Case 2:03-cv-04860-DLI-VVP Document 1 Filed 09/24/2003 Page 1 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY }

COMMISSION,

}

}

Plaintiff,

}

}

v.

}

}

THE HOME DEPOT

}

}

Defendant.

}

}

Civil Action No.
COMPLAINT
JURAYNTD~'r8\9lt, J.
'ORENSTEII'l, IV;',;.

NATURE OF THE ACTI9N This is an action under Title I of the Americans ~ith Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA")

and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, to correct unlawful employment practices based on

disability and to provide relief to Carolyn Pisani ("Pisani"), who was adversely affected by such

practices. As alleged with particularity below, Defendant The Home Depot ("Home Depot" or

"Defendant") discriminated against Pisani because of her disability. Pisani is developmentally

disabled in that she suffers from mental retardation resulting in learning disabilities that

substantially limit the major life activity ofleaming.

Defendant violated the ADA by terminating Pisani because of her disability and by

failing to accommodate her. Pisani was directed not to report to work on three separate

weekends, and Defendant then terminated her for the resulting absences. Defendant also failed

to accommodate Pisani in that it did not involve her job coach prior to the simultaneous

discipline and termination.

• Case 2:03-cv-04860-DLI-VVP

Document 1

•Filed 09/24/2003

Page 2 of 6

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 451, 1331, 1337,

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

Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12117(a), which incorporates by

reference §§ 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"),

42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3), and pursuant to Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991,

42 U.S.C. § 1981a.

2. The unlawful employment practices alleged were committed within the

jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

PARTIES 3. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "Commission"), is

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

enforcement of Title I ofthe ADA and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Section 107(a) of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12117(a), which incorporates by reference Sections 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1).

4. At all relevant times, Defendant Home Depot has continuously been a private

entity doing business in the State of New York and has continuously employed at least fifteen

employees. 5. At all relevant times, Defendant Home Depot has continuously been an employer
engaged in an industry affecting commerce under Section 101(5) of the ADA, 42 U.S.c. §

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

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

2

• Case 2:03-cv-04860-DLI-VVP

Document 1

•Filed 09/24/2003

Page 3 of 6

6. At all relevant times, Defendant Home Depot has been a covered entity under

Section 101(2) of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12111(2).

STATEMENT OF CLAIMS

7. More than thirty days prior to the institution of the lawsuit, Carolyn Pisani filed a

charge with the Commission alleging violations of Title I of the ADA by Defendant Home

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

8. Since at least May 15, 1999, Defendant has engaged in unlawful employment

practices in violation of Sections 102 and 503 of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12112 and 12203, as

outlined below:

a. Pisani is developmentally disabled in that she suffers from mental

retardation resulting in learning disabilities. Pisani's learning disabilities substantially limit the

major life activity of learning.

b. Pisani is a qualified individual with a disability in that she is able to

perform her job with a reasonable accommodation. Pisani's reasonable accommodation is the

use of a job coach to assist her to understand the job and to make site visits to ensure her progress

and to address any workplace difficulties with her.

c. Pisani was employed as a Sales Associate for Home Depot from June

through October, 1999.

d. Pisani's job coach made numerous site visits to Pisani's workplace and

communicated regularly with Pisani and her managers during her employment with Defendant.

Managers of Home Depot were aware of Pisani's job coach and her role and that they should

contact the job coach regarding any disciplinary action.

3

... ,

• Case 2:03-cv-04860-DLI-VVP

Document 1

•Filed 09/24/2003

Page 4 of 6

e. Pisani's performance was satisfactory at all times of her employment with

Defendant.

f.

During three consecutive weeks in September and October, 1999, Pisani

was informed that she did not need to work on the following weekends. Home Depot then

simultaneously disciplined and terminated Pisani on October 11, 1999 for allegedly not reporting

to work during those three previous weekends.

g. Home Depot did not involve Pisani's job coach regarding its discipline or

termination of Pisani and thus failed to accommodate Pisani and terminated her because of her

disability.

9. The effect of the practices complained of above have been to deprive Pisani of

equal employment opportunities and otherwise to affect adversely her status as an employee

because of her disability.

10. The effect of the practices complained of above has been to inflict emotional pain,

suffering, and inconvenience upon Pisani.

11. The unlawful employment practices complained of above were intentional.

12. The unlawful employment practices complained of above were done with malice

and reckless disregard for Pisani's federally protected rights, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et

seq.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court:

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

assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with them, from engaging in any

employment practice that discriminates on the basis of disability or perceived disability.

4

. ;

• Case 2:03-cv-04860-DLI-VVP

Document 1

•Filed 09/24/2003

Page 5 of 6

B. Order Defendant to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs that provide equal employment opportunities for qualified individuals with disabilities and that eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices.
C. Order Defendant to make Carolyn Pisani whole by providing any affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices.
D. Order Defendant to make Carolyn Pisani whole by providing compensation for past and future non-pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices complained of above, including pain and suffering, emotional distress, indignity, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of self-esteem, and humiliation, in an amount to be determined at trial.
E. Order Defendant to pay Carolyn Pisani punitive damages for its malicious and reckless conduct, as described above, in an amount to be determined at trial.
F. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public interest.
G. Award the Commission its costs of this action.

5

.. • • f

• Case 2:03-cv-04860-DLI-VVP

Document 1

•Filed 09/24/2003

Page 6 of 6

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

Eric S. Dreiband General Counsel
James L. Lee Deputy General Counsel
Gwendolyn Y. Reams Associate General Counsel
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 1801 L Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20507

Regional Attorney
1A~~
Elizabeth Grossman Supervisory Trial Attorney
~.wP~~~
Sunu P. Chandy Trial Attorney, US EEOC 33 Whitehall Street, 5th Floor New York, New York 10004 Phone 212-336-3706 Fax 212-336-3623

6

 
 Case 2:03-cv-04860-DLI-VVP Document 33 Filed 09/01/2004 Page 1 of 33

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------------------------------X EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
CAROLYN PISANI,
Plaintiff-Intervenor,
v.
THE HOME DEPOT USA, INC.,
Defendant. ------------------------------------------------------------X

COMPLAINT AND JURY TRIAL DEMAND
Civil Action No.: CV 03 4860

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT Plaintiff-Intervenor’s causes of action seeks declaratory, injunctive and equitable relief, compensatory and liquidated and punitive damages, litigation costs and attorneys’ fees for, inter alia, disability discrimination suffered by Plaintiff-Intervenor during her employment in violation of and pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§12101, et seq., the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, and §§290, et seq. of the New York Executive Law (“New York State Human Rights Law” or “NYSHRL”).
PARTIES 1. Plaintiff-Intervenor is a twenty-nine (29) year old female, who is developmentally disabled in that she suffers from mental retardation resulting in learning disabilities. Plaintiff’s resides at in Harrisburg, PA 17111. At all relevant times Plaintiff-Intervenor resided at, 7 Embassy Road, Selden, County of Suffolk, New York 11784.

1

Case 2:03-cv-04860-DLI-VVP Document 33 Filed 09/01/2004 Page 2 of 33
2. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "Commission"), is the agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation, and enforcement of Title I of the ADA and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Section 107(a) of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §12117(a), which incorporates by reference Sections 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(I).
3. Upon information and belief, Defendant Home Depot USA, Inc. (hereinafter “Home Depot”) is a domestic corporation organized and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York and the United States.
4. Upon information and belief, Home Depot maintains its corporate headquarters at 2455 Paces Ferry Road, NW, Atlanta, Georgia 30339-4024.
5. At all relevant times, the discriminatory acts alleged herein took place at the Home Depot store located at 255 Pond Path, South Setauket, County of Suffolk, New York 11720 (hereinafter “South Setauket Store”), where Plaintiff-Intervenor was employed.
6. Upon information and belief, the District Office in charge of Home Depot’s personnel or Human Resources matters is located at Home Depot’s Northeast Store Support, 3096 Hamilton Boulevard, South Plainfield, New Jersey 07080.
7. At all relevant times, Defendant Home Depot and its South Setauket Store are employers within the meaning of “employer” under Section 101(5) of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §12111(5), and Section 101(7) of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12111(7), which incorporates by reference Sections 701(a) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000-e(g) and (h), and §§290, et seq., of the New York Executive Law since it employs over fifteen (15) employees and engages in a business which affects interstate commerce.
2

Case 2:03-cv-04860-DLI-VVP Document 33 Filed 09/01/2004 Page 3 of 33
8. At all relevant times, Defendant Home Depot has been a covered entity under Section 101(2) of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §12111(2).
JURISDICTION 9. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§451, 1331, 1337, 1343, and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Section 107(a) of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. §12117(a), which incorporates by reference §§706(f)(1) and (3 ) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-5(f)(l) and (3); and pursuant to Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. §1981a. This Court has pendant jurisdiction over Plaintiff-Intervenor’s state causes of action under the New York State Human Rights Law (“NYSHRL”) since all of Plaintiff-Intervenor’s claims arise from the same nucleus of operative facts. See, 28 U.S.C. §1367. 10. On or about July 12, 2000, Ms. Pisani timely filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) which was duly filed with the New York State Division of Human Rights (“Division of Human Rights”). Annexed hereto as Exhibit “A” is a true and accurate copy of Plaintiff-Intervenor’s Charge of Discrimination. 11. On or about December 14, 2002, the EEOC determined that there was probable cause to believe that Defendant Home Depot had engaged in unlawful employment practices. Annexed hereto as Exhibit “B” is a copy of the EEOC’s probable Cause Determination. 12. The EEOC attempted to eliminate such practices by informal methods of conference, conciliation and persuasion pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§12101, et seq., but was unable to secure a conciliation agreement.
3

Case 2:03-cv-04860-DLI-VVP Document 33 Filed 09/01/2004 Page 4 of 33
13. On or about September 25, 2003, the EEOC filed a suit on behalf of Ms. Pisani. Annexed hereto as Exhibit “C” is a true and accurate copy of Complaint filed by the EEOC.
14. On or about February 12, 2004, Ms. Pisani moved to intervene as of right in the action initiated against Home Depot. On or about, July 29, 2004, the Court permitted Ms. Pisani to intervene as of right. Annexed hereto as Exhibit “D” is a true and accurate copy of the Order, dated July 29, 2004.
15. Plaintiff-Intervenor seeks declaratory, injunctive and equitable relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§12101, et seq., 42 U.S.C. 1981(a), §504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. §§794, et seq., and §§290, et seq. of the New York Executive Law and Rule 54 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
16. Plaintiff-Intervenor seeks compensatory damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§12101, et seq., 42 U.S.C. 1981(a), 29 U.S.C. §§794, et seq., and §§290, et seq. of the New York Executive Law including, but not limited to, damages for loss of back pay and front pay, humiliation, pain, loss of dignity, suffering and emotional stress.
17. Plaintiff-Intervenor also seeks full punitive and/or liquidated damages under 42 U.S.C. §§12101, et seq., 42 U.S.C. 1981(a).
18. Plaintiff-Intervenor seeks reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §12101, et seq.
VENUE 19. Plaintiff-Intervenor’s causes of action properly lie in the Eastern District of New York, United States District Court, District of New York pursuant to 20 U.S.C. §1391(b)
4

Case 2:03-cv-04860-DLI-VVP Document 33 Filed 09/01/2004 Page 5 of 33
because Plaintiff-Intervenor’s claims arose in this judicial district and pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§12101, et seq., and 42 U.S.C. 1981(a), because the unlawful employment practices were committed in this judicial district.
ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS FOR RELIEF 20. Plaintiff-Intervenor repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraph “1” through “19” of this Complaint with the same force and effect as if more fully set forth at length herein. 21. Ms. Pisani is developmentally disabled in that she suffers from mental retardation resulting in learning disabilities. Ms. Pisani's learning disabilities substantially limit the major life activity of learning. 22. Ms. Pisani is a qualified individual with a disability in that she is able to perform her job with a reasonable accommodation. Ms. Pisani's reasonable accommodation is the use of a job coach to assist her to understand the job and to make site visits to ensure her progress and to address any workplace difficulties with her. 23. Ms. Pisani was employed as a Sales Associate for Home Depot from June through October 1999. 24. Ms. Pisani's job coach made numerous site visits to Ms. Pisani's workplace and communicated regularly with Ms. Pisani and her managers during her employment with Defendant. Managers of Home Depot were aware of Ms. Pisani's job coach and her role and that they should contact the job coach regarding any disciplinary action. 25. Ms. Pisani’s performance was satisfactory at all times of her employment with Defendant.
5

Case 2:03-cv-04860-DLI-VVP Document 33 Filed 09/01/2004 Page 6 of 33
26. Ms. Pisani obtained her job with Home Depot through VESID, the New York State Education Department’s Office of Vocational and Educational Services for Individuals with Disabilities. Her job coach while employed by Home Depot was Jodi LaMar (“LaMar”) at ACLD (Adults and Children with Learning and Developmental Disabilities Inc.).
27. Pursuant to a work schedule posted at the South Setauket Store, Ms. Pisani was scheduled to work the weekend of the September 25th and 26th.
28. On or about September 24, 1999, Ms. Pisani was informed, by telephone, that Home Depot did not want her to work the weekend of the September 25th and 26th.
29. On Monday, September 27, 1999, Ms. Pisani went to work as scheduled. Ms. Pisani’s manager asked her why she did not work the previous weekend. Ms. Pisani advised her manager that she was advised not to work the weekend. Ms. Pisani was permitted to resume working, no disciplinary action was taken at that time.
30. On or about October 1, 1999, Ms. Pisani received a telephone call from a Home Depot employee, with real or apparent managerial authority, who told Ms. Pisani not to work the weekend of October 2nd and 3rd, although Ms. Pisani was scheduled to work those days.
31. Ms. Pisani returned to work on the following Monday or Tuesday and no mention was made of her not working on October 2nd and 3rd.
32. The following week the Ms. Pisani received another call from a Home Depot employee, with real or apparent managerial authority, who told Ms. Pisani not to work the weekend of October 9th and 10th.
33. On October 11, 1999, Ms. Pisani reported to work. On that day Didi Perkel, South Setauket Store Manager, and Kathy Elkins, Assistant Store Manager called Ms. Pisani into
6

Case 2:03-cv-04860-DLI-VVP Document 33 Filed 09/01/2004 Page 7 of 33
a meeting. During the meeting Ms. Pisani’s managers placed three documents in front of her and required her to sign each one.
a. The first was an Associate Performance Notice for a violation of company policy or procedures, i.e. failure of Ms. Pisani to report to work on October 9, 1999. Mr. Robert Beckhusen (“Beckhusen”), Manager and Ms. Elkins allegedly signed the document on October 9, 1999.
b. The second was an Associate Performance Notice for a violation of company policy or procedures, i.e. failure of Ms. Pisani to report to work on October 10, 1999. Ms Elkins allegedly signed the document on October 10, 1999.
c. The third was an Associate Action Notice terminating Ms. Pisani because of alleged attendance/punctuality problems. This document was signed by the Ms. Perkel on October 11, 1999.
34. It was not until after signing each Notice that Ms. Pisani was informed of her termination.
35. Ms. Pisani’s job coach was never notified that Ms. Pisani had allegedly failed to report to work on September 25th, September 26th, October 2nd, October 3rd, October 9th and October 10th, or that Ms. Pisani had violated company policy by failing to appear on those dates.
36. Ms. Pisani’s job coach was never notified that Ms. Pisani was being disciplined and/or terminated for violations of the company’s policies.
37. Home Depot did not involve Ms. Pisani’s job coach regarding its discipline or termination of Ms. Pisani and thus failed to accommodate and terminated Ms. Pisani because of her disability.
7

Case 2:03-cv-04860-DLI-VVP Document 33 Filed 09/01/2004 Page 8 of 33
AS AND FOR A FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF AGAINST DEFENDANT HOME DEPOT 38. Plaintiff-Intervenor repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs “1” through “37” of this Complaint with the same force and effect as if more fully set forth at length herein. 39. Home Depot is an employer within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. §§12101, et seq., the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). At all relevant times, Home Depot had or has stores within this judicial district including the South Setauket Store at issue. 40. At all relevant times, Ms. Pisani performed her duties in a competent and satisfactory manner and was qualified for a position of Sales Associate. 41. Home Depot, through its agents, has maliciously, intentionally and/or recklessly violated the 42 U.S.C. §§12101, et seq., the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), by maliciously, intentionally and/or recklessly constructively terminating Ms. Pisani’s employment on the basis of her disability, mental retardation.
AS AND FOR A SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF AGAINST DEFENDANT HOME DEPOT 42. Plaintiff-Intervenor repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs “1” through “41” of this Complaint with the same force and effect as if more fully set forth at length herein. 43. Home Depot is an employer within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. §§12101, et seq., the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). At all relevant times, Home Depot had or has stores within this judicial district including the South Setauket Store at issue.
8

Case 2:03-cv-04860-DLI-VVP Document 33 Filed 09/01/2004 Page 9 of 33
44. At all relevant times, Ms. Pisani performed her duties in a competent and satisfactory manner and was qualified for a position of Sales Associate.
45. Home Depot, through its agents, has maliciously, intentionally and/or recklessly violated the 42 U.S.C. §§12101, et seq., the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), by failing to accommodate Ms. Pisani in that Defendants did not involve her job coach prior to the simultaneous discipline and termination.
AS AND FOR A THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF AGAINST HOME DEPOT 46. Plaintiff-Intervenor repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs “1” through “45” of this Complaint with the same force and effect as is more fully set forth herein. 47. Home Depot is an employer within the meaning of “employer” under §§290, et seq. of the New York Executive law. At all relevant times, Home Depot employed or employees more than four (4) employees and has business locations, including the South Setauket location at issue, within this judicial district. 48. Upon information and belief, Defendants Perkel, Beckhusen, Elkins and Zmuda participated in the decision to approve, condoned, aided and/or abetted and/or ratified Home Depot’s termination of Ms. Pisani on the basis of her disability, mental retardation. 49. Defendant violated §§290, et seq. of the New York Executive Law by maliciously, intentionally and/or recklessly constructively terminating Ms. Pisani’s employment on the basis of her disability, mental retardation. AS AND FOR A FOURTH CLAIM FOR
9

Case 2:03-cv-04860-DLI-VVP Document 33 Filed 09/01/2004 Page 10 of 33
RELIEF AGAINST HOME DEPOT 50. Plaintiff-Intervenor repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs “1” through “49” of this Complaint with the same force and effect as if more fully set forth at length herein. 51. Home Depot is an employer within the meaning of “employer” under §§290, et seq. of the New York Executive law. At all relevant times, Home Depot employed or employees more than four (4) employees and has business locations, including the South Setauket location at issue, within this judicial district. 52. Upon information and belief, Defendants Perkel, Beckhusen, Elkins and Zmuda participated in the decision to approve, condoned, aided and/or abetted and/or ratified Home Depot’s decision to deny Ms. Pisani a reasonable accommodation. 53. Defendant violated §§290, et seq. of the New York Executive Law by maliciously, intentionally and/or recklessly failing to accommodate Ms. Pisani in that Defendants did not involve her job coach prior to the simultaneous discipline and termination.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff-Intervenor prays that this Court: (a) empanel a jury of Plaintiff-Intervenor’s peers; (b) declare the conduct engaged by all Defendants to be in violation of Plaintiff-Intervenor’s civil rights; (c) enjoin all Defendants from engaging in such conduct; (d) award Plaintiff-Intervenor equitable relief of back pay, salary and fringe benefits for the period remaining until normal retirement;
10

Case 2:03-cv-04860-DLI-VVP Document 33 Filed 09/01/2004 Page 11 of 33
(e) award Plaintiff-Intervenor full compensatory damages under the 42 U.S.C. §§12101, et seq., 42 U.S.C. §1981(a), and §§290, et seq. of the New York Executive Law;
(f) award full liquidated and/or punitive damages as allowed under 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101, et seq., and 42 U.S.C. §1981(a) ;
(g) award Plaintiff-Intervenor the costs of prosecuting her cause of action and for reasonable attorneys’ fees under the aforementioned statutes and 42 U.S.C. §1988; and
(h) an award to such other and further relief as this Court may deem appropriate.
Respectfully submitted, SLAVIN, ANGIULO & HOROWITZ, LLP L. Susan Scelzo Slavin By: L. Susan Scelzo Slavin (LSS 1916) Attorneys for Carolyn Pisani 350 Jericho Turnpike (Suite 101) Jericho, New York 11753 (516) 942-9300
To: Sunu Chandy, Esq. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission New York District Office 33 Whitehall Street, 5th Floor New York, New York 10004-3620 (212) 336-3620 Donald R. Livingston Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, LLP Robert S. Strauss Building 1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C 20036 (202) 887-4000
11

Case 2:03-cv-04860-DLI-VVP Document 33 Filed 09/01/2004 Page 12 of 33

Case 2:03-cv-04860-DLI-VVP Document 33 Filed 09/01/2004 Page 13 of 33

Case 2:03-cv-04860-DLI-VVP Document 33 Filed 09/01/2004 Page 14 of 33

Case 2:03-cv-04860-DLI-VVP Document 33 Filed 09/01/2004 Page 15 of 33

Case 2:03-cv-04860-DLI-VVP Document 33 Filed 09/01/2004 Page 16 of 33

Case 2:03-cv-04860-DLI-VVP Document 33 Filed 09/01/2004 Page 17 of 33

Case 2:03-cv-04860-DLI-VVP Document 33 Filed 09/01/2004 Page 18 of 33

Case 2:03-cv-04860-DLI-VVP Document 33 Filed 09/01/2004 Page 19 of 33

Case 2:03-cv-04860-DLI-VVP Document 33 Filed 09/01/2004 Page 20 of 33

Case 2:03-cv-04860-DLI-VVP Document 33 Filed 09/01/2004 Page 21 of 33

Case 2:03-cv-04860-DLI-VVP Document 33 Filed 09/01/2004 Page 22 of 33

Case 2:03-cv-04860-DLI-VVP Document 33 Filed 09/01/2004 Page 23 of 33

Case 2:03-cv-04860-DLI-VVP Document 33 Filed 09/01/2004 Page 24 of 33

Case 2:03-cv-04860-DLI-VVP Document 33 Filed 09/01/2004 Page 25 of 33

Case 2:03-cv-04860-DLI-VVP Document 33 Filed 09/01/2004 Page 26 of 33

Case 2:03-cv-04860-DLI-VVP Document 33 Filed 09/01/2004 Page 27 of 33

Case 2:03-cv-04860-DLI-VVP Document 33 Filed 09/01/2004 Page 28 of 33

Case 2:03-cv-04860-DLI-VVP Document 33 Filed 09/01/2004 Page 29 of 33

Case 2:03-cv-04860-DLI-VVP Document 33 Filed 09/01/2004 Page 30 of 33

Case 2:03-cv-04860-DLI-VVP Document 33 Filed 09/01/2004 Page 31 of 33

Case 2:03-cv-04860-DLI-VVP Document 33 Filed 09/01/2004 Page 32 of 33

Case 2:03-cv-04860-DLI-VVP Document 33 Filed 09/01/2004 Page 33 of 33

 
 Case 2:03-cv-04860-DLI-VVP Document 64-2 Filed 10/11/2005 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

__________________________________________

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )

COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff

)

)

v.

)

)

THE HOME DEPOT USA, Inc.

)

)

Defendant.

)

Civil Action No. 03-4860

CONSENT DECREE

This cause of action was initiated on September 24, 2003, by the Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission (hereinafter “EEOC”), an agency of the United States Government,

alleging that Defendant The Home Depot (“Defendant”) violated Title I of the Americans with

Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”) and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 by engaging in

discrimination against Carolyn Pisani, a developmentally disabled individual, by not involving

her job coach as a reasonable accommodation, and by terminating her because of her disability.

The parties agree that it is in their mutual interest to fully resolve the matter without further litigation. They stipulate and consent to the entry of this Decree as final and binding between them, and their successors or assigns.

This Decree resolves all matters raised in the Complaint filed herein. It does not constitute an adjudication or finding on the merits of this action, or an admission by Defendant of any violation of law or commission of wrongful conduct, which Defendant expressly denies. Subject to paragraph 1, below, this Decree in no way affects EEOC’s rights to process any future charges that may be filed against Defendant, and to commence civil actions on any such charges.

1

Case 2:03-cv-04860-DLI-VVP Document 64-2 Filed 10/11/2005 Page 2 of 4
The parties have agreed that this Decree may be entered without Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law having been made and entered by the Court.
In consideration of the mutual promises of each party to this Decree, the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, it is agreed and IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED AS FOLLOWS:
1. This Decree resolves all of the issues raised by EEOC Charge Number 160-AO2445 and the EEOC Complaint in this case.
2. The parties agree that this Court has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this action and of the parties, that venue is proper, and that all administrative prerequisites have been met.
3. No party shall contest the jurisdiction of the federal court to enforce this Decree and its terms or the right of any party to bring an enforcement suit upon breach of any of the terms of this Decree by any other party. Nothing in this Decree shall be construed to preclude EEOC from bringing proceedings to enforce this Decree in the event that Defendant fails to perform any of the promises and representations contained herein.
4. Defendant shall comply with the ADA’s prohibition against employment discrimination against any individual because of her or his disability.
5. Defendant shall not retaliate against any individual for having asserted her or his rights under the ADA. Defendant shall not retaliate against any individual who has participated in this matter.
2

Case 2:03-cv-04860-DLI-VVP Document 64-2 Filed 10/11/2005 Page 3 of 4
6. Defendant will maintain Non-Discrimination Policies which shall prohibit disability discrimination. These Policies include guidance entitled, “Reasonable Accommodation” and “Working With A Job Coach” (Collectively the “Policies”). See attached documents as Exhibits A and B. Specifically, the “Working With A Job Coach” Policy will be posted on the company’s computer portal and be implemented on a national basis for all Defendant’s employees.
7. These Policies shall be provided by Defendant to all managers and employees of its South Setauket store, and other stores within District Office 1208 VDO # 35 within thirty (30) days of the entry of the Consent Decree. These stores include Store #1202 Commack, 5025 Jericho Turnpike, Commack, NY 11725; Store #1211 Bay Shore, 1881 Sunrise Highway, Bay Shore, NY 11706; Store #1218 Copaigue, 1101 Sunrise Highway, Copiague, NY 11726; Store #1265 South Setauket, 255 Pond Path, South Setauket, NY 11720; Store #1267 Farmingdale, 202 Airport Plaza, Farmingdale, NY 11735; Store #1285 Deer Park, 455 Commack Road, Deer Park, NY 11729.
8. Defendant will include training on “Working With A Job Coach” in the on-going anti-discrimination training that it currently provides to employees at its South Setauket store, and other stores within District Office 1208 VDO # 35.
9. Within five (5) days of the entry of this Decree, Defendant will post the Notice of Non-Discrimination attached as Exhibit C in its South Setauket store.
10. Defendant will pay Carolyn Pisani $ 75,000, subject to the terms of a separate agreement between Pisani and Defendant.
3

Case 2:03-cv-04860-DLI-VVP Document 64-2 Filed 10/11/2005 Page 4 of 4

11. Each party shall bear its own attorney fees and costs incurred in this action.

12. This Decree constitutes the complete understanding among the parties. No other promises or agreement shall be binding unless agreed to in writing and signed by these parties.

13. This Decree will remain in effect for two (2) years from the date of entry.

Dated: October 11, 2005 New York, New York
Dated: October 6, 2005 Washington, D.C.

s/Elizabeth Grossman____ Elizabeth Grossman, Acting Regional Attorney
s/ Sunu P. Chandy Sunu P. Chandy, Senior Trial Attorney For Plaintiff US EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 33 Whitehall Street, 5th Floor New York, New York 10004 Phone 212-336-3706 Fax 212-336-3623
s/Esther G. Tamburo______ Esther G. Tamburo, Esq. Donald R. Livingston, Esq. Paul Mirengoff, Esq. For Defendant HOME DEPOT USA, INC. Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, LLP 1333 New Hampshire Ave., N.W. Washington, DC 20036 Phone 202-887-4588 Fax 202-887-4288
SO ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED
Signed this _____ day of _______________, 2005

_______________________________________ Judge Dora L. Irizarry

4

Case 2:03-cv-04860-DLI-VVP Document 64-3 Filed 10/11/2005 Page 1 of 2

Case 2:03-cv-04860-DLI-VVP Document 64-3 Filed 10/11/2005 Page 2 of 2

Case 2:03-cv-04860-DLI-VVP Document 64-4 Filed 10/11/2005 Page 1 of 1

EXHIBIT B

Home Depot Job Coach Policy - Working With A Job Coach

Many of our Facility Support Associates have the assistance of a Job Coach as they go about their daily routines in our store. Job Coaches, also referred to as Employment Specialists, help individuals with disabilities integrate into the workplace and be successful on the job. Some employees with disabilities are assigned Job Coaches from non-profit organizations or agencies. The job coach works at the store/site with the associate. Home Depot only pays the associate, not the job coach.

Role of the Job Coach

•

The Job Coach works individually with the associate and the management team to help the

associate develop proper work behaviors, social skills, and to adjust to the work environment.

The assistance is available for short or long term depending on the needs of the associate.

•

The Job Coach may initially spend significant time at the store/site. However, the intent is that

the job coach will spend just enough time (and no more) to support the associate.

•

The Job Coach should help supervisors and managers learn how to work most effectively with the

new associate and educate them about the role of the job coach.

•

The Job Coach should discuss with Home Depot any requests for reasonable accommodation and

work with Home Depot to arrive at the best solution for the associate.

Follow-Up Support

•

As the associate becomes more independent on the job, the presence of the job coach gradually

decreases. To assure continued success, periodic follow-up support usually continues.

•

The job coach should be available for consultation on an on-going basis as requested by Home

Depot or the associate. This consultation may include assistance with additional training or

retraining, or assistance in addressing work performance or behavior issues.

Role of Home Depot Management

•

Although the associate is assigned a job coach, the goal is for the management team to do as

much of the training and support as possible. However, if an individual has significant challenges

and needs an extended training period, which is beyond the resources of the store/site, the job

coach may do more of the one-on-one training.

•

Management is responsible for monitoring associate performance and using the Performance

Management Process for reviewing associate performance or addressing any performance issues.

Management is also responsible for addressing associate conduct and behavior that violates The

Home Depot’s Code of Conduct. Conversations should take place directly with the associate.

However, it may be necessary to have the job coach present when addressing performance

concerns during discipline or performance evaluations.

For further information about accommodations or how to work with a Job Coach, contact The Associate Services Department at the Atlanta SSC extensions 13158, 13159, or 13026, or, to reach the Associate Services Department from outside the store, call (770) 433-8211 ext. 13158, 13159, or 13026.

Case 2:03-cv-04860-DLI-VVP Document 64-5 Filed 10/11/2005 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT C
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES OF THE HOME DEPOT
This Notice is being posted as part of an agreement between The Home Depot and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Federal Law prohibits employers from discriminating against applicants and employees based on an employee’s disability, race, color, religion, sex, national origin or age. Home Depot will comply with all federal employment laws and will not discriminate on the basis of disability or any other protected basis. Home Depot will not retaliate against employees who raise discrimination complaints.
Under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), an employer is required to provide reasonable accommodations for qualified individuals with disabilities. Under appropriate circumstances, reasonable accommodation may include, but is not limited to, making existing facilities used by employees readily accessible to and usable by persons with disabilities, job restructuring, modifying work schedules, reassignment to a vacant position, acquiring or modifying equipment or devices, adjusting or modifying examinations, training materials, or policies, providing qualified readers or interpreters, or allowing an employee with a disability to receive assistance from a job coach.
Home Depot will continue its policy of providing training to its management and other employees regarding their rights and responsibilities with respect to issues of workplace discrimination. Home Depot also agrees to maintain its anti-discrimination policy.
If you have a complaint of discrimination, you may report it to the Store Human Resources Manager, the Store Manager, the Regional Human Resources Manager, the District Manager, the Employment Practices Manager or the Human Resources Vice President.
If you have complaints of discrimination or retaliation you may also call or write to the:
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) 33 Whitehall Street, 5th Floor New York, New York 10004 National Call Center: 800-669-4000 Website: www.eeoc.gov
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND SHALL NOT BE DEFACED BY ANYONE
This notice must remain posted for two years from the date of posting, until____________
Signed: ________________________________________ Tracey Davis, District Human Resources Manager
Dated: ___________________

 
 Eastern District of New York - Live Database Version 3.0.5 Release - Docket Report

Page 1 of 12

U.S. District Court Eastern District of New York (Central Islip) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:03-cv-04860-DLI-VVP

CLOSED

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. The Home Depot Assigned to: Judge Dora Lizette Irizarry Referred to: Magistrate-Judge Viktor V. Pohorelsky Cause: 42:1201 Civil Rights (Disability)

Date Filed: 09/24/2003 Date Terminated: 11/14/2005 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Mediator Esq. Vivien B. Shelanski

represented by Vivien B. Shelanski JAMS 45 Broadway 28th Floor New York, NY 10006 (212) 751-2700, Ext. 705 Fax: (212) 751-4099 Email: vshelanski@jamsadr.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by Elizabeth Anne Grossman Equal Employment Opportunity Commission New York District Office 33 Whitehall Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10004 212-336-3696 Fax: 212-336-3623 Email: elizabeth.grossman@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Katherine E. Bissell Equal Employment Opportunity Commission NY District Office 33 Whitehall Street 5th Floor New York, NY 10004 Fax: (212) 336-3623 TERMINATED: 11/18/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.nyed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?131324131893352-L_353_0-1

5/16/2007

Eastern District of New York - Live Database Version 3.0.5 Release - Docket Report

Page 2 of 12

Intervenor Plaintiff Carolyn Pisani
V. Defendant The Home Depot

Sunu P. Chandy Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 33 Whitehall Street 5th Flr. New York, NY 10004 212-336-3706 Email: sunu.chandy@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by L. Susan Scelzo Slavin Slavin, Angiulo & Horowitz, LLP 350 Jericho Turnpike Suite 101 Jericho, NY 11753 (516) 942-9300 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
L. Susan Scelzo Slavin Slavin Law Firm, P.C. 141 East Main Street, 2nd FL. Huntington, NY 11743 (631) 423-0042 Fax: (631) 423-0051 Email: sslavinesq@optonline.net ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Donald R. Livingston Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, L.L.P. 1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 887-4000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Esther Gwen Tamburo 1333 New Hampshire Avenue Washington, DC 20036 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michelle A. Burg

https://ecf.nyed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?131324131893352-L_353_0-1

5/16/2007

Eastern District of New York - Live Database Version 3.0.5 Release - Docket Report

Page 3 of 12

Date Filed 09/24/2003
11/21/2003
11/21/2003
11/21/2003 11/21/2003 11/24/2003 12/02/2003

Akin Gump Stauss Hauer & Feld LLP 590 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10022 212-872-1039 Fax: 212-872-1002 Email: mburg@akingump.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul E. Mirengoff Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, LLP 1333 New Hampshire Ave Nw Washington, DC 20036 202-887-4354 Fax: 202-887-4288 Email: pmirengoff@akingump.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT Summons Issued against The Home Depot filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Romano, Daniel) Modified on 9/30/2003 (Romano, Daniel). (Entered: 09/30/2003)

2 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice; for an order admitting Paul E. Mirengoff, Esq. and Donald R. Livingston, Esq. pro hac vice, purs. to Local Rule 1.3(c), filed by The Home Depot. (Fagan, Linda) (Entered: 12/09/2003)

3 AFFIDAVIT of Michelle A. Burg in Support re [2] MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice; for an order admitting Paul E. Mirengoff, Esq. and Donald R. Livingston, Esq. pro hac vice, purs. to Local Rule 1.3(c), filed by The Home Depot. (Fagan, Linda) (Entered: 12/09/2003)

6 ANSWER to Complaint by The Home Depot.(Valle, Christine) (Entered: 01/12/2004)

7 DISCLOSURE of Interested Parties by The Home Depot.(Valle, Christine) (Entered: 01/12/2004)

Filing fee paid: Received $25.00, receipt number 286162, from: Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld LLP re: Admission Pro Hac Vice. (Fagan, Linda) (Entered: 12/09/2003)

4 ORDER; granting [2] Motion for Leave to Appear. It is ordered that Paul E. Mirengoff, Esq. and Donald R. Livingston, Esq. of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, LLP are hereby admitted pro hac vice to appear and participate in this case before this Court in accordance with Local

https://ecf.nyed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?131324131893352-L_353_0-1

5/16/2007

Eastern District of New York - Live Database Version 3.0.5 Release - Docket Report

Page 4 of 12

01/06/2004 01/12/2004 01/21/2004 02/11/2004 02/24/2004 02/24/2004 02/24/2004 03/01/2004 03/01/2004 03/08/2004 03/08/2004 03/09/2004

Civl Rule 1.3(c) of the United States Court for the Eastern District of New York. ( Signed by JudgeJoanna Seybert on 12/2/03.) c/m (Fagan, Linda) (Entered: 12/09/2003)
8 AMENDED COMPLAINT and Jury Trial Demand against The Home Depot, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.(Valle, Christine) (Entered: 01/21/2004)
5 Letter dated 1/8/04 from Jorge Guzman to Carol McMahon Re: As per our conversation on 1/6/04, here is a copy of the answer and the corporate disclosure statement which was filed in Court on 11/21/03 but was never docketed. (Valle, Christine) (Entered: 01/12/2004)
9 ANSWER to Amended Complaint by The Home Depot.(Valle, Christine) (Entered: 02/09/2004)
10 Letter dated 2/9/04 from Michelle A. Burg to Judge Seybert Re: To request that Your Honor provide a copy of all orders, notices and other correspondence to Paul E. Mirengoff, Esq as lead counsel at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. (Valle, Christine) (Entered: 03/08/2004)
11 MOTION to Intervene as of Right as Party Plf Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 24(a) by Carolyn Pisani. (Barhome, Sydelle) (Entered: 03/10/2004)
12 MEMORANDUM in Support re [11] MOTION to Intervene as of Right as Party Plf Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 24(a) by Carolyn Pisani. (Barhome, Sydelle) (Entered: 03/10/2004)
13 NOTICE of Motion by Carolyn Pisani re [11] MOTION to Intervene as of Right as Party Plf Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 24(a) (Barhome, Sydelle) (Entered: 03/10/2004)
15 Letter dated 2/26/04 from Sunu P. Chandy to Clerk of Court Re: This letter serves to inform the Court that EEOC is in support of pltff Intervenor Carolyn Pisani's Motion to Intervene in this matter. (Valle, Christine) (Entered: 03/30/2004)
16 Letter dated 2/26/04 from Sunu P. Chandy to Clerk of Court Re: This letter serves to inform the Court that EEOC is in support of pltff Intervenor Carolyn Pisani's Motion to Intervene in this matter. (Valle, Christine) (Entered: 03/31/2004)
17 Letter dated 3/5/04 from Michelle A. Burg to Clerk of Court Re: Enclosed for filing, please find Dft Home Depot's Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Motion to Intervene. (Valle, Christine) (Entered: 03/31/2004)
18 MEMORANDUM in Opposition Re: [11] MOTION to Intervene as of Right as Party Pltff Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 24(a) by The Home Depot. (Valle, Christine) (Entered: 03/31/2004)
22 ORDER - Initial Conference set for 4/14/2004 at 09:30AM before Magistrate-Judge Michael L. Orenstein. Signed by Judge Michael L.

https://ecf.nyed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?131324131893352-L_353_0-1

5/16/2007

Eastern District of New York - Live Database Version 3.0.5 Release - Docket Report

Page 5 of 12

03/15/2004 03/15/2004 03/15/2004 03/17/2004
04/12/2004 04/12/2004 04/14/2004 04/14/2004
04/14/2004 04/14/2004 04/15/2004

Orenstein on 3/9/04. C/M(Valle, Christine) (Entered: 04/08/2004)
19 Letter dated 3/12/04 from Marc Andrew Kramer to Clerk of Court Re: Enclosed for filing is Pltff-Intervenor's Memorandum of Law in Further Support of Motion to Intervene and Affidavit of Marc Andrew Kramer, with supporting exhibits. (Valle, Christine) (Entered: 04/05/2004)
20 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Further Support Re: [11] MOTION to Intervene as of Right as Party Plf Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 24(a) by Carolyn Pisani. (Valle, Christine) (Entered: 04/05/2004)
21 AFFIDAVIT of Marc Andrew Kramer in Support Re: [11] MOTION to Intervene as of Right as Party Plf Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 24(a) filed by Carolyn Pisani. (Valle, Christine) (Entered: 04/05/2004)
14 Letter dated 3/15/04 from Michele A. Burg to Magistrate Orenstein Re: advising the Court that Paul E. Mirengoff has been admitted pro hac vice pursuant to Judge Seybert's Order of 12/3/03 as well as requesting that he be provided all order, notices and other correspondence. (Imrie, Robert) (Entered: 03/24/2004)
28 Letter from Marc Andrew Kramer to Hon. Michael L. Orenstein, dated 4/6/04 re: To advise the Court of the enclosed Report of Parties' Planning Meeting and Proposed Case Management Schedule purs. to F.R.C.P. 26 (f). (Fagan, Linda) (Entered: 04/28/2004)
29 REPORT Of Parties' Planning Meeting And Proposed Case Management Schedule, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Carolyn Pisani, The Home Depot (Fagan, Linda) (Entered: 04/28/2004)
23 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Michael L. Orenstein: Civil Cause for Initial Conference Hearing held on 4/14/2004 at 9:30AM. Counsel for all sides present. (Valle, Christine) (Entered: 04/23/2004)
24 SCHEDULING ORDER: Pretrial Conference set for 10/22/2004 at 02:00PM before Chief Magistrate Michael L. Orenstein. Discovery due by 9/30/2004. All expert discovery including expert depositions due by 1/15/2005. Signed by Judge Michael L. Orenstein on 4/14/04. (Valle, Christine) (Entered: 04/23/2004)
25 Notice of MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Esther Gwen Tamburo; Fee: 25.00; Receipt #292537 by The Home Depot. (Valle, Christine) (Entered: 04/27/2004)
26 AFFIDAVIT of Michelle A. Burg in Support Re: [25] Notice of MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Esther Gwen Tamburo; Fee: 25.00; Receipt #292537 filed by The Home Depot. (Valle, Christine) (Entered: 04/27/2004)
27 ORDER - Granting [25] Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. It is Ordered that Esther Gwen Tamburo, Esq of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, LLP is hereby admitted pro hac vice to appear and participate in

https://ecf.nyed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?131324131893352-L_353_0-1

5/16/2007

Eastern District of New York - Live Database Version 3.0.5 Release - Docket Report

Page 6 of 12

04/19/2004 04/21/2004 06/09/2004
06/29/2004 07/29/2004 09/01/2004 09/01/2004 09/10/2004 09/13/2004 09/13/2004 09/16/2004 09/29/2004

this case before this Court in accordance with Local Civil Rule 1.3(c) of the United States Court for the Eastern District of New York. Signed by JudgeJoanna Seybert on 4/15/04. C/M (Valle, Christine) (Entered: 04/27/2004)
ENDORSED ORDER re [30] Letter: The motion to intervene has not yet been decided. All motions are considered in due course. So Ordered.. Signed by Judge Joanna Seybert on 4/27/04. (Barhome, Sydelle) (Entered: 05/07/2004)
30 Letter dtd. 4/21/04 from L. Susan Scelzo Slavin to Hon. J. Seybert seeking clarification from the Court with regard to the motion to intervene. (Barhome, Sydelle) (Entered: 05/07/2004)
31 STIPULATION OF CONFIDENTIALITY AND PROTECTIVE ORDER - It is hereby stipulated and agreed, by and between the undersigned counsel for the parties: The categories of documents set forth herein, to be disclosed during the course of this litigation by any party listed above shall be designated as and treated as confidential during the discovery phase of this litigation and shall be utilized by such receiving party solely in that context. Signed by Judge Joanna Seybert on 6/9/04. (Valle, Christine) (Entered: 06/30/2004)
Case reassigned to Judge James Orenstein. Judge Michael L. Orenstein no longer assigned to the case. (Bowens, Priscilla) (Entered: 06/30/2004)
32 ORDER granting [11] Motion to Intervene. Plaintiff-Intervenor cannot add a claim against the unnamed defts not can she add the Rehabilitation Act claim against the deft because it is time-barred. Signed by Judge Joanna Seybert on 7/29/04. c/m (Mahon, Cinthia) (Entered: 08/26/2004)
Incorrect Case-Document Information filed.docket entry--complaintfiled--9/1/04 --numbered--33 has been deleted. Counsel will refile document using proper event - Intervenor Complaint (McMahon, Carol) (Entered: 09/01/2004)
33 First Intervenor COMPLAINT and Jury Demand, filed by Carolyn Pisani.(Slavin, L.) (Entered: 09/01/2004)
34 ORDER OF RECUSAL. Judge James Orenstein recused. Signed by Judge James Orenstein on 9/10/04. Ms. Grossman shall advise all parties of this Order. (Branciforte, Ralph) (Entered: 09/10/2004)
35 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Carolyn Pisani re 33 Intervenor Complaint and Jury Demand (Kramer, Marc) (Entered: 09/13/2004)
Case reassigned to Judge Dora Lizette Irizarry. Judge Joanna Seybert no longer assigned to the case. (Bowens, Priscilla) (Entered: 09/13/2004)
36 Letter from Michelle A. Burg to The Honorable Dora L. Irizarry Regarding Deposition of Joseph Pisani. (Burg, Michelle) (Entered: 09/16/2004)
Case assigned to Judge A. Simon Chrein. (Bowens, Priscilla) (Entered:

https://ecf.nyed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?131324131893352-L_353_0-1

5/16/2007

Eastern District of New York - Live Database Version 3.0.5 Release - Docket Report

Page 7 of 12

09/29/2004 09/30/2004 10/01/2004 10/28/2004 11/17/2004 11/17/2004 11/17/2004 11/18/2004
11/19/2004 12/10/2004 02/04/2005

09/29/2004)
37 Letter from Michelle A. Burg, dated 9/29/04 to Honorable A. Simon Chrein Regarding rescheduling Mr. Pisani's and Mr. DuBois' depositions after September 30, 2004. (Burg, Michelle) (Entered: 09/29/2004)
38 ANSWER to Complaint Defendant Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.'s Answer and Defenses to Plaintiff-Intervenor's Complaint. by The Home Depot. (Burg, Michelle) (Entered: 09/30/2004)
39 ORDER: counsel for Home Depot U.S.A. is granted permission to take the depositions of Mr. Pisani and Mr. DuBois after 9/30/2004. Signed by Judge A. Simon Chrein, on 9/30/2004. (Endorsed on letter dated 9/29/2004 from Michelle A. Burg to USMJ Chrein) (Barrett, C.) (Entered: 10/01/2004)
40 Minute Entry for proceedings held before A. Simon Chrein : Status Conference held on 10/28/2004. Discovery is scheduled to end 1/15/2005. Deft will file a pre-motion letter by 2/14/2005. Plaintiff to advise Magistrate in writing when motion is determined. (Lee, Tiffeny) (Entered: 11/12/2004)
41 Letter from Esther G. Tamburo to Magistrate Judge A. Simon Chrein Regarding the filing of an Emergency Motion on behalf of Defendant Home Depot. (Burg, Michelle) (Entered: 11/17/2004)
42 Notice of MOTION to Compel the mental examination of Intervenor Carolyn Pisani by The Home Depot. (Burg, Michelle) (Entered: 11/17/2004)
43 MEMORANDUM in Support re 42 Notice of MOTION to Compel the mental examination of Intervenor Carolyn Pisani by The Home Depot. (Burg, Michelle) (Entered: 11/17/2004)
44 RESPONSE to Motion re 42 Notice of MOTION to Compel the mental examination of Intervenor Carolyn Pisani filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Cover Letter to EEOC Response# 2 Chandy Declaration# 3 Exhibit Exh. A - Dr. Knight Report# 4 Exhibit Exh B - Complaint# 5 Exhibit Exhibit C - Order# 6 Exhibit Exh D- 6/18/04 Letter# 7 Exhibit Exh E- 8/3/04 Letter# 8 Exhibit Exh F10/28 Letter# 9 Exhibit Exh G- Reyes# 10 Exhibit Exh H- Hirsch) (Chandy, Sunu) (Entered: 11/18/2004)
45 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Dora Lizette Irizarry: Status Conference held on 11/19/2004. 42 MOTION to Compel the mental examination of Intervenor Carolyn Pisani filed by The Home Depot is granted in part and denied in part, see calendar for complete ruling and further details. (ESR: O. Francis) (Lee, Tiffeny) (Entered: 11/23/2004)
46 TRANSCRIPT of Conference for date of 11/19/04 before Judge Dora L. Irizarry. Court Transcriber: Aria Transcriptionsr. (Williams-Jackson, Sandy) (Entered: 12/13/2004)
47 Letter from Michelle A. Burg to Judge Dora L. Irizarry and Magistrate

https://ecf.nyed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?131324131893352-L_353_0-1

5/16/2007

Eastern District of New York - Live Database Version 3.0.5 Release - Docket Report

Page 8 of 12

02/14/2005 02/16/2005
02/18/2005 02/23/2005
03/02/2005
03/02/2005 03/03/2005 03/07/2005 03/07/2005 03/07/2005

Judge A. Simon Chrein Regarding Clarification of Order dated October 28, 2004. (Burg, Michelle) (Entered: 02/04/2005)
48 Letter from Paul E. Mirengoff to Honorable Dora L. Irizarry and Honorable A. Simon Chrein Regarding Pre-Motion Conference. (Burg, Michelle) (Entered: 02/14/2005)
ORDER re 48 Letter - A pre-motion conference will be held in this matter on WEDNESDAY, MARCH 9, 2005 at 4:00 p.m. Counsel for all sides must participate. Counsel for DEFENDANT is directed to notify all counsel immediately of this conference date and time. Applications for adjournment must be made on consent, via ecf, at least 48 hours prior to the scheduled conference.SO ORDERED by Judge Dora Lizette Irizarry on 2/16/05. (Irizarry, Dora) (Entered: 02/16/2005)
49 Letter from Plaintiffs to Judge Irizarry and Magistrate Judge Chrein dated 2/18/05 Regarding Response to Defendant's Letter Seeking Leave to File Summary Judgment Motion. (Chandy, Sunu) (Entered: 02/18/2005)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Status Conference set for 3/9/2005 04:30 PM or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard before Magistrate-Judge Viktor V. Pohorelsky (temporarily substituting for Judge Chrein); counsel are to report to Room 521 for the conference immediately after the premotion conference before Judge Irizarry concludes. (Pohorelsky, Viktor) (Entered: 02/23/2005)
AMENDED ORDER re Order, The pre-motion conference previously scheduled for Wednesday, March 9, 2005 at 4:00 PM is hereby adjourned by the Court to WEDNESDAY, MARCH 30, 2005 at 4:30 PM. Counsel for DEFENDANT is directed to notify all counsel immediately of the new conference date and time. Applications for adjournment must be made on consent, via ecf, at least 48 hours prior to the scheduled conference. SO ORDERED by Judge Dora Lizette Irizarry on 3/2/05. (Irizarry, Dora) (Entered: 03/02/2005)
Email Test - DO NOT REPLY. (Barrett, C.) (Entered: 03/02/2005)
Email Test - DO NOT REPLY (Lee, Tiffeny) (Entered: 03/03/2005)
50 Letter from Michelle A. Burg, Esq. to Honorable Dora L. Irizarry Regarding Request for an extension of time to submit the proposed joint pretrial order.. (Burg, Michelle) (Entered: 03/07/2005)
51 Letter from Michelle A. Burg, Esq. to Honorable Viktor V. Pohorelsky Regarding confirming conversation with Chambers on 3/4/05 regarding upcoming status conference in this matter. (Burg, Michelle) (Entered: 03/07/2005)
ORDER re 50 Letter --- ELECTRONIC ENDORSED ORDER: Application is GRANTED. The filing of a proposed joint pretrial order is held in abeyance pending the outcome of the premotion conference to be held on March 30, 2005 at 4:30 P.M. SO ORDERED by Judge Dora Lizette Irizarry on 03/07/05. (Irizarry, Dora) (Entered: 03/07/2005)

https://ecf.nyed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?131324131893352-L_353_0-1

5/16/2007

Eastern District of New York - Live Database Version 3.0.5 Release - Docket Report

Page 9 of 12

03/17/2005 03/30/2005
03/30/2005 03/30/2005 03/30/2005 03/31/2005
04/11/2005 04/14/2005 04/22/2005 06/15/2005 07/07/2005 07/08/2005

52 Letter dated 10/6/04 from F. Alan Pastore to Sunu P. Chandy, Marc Kramer and Michelle Burg rescheduling the 9/29/04 conference to 10/28/04 at 2:30. (Hunter-Hicks, Tara) (Entered: 03/17/2005)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Dora Lizette Irizarry : Pre Motion Conference held on 3/30/2005. Case called. Counsel for all sides present. For E.E.O.C.: Sunu P. Chandy; For Plaintiff Intervenor Pisani: Marc Andrew Kramer; For Defendant: Paul Mierngoff. This matter is referred to mediation. Filing of dispositive motion(s) and proposed JPTO are held in abeyance pending outcome of mediation. (Court Reporter Fred Guerino.) (Carosella, Christy) (Entered: 03/30/2005)
ORAL ORDER REFERRING CASE to Mediation --- Issued on the record at pre-motion conference held on 3/30/05.SO ORDERED by Judge Dora Lizette Irizarry on 3/30/05. (Irizarry, Dora) (Entered: 03/30/2005)
53 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Viktor V. Pohorelsky : Status Conference held on 3/30/2005. see annexed conference calendar for details (Newton, Joan) (Entered: 03/30/2005)
ORDER REFERRING CASE to Mediation.Selection of Mediator due by 4/13/2005.SO ORDERED by Judge Dora Lizette Irizarry on 03/30/05. (Irizarry, Dora) (Entered: 03/30/2005)
54 MEDIATION Instructions sent to Counsel. Letter of Instructions document ATTACHED. COUNSELS are to schedule the mediation and confirm in writing by April 14, 2005 to Gerald P. Lepp, ADR Administrator, the name of the mediator and the date of the first mediation session. COUNSELS are to confer with each other and to speak with the Mediator in selecting a Mediator and the Mediation session date(s). See the attached instructions. See the web pages: http://www.nyed.uscourts.gov/adr/ http://www.nyed.circ2.dcn/dadr/ REGISTER for ECF if you have not yet done so. Thank you. See: http://www.nyed.uscourts.gov/CM_ECF/ECF_FAQ/ecf_faq.html(Lepp, Gerald)(dc) (Entered: 03/31/2005)
Case reassigned to Judge Viktor V. Pohorelsky. Judge A. Simon Chrein no longer assigned to the case. (Bowens, Priscilla) (Entered: 04/11/2005)
55 Letter from Michelle A. Burg to Gerald P. Lepp, Esq. Regarding Selection of Mediator. (Burg, Michelle) (Entered: 04/14/2005)
56 Letter from Plaintiff EEOC to Gerald Lepp Regarding New Mediation Date. (Chandy, Sunu) (Entered: 04/22/2005)
SELECTION OF MEDIATOR Vivien B. Shelanski rep by Vivien B. Shelanski selected as Mediator. Mediation is scheduled for 06/27/2005, see attachment 56.(Lepp, Gerald) (Entered: 06/15/2005)
REPORT of Mediation UNSETTLED.(Lepp, Gerald) (Entered: 07/07/2005)
REPORT of Mediation. Parties have advised that they are continuing

https://ecf.nyed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?131324131893352-L_353_0-1

5/16/2007

Eastern District of New York - Live Database Version 3.0.5 Release - Docket Report Page 10 of 12

07/12/2005
07/22/2005 07/29/2005 08/05/2005
08/05/2005 09/06/2005 09/16/2005 09/16/2005 09/19/2005
09/20/2005 09/22/2005

thier negotiations, and will advise the status to the ADR Administrator by July 22, 2005.(Lepp, Gerald) (Entered: 07/08/2005)
ELECTRONIC SCHEDULING ORDER --- A status conference will be held on Friday, August 5, 2005 at 3:30 PM in courtroom #343 before the undersigned. Counsel for all parties must attend. Applications for adjournment must be made via ecf, on consent and for good cause shown, at least 48 hours in advance of the conference date. Ordered by Judge Dora Lizette Irizarry on 7/12/05. (Irizarry, Dora) (Entered: 07/12/2005)
REPORT of Mediation Parties have advised that they are continuing their negotiations, and will advise the status to the ADR Administrator by August 5, 2005.(Lepp, Gerald) (Entered: 07/22/2005)
57 NOTICE of Change of Address/Telephone/E-mail by L. Susan Slavin (Slavin, L.) (Entered: 07/29/2005)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Dora Lizette Irizarry: Pre Motion Conference held on 8/5/2005. Case called. Counsel for Plaintiff Intervenor not present. For EEOC: Sunu Chandy; For Defendant: Esther Tamburo. The case will continue mediation. The parties are directed to provide a letter status report to the Court, via ecf, by 9/6/05. (Court Reporter Marsha Diamond.) (Carosella, Christy) (Entered: 08/05/2005)
REPORT of Mediation The parties advised that they are continuing negotiations, and will advise the status to the ADR Administrator by 9/6/05.(Lepp, Gerald) (Entered: 08/05/2005)
58 Letter from Michelle A. Burg to Judge Irizarry Regarding the status of the settlement negotitations. (Burg, Michelle) (Entered: 09/06/2005)
59 Letter from Esther G. Tamburo to Judge Irizarry Regarding the status of settlement negotiations. (Burg, Michelle) (Entered: 09/16/2005)
60 Letter from Plaintiff EEOC to Judge Irizarry Regarding Status Update. (Chandy, Sunu) (Entered: 09/16/2005)
ELECTRONIC ENDORSED ORDER re 59 Letter, 60 Letter -- Plaintiff's request for a conference before the undersigned in light of deadlocked settlement negotiations is DENIED. However, this matter is referred to Magistrate Judge Viktor V. Pohorelski for further proceedings in preparation for trial. SO ORDERED by Judge Dora Lizette Irizarry on 09/19/05. Irizarry, Dora) (Entered: 09/19/2005)
61 Letter from Michelle A. Burg to Judge Irizarry Regarding request for a pre-motion conference in order to seek leave to move for summary judgment on all claims in this action. (Burg, Michelle) (Entered: 09/20/2005)
ELECTRONIC ENDORSED ORDER re 61 Letter --- Defendant's request for a premotion conference is denied as this matter has been referred to Magistrate Judge Pohorelsky for futher proceedings in preparation for trial. Should a briefing schedule be required for any proposed motions, that schedule will be set by Magistrate Judge

https://ecf.nyed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?131324131893352-L_353_0-1

5/16/2007

Eastern District of New York - Live Database Version 3.0.5 Release - Docket Report Page 11 of 12

09/26/2005 10/05/2005 10/06/2005 10/11/2005 10/17/2005 11/09/2005 11/10/2005
11/14/2005 11/15/2005

Pohorelsky. Ordered by Judge Dora Lizette Irizarry on 9/22/2005. (Irizarry, Dora) (Entered: 09/22/2005)
62 SCHEDULING ORDER: Conference scheduled for 10/11/05 at 3:00 p.m. See annexed order for details. Ordered by Judge Viktor V. Pohorelsky on 9/26/05. (Newton, Joan) (Entered: 09/26/2005)
63 Letter from Plaintiff EEOC to Judge Irizarry and Judge Pohorelsky Regarding Settlement/Ct Conference. (Chandy, Sunu) (Entered: 10/05/2005)
ORDER, by electronic endorsement, re 63 Letter. The conference scheduled for 10/11/05 at 3:00 p.m. is adjourned to 11/10/05 at 4:00 p.m. All counsel must attend in person unless a stipulation of dismissal has been filed with the clerk of court by close of business on 11/9/05. Ordered by Judge Viktor V. Pohorelsky on 10/5/05. (Newton, Joan) (Entered: 10/06/2005)
64 Letter from Plaintiff EEOC to Judge Irizarry Regarding Consent Decree for Review and Signature. (Attachments: # 1 Consent Decree# 2 Exhibit A - Reasonable Accommodation Policy# 3 B -Job Coach Policy# 4 Exhibit C -Notice for Posting)(Chandy, Sunu) (Entered: 10/11/2005)
ELECTRONIC ENDORSED ORDER re 64 Letter --- ORDERED that the Consent Decree executed and filed by the parties is hereby APPROVED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED. Intervening plaintiff shall file a stipulation of dismissal for the undersigned's approval on or before November 9, 2005. SO ORDERED by Judge Dora Lizette Irizarry on 10/17/05. (Irizarry, Dora) (Entered: 10/17/2005)
SCHEDULING ORDER (Corrected): The conference scheduled for November 10, 2005 at 4:00 p.m. has been rescheduled to Wednesday, November 16, 2005 at 2:00 p.m. Counsel for the parties must appear in person unless a stipulation of dismissal has been filed with the clerk of court by the close of business on 11/14/05 . Ordered by Judge Viktor V. Pohorelsky on 11/9/05. (Newton, Joan) (Entered: 11/09/2005)
ELECTRONIC ORDER -- By Order dated October 17, 2005, the undersigned approved a consent decree which embodied the settlement terms agreed to by and between the parties and directed the intervening plaintiff, EEOC, to file a stipulation of discontinuance for this court's approval on or before November 9, 2005. Plaintiff, EEOC has failed to do so. Since the parties have settled this matter, it is hereby ORDERED, that this action is DISCONTINUED with prejudice and without costs to any party, but with leave to re-open if the settlement agreement is not consummated and application for reinstatement is made within sixty (60) days of the date of this Order. SO ORDERED by Judge Dora Lizette Irizarry on 11/10/05. (Irizarry, Dora) (Entered: 11/10/2005)
65 Letter from Plaintiff EEOC to Judge Irizarry Regarding Clarification Re: Nov. 10th Order. (Chandy, Sunu) (Entered: 11/14/2005)
66 Letter from Michelle A. Burg to Honorable Dora L. Irizarry Regarding

https://ecf.nyed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?131324131893352-L_353_0-1

5/16/2007

Eastern District of New York - Live Database Version 3.0.5 Release - Docket Report Page 12 of 12

11/15/2005 01/17/2006

Adjournment of Conference. (Burg, Michelle) (Entered: 11/15/2005)
ORDER re 66 Letter, by electronic endorsement: In view of Judge Irizarry's Order of November 10, 2005 closing this case, the conference scheduled before Judge Pohorelsky for November 16, 2005 is canceled. Ordered by Judge Viktor V. Pohorelsky on 11/15/2005. (Pohorelsky, Viktor) (Entered: 11/15/2005)
67 STIPULATION of Dismissal With Prejudice by The Home Depot. (Burg, Michelle) (Entered: 01/17/2006)

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt

05/16/2007 12:47:52

PACER Login:

hs0328

Client Code:

Description:

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

Billable Pages: 7

Cost:

eeoc
2:03-cv-04860-DLIVVP 0.56

https://ecf.nyed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?131324131893352-L_353_0-1

5/16/2007

 
 EEOC LITIGATION SETTLEMENT REPORT - October 2005

Page 1 of 1

z EEOC v. The Home Depot USA, Inc. No. 03-4860 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 17, 2005)
The New York District Office alleged that defendant, a national retailer of building materials and home improvement products, violated the ADA by failing to provide charging party (a sales associate at the South Setauket, New York store) with a reasonable accommodation and by discharging her because of her disability (mild mental retardation that substantially limited her in learning). Charging party began her job at Home Depot in May 1999 and was assigned a job coach through a program sponsored by New York's Office of Vocational and Educational Services for Individuals with Disabilities (VESID). The job coach was to assist her in learning to perform her job and advise her with any issues that arose during her employment. Defendant discharged the charging party 5 months later for failing to report to work as scheduled on 3 consecutive weekends. According to charging party and her father, unidentified persons instructed charging party over the phone not to show up on those weekends. Defendant discharged charging party even though it knew of her claim that she was instructed not to come to work, and it failed to communicate with charging party's job coach about the attendance problems before discharging her.
The 2-year consent decree resolving this case provides that Home Depot will pay charging party $75,000 under the terms of a separate agreement between charging party and Home Depot. Defendant is required to comply with the ADA's prohibition against disability discrimination and is prohibited from retaliating against any individual for asserting his/her rights under the ADA. The decree requires defendant to maintain nondiscrimination policies prohibiting disability discrimination, including one entitled "Reasonable Accommodation" and another entitled "Working With a Job Coach" (which explains the roles of the job coach and Home Depot Management in working with disabled employees). Home Depot must: (1) post the "Job Coach" policy on its computer portal and implement it for all employees nationwide; (2) provide copies of the "Job Coach" and "Reasonable Accommodation" policies to all of its managers and employees in stores located in Bay Shore, Commack, Copaigue, Deer Park, Farmingdale, and South Setauket, New York; and (3) include training on the "Job Coach" policy as a part of its antidiscrimination training at those New York stores.

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

5/16/2007