Maynard v. City of San Jose, 37 F.3d 1396, 1405 (9th Cir.1994). Specifically, the Ninth Circuit has held that under California law the exclusive remedy provision of worker’s compensation law does not preclude employees from pursuing claims under FEHA. Buckley v. Gallo Sales Co., 949 F.Supp. 737, 746 (N.D.Cal.1996). Therefore, the defense that plaintiff’s claims are preempted by WCA is insufficient as a matter of law and this order STRIKES defendants’ sixth affirmative defense.
6. DEFENDANTS’ SEVENTH AND EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES. *4 Defendants’ seventh affirmative defense alleges that, to the extent that plaintiff has suffered emotional distress, such distress was caused, in part, by conduct of a third party and defendants’ eighth affirmative defense is that plaintiff has not suffered any damages as a result of defendants’ alleged conduct. This order leaves in the seventh and STRIKES the eighth affirmative defense. At this time the Court cannot say, conclusively, that there can be no scenario in which any emotional distress was not caused, in part, by a third party. On the other hand, the eighth affirmative defense has no purpose. It is plaintiff’s burden to prove that he has suffered damages. If plaintiff fails to do so, plaintiff will lose the claim and an affirmative defense to that effect is unnecessary. Again, the role of an affirmative defense is to set forth new matter beyond the minimum plaintiff must prove. Plaintiff already has to prove damages to obtain relief. Saying that plaintiff will fail to do so is nothing more than a denial, not an affirmative defense.
7. DEFENDANTS’ NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE. Defendants’ ninth affirmative defense is that at no time did defendants act purposely, knowingly, deliberately, maliciously, oppressively, intentionally, willfully, wantonly, with any bad faith or with conscious or reckless disregard toward plaintiff. Plaintiff alleges that motive, with regard to any of the claims, is not an affirmative defense. This order agrees and STRIKES defendant’s ninth affirmative defense. If relevant to the claim, plaintiff must prove intent in its case in chief. For example,
3

E.E.O.C. v. Interstate Hotels, L.L.C., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)
plaintiff must prove that defendants acted intentionally to get a relief of punitive damages; consequently, defendants have no burden to affirmatively defend. With regard to Title VII and FEHA, plaintiff has the ultimate burden of proving that defendant intentionally discriminated against the plaintiff. As defendants correctly point out, because the objectives of FEHA are identical to Title VII, California courts have expressly adopted Title VII legal standards in interpreting and applying FEHA. See e.g., Walker v. Blue Cross of California, 4 Cal.App.4th 985, 997-98, 6 Cal.Rptr.2d 184 (1992). While the plaintiff does not need to show intent per se with regard to these statutory claims, the Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas v. Green describes the burden-shifting that must take place against the back-drop of circumstantial evidence with regard to the intent element. 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973). If the plaintiff establishes a prima face case of discrimination, a presumption of discrimination exists, and the burden shifts to the employer to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the action. If the employer is able to articulate a nondiscriminatory reason, the burden shifts back and plaintiff has the ultimate burden of showing that the defendant intentionally discriminated against the employee. This burden-shifting acknowledges an affirmative defense with regard to intent that is unlike defendants’ ninth affirmative defense. Therefore, this Court STRIKES this defense.
8. DEFENDANTS’ TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE. *5 Defendants’ tenth affirmative defense alleges that plaintiff failed to exhaust all of his administrative remedies prior to filing suit and that such failure bars this suit. Plaintiff asserts this defense is insufficient as a matter of law. This order denies plaintiff’s motion to strike this portion of defendants’ answer. Exhaustion of administrative remedies is a prerequisite to filing a FEHA and Title VII claim. Cal. Govt.Code § 12965(b); B.K.B. v. Maui Police Dep’t, 276 F.3d 1091, 1099 (9th Cir.2002) (requiring plaintiff to exhaust administrative remedies under Title VII); Rojo v. Kliger, 52 Cal Cal.3d 65, 88 (1990) (requiring plaintiff to exhaust administrative remedies under FEHA).
9. DEFENDANTS’ ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE. Defendants’ eleventh affirmative defense alleges laches. Plaintiff contends this defense is insufficient as a matter of law. The Court disagrees with plaintiff and DENIES striking this defense. A laches defense is available to an employer and it cannot now be said, as a matter of law, that no scenario suitable for this defense will yet emerge. National Railroad Passengers Corp. v. Abner Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 121, 122 S.Ct. 2061, 153 L.Ed.2d 106 (2002).
10. DEFENDANTS’ THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE. Defendants’ thirteenth affirmative defense alleges that to the extent that plaintiff was subjected to unlawful discrimination, harassment, or retaliation by an employee or agent of the defendants, that employee or agent acted contrary to defendants’ express policies and outside the course and scope of his or her employment-basically, this affirmative defense is that defendants are not vicariously liable for the acts of an employee whose behavior is outside the scope of his employment. Plaintiff contends that, for the reasons he cites regarding managerial privilege (second affirmative defense), this defense is redundant and insufficient as a matter of law.
The managerial privilege is wholly different from this defense based on the lack of vicarious liability. While the managerial privilege immunizes certain behavior by a manager who is acting in the interest of the company from liability, vicarious liability holds the company liable for certain behavior by employees that is within the scope of their employment.
Plaintiff has identified several entities and individuals, who are at different tiers of the supervision and management of the hotel, as responsible for the harassment and discrimination he suffered. Defendant Interstate is an agent of defendant HMC, and Interstate manages the hotel. Defendant John Trovato was the general manager of the hotel and the supervisor of the human resources director, defendant Penny Richardson. Richardson, in turn, was the supervisor of Cush Elavia, who is not a named defendant but who was the hotel food and beverages manager and directly supervised the plaintiff. Plaintiff alleges that Cush is the one who called him derogatory names and created a hostile work environment. Clearly, determining individual and vicarious liability will be a fact-intensive analysis, and it cannot now be said, as a matter of law, that no scenario suitable for this defense will yet emerge.
11. DEFENDANTS’ FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE.
4

E.E.O.C. v. Interstate Hotels, L.L.C., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2005)
*6 Defendants’ fourteenth affirmative defense alleges that they exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any discriminatory, harassing, or retaliatory behavior and had policies with an accompanying complaint procedure in place (“The Ellerth/Faragher” defense. Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742, 118 S.Ct. 2257, 141 L.Ed.2d 633 (1998); Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 118 S.Ct. 2275, 141 L.Ed.2d 662 (1998)). Plaintiff argues defense is insufficient as a matter of law. The Court disagrees and denies plaintiff’s motion to strike this portion of defendants’ answer. To determine whether an Ellerth/Faragher defense is applicable, the Court would have to resolve numerous issues of fact and law including whether a “tangible adverse employment action” existed and whether a complaint procedure was in place-inquiries that are not appropriate for a motion to strike.
12. DEFENDANTS’ SIXTEENTH AND EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES. Defendants’ sixteenth affirmative defense alleges that the complaint is preempted by the Labor Management Relations Act. Defendants’ eighteenth affirmative defense alleges that plaintiff failed to exhaust all grievances under the applicable Collective Bargaining Agreement. Plaintiff argues these defenses are insufficient as a matter of law. This order agrees and STRIKES the sixteenth and eighteenth affirmative defenses. Plaintiff’s causes of actions under Title VII and FEHA are not preempted by Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act. The analysis for preemption must focus on whether the tort action either (1) “confers nonnegotiable state-law rights on employers or employees independent of any right established by contract” or (2) “whether evaluation of the tort claim is inextricably intertwined with consideration of the terms of the labor contract.” Allis-Chalmers Corporation v. Lueck, 471 U.S. 202, 213, 105 S.Ct. 1904, 85 L.Ed.2d 206 (1985). Under the first scenario, Section 301 preempts; under the second, there is no preemption. Claims brought under Title VII and FEHA create an independent right to be free of discrimination separate from the contractual rights of the members of the bargaining unit under the Collective Bargaining Agreement. See, e.g., Torrez v. Consolidated Corp. of Delaware, 58 Cal.App.4th 1247, 1258, 68 Cal.Rptr.2d 792 (1997). The issues here involve purely factual questions regarding the conduct and motivation of employees and employers and find no meaning in the employment contract. Because this Court finds that there is no set of facts that could establish that the LMRA preempts plaintiff’s Title VII and FEHA claims, this order STRIKES affirmative defenses sixteen and eighteen.
13. DEFENDANTS’ SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE. Defendants’ seventeenth affirmative defense alleges that plaintiff’s claims are barred because he failed to exhaust the internal complaint procedure. Parties have stipulated to striking this portion of defendants’ answer. Therefore, this order STRIKES defendants’ seventeenth affirmative defense.

CONCLUSION
*7 For the foregoing reasons, this order strikes the first, second, sixth, ninth, sixteenth, seventeenth and eighteenth affirmative defenses of defendants’ answer and denies plaintiff’s motion to strike defendants’ third, fifth, seventh, eighth, tenth, eleventh, thirteenth, and fourteenth affirmative defenses.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Footnotes

1

In this order, Interstate, HMC, John Trovato and Penny Richardson are referred to collectively as “defendants,” intervenor

Gutierrez is referred to as “plaintiff” and the intervention complaint is referred to as the “complaint.”

5

 
 CAND-ECF - Docket Report

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?830373496296382-L_3...

ADRMOP, CLOSED, E-Filing, MEDTERM
U.S. District Court California Northern District (San Francisco) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:04-cv-04092-WHA

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Interstate Hotels, Date Filed: 09/28/2004

LLC

Date Terminated: 10/05/2005

Assigned to: Hon. William H. Alsup

Jury Demand: None

Cause: 28:451 Employment Discrimination

Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs

Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Special Master Judge Ellen S. James

Plaintiff
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by Cynthia Senner O'Hara Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 350 The Embarcadero, Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94105-1260 415/625-5653 Fax: 415-625-5657 Email: cindy.ohara@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jonathan T. Peck U.S. EEOC 350 Embarcadero Street Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94105-1687 415/625-5600 Fax: 415-625-5657 Email: Jonathan.Peck@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Raymond T. Cheung US EEOC 350 The Embarcadero, Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94105-1260 415-625-5600 Fax: 415-625-5657 Email: raymond.cheung@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William Robert Tamayo U.S. EEOC

1 of 17

6/12/2007 11:45 AM

CAND-ECF - Docket Report
Intervenor Pla Mr. Raul Tomas Gutierrez V. Defendant Interstate Hotels, LLC
Intervenor Dft
2 of 17

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?830373496296382-L_3...
350 Embarcadero Street Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94105-1687 415-625-5645 Fax: 415-625-5657 Email: william.tamayo@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Joan Herrington Bay Area Employment Law Office 5032 Woodminster Lane Oakland, CA 94602 510/530-4078 Email: jh@baelo.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Michael A. Hoffman, III Littler Mendelson, P.C. 650 California Street, 20th Fl. San Francisco, CA 94108 415/433-1940 Email: mhoffman@littler.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Gayland Pedhirney Littler Mendelson 650 California Street 20th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108 415-433-1940 Fax: 415-399-8490 Email: mpedhirney@littler.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ronald D. Arena Littler Mendelson, P.C. 650 California Street 20th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108-2693 415-433-1940 Fax: 415-399-8447 Email: rarena@littler.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
6/12/2007 11:45 AM

CAND-ECF - Docket Report

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?830373496296382-L_3...

HMC Acquisition Properties, Inc. doing business as San Francisco Marriott at Fisherman's Whart
Intervenor Dft John Trovato
Intervenor Dft Penny Richardson

represented by Michael A. Hoffman, III (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Gayland Pedhirney (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ronald D. Arena (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ronald D. Arena (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael A. Hoffman, III (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ronald D. Arena (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael A. Hoffman, III (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 09/28/2004
09/28/2004 09/28/2004 09/28/2004

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT with Demand for Jury Trial against Interstate Hotels, LLC. Filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (sis, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/28/2004) . Additional attachment(s) added on 9/30/2004 (sis, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/30/2004)
Summons Issued as to Interstate Hotels, LLC. (sis, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/28/2004) (Entered: 09/30/2004)
2 ADR SCHEDULING ORDER: Case Management Statement due by 1/13/2005. Case Management Conference set for 1/27/2005 11:00 AM. (Attachments: # 1)(sis, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/28/2004) (Entered: 09/30/2004)
CASE DESIGNATED for Electronic Filing. (sis, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/28/2004) (Entered: 09/30/2004)

3 of 17

6/12/2007 11:45 AM

CAND-ECF - Docket Report
10/22/2004
10/22/2004 10/22/2004 10/22/2004 10/22/2004 10/29/2004 11/18/2004 11/29/2004 12/03/2004
12/07/2004
12/07/2004 12/07/2004
4 of 17

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?830373496296382-L_3...
3 *** FILED IN ERROR. NO NEW DOCUMENT. *** MOTION to Intervene & Join Claims & Parties filed by Raul Tomas Gutierrez. Motion Hearing set for 11/2/2004 08:00 AM. (Herrington, Joan) (Filed on 10/22/2004) Modified on 10/22/2004 (br, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/22/2004)
4 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Intervene filed by Raul Tomas Gutierrez. Motion Hearing set for 12/2/2004 08:00 AM. (sis, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/22/2004) (Entered: 10/25/2004)
5 Declaration of Joan Herrington in Support of Motion to Intervene [4] filed by Raul Tomas Gutierrez. (Related document(s)[4]) (sis, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/22/2004) (Entered: 10/25/2004)
6 Request for Judicial Notice re Motion to Intervene [4] filed by Raul Tomas Gutierrez. (Related document(s)[4]) (sis, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/22/2004) (Entered: 10/25/2004)
Received Order re Motion to Intervene [4] by Raul Tomas Gutierrez. (sis, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/22/2004) (Entered: 10/25/2004)
7 CLERK'S NOTICE re: Failure to E-File and/or Failure to Register as an E-Filer (sis, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/29/2004) (Entered: 10/29/2004)
8 RESPONSE in Support re [4] MOTION to Intervene Statement of Nonopposition filed byEqual Employment Opportunity Commission. (O'Hara, Cindy) (Filed on 11/18/2004) (Entered: 11/18/2004)
9 CLERK'S NOTICE Continuing Motion Hearing. Motion Hearing set for 12/2/2004 01:30 PM. (dt, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/29/2004) (Entered: 11/29/2004)
10 Minute Entry: Initial Case Management Conference held on 12/2/2004 before William Alsup (Date Filed: 12/3/2004), Motion Hearing held on 12/2/2004 before William Alsup (Date Filed: 12/3/2004) re [4] MOTION to Intervene filed by Raul Tomas Gutierrez,. Motion granted as to Raul Gutierrez only. Case management conference scheduled on 1/27/05 is VACATED. (Court Reporter Catherine Luciano.) (dt, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 12/3/2004) (Entered: 12/03/2004)
11 CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULING ORDER: ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James for Mediation/Settlement. Discovery due by 6/24/2005. Jury Trial set for 10/31/2005 07:30 AM. Motions due by 8/11/2005. Pretrial Conference set for 10/17/2005 02:00 PM, AND ORDER ALLOWING RAUL TOMAS GUTIERREZ TO INTERVENE INDIVIDUALLY. Signed by Judge William Alsup on 12/3/2004. (whasec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/7/2004) (Entered: 12/07/2004)
12 CLERK'S NOTICE of Settlement Conference scheduled for 9/9/05 at 10:00 a.m. before Magistrate-Judge Maria-Elena James (bjt, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/7/2004) Modified on 12/9/2004 (rcs, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/07/2004)
13 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 11 Case Management Scheduling Order, Order Referring Case to Magistrate Judge for Settlement,,, 12 Clerks Notice of Impending Reassignment (O'Hara,
6/12/2007 11:45 AM

CAND-ECF - Docket Report
12/07/2004 12/07/2004 12/08/2004 12/14/2004 12/14/2004 12/14/2004 12/20/2004 12/22/2004 12/27/2004 01/13/2005 01/20/2005
01/24/2005 01/25/2005 01/31/2005

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?830373496296382-L_3...
Cindy) (Filed on 12/7/2004) (Entered: 12/07/2004)
Set/Reset Hearings: Jury Trial set for 10/31/2005 07:30 AM. Pretrial Conference set for 10/17/2005 02:00 PM. (rcs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/7/2004) (Entered: 12/09/2004)
Set/Reset Hearings: Settlement Conference set for 9/9/2005 10:00 AM. (rcs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/7/2004) (Entered: 12/09/2004)
14 Intervenor COMPLAINT and Demand for Jury Trial. Filed byRaul Tomas Gutierrez. (sis, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/8/2004) . (Entered: 12/13/2004)
15 NOTICE of Appearance by Ronald D. Arena (Arena, Ronald) (Filed on 12/14/2004) (Entered: 12/14/2004)
16 STIPULATION : Stipulated Extension of Time to Submit Initial Disclosures by Interstate Hotels, LLC. (Arena, Ronald) (Filed on 12/14/2004) (Entered: 12/14/2004)
17 Declaration of Ronald D. Arena in Support of Stipulated Request for an Extension of Time to Complete Initial Disclosures filed byInterstate Hotels, LLC. (Arena, Ronald) (Filed on 12/14/2004) (Entered: 12/14/2004)
18 ANSWER to Complaint byInterstate Hotels, LLC. (Arena, Ronald) (Filed on 12/20/2004) (Entered: 12/20/2004)
19 STIPULATION AND ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO SUBMIT INITIAL DISCLOSURES. Signed by Judge William Alsup on 12/17/04. (dt, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/22/2004) (Entered: 12/22/2004)
20 STIPULATION and Proposed Order selecting Mediation by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (O'Hara, Cindy) (Filed on 12/27/2004) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/28/2005 (sis, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/27/2004)
21 REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting Jointly Submitted. (O'Hara, Cindy) (Filed on 1/13/2005) (Entered: 01/13/2005)
22 SUMMONS Returned Executed HMC Acquisition Properties, Inc. served on 1/20/2005, answer due 2/9/2005; John Trovato served on 12/22/2004, answer due 1/11/2005; Penny Richardson served on 12/28/2004, answer due 1/18/2005; Interstate Hotels, LLC served on 12/22/2004, answer due 1/11/2005. (sis, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/20/2005) (Entered: 01/21/2005)
23 ANSWER to Complaint In Intervention byInterstate Hotels, LLC. (Arena, Ronald) (Filed on 1/24/2005) (Entered: 01/24/2005)
24 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. HMC Acquisition Properties, Inc. served on 1/25/2005, answer due 2/14/2005. (sis, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/25/2005) (Entered: 01/25/2005)
25 ORDER FOR REFERRAL TO MEDIATION re 20 Stipulation and Proposed Order selecting Mediation filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,, Case referred to mediation. Signed by Judge William Alsup on 1/31/05. (dt, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/31/2005) (Entered: 01/31/2005)

5 of 17

6/12/2007 11:45 AM

CAND-ECF - Docket Report
02/04/2005 02/09/2005 02/09/2005 02/10/2005 02/10/2005 02/14/2005 02/25/2005 03/01/2005 03/01/2005 03/01/2005 03/01/2005 03/01/2005 03/01/2005 03/01/2005 03/01/2005

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?830373496296382-L_3...
26 ADR Clerk's Notice dated 2/4/2005 appointing Brad Seligman as Mediator. (cmf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/4/2005) (Entered: 02/04/2005)
27 HMC Acquisition Properties, Inc.'s ANSWER to Complaint in Intervention byHMC Acquisition Properties, Inc.. (Arena, Ronald) (Filed on 2/9/2005) (Entered: 02/09/2005)
28 AMENDED ANSWER to Complaint in Intervention byJohn Trovato, Penny Richardson, Interstate Hotels, LLC. (Arena, Ronald) (Filed on 2/9/2005) (Entered: 02/09/2005)
Received OBJECTION re 26 ADR Clerks Notice Appointing Mediator Brad Seligman by Defendants John Trovato, Penny Richardson, Interstate Hotels, LLC. (cmf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/10/2005) (Entered: 02/10/2005)
29 ADR Clerk's Notice of Removal of Mediator, Brad Seligman. (cmf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/10/2005) (Entered: 02/10/2005)
30 HMC Aquisition Properties, Inc.'s ANSWER to Complaint byHMC Acquisition Properties, Inc.. (Pedhirney, Michael) (Filed on 2/14/2005) (Entered: 02/14/2005)
31 ADR Clerk's Notice dated 2/25/2005 appointing Howard A. Janssen as Mediator. (cmf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/25/2005) (Entered: 02/25/2005)
32 MOTION to Strike Answer to Complaint in Intervention by HMC filed by Raul Tomas Gutierrez. Motion Hearing set for 4/14/2005 08:00 AM. (Herrington, Joan) (Filed on 3/1/2005) (Entered: 03/01/2005)
33 MOTION to Strike Supporting Declaration of Joan Herrington filed by Raul Tomas Gutierrez. Motion Hearing set for 4/14/2005 08:00 AM. (Herrington, Joan) (Filed on 3/1/2005) (Entered: 03/01/2005)
34 MOTION to Strike Supporting Memorandum of Points & Authorities filed by Raul Tomas Gutierrez. Motion Hearing set for 4/14/2005 08:30 AM. (Herrington, Joan) (Filed on 3/1/2005) (Entered: 03/01/2005)
35 MOTION to Strike Proposed Order filed by Raul Tomas Gutierrez. Motion Hearing set for 4/14/2005 08:00 AM. (Herrington, Joan) (Filed on 3/1/2005) (Entered: 03/01/2005)
36 MOTION to Strike First Amended Answer to Complaint in Intervention filed by Raul Tomas Gutierrez. Motion Hearing set for 4/14/2005 08:00 AM. (Herrington, Joan) (Filed on 3/1/2005) (Entered: 03/01/2005)
37 MOTION to Strike Supporting Declaration of Joan Herrington filed by Raul Tomas Gutierrez. Motion Hearing set for 4/14/2005 08:00 AM. (Herrington, Joan) (Filed on 3/1/2005) (Entered: 03/01/2005)
38 MOTION to Strike Supporting Memorandum of Points & Authorities filed by Raul Tomas Gutierrez. Motion Hearing set for 4/14/2005 08:00 AM. (Herrington, Joan) (Filed on 3/1/2005) (Entered: 03/01/2005)
39 MOTION to Strike Proposed Order filed by Raul Tomas Gutierrez. Motion Hearing set for 4/14/2005 08:00 AM. (Herrington, Joan) (Filed on 3/1/2005) (Entered: 03/01/2005)

6 of 17

6/12/2007 11:45 AM

CAND-ECF - Docket Report
03/24/2005 03/29/2005 04/12/2005 04/14/2005
04/14/2005
04/15/2005 04/27/2005 05/02/2005 05/04/2005 05/11/2005 05/12/2005

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?830373496296382-L_3...
40 MEMORANDUM in Oppostion to Intervention Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Portions of of Defendants' Answers filed byHMC Acquisition Properties, Inc., John Trovato, Penny Richardson, Interstate Hotels, LLC. (Hoffman, Michael) (Filed on 3/24/2005) (Entered: 03/24/2005)
41 REMINDER NOTICE OF UPCOMING TRIAL (OCTOBER 31, 2005) AND FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE (OCTOBER 17, 2005, AT 2:00 P.M.). Signed by Judge William Alsup on 3/39/2005. (whasec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/29/2005) (Entered: 03/29/2005)
42 STATUS REPORT JOINT ADR STATUS REPORT by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, HMC Acquisition Properties, Inc., John Trovato, Penny Richardson, Interstate Hotels, LLC. (Arena, Ronald) (Filed on 4/12/2005) (Entered: 04/12/2005)
43 Minute Entry: Motion Hearing Plaintiff in Intervetion Raul Tomas Guiterrez's Motion to Strike Answer to Complaint in Intervention held on 4/14/2005 before William Alsup (Date Filed: 4/14/2005). Partially granted and partially denied. (Court Reporter Catherine Luciano.) (sp, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 4/14/2005) (Entered: 04/14/2005)
44 ORDER STRIKING DEFENDANTS' FIRST, SECOND, SIXTH, NINTH, SIXTEENTH, SEVENTEENTH AND EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES by Judge William Alsup [granting in part and denying in part 32 Motion to Strike, granting in part and denying in part 33 Motion to Strike, granting in part and denying in part 34 Motion to Strike, granting in part and denying in part 35 Motion to Strike, granting in part and denying in part 36 Motion to Strike, granting in part and denying in part 37 Motion to Strike, granting in part and denying in part 38 Motion to Strike, granting in part and denying in part 39 Motion to Strike]. (whasec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/14/2005) (Entered: 04/14/2005)
45 NOTICE by John Trovato, Penny Richardson, Interstate Hotels, LLC : Request for Leave to Move for Reconsideration of Order Striking Affirmative Defenses from Answer or, Alternatively, for Leave to Amend Answer (Hoffman, Michael) (Filed on 4/15/2005) (Entered: 04/15/2005)
46 STIPULATION & Request to Extend Deadline for Completion of Alternative Dispute Resolution to May 20, 2005; Declaration of Cindy O'Hara; (proposed) Order by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (O'Hara, Cindy) (Filed on 4/27/2005) (Entered: 04/27/2005)
47 STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND DEADLINE FOR COMPLETION OF ADR TO MAY 20, 2005. Signed by Judge William Alsup on 4/29/05. (dt, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/2/2005) (Entered: 05/02/2005)
Set/Reset Hearings: Mediation Hearing set for 5/19/2005 at the offices of the EEOC. (cmf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/4/2005) (Entered: 05/04/2005)
48 Letter from Michael Hoffman. (Hoffman, Michael) (Filed on 5/11/2005) (Entered: 05/11/2005)
49 MOTION for Summary Judgment and Notice of Motion for Summary Judgment, or Alternatively, Motion for Summary Adjudication of Issues, and Motion for

7 of 17

6/12/2007 11:45 AM

CAND-ECF - Docket Report
05/12/2005 05/12/2005
05/12/2005 05/13/2005 05/13/2005 05/13/2005 05/13/2005 05/13/2005 05/16/2005

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?830373496296382-L_3...
Sanctions, against Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed by HMC Acquisition Properties, Inc., John Trovato, Penny Richardson, Interstate Hotels, LLC. Motion Hearing set for 6/23/2005 08:00 AM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco. (Hoffman, Michael) (Filed on 5/12/2005) (Entered: 05/12/2005)
50 MEMORANDUM in Support Motion for Summary Judgment, or Alternatively, Motion for Summary Adjudication of Issues, and Motion for Sanctions, against Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed byHMC Acquisition Properties, Inc., John Trovato, Penny Richardson, Interstate Hotels, LLC. (Hoffman, Michael) (Filed on 5/12/2005) (Entered: 05/12/2005)
51 Declaration of Christina Kepplinger in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment, or Alternatively, Motion for Summary Adjudication of Issues, and Motion for Sanctions, against Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed byHMC Acquisition Properties, Inc., John Trovato, Penny Richardson, Interstate Hotels, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 through 3# 2 Exhibit 4 through 6)(Hoffman, Michael) (Filed on 5/12/2005) (Entered: 05/12/2005)
52 Letter from Plaintiff EEOC Re: timing of response to Defendants' request for protective order. (O'Hara, Cindy) (Filed on 5/12/2005) (Entered: 05/12/2005)
53 Declaration of Ronald D. Arena in Support of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment or Summary Adjudication of Issues and Motion for Sanctions against Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed byHMC Acquisition Properties, Inc., John Trovato, Penny Richardson, Interstate Hotels, LLC. (Arena, Ronald) (Filed on 5/13/2005) (Entered: 05/13/2005)
54 Declaration of Michael Hoffman in Support of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment or Summary Adjudication of Issues, and Motion for Sanctions against Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed byHMC Acquisition Properties, Inc., John Trovato, Penny Richardson, Interstate Hotels, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 11 through 13# 2 Exhibit 14 through 20)(Hoffman, Michael) (Filed on 5/13/2005) (Entered: 05/13/2005)
55 Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, or Alternatively, Summary Adjudication of Issues, and Motion for Sanctions against Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed byHMC Acquisition Properties, Inc., John Trovato, Penny Richardson, Interstate Hotels, LLC. (Hoffman, Michael) (Filed on 5/13/2005) (Entered: 05/13/2005)
56 Proposed Order Granting Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment against Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission by HMC Acquisition Properties, Inc., John Trovato, Penny Richardson, Interstate Hotels, LLC. (Hoffman, Michael) (Filed on 5/13/2005) (Entered: 05/13/2005)
57 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by HMC Acquisition Properties, Inc., John Trovato, Penny Richardson, Interstate Hotels, LLC (Hoffman, Michael) (Filed on 5/13/2005) (Entered: 05/13/2005)
58 Letter from Plaintiff EEOC in Response to Defendant's Request for a Protective Order. (O'Hara, Cindy) (Filed on 5/16/2005) (Entered: 05/16/2005)

8 of 17

6/12/2007 11:45 AM

CAND-ECF - Docket Report
05/17/2005 05/26/2005
05/27/2005 05/27/2005 05/27/2005 06/02/2005 06/03/2005 06/07/2005 06/07/2005 06/09/2005
06/09/2005 06/09/2005
9 of 17

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?830373496296382-L_3...
59 Letter from Intervenor Gutierrez. (Herrington, Joan) (Filed on 5/17/2005) (Entered: 05/17/2005)
60 Minute Entry: Telephone Conference re Discovery Hearing held on 5/23/2005 before William Alsup (Date Filed: 5/26/2005). Parties shall meet and confere and submit a proposed order on the rulings by 5/28/05. (Court Reporter Kathy Wyatt.) (dt, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 5/26/2005) Modified on 7/6/2005 (dt, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/26/2005)
61 Proposed Order on Defendants' Request for Protective Order and Evidentiary Order by HMC Acquisition Properties, Inc., John Trovato, Penny Richardson, Interstate Hotels, LLC. (Arena, Ronald) (Filed on 5/27/2005) (Entered: 05/27/2005)
62 Proposed Order re 58 Letter, 59 Letter, 52 Letter, 48 Letter Defendants' Request for A Protective Order by Raul Tomas Gutierrez. (Herrington, Joan) (Filed on 5/27/2005) (Entered: 05/27/2005)
63 Letter from Plaintiff EEOC Requesting protective order regarding deposition questions. (O'Hara, Cindy) (Filed on 5/27/2005) (Entered: 05/27/2005)
64 MEMORANDUM in Oppostion to Def's Motion for Summary Judgment, et al. filed byEqual Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit # 2 Affidavit to authenticate docs# 3 Affidavit O'Hara re Discovery)(Cheung, Raymond) (Filed on 6/2/2005) (Entered: 06/02/2005)
65 MOTION to Seal File Document Under Seal filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (O'Hara, Cindy) (Filed on 6/3/2005) (Entered: 06/03/2005)
66 CERTIFICATION OF MEDIATION Session by Howard A. Janssen; Mediation session held 5/19/2005; Case did not settle; Mediation process is complete. (cmf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/7/2005) (Entered: 06/07/2005)
67 ORDER RE DEFENDANTS' REQUEST FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER SUBMITTED BY PLAINTIFF EEOC AND PLAINTIFF-IN-INTERVENTION RAUL GUTIERREZ. Signed by Judge William Alsup on 6/7/2005. (whasec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/7/2005) (Entered: 06/07/2005)
68 Reply Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of 49 Motion for Summary Judgment, or Alternatively, Motion for Summary Adjudication of Issues, and Motion for Sanctions, against Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed byHMC Acquisition Properties, Inc., John Trovato, Penny Richardson, Interstate Hotels, LLC. (Hoffman, Michael) (Filed on 6/9/2005) Modified on 6/10/2005 (sis, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/09/2005)
69 OBJECTIONS to Declaration of Francisco Melara Filed in Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment; Motion to Strike Declaration of Melara by HMC Acquisition Properties, Inc., John Trovato, Penny Richardson, Interstate Hotels, LLC. (Hoffman, Michael) (Filed on 6/9/2005) (Entered: 06/09/2005)
70 OBJECTIONS to to Exhibits Filed in Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment; Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Exhibits by HMC Acquisition Properties, Inc., John Trovato, Penny Richardson, Interstate Hotels, LLC. (Hoffman,
6/12/2007 11:45 AM

CAND-ECF - Docket Report
06/14/2005 06/15/2005 06/16/2005 06/19/2005
06/19/2005 06/20/2005 06/21/2005 06/21/2005
06/21/2005 06/22/2005 06/23/2005
06/23/2005 06/23/2005

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?830373496296382-L_3...
Michael) (Filed on 6/9/2005) (Entered: 06/09/2005)
71 Letter from Counsel for Plaintiff in Intervention Raul Gutierrez. (Herrington, Joan) (Filed on 6/14/2005) (Entered: 06/14/2005)
72 MOTION to Compel Independent Medical Examination filed by HMC Acquisition Properties, Inc., John Trovato, Penny Richardson, Interstate Hotels, LLC. (Pedhirney, Michael) (Filed on 6/15/2005) (Entered: 06/15/2005)
73 Letter from Ronald D. Arena. (Arena, Ronald) (Filed on 6/16/2005) (Entered: 06/16/2005)
74 MOTION to Seal Document 51 Declaration in Support,, 69 Objection, Declaration of O'Hara in Support Thereof, (proposed) Order filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Motion Hearing set for 6/23/2005 08:00 AM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco. (O'Hara, Cindy) (Filed on 6/19/2005) (Entered: 06/19/2005)
75 MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Declaration filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Motion Hearing set for 6/23/2005 08:00 AM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco. (O'Hara, Cindy) (Filed on 6/19/2005) (Entered: 06/19/2005)
76 Letter from Plaintiff in Intervention Raul Gutierrez. (Herrington, Joan) (Filed on 6/20/2005) (Entered: 06/20/2005)
77 Letter from Ronald D. Arena. (Arena, Ronald) (Filed on 6/21/2005) (Entered: 06/21/2005)
78 Proposed Order re 71 Plaintiff in Intervention's June 14 Request to Quash Employment Records Subpoena and Notices of Deposition of Francisco Melara, Dr. Kroes and Xiu Min Li by HMC Acquisition Properties, Inc., John Trovato, Penny Richardson, Interstate Hotels, LLC. (Arena, Ronald) (Filed on 6/21/2005) Modified on 6/22/2005 (sis, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/21/2005)
79 Proposed Order re 71 Letter Request to Quash/Modify Subpoena and Quash Notices of Deposition by Raul Tomas Gutierrez. (Herrington, Joan) (Filed on 6/21/2005) (Entered: 06/21/2005)
80 Minute Entry: Telephone Conference re discovery dispute held. (Court Reporter: David Disbrow) (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 6/22/2005) (Entered: 06/22/2005)
81 ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF IN INTERVENTION'S REQUEST TO QUASH EMPLOYMENT RECORDS SUBPOENA AND NOTICES OF DEPOSITIONS OF FRANCISCO MELARA, DR. KROES, RON MALONE AND XIU MIN LI. Signed by Judge William Alsup on 6/23/2005. (whasec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/23/2005) (Entered: 06/23/2005)
82 Minute Entry: Motion Hearing held on 6/23/2005 before Judge William Alsup. The motion for summary judgment is denied. (Court Reporter: Diane Skillman) (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 6/23/2005) (Entered: 06/23/2005)
83 Proposed Order Granting Medical Exam by Raul Tomas Gutierrez. (Herrington, Joan) (Filed on 6/23/2005) (Entered: 06/23/2005)

10 of 17

6/12/2007 11:45 AM

CAND-ECF - Docket Report
06/27/2005 06/27/2005
07/05/2005 07/18/2005
07/18/2005 07/18/2005 07/18/2005 07/20/2005 07/20/2005 07/27/2005 08/01/2005 08/03/2005
11 of 17

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?830373496296382-L_3...
84 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' REQUEST FOR A MEDICAL EXAMINATION AND REQUESTS FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER re 83 Proposed Order filed by Raul Tomas Gutierrez. Signed by Judge William Alsup on 6/23/05. (dt, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/27/2005) (Entered: 06/27/2005)
85 STIPULATION TO UNSEAL TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING ON DEFENDANT INTERSTATE HOTELS L.L.C.'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR ALTERNATIVELY, MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES, AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFF EEOC by Interstate Hotels, LLC. (Pedhirney, Michael) (Filed on 6/27/2005) (Entered: 06/27/2005)
86 MOTION to Compel Request for order compelling production of comparator personnel files filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (O'Hara, Cindy) (Filed on 7/5/2005) (Entered: 07/05/2005)
87 Minute Entry: Telephone Conference re Discovery Hearing held on 6/17/2005 before William Alsup (Date Filed: 7/18/2005). Motion to quash is granted. Defendant to submit proposed order by noon on 6/21/05. Oppositions to the other discovery dispute are due by noon on 6/20/05. Telephone Discovery Hearing set for 6/22/2005 09:00 AM. (Court Reporter Leo Mankiewicz.) (dt, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 7/18/2005) Modified on 7/19/2005 (dt, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/18/2005)
88 Letter from Ronald D. Arena. (Arena, Ronald) (Filed on 7/18/2005) (Entered: 07/18/2005)
89 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 06/17/05 before Judge William Alsup. Court Reporter: Leo Mankiewicz. (sis, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/18/2005) (Entered: 07/19/2005)
90 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 06/23/05 before Judge William Alsup. Court Reporter: Diane Skillman. (sis, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/18/2005) (Entered: 07/19/2005)
91 ORDER CLARIFYING PRIOR DISCOVERY ORDER [re 88 Letter filed by Interstate Hotels, LLC, Penny Richardson, John Trovato, HMC Acquisition Properties, Inc.]. Signed by Judge William Alsup on 7/20/2005. (whasec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/20/2005) (Entered: 07/20/2005)
92 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 04/14/05 before Judge William Alsup. Court Reporter: Catherine Luciano. (sis, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/20/2005) (Entered: 07/21/2005)
93 Letter from Michael Hoffman. (Hoffman, Michael) (Filed on 7/27/2005) (Entered: 07/27/2005)
94 STIPULATION and Proposed Order Extending the Deadline to Take the Deposition of Plaintiff's Expert Witness by HMC Acquisition Properties, Inc., John Trovato, Penny Richardson, Interstate Hotels, LLC. (Hoffman, Michael) (Filed on 8/1/2005) (Entered: 08/01/2005)
95 Memorandum in Opposition 49 "Plaintiff in Intervention's Opposition to Defendant's Request for Sanction" filed byRaul Tomas Gutierrez. (Herrington, Joan) (Filed on 8/3/2005) Modified on 8/4/2005 (sis, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/03/2005)
6/12/2007 11:45 AM

CAND-ECF - Docket Report

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?830373496296382-L_3...

08/03/2005 08/05/2005 08/05/2005 08/11/2005 08/11/2005 08/11/2005 08/11/2005 08/11/2005 08/11/2005

96 DECLARATION OF JOAN HERRINGTON IN SUPPORT OF 95 OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT INTERSTATE HOTEL'S REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS. filed byRaul Tomas Gutierrez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit #1)(Herrington, Joan) (Filed on 8/3/2005) Modified on 8/4/2005 (sis, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/03/2005)
97 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO SUBSTITUTE PRIVATE MEDIATION FOR JUDICIAL SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Peck, Jonathan) (Filed on 8/5/2005) (Entered: 08/05/2005)
98 ORDER APPROVING SUBSTITUTION OF PRIVATE MEDIATION FOR JUDICIAL SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE re 97 Stipulation filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Signed by Judge Alsup on 8/5/05. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/5/2005) (Entered: 08/05/2005)
99 MOTION for Summary Judgment and Notice of Motion for Summary Judgment, or Alternatively, Motion for Summary Adjudication against Raul Tomas Gutierrez filed by HMC Acquisition Properties, Inc., John Trovato, Penny Richardson, Interstate Hotels, LLC. Motion Hearing set for 9/15/2005 08:00 AM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco. (Hoffman, Michael) (Filed on 8/11/2005) (Entered: 08/11/2005)
100 MOTION for Summary Judgment and Notice of Motion for Summary Judgment, or Alternatively, Summary Adjudication of Issues, against Equal Opportunity Employment Commission filed by HMC Acquisition Properties, Inc., John Trovato, Penny Richardson, Interstate Hotels, LLC. Motion Hearing set for 9/15/2005 08:00 AM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco. (Hoffman, Michael) (Filed on 8/11/2005) (Entered: 08/11/2005)
101 Request for Judicial Notice Filed in Joint Support of 99 100 Motion for Summary Judgment against Plaintiff Equal Opportunity Employment Commission and Motion for Summary Judgment against Plaintiff Raul Gutierrez filed byHMC Acquisition Properties, Inc., John Trovato, Penny Richardson, Interstate Hotels, LLC. (Hoffman, Michael) (Filed on 8/11/2005) Modified on 8/12/2005 (sis, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/11/2005)
102 MEMORANDUM in Support re 99 MOTION for Summary Judgment and Notice of Motion for Summary Judgment, or Alternatively, Motion for Summary Adjudication against Raul Tomas Gutierrez filed byHMC Acquisition Properties, Inc., John Trovato, Penny Richardson, Interstate Hotels, LLC. (Related document(s)99) (Hoffman, Michael) (Filed on 8/11/2005) (Entered: 08/11/2005)
103 MEMORANDUM in Support re 100 MOTION for Summary Judgment and Notice of Motion for Summary Judgment, or Alternatively, Summary Adjudication of Issues, against Equal Opportunity Employment Commission filed byHMC Acquisition Properties, Inc., John Trovato, Penny Richardson, Interstate Hotels, LLC. (Related document(s)100) (Hoffman, Michael) (Filed on 8/11/2005) (Entered: 08/11/2005)
104 Declaration of Mary Bibbs and Exhibits Filed in Joint Support of 99 100 Motion for Summary Judgment Against Plaintiff equal Opportunity Commission and Motion for Summary Judgment against Plaintiff Raul Gutierrez filed byHMC Acquisition Properties, Inc., John Trovato, Penny Richardson, Interstate Hotels,

12 of 17

6/12/2007 11:45 AM

CAND-ECF - Docket Report

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?830373496296382-L_3...

08/11/2005
08/11/2005 08/11/2005 08/11/2005 08/11/2005 08/16/2005 08/16/2005 08/16/2005 08/17/2005

LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Manual Filing of Exhibits Notification)(Hoffman, Michael) (Filed on 8/11/2005) Modified on 8/12/2005 (sis, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/11/2005)
105 Declaration of Michael Hoffman and Exhibits Filed in Joint Support of 99 100 Motion for Summary Judgment against Plaintiff Equal Opportunity Commission and Motion for Summary Judgment against Raul Guttierez filed by HMC Acquisition Properties, Inc., John Trovato, Penny Richardson, Interstate Hotels, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Manual Filing of Exhibits Notification)(Hoffman, Michael) (Filed on 8/11/2005) Modified on 8/12/2005 (sis, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/11/2005)
106 EXHIBITS re 101 Request for Judicial Notice, Manual Filing of Exhibits Notification filed byHMC Acquisition Properties, Inc., John Trovato, Penny Richardson, Interstate Hotels, LLC. (Related document(s)101) (Hoffman, Michael) (Filed on 8/11/2005) (Entered: 08/11/2005)
107 Proposed Order 99 Granting Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment against Plaintiff Raul Gutierrez by HMC Acquisition Properties, Inc., John Trovato, Penny Richardson, Interstate Hotels, LLC. (Hoffman, Michael) (Filed on 8/11/2005) Modified on 8/12/2005 (sis, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/11/2005)
108 Proposed Order 100 Granting defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment against Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission by HMC Acquisition Properties, Inc., John Trovato, Penny Richardson, Interstate Hotels, LLC. (Hoffman, Michael) (Filed on 8/11/2005) Modified on 8/12/2005 (sis, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/11/2005)
109 EXHIBITS re 104 Declaration in Support, 105 Declaration in Support, 101 Request for Judicial Notice, filed byHMC Acquisition Properties, Inc., John Trovato, Penny Richardson, Interstate Hotels, LLC. (Related document(s)104, 105, 101) (sis, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/11/2005) (Entered: 08/12/2005)
110 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 99 100 101 102103]104 105 106 107 108 by HMC Acquisition Properties, Inc., John Trovato, Penny Richardson, Interstate Hotels, LLC of Summary Judgment Documents to Joan Herrington (Hoffman, Michael) (Filed on 8/16/2005) Modified on 8/17/2005 (sis, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/16/2005)
111 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 HMC Acquisition Properties, Inc., John Trovato, Penny Richardson, Interstate Hotels, LLC of Summary Judgment Documents to Jonathan T. Peck (Hoffman, Michael) (Filed on 8/16/2005) Modified on 8/17/2005 (sis, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/16/2005)
112 STIPULATION AND ORDER TO UNSEAL TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING ON DEFENDANT INTERSTATE HOTELS L.L.C.'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR ALTERNATIVELY, MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES, AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFF EEOC. Signed by Judge William Alsup on 8/15/2005. (whasec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/16/2005) (Entered: 08/16/2005)
113 ERRATA re 99 MOTION for Summary Judgment and Notice of Motion for Summary Judgment, or Alternatively, Motion for Summary Adjudication against

13 of 17

6/12/2007 11:45 AM

CAND-ECF - Docket Report

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?830373496296382-L_3...

08/17/2005 08/17/2005 08/19/2005 08/19/2005 08/25/2005
08/25/2005 08/25/2005 08/25/2005
08/25/2005

Raul Tomas Gutierrez, 100 MOTION for Summary Judgment and Notice of Motion for Summary Judgment, or Alternatively, Summary Adjudication of Issues, against Equal Opportunity Employment Commission by HMC Acquisition Properties, Inc., John Trovato, Penny Richardson, Interstate Hotels, LLC, HMC Acquisition Properties, Inc., John Trovato, Penny Richardson, Interstate Hotels, LLC. (Hoffman, Michael) (Filed on 8/17/2005) (Entered: 08/17/2005)
114 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by HMC Acquisition Properties, Inc., John Trovato, Penny Richardson, Interstate Hotels, LLC re 113 Errata,, (Hoffman, Michael) (Filed on 8/17/2005) (Entered: 08/17/2005)
115 Minute Entry: Telephone Conference re Discovery Hearing held on 8/16/2005 before William Alsup (Date Filed: 8/17/2005). Defendant shall prepare a proposed order with the ruling. (Court Reporter Joan Columbini.) (dt, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 8/17/2005) (Entered: 08/17/2005)
116 Proposed Order re Defendants' Motion to Modify the Court's June 23, 2005 Discovery Order and for Monetary Sanctions against Attorney Joan Herrington by HMC Acquisition Properties, Inc., John Trovato, Penny Richardson, Interstate Hotels, LLC. (Arena, Ronald) (Filed on 8/19/2005) (Entered: 08/19/2005)
117 Proposed Order Re: Plaintiff EEOC's Request to Compel Production of Personnel Files by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (O'Hara, Cindy) (Filed on 8/19/2005) (Entered: 08/19/2005)
118 ORDER RE DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO MODIFY THE COURT'S 6/23/05 DISCOVERY ORDER AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS re 116 Proposed Order, filed by Interstate Hotels, LLC, Penny Richardson, John Trovato, HMC Acquisition Properties, Inc. Signed by Judge William Alsup on 8/24/05. (dt, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/25/2005) (Entered: 08/25/2005)
119 ORDER RE PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF FILES re 117 Proposed Order filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Signed by Judge William Alsup on 8/24/05. (dt, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/25/2005) (Entered: 08/25/2005)
120 MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITIN re 100 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Raul Tomas Gutierrez. Motion Hearing set for 9/15/2005 08:00 AM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco. (Herrington, Joan) (Filed on 8/25/2005) Modified on 8/26/2005 (sis, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/25/2005)
121 Memorandum in Opposition re 100 MOTION for Summary Judgment and Notice of Motion for Summary Judgment, or Alternatively, Summary Adjudication of Issues, against Equal Opportunity Employment Commission filed byEqual Employment Opportunity Commission. (O'Hara, Cindy) (Filed on 8/25/2005) (Entered: 08/25/2005)
122 Declaration of Rose Gouveia in Support of 121 Memorandum in Opposition, to Defendant Interstate Hotels L.L.C's Motion for Summary Judgment or Summary Adjudication of Issues filed byEqual Employment Opportunity Commission. (Related document(s)121) (O'Hara, Cindy) (Filed on 8/25/2005) (Entered: 08/25/2005)

14 of 17

6/12/2007 11:45 AM

CAND-ECF - Docket Report

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?830373496296382-L_3...

08/25/2005 08/25/2005 08/25/2005 08/25/2005 08/29/2005 08/29/2005 08/29/2005 08/29/2005 08/29/2005 08/30/2005 08/30/2005 08/30/2005

123 EXHIBITS re 121 Memorandum in Opposition, Manual Filing Notification of Plaintiff EEOC's Exhibits filed byEqual Employment Opportunity Commission. (Related document(s)121) (O'Hara, Cindy) (Filed on 8/25/2005) (Entered: 08/25/2005)
124 Certificate of Service 123 filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Related document(s)123) (O'Hara, Cindy) (Filed on 8/25/2005) Modified on 8/26/2005 (sis, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/25/2005)
125 Declaration of Cindy O'Hara in Support of 123 Exhibits, 121 Memorandum in Opposition, Authenticating Excerpts from Depositions and Discovery Documents filed byEqual Employment Opportunity Commission. (Related document(s)123, 121) (O'Hara, Cindy) (Filed on 8/25/2005) (Entered: 08/25/2005)
126 PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBITS re 123 Exhibits, 121 Memorandum in Opposition, filed byEqual Employment Opportunity Commission. (Related document(s)123, 121) (sis, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/25/2005) (Entered: 08/26/2005)
127 DECLARATION of Amy Oppenheimer 120 In Opposition to 100 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Raul Tomas Gutierrez. (Herrington, Joan) (Filed on 8/29/2005) Modified on 8/30/2005 (sis, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/29/2005)
128 NOTICE by Raul Tomas Gutierrez of Manual Filing of Exhibits to 127 Declaration of Amy Oppenheimer in Opposition to 100 Motion for Summary Judgment (Herrington, Joan) (Filed on 8/29/2005) Modified on 8/30/2005 (sis, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/29/2005)
129 NOTICE by Raul Tomas Gutierrez Manual Filing of Exhibits to 120 Plaintiff in Intervention's Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment (Herrington, Joan) (Filed on 8/29/2005) Modified on 8/30/2005 (sis, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/29/2005)
130 Amended Memorandum in Opposition 100 to Motion for Summary Judgment (Corrected) filed byRaul Tomas Gutierrez. (Herrington, Joan) (Filed on 8/29/2005) Modified on 8/30/2005 (sis, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/29/2005)
131 EXHIBITS re 130 Memorandum in Opposition filed byRaul Tomas Gutierrez. (Related document(s)130) (sis, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/29/2005) (Entered: 08/30/2005)
132 Letter from Ronald D. Arena. (Arena, Ronald) (Filed on 8/30/2005) (Entered: 08/30/2005)
133 ORDER GRANTING ADDITIONAL TIME TO FILE REPLY BRIEF re 132 Letter filed by Interstate Hotels, LLC, Penny Richardson, John Trovato, HMC Acquisition Properties, Inc. Signed by Judge Alsup on 8/30/05. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/30/2005) (Entered: 08/30/2005)
134 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Raul Tomas Gutierrez re 127 128 129 130 of Corrected Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment, Declaration of Amy Oppenheimer including exhibits Opposing Motion for Summary Judgment, Manual Filing Notification of Exhibits to Declaration of Amy Oppenheimer, and Declaration of Joan Herrington Authenticating Exhibits to Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment (Herrington, Joan) (Filed on 8/30/2005) Modified on 8/31/2005 (sis, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/30/2005)

15 of 17

6/12/2007 11:45 AM

CAND-ECF - Docket Report

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?830373496296382-L_3...

08/31/2005 09/01/2005
09/01/2005
09/01/2005 09/02/2005 09/02/2005 09/06/2005
09/07/2005 09/12/2005 09/14/2005 09/14/2005

135 CLERK'S NOTICE Continuing Motion Hearing. Motion Hearing set for 9/15/2005 02:00 PM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco. (dt, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/31/2005) (Entered: 08/31/2005)
136 Reply Memorandum re 100 MOTION for Summary Judgment and Notice of Motion for Summary Judgment, or Alternatively, Summary Adjudication of Issues, against Equal Opportunity Employment Commission filed byHMC Acquisition Properties, Inc., John Trovato, Penny Richardson, Interstate Hotels, LLC. (Arena, Ronald) (Filed on 9/1/2005) (Entered: 09/01/2005)
137 Declaration of RONALD D. ARENA in Support of 99 MOTION for Summary Judgment and Notice of Motion for Summary Judgment, or Alternatively, Motion for Summary Adjudication against Raul Tomas Gutierrez, 100 MOTION for Summary Judgment and Notice of Motion for Summary Judgment, or Alternatively, Summary Adjudication of Issues, against Equal Opportunity Employment Commission filed byHMC Acquisition Properties, Inc., John Trovato, Penny Richardson, Interstate Hotels, LLC. (Related document(s)99, 100) (Arena, Ronald) (Filed on 9/1/2005) (Entered: 09/01/2005)
138 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by HMC Acquisition Properties, Inc., John Trovato, Penny Richardson, Interstate Hotels, LLC re 137 Declaration in Support,,, 136 Reply Memorandum, (Arena, Ronald) (Filed on 9/1/2005) (Entered: 09/01/2005)
139 ORDER CONTINUING HEARING. Signed by Judge Alsup on 9/2/05. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/2/2005) (Entered: 09/02/2005)
140 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 12/02/04 before Judge William Alsup. Court Reporter: Catherine Luciano. (sis, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/2/2005) (Entered: 09/02/2005)
141 Reply Memorandum re 99 MOTION for Summary Judgment and Notice of Motion for Summary Judgment, or Alternatively, Motion for Summary Adjudication against Raul Tomas Gutierrez of Points and Authorities filed byHMC Acquisition Properties, Inc., John Trovato, Penny Richardson, Interstate Hotels, LLC. (Hoffman, Michael) (Filed on 9/6/2005) (Entered: 09/06/2005)
142 Letter from Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (O'Hara, Cindy) (Filed on 9/7/2005) (Entered: 09/07/2005)
143 STIPULATION TO CONTINUE DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF'S EXPERT WITNESS; PROPOSED ORDER by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (O'Hara, Cindy) (Filed on 9/12/2005) Modified on 9/13/2005 (sis, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/12/2005)
144 STIPULATION TO CONTINUE DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF'S EXPERT WITNESS; ORDER. Signed by Judge Alsup on 9/14/05. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/14/2005) (Entered: 09/14/2005)
145 *** FILED IN ERROR. PLEASE IGNORE.***
APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL MASTER AND ORDER OF REFERENCE. Ellen S. James appointed.. Signed by Judge Alsup on 9/14/05. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/14/2005) Modified on 9/14/2005 (whalc2, COURT STAFF).

16 of 17

6/12/2007 11:45 AM

CAND-ECF - Docket Report

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?830373496296382-L_3...

09/21/2005
09/23/2005 09/26/2005 10/04/2005 10/05/2005 11/23/2005 11/25/2005 11/25/2005

(Entered: 09/14/2005)
146 MOTION to Continue Hearing on Summary Judgment Motions filed by HMC Acquisition Properties, Inc., John Trovato, Penny Richardson, Interstate Hotels, LLC. Motion Hearing set for 9/28/2005 08:00 AM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco. (Hoffman, Michael) (Filed on 9/21/2005) (Entered: 09/21/2005)
147 ORDER by Judge Alsup granting 146 Motion to Continue Summary Judgment to October 6, 2005 (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/23/2005) (Entered: 09/23/2005)
148 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 05/23/05 before Judge William Alsup. Court Reporter: Katherine Wyatt. (sis, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/26/2005) (Entered: 09/27/2005)
149 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT CONSENT DECREE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (O'Hara, Cindy) (Filed on 10/4/2005) (Entered: 10/04/2005)
150 CONSENT DECREE re 149 Settlement Agreement filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,. Signed by Judge Alsup on 10/5/05. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/5/2005) (Entered: 10/05/2005)
151 STIPULATION and Proposed Order for Dismissal of Intervenor by HMC Acquisition Properties, Inc., John Trovato, Penny Richardson, Interstate Hotels, LLC. (Hoffman, Michael) (Filed on 11/23/2005) (Entered: 11/23/2005)
Case reopened.. Signed by Judge Alsup on 11/25/05. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/25/2005) (Entered: 11/25/2005)
152 ORDER DISMISSING INTERVENOR. Signed by Judge Alsup on 11/25/05. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/25/2005) (Entered: 11/25/2005)

PACER Login:
Description:
Billable Pages:

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt
06/12/2007 09:42:47

hs0328

Client Code: eeoc

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

3:04-cv-04092-WHA

12

Cost:

0.96

17 of 17

6/12/2007 11:45 AM

 
 EEOC LITIGATION SETTLEMENT REPORT - October 2005

http://www.eeoc.gov/litigation/settlements/settlement10-05.html

EEOC v. Interstate Hotels, L.L.C. No. 04-4092 WHA (N.D. Cal. Oct. 5, 2005)
The San Francisco District Office alleged that defendant, which owns and operates the Marriott Fisherman's Wharf Hotel in San Francisco, subjected Latino/Hispanic food service workers to a hostile work environment based upon their national origin, and retaliated against them for complaining about the discriminatory treatment. The hotel's former Food and Beverage (F&B) Director called charging party and other Latino workers "monkeys," "lazy," "stupid," "slow learners," "useless," and "dirty." After charging party complained to management about the F&B Director in December 2003, he intensified his harassing behavior and subsequently took charging party off the schedule, resulting in lost wages. The F&B Director also subjected other Latino food service workers who complained to increased harassment and took other adverse actions up to and including termination.
Under the 30-month consent decree resolving this case, the charging party and similarly situated individuals will share $320,000 in monetary relief. Defendant will hire an outside consultant to provide annual training on national origin discrimination to all employees responsible for supervising or managing employees at Mariott Fisherman's Wharf, and will hire a consultant to train its human resources staff on how to investigate claims of discriminatory harassment.

1 of 1

7/31/2007 12:29 PM