7 Case 4:05-cv-40304-PVG-MKM Document 1 Filed 09/30/2005 Page 1 of 7
, !
" i, .•".
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRlCT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY)

JUDGH : Gadola, Paul V.

COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

)

DECK : S. Division Civil Deck

)

DAtH : 09/30/2005 @ 11:57:11 CASE WIlBER : 4: 05CV40304

)

cmp eeoc v. consolidated chem

)

corp, si taJD

v.

)

CONSOLIDATED CHEMICAL CORP.,

) )

MAGlSTRATE

JUD•GI,:.:.,1.1.O~,ImI\-,'V0..

U I,

..A,-~,--.".",A.(J..

...~....

D/B/A TRI-CHEM CORPORATION,

)
) MAGISTRATE JUDGE rAONA I<. MAJZOUB

)

Detendant.

)

COMPLAINT AND JURY

TRIAL DEMAND

NATURE OF THE ACTION This is an action under Tille VII ofthe Civil Righl~ Act of1964 and Title I oCthc Civil Rights Act of 1991 to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of sex, and ((1 provide appropriate relief to formcr employees Kathleen Steenstra, Sherry Link and Julie Kaptur, who were adversely affected by such practices. The EEOC alleges that Defendant, Tri-Chem Corporation ("Defendant" or "Tri-Chem") subjected Steenstra, Link, Kiptur and other similarly situated individuals to a sexually hostile work environment and that the Defendant, despite knowledge ofthe harassment, failed to take prompt and effective action to correct and prevent the harassment.

JURlSDlCTION AND VENUE 1. Jurisdiction ofthis Court is invoked pursuantto 28 U.S.c. §§ 451, 1331, 1337, 1343, and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Sections 706(f)( 1) and (3) ofTitle VII

Case 4:05-cv-40304-PVG-MKM Document 1 Filed 09/30/2005 Page 2 of 7

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

Section 102 orthe Civil RightsActor1991,42 U.S.c. §1981a. 28 U.S.C. §§ 451,1331,1337,1343

and 1345.

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

jLlri~diction of the United States District COLlrt for (he Eastern District or Michigan, Southern

Division.

3. Plaintiff, the Equal Employmcnt Opportunity Conunission ("EEOC" or the

"Commission"), is the agency of the United States or America charged with thc administration,

interpretation, and enforcement of Title VII, and is expressly autllOrized to bring this action by

Section 706(0(1) and (3) ofTilie VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-5(£)(I) and (3).

4. At all relevant times, DefendantTri-Chem has continuoLlsly been a corporation doing

business in Troy, Michigan, and has continuously had at least 15 employees.

5. At all re1evanttimes, Defendant Employer has continuously been an employer engaged

in al1 industry affecting conIDlerce within the meaning of Sections 70 I(b), (g), and (h) of Title VII,

42 U.S.C §§ 2000e(b), (g), and (h).

STATEMENT OF CLAIMS

6.

More than thirty days prior (0 the institution of this lawsuit, charges were filed with

(he Commission alleging violations of Title V11 by Defcndant Employcr which gave rise to this

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

7_ Since at least April, 2003, Defendant has continuously cngaged in unlawful

employment practices at its Troy, Michigan facility, in violation of Section 703(a), 42 U.S.c. §

2000e-2(a) by maintaining a sexually hostile work environment.

8. The effect of the unlaw/hI conduct complained ofin paragraph 7, above, has heen to

Case 4:05-cv-40304-PVG-MKM Document 1 Filed 09/30/2005 Page 3 of 7
deprive Steenstra, Link, Kaptur and other similarly situated individuals of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely to affect their status as employees because oftheir sex, female.
9. As the result of the unlawful employment practices, Steenstra, Link, Kaptur and other similarly situated individuals have sufrered emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life.
II. The unlawful employment practices complained orin paragraph 7 above were done with malice or with reckless indifference to (he federally protected rights ofStccnstra, Link, Kaplur and other similarly situated individuals.
PRAYER FOR REUEF Wherefore, the Commission rcspcctJully req uests that this Court: A. Grant a permancntinjunction enjoining Defendant, its officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in sexual harassment and any other employment practice which discriminates on the basis of sex. B. Order Defendant Employer to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for women, and which eradicate the effects ofits past and present unlawful employment practices. C. Order the Defendant Employer to make whole Steenstra, Link, Kaptur and other similarly situated individuals by providing appropriate back pay with prej udgment interest, in amounts to be determined at trial, and other affirmative rcliefnecessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices. D. Order Defendant Employer to make whole Steenstra, Link, Kaptur and other similarly situated individuals by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described ill paragraph 7 above in amounts t() be proven at trial.

Case 4:05-cv-40304-PVG-MKM Document 1 Filed 09/30/2005 Page 4 of 7
E. Order Defendant Employer (0 make whole Steenstra, Link, Kaplur and other similarly situated individuals by providing compensation for past and future non-pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices complained of in paragraph 7 above in amounts to be proven at trial.
F. Order Defendant Employer to pay Steenstra, Link, Kaptur and other similarly situated individuals punitive damages for its malicious or reckless conduct described in paragraph 7 above, in anlOunls to be proven at trial.
G. Order Defendant Employer to implement a sexual harassment policy, including but not limited to providing an effective reporting luechanism, provide training to its owners and employees regarding Title Vll, including sexual harassment, rescind its training manual, and cease its practice of requiring or encouraging its female employees to use sexual banter lo sell its products.
H. Grant sueh fuTtherreliefas the Court deems necessary and proper in (he public interest. 1. Award the Commission its costs ofthis action.
JURY TRIAL DEMAND The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its complaint.
Respectfully submitted, .TAMES 1. LEE Deputy General Counsel
ADE~lfl1{;ts33)
Regional Attomey ROBERT K. DAWKTNS (P38289 Supervisory Trial Attorney OMAR WEAVER (P58861)

Case 4:05-cv-40304-PVG-MKM Document 1 Filed 09/30/2005 Page 5 of 7
Trial A((omey
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION DETROIT DISTRlCT OFFICE Patn.ck V. McNamara Bldg.
477 Michigan Avenue, Rm. 865
Detroit, Michigan 48226 Telephone: (313)226-3407

Case 4:05-cv-40304-PVG-MKM Document 1 Filed 09/30/2005 Page 6 of 7

JS 44 11/99

CIVIL COVER SHEET COUNTYINWHICHTHISACTIONAROS'E: OAKLAN[)

The JS-44 civil cover ~heel and the information contained hereil1 neither repleC€ nof 1iupplement the filing and service of pleadings Of other papers as requifed
by law, except as provldad by local rules ot court, Thj$ hmn. approved by the Judicial Conference ot the Unite<;l St;;:ltes in Soptember 1974, is required
for lise of the Clerk. of Court for the purpOSIi! of initiating the civil docket shfil'et

I. (a) PLAINTIFFS
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMEN"f OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

DEFENDANTS

j
\,

j'

\

:

'< .,'

l
i I

,I '
I

: \

!

CONSOLIDATED CHEM CORPORATION

(Vb!a lRI CHEM CORI'Ol(ATION

(b) County of Residente of First Listed (C) AItOl't'lt1!y's (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number)

COlmty of Residence of First Listed

OAKLAND

NOTE: IN LANP CONl.)EMNATION CASe:S, USE THE LOCATION Of' THE , , NO '"VO' '11'0
Attorneys (If KMwn)

Omar Weaver (P58861), Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission, 477 Michigan Avenue, Room 865, Dctroit, MI 48226 (313) 226·3407

-4050 1,,\

d.e. 6-[.(

k~

/'vw'.N'

- 0"',) II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (PI""" 'X" I" 0"" Bo'
, ......... ....

III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (PI.",,"" "X" nOne So:.c for Plaintiff

(For Di-versity CaseS Only)

and dne Pol(' for Defef!danl)

(j(] 1 U ' Govemment
PI::.intiH

LI 3 Feder.' Que.tion
(U.S, Govemm~lit Not a Perty)

PLA DEF

0 ' l l Citizen of This State

(

n 0 p" DEF

InCOlporated or Principal Place 4

4

of Business In This State

.8. Government Defendant

LI 4 Diversity (Indicate Citizenship of Parties ioHem 1111

IV. NATURE OF SUIT
CONTRACT

(Place an "X" In One Box Only) TORTS

Citizen of Mothor

2 U2

0 Citizen or Subject of a 3 1,'13
ForeiGn Crnml'"

Us Os IncQrporated and Princip:rJ1 of Business In Al1oth~r State

Foreign Nation

Lie D6

FClf{FEITtJRE/ Pt:NALT't

BANKRUPTCY

OTHF',TI, STATUTIM3

IJ 1 1 0 InBuranc" 0 120M.II;n¢ U 130 MIII~r Act [] 140 Negotiable In~trum~1lI 1:1 150 Rr:I;Qllt!!I'y of
Overpaymenl M~ Enforeement of Judgment
U 151 Medic.are Act

P~RSONA, INJURY 1:1 31 0 .Airplane 0 315 Airplane Product
U;'I\:llllly
'J
320 AsfiOlUIi Libel And Siandilir
1:1 330 i=edl!r~1 Emplo~Q:I'"I:;'

1:1 152 ReoovllII"Y t;!f Defaulted Student Loans (8t;~. Vetr:t;JM)
CI 153 Rjj:('Jll/l!ry of Ovarpll~mElnt of Wt~an'~ Bl!lnefrts
0 160 Stockholder$' Suil~ CO 190 Other Contract
LI 195 Cl;lft\r;lct Prod.Jc1 Ua.toMl'ly

Li.$bll!t~
U .340 Marine
n 345 Marine ProduGt Liabilil~
350 Motor Vehicle "1:1 355 Motor Vehil;l~
Product Liability 1:1 360 Olher PC~Qrll'\'
Injl,AfY

R.AL PROPERTY

CIVIL RIGHTS

y;VOtiOO Lo"d to!1demn::;( (1
1:1 221200 FOrBclosur~

il(l 2 Emplayment

o [1 730 Rl!ll"lt UloI'H!I.i30 E]ql;t t

4j HI::ru$ingl

0 2~O Torlll to t ar.d

.

A«XlI'IlmodQ\lqns

U 245 TQI1 Pt!XIuct Liabil~y o 444 Wetfaro n 290 All Other Fl:l!lat PfflPOrty U 440 Othll!'r Civil Rights

PERSONAL INJURY 0
U 362 Per&Oniilllnjury- n
Med. Malpractice 0
. 1:1 lOS 1,'I1,'3~a'l'j~n:r:[1 LJ

n 368 Asbesto5 PefiliOll31 II

Injury product

Usbilhy

rJ

lJ

PfSRSOMAl PROPEfl:TY

U 370 Other FrO'll,Jd

n

L.I 371 TI'I.Ifh in Lending
o 380 Other Personal

Pmperty Damage
n 385 Property D<ilrn;lg~ II

p(oouct Liability ,'1

PRISQNER PETITIONS n

n 51 0 Motions to Vacatll!'

Sentence

II

Hi'lbeas Corpus:

1:1 S30 General

!J

1,.1 535 Dealh Penalty

1:1 540 tJandilln'luS & OIh"r U
n 550 CIvil Righi&.

0 555 Prison C[)t'n:1ltion

610 AgrJcu~ure 820 Other Food & [)rug 625 Dlu!l R$l¢r.n $ellU'"1!I
0/ Property 21. Bf:l1 630 liquor L;lwiJ
640 R.R. & Truck
650 Airline! Regll:. \%0 O~c.upl:l'lional
Saf~tyfHealfh
6S0 01ht!!"
I..Al':IOR
71 0 fair LSI/Ill" b"1l1r.dards
M
720 taborfvtgmt. H"l"til)ns
730 18borlM~mt. Reporlillil So I':M5dcsUN!I AI"A
7-40 Railway Labor Act
790 Other Labor Litigation
791 Empl. ~et. Inc. Ssruril)'M

n 422 Appeal 28 USC 156
1..1 423 Withdrawel 2BUSC 157
PROPERTY !,!IGHi":-;;
U 1320 COPYl'ilJhls.
n IjJO Patent
U 840 Tr~dem~rk
SOCIAL SECURITY
1:1 .., HIA (1 395111
n FlB~ Black Lung (923)
1:1 6(13 hl'M.::IDIWN ("O5(1.!)) 1:1 864 SSlD Tille XVI 0 ..5 RSI (~S(g))
rEDERAl TA,X !;\JITS I. I 1370 T~lll!'i!Ii (U.S, Plaintiff
Ot Defendant)
el 67' IRS-Third Party
26 USC 7609

U 400 Statlll RI\!:apportionmcn1
o 41 0 .A.nlJlrust
("] 430 Banks and Banking
o 450 CDlTlm~r~eIlCC
! I 480 Deportation
o 470 ~acll:el~rhlnllEln.-:',nd & Corrupt org;l"lIl~tion~
U 1310 Selel;'lille Service
o 850 SI!I(lU (illesCom mud ili~~(
CKdl~IiW~
n S75 Customer Cl1;j1llenge
121,.1SC 3410
o 891 Agriculiural Ar;'I!; o 891 Ee;OOOl11lt $t..:Ibili%.20011 At:.t o 893 ErMro("YlIlfrt~1 M.lIttl!r~
r·1 894 ~f1ergy AIIQC.<iItiQIi Act
o 895 Freedom Qf k1fQrma~on Act
o gac A&ft:~~?J~I~ lJndar
Equal }\.o:;tE<aa II) .jusri[;1!
o g50 ConlitltlJl.bMlity of
State Stetute;
o 890 OlhElr S\tI\1Jtary AtiIlan$

V. ORIGIN

(PLACE AN "X" IN ONE BOX ONLY)

0 Original

~

ProCJ!tl!l:ding

Removed 'rom Stat" CI;II,I(t

U 3 Remanded from
Appellate Court

0 '" Reinstated
:eo ened

Tran5f~(ted from

LI another district 5 (,p.oilY)

n e M\,I[ti di!!llt(le;t Litigation

. CAUSE OF ACTION (Cite ttle u.s. Civil Statute under ~Ic.h you am fi~ng Md write brief staler'nl\!!tll of cause.
OQ not t.lte Junsdid.ion~' statutes unless r;li\l"l:rSlty.)

App¢al to OI9.trict
O "1 Judge f~f)m
.- Magistrate

Thi. i, an action under Title VTI of the Civil Righ(, Act of 1964 and Title I of Ih" Civil Right' Act of 1991, 10 correct unlawful employmcnl

n nrM·.tl(".p~ j""in t},/, h~~j.c:. nf ~j:I'II"
VII. REQUESTED IN

CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT:

UNDER F,R.C,P, 23

$ DEMAND

in compl~lnt
IJ No

(S..
VIII. RELATED CASE(S) (nstructiooo):

IF ANY

JUDGE

DOCKET
NUMa~R

DATE

CORO

Case 4:05-cv-40304-PVG-MKM Document 1 Filed 09/30/2005 Page 7 of 7

PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 83.11

1.

Is this a case that has been previously dismissed?

If yes, give the following information: Court: ______ _ ~-- _--______________________ Case No.: ________________________ Judge: ______________________________

2.

Other than stated above, are there any pending or previously discontinued or dismissed companion cases in this or any other

/0 es

court, including state court? (Companion cases are matters in which ~N
it appears substantially simi.lar evidence will be offered or the same

or related parties are present and the cases arise out of the same

transaction or occurrence.)

If yes, give the following information; Court: _______________________

Case No.: __~_____________________ Judge: ____________________

Notes:

I . I ••

 
 10

U IE IE IE UNITED STATES DISTRlCT COURT

liS) ~ ~ YJ

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRlCT OF MICHIGAN If'U

IY

SOUTHERN DIVISION

NOV - 2 2005

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

CLERK'S OFFICE, DETROIT·PSG U.S.DISTRICT COURT

Plaintiff,

Civil Action No. 05-40304

v.

Hon. PAUL V. GADOLA

CONSOLIDATED CHEMICAL CORPORATION d/b/a TRT-CHEM CORPORATION,

:;;;.: ~A-DELE~RA~PP-ORT-c(P-4:-:4-::-83:-:3:-:-)D~~~e~~f~~e~-n::dS:a:-nIJt:.-::E:-:E=L-::L-=E::-N"CCE:::-:"I-::S-:-:E"CCN-:C:B-:::E-:C:R-:::G:-;(:::CP2:::C1:::';!"'"!i'"j'eI"~)-,-~I:;;"~,"-"~...".;,;Jsf;rd<y.'~'!"'=,''=

ROLlliRT K. DAWKINS (1'38289) OMAR WEAVER (p58861)
AITORNE)'S FOR PLAINTIFF PATRICK V. MCNAMARA BUILDING 477 MICHIGAN AVENUE, ROOM 865 DETROIT, MI 48226 (31 J) 226-5673

EISENBERG & BaGAS, P.c.···, -J ,ATIORNEVS FOR DEFENDANT',.',,"' h. 33 13LOOMFIEW HILLS l'KWV SUITE 145

;::;;;;;;
iii:Uig
-4 .-i:::0
::t""1

c:: BLOOMFIELIl IIILLS" MICHIGAN 48304S';J'

:i:r'e)r"-

(248) 258-6080

i?:! ~,...,

.....

DONNA .1, DONATI (1'28188) MILLER, CANFIELD, PADDOCK & STONE, P,L.C, ISO WEST JEFPERSON, SUITE 2500 lJr,TJ(OIT, MI 48226 (313) 963-6420

CONSENT DECREE This matter is before the Court for entry of this judgment by consent of the parties in order to effectuate a compromise and settlement of all claims. After careful review and consideration, thc Court believes that entry of this judgment is in the interest ofjustice, 1. Plaintiff, the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("the EEOC"), commenced the above entitled action on September 30, 2005, in the United States District

Court for the Ea~tern District of Michigan, Southern Division, alleging that the Defendant Consolidated Chemical Corporation d/b/a Tri-Chem Corporation, ("Tri-Chem"),I engaged in unlawful sexual harassment which violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as
amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000.., et. :;eq. 2. Defendant Tri-Chem denies all allegations pertaining to unlawtul employment practices
alleged in the EEOC's Complaint and aflinnatively states that it has been and is in full compliance with state and federal employment laws and has entered into this agreement for the express purpose of resolving this dispute and avoiding further costs.
3. As a result of settlement discussions, the EEOC and Tri-Chem have resolved their diflerences and have agreed that this action should be seWed by cntry of this Consent Decree. It is the intent of the parties that this Consent Decree be a final and binding settlement in full
disposition of any and all claims alleged against Tri-Chem or which might have been alleged against Tri-Chem in the Complaint filed on behalf of' Kathleen Steenstra, Sherry Link and .Julie Kaptur. The parties agree that Tri-Chcm engaged in self~corrcction by revising it~
training manual in December of 2003 to ensure full compliance with Title VII. STIPULATED FACTS
4. The Parties stipulate and agree that the EEOC is the agency of the United States government authorized to investigate allegations of unlawful employment discrimination, to bring civil actions to prohibit tmlawfu.l employment practices and to seek relief for individuals afrected
I All references to "Tri-Chem" or "Defendant" herein include eaeh and every business that is aftlliated with Tri-Chem Corporation including, but not limited to, Consolidated Chemical Corporation (d/b/a Tri-Chem Corporation, Modern Research, and Modern Industrial), A.B.C. Chemical Corporation, ABC Properties Corporation, Consolidated Chern Corporation, M.E.C. Personnel Consnltants, Inc., Resource Technology Corporation, Superior Builders Service
2

by the practices complained of in this lawsuit.
or 5. Tri-Chern is an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning
Section 701(g) and (h) ofTitle VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as anlended, 42 U.S.C. 2000e(g). Tri-Chem had at least fifteen (15) employees for twenty (20) or more calendar weeks duting (he relevan( (ime petiod. 6. Pursuant to Title VII, tile Parties acknowledge the jurisdiction of tile United States District Court for tile Eastern District of Michigan (Southern Division) over the subject matter and the Parties to this case for tile purpose of enforcing the provisions of this Decree if such enforcement becomes necessary. 7. Vcnue is appropriate in the Eastern District of Michigan (Southern Division). For purposes of this Decree and proceedings related to this Decree only, Tri-Chem agrees that all statutory conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been t1.tlfilled.
NON-ADMISSION
8. This Decree, being entered with the consent of the EEOC and Tri-Chem, shall not constitute an adjudication or finding on the merits of the case and shall not be construed as an admission by Tri-Chem of any violation of Title VII. Tri-Chem specifically denies any liability of any kind to Ms. Steenstra, Ms. Link and/or Ms. Kaptur.
MONET ARY RELIEF
9. Tri-Chem agrees to pay monetary consideration in the amount of One Hundred Twenty Five Thousand ($125,000) Dollars pursuant to the terms sct forth herein and in the individual releases signed by and in exchange for the individual promises set forth in the releases signed
Corporation, Superior Manufacturing Company, and OC 1Corporation. 3

by Kathleen Steenstra, Sherry Link and Julie Kaptur. The funds are to be paid in lump sums directly to Stccnstra, Link and Kaptur, respectively, via certi ned mail at the addresses to be provided to Tri-Chem by the EEOC. Defendant is to pay the funds to Steenstra, Link and Kaptur within fourteen (14) days after the entry or (his Decree. A copy of each check shall be sent to Adele Rapport, Regional Attorney, EEOC, 477 Michigan Avenue, Room 865, Detroit, Michigan 48226, within fifteen days of issuance of the checks.
REPORTING
ror 10. Tri-Chem agrees, the (1) one year period following entry of this Consent Decree, to
provide the Commission with a written report al the end of every four month period following entry of the Consent Decree, stating all instances of sexual harassment that have been reported during said four month period. For each reported instance of sexual harassment, Tri-Chem must outline the procedures it followed to ensure thaI the harassment stopped and would not occur in the future. Trl-Chem shall provide the Commission with the names, addresses and telephone numbers orall individuals involved in the complaint, including the victim, the alleged harasser, and members of management responsible for handling the complaint. All such reports shall be sent to Adele Rapport, Regional Attorney, EEOC, at the address provided in the "Monetary Relief' section, by the fifteenth day of the month al'ler the previous four month period ends.
NON-MONETARY RELIEF 11. In accordance with the anti-harassment provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, as amended, Tri-Chem has agreed to review and revise its sexual harassment policy to ensure its compliance with Title VII. Such a policy will contain a clearly defined procedure
4

lor reporting instances of harassment and shall clearly state who an individual may complain to about sexual harassment. The revised policy shall be developed no later than sixty (60) days aller the signing of this Decree. A draft policy shall be sent to Adele Rapport, Regional Allorney, at the previously provided address, for the Commission's approval no more than sixty (60) days after the signing oflhis Decree.
TRI-CHEM'S CHALLENGED TRAINING MANUAL 12. Tri-Chem has rescinded the training manual that was the subject of the underlying EEOC
charges and this lawsuit. When Tri-Chem rescinded the old manual, it so advised its employees, picked up the old manuals, and replaced them with the new manuals. Tri-Chem agrees that the challenged language will not be used in its training manuals.
NON-DISCRIMINATION 13. Tri-Chem, its officers, managers and agents shall COl;l1ply with Title VlI's requirements,
including but not limited to the requirements concerning sexual harassment. NON-RET ALIA TION
14. Tri-Chem through its directors, officers, and agents, shall not take any action against any person which constitutes intimidation, retaliation, harassment or interference with the exercise of such person's rights under Title VII because ofthe filing of charges of discrimination with the EEOC or because such person gave testimony or assistance or participated in any marmer in any investigation or proceeding in conncction with this case undcr Title VII. DISPUTE RESOLUTION AND COMPLIANCE
15. The Parties agree that the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan,
5

Southern Division, shall retain jurisdiction and will have all available equitable powers, including injunctive relief, to enforce the provisions of this Decree. The parties agree that before they invoke the jurisdiction of (he Court, they will attempt to facilitate any dispute hereunder by using a mutually agreed upon facilitator, with each party bearing its own fees. The parties agree that they will attempt, in good faith, to facilitate the dispute within a 15 day extension period after the 10 day notice period, unless the circumstances ofthe dispute arc such that ilTeparable haml will occur to the aggrieved party. Iffacilitation does not resolve the dispute, then the aggrieved party may proceed to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court as provided herein. Upon motion of either Party, the Court may schedule a hearing for the purpose of reviewing compliance with this Decree. The Parties shall engage in a good faith effort to resolve any dispute as to compliance prior to seeking review by the Court and shall be required to give notice to eaeh other ten (10) days before moving for such review. In addition, discovery for any such hearing shall be performed in an expedited manner to permit any compliance issue to be resolved in a timely fashion.
POSTING OF NOTICE
16. Tri-Chem agrees to post a mutually agreeable Notification, attached as Attachment A, in a conspicuous place which sets forth an employee's rights regarding the federal antidiscrimination laws. This Notice shall be posted for one (I) year from the entry of this Decree. Should any posted copies ofthe Notice become defaced, marred or otherwise made unreadable, Tri-Chem agrees to post a readable copy of this Notice in the same manner heretofore specified as soon as practical thereafter upon notice of the problem.
6

ALLOCATION OF COSTS 17. The Parties each agree to pay their own respective costs and attorneys fees associated with
the investigation, institution and pursuit of this matter including the drafting and enforcement of this Agreement.
SEVERABILITY CLAUSE 18. If any provision of this Decree is found to be unenforceable by a Court, only the specific
provision in question shall be affected and the other enforceable provisions shall remain in full force.
TRAINING 19. Tri-Chern, hereby agrees to provide training to its owners, officers, directors, managers and
all other employees on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended and its prohibitions against sexual harassment. The training shall include a discussion of what behavior constitutes sexual harassment and what should be done when an individual believes that he/she has been subjected to harassment. The training shall also include a discussion of thc new Sex Harassment policy. A copy of the training materials along with the name of the individual conducting the (raining shall be sent to Adele Rapport, Regional Attorney, at the previously provided address, for her review and modifications, ifnccessary, thirty (30) days prior to the training sessions taking place. An attendance list of each individual who completed the training shall be sent to Adele Rapport, Regional Attorney, at the previously provided address, within fifteen (15) days of the completion of the training. All such training sessions must take place within one (1) year of the signing of this Decree. In addition, TriChem shall also provide dctailed sexual harassment training (0 each and every new employee
7

within ten (l0) business days ofhisiher first day of work. This training shall include an overview of Tri-Chem's sexual harassment policy and the complaint mechanisms in place if he/she believes that they are being harassed.
EEOC INVESTIGATION 20. The Commission has conducted an objective and thorough investigation oCthe sex
harassment allegations originally !Hcd by Borsuk, Cholcy and Vergilio which included conducting interviews of present and former female employees of Tri-Chem.
EEOC CHARGES 21. The Commission agrees that, on the execution date of this Agreement, it will issue notices of
dismissal of the following EEOC Charges: Martha Borsuk v Tri-Chem, Ch,trge No. 2302004-00020; Stacey Choley v Tri-Chem, Charge No. 230-2004-00021; Deane Vcrgilio v TriChem, Charge No. 230-2003-02752.
ENTIRE AGREEMENT 22. This Decree constitutes tbe entire agreen1ent and commitments of the Parties. Any
modifications to this Agreement must be mutually agreed upon in writing and signed by the Parties hereto.
8

DURATION

This Decree shall rcmain in etIect for one (1) year from its entry with (he Court.

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
JAMES L. LEE Deputy General Counsel
GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel
ADEL~E R-APfP.O~~)
Regional Attorney

TRI-CHEM CORPORATION
BY: MILLER CANFIELD PADDOCK & STONE, P.L.e.
~ J r2-J-: aNNA J. DONA (P28188)
A ttorneys for Defendant Miller Canfield Paddock & Slone, P.L.C. 150 W. Jefferson Ave., Suite 2500 Detroit, Michigan 48228

Dated:

O~O«(t
•

,;(06

5

ROBERT DA WKINS (P38289) Supervisory Trial Attorney

OMAR WEAVER (P58861)
Trial Attorney
DETROIT DISTRICT OFFICE Patrick V. McNamara Federal Building 477 Michigan Avenue, Room 865 Dctroit, MI 48226

5530) Attorneys for Defendant 33 Bloomfield Hills Pkwy Suite 145 Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48304

/os Dated: 1\r/ I(

t;J. IT IS SO OlIDERED: 0';' ~) jJP<;:S
Date

o~. PAUl-;.· (-;.IJ.~
Umted stales DIs(nc( JMge

9

ATTACHMENT A NOTICE
This Notice is being posted as part of a settlement agreement between 'I'd-Chern Corporation and the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") and to inform you of your rights guaranteed by the federal law under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act or 1964, 42 U.S.C. §2000e, et seq. ("Title VII"). The Notice is posted in connection with a Consent Decree entered by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan in Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. 'I'ri-Chem Corporation, (Case No. 05-403(4).
Title VII prohibits sexual harassment in the workplace. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is the federal agency which investigates charges of unlawful employment discrimination and, if necessary, brings lawsuits in federal court to enforce the employment provisions or Title VII. Any employee who believes that he/she is the victim of sexual harassment has the legal right to file a charge of discrimination with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Tri-Chem supports and will comply with (his federal law in all respects and will not take IIny action against any employees because they have exercised their rights under this law.

Dated
fJEUD:2662981.1\124817-00001

TRI-CHEM CORPORATJON

10

 
 CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:mied - Docket Report

Page 1 of 2

U.S. District Court Eastern District of Michigan (Flint) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:05-cv-40304-PVG-MKM

CLOSED

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Consolidated Chemical Corporation Assigned to: Honorable Paul V Gadola Referred to: Honorable Mona K Majzoub Cause: No cause code entered

Date Filed: 09/30/2005 Date Terminated: 11/07/2005 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by Adele Rapport Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 477 Michigan Avenue Room 865 Detroit, MI 48226 313-226-5670 Email: Adele.Rapport@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
Consolidated Chemical Corporation Doing business as Tri-Chem Corporation

Date Filed 09/30/2005
11/07/2005

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against Consolidated Chemical Corporation, Receipt No: 218990 - Fee: $ 250.(DWor, ) (Entered: 10/03/2005)

2 CONSENT DECREE. Signed by Honorable Paul V Gadola. (THal, ) (Entered: 11/09/2005)

PACER

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt

06/06/2007 10:41:45

hs0328

Client Code: eeoc

https://ecf.mied.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?668780608479282-L_353_0-1

6/6/2007

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:mied - Docket Report

Login:

Description:

Docket Report

Billable Pages: 1

Search Criteria:
Cost:

4:05-cv-40304-PVGMKM
0.08

Page 2 of 2

https://ecf.mied.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?668780608479282-L_353_0-1

6/6/2007

 
 EEOC LITIGATION SETTLEMENT REPORT - November 2005

Page 1 of 1

z EEOC v. Consolidated Chemical Corp. d/b/a Tri-Chem Corp. No. 05-40304 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 7, 2005)
The Detroit District Office filed this Title VII suit alleging that defendant, a manufacturer and seller of floor coating, sealant, specialized tooling, and industrial cleaning supplies, subjected female telephone sales representatives to a sexually hostile work environment, resulting in the constructive discharge of one woman, and discharged another woman for complaining about the work environment. Defendant's management staff consisted entirely of men, while the sales representatives were almost exclusively female. Defendant's male managers and defendant's training manual instructed female sales representatives to use sex over the phone to "warm up" male customers to buy defendant's products. Defendant encouraged women to make sexual jokes, tell sexually explicit stories, and promise to send customers explicit pictures of themselves or calendars of scantily clad or nude women. One woman quit when, after complaining about the sexual banter requirement, she was told by a manager to "just be my parrot and say everything I say." Another woman was discharged after telling her immediate manager that she would not recite sales lines she found offensive.
Three women will share $125,000 in monetary relief under the 1-year consent decree resolving this case. The decree provides that defendant has rescinded the training manual that the EEOC challenged, so advised its employees, and replaced the manual with a new one. The decree requires defendant to comply with Title VII, including the requirements regarding sexual harassment. Defendant is required to revise its sexual harassment policy to include a clearlydefined procedure for reporting sexual harassment and specific contact information for making a complaint.

http://www.eeoc.gov/litigation/settlements/settlement11-05.html

6/6/2007