1

2

3

4

5

6

7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,
10 Plaintiff,

) ) ) ) )

11 vs.

) )

12 GLC Restaurants, Inc. d/b/a

13

McDonald’s Restaurant, an Arizona corporation,

) ) ) )

14 15

Defendant. _____________________________

) ) )

16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Jessica J. Tubandt, Amanda Henry, Tiara M. Brazle, and Tamara A. Grubbs,

) ) ) )

Plaintiffs/Interveners,

) )

vs.

) )

GLC Restaurants, Inc. d/b/a McDonald's Restaurant, an Arizona corporation; Steven Alan Ehresman and Shari Louise Ehresman, husband and wife; Cindy Keppel and John Doe Keppel, wife and husband,

) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

23

Defendants.

) )

24

CIV 05 - 0618 PCT DGC CONSENT DECREE

25 The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC” or “Commission”)
26 filed this action against GLC Restaurants, Inc., d/b/a McDonald’s Restaurant
27 (“McDonald’s” or “Defendant”) on February 24, 2005, in this Court, to enforce Title
28

1 VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §2000e et seq. (Title VII) and the Civil

2 Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. §1981a. In the Complaint, the Commission alleged

3 that Defendant discriminated against Charging Parties Tiara Brazle, Tamara Grubbs,

4 Amanda Henry, Jessica Tubandt and a class of individuals because of their sex

5 (female), by subjecting them to sexual harassment and creating a sexually hostile

6 work environment. The Complaint further alleged that Ms. Brazle was constructively

7 discharged because of the sexual harassment and hostile work environment.

8

On October 19, 2005, this Court granted the Charging Parties’, Tiara Brazle's,

9 Tamara A. Grubbs', Amanda Henry's, and Jessica Tubandt's (hereinafter

"Intervenors") Motion to Intervene (Docket No. 32). On November 23, 2005, the 10
Court granted Intervenors’ Motion to Amend their Complaint in intervention (Docket 11
No. 56). 12
This Consent Decree shall not constitute an adjudication of or finding on the 13
merits of the case and shall not be construed as an admission by Defendant of any 14
violation of Title VII. This Consent Decree shall not be construed as either a finding

15 of, or evidence of, any violations by Defendant of Title VII, or any other federal or

16 state statute, regulation, or common law obligation. This Consent Decree is the

17 result of compromise among the parties of disputed claims, and Defendant

18 completely denies that it has done anything wrong or violated any law, and does not

19 admit to liability, wrongdoing, or any violation of law. This does not prevent a

20 determination of a prevailing party on the Title VII claims for this action, and

21 Intervenors shall be deemed the prevailing party(ies) entitled to file a motion for an

22 order awarding Plaintiff/Intervenors costs and attorneys' fees (including expert fees)

23 in such amount(s) as the Court determines is/are fair and reasonable with a

24 maximum of $400,000.00

25

The Parties do not object to the jurisdiction of the Court over this action and

26 waive their rights to a hearing and the entry of findings of fact and conclusions of

27 law.

28

In the interest of resolving this matter, and as a result of having engaged in

2

1 comprehensive settlement negotiations, the Commission, Intervenors and Defendant

2 have agreed that the portion of this action dealing with the Title VII claims should be

3 finally resolved by entry of this Consent Decree. The Parties stipulate that this

4 Consent Decree is fair, reasonable, and equitable and does not violate the law or

5 public policy.

6

It is ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED:

7

1. This Decree resolves all Title VII claims between the Commission,

8 Intervenors and Defendant in this lawsuit, including without limitation, back pay,

9 compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive relief, and, in conjunction with

separate order and proceedings as addressed in subsequent paragraph 16, costs, 10
and attorneys’ fees. 11
2. Defendant and its officers, agents, employees, successors, and assigns 12
both at the time that this Decree becomes effective and for the duration of this 13
Decree, are enjoined from: (a) discriminating against any employee on the basis of 14
sex, (b) harassing any employee based on sex; (c) retaliating against any employee

15 because he or she: (i) opposes or opposed discriminatory practices made unlawful

16 by Title VII; (ii) files or filed a charge of discrimination or assists, assisted,

17 participates, or participated in the filing of a charge of discrimination; or (iii) assists,

18 assisted, participates or participated in an investigation or proceeding brought under

19 federal or state laws prohibiting discrimination or retaliation; and (d) altering the

20 terms and conditions of any employee’s employment because of sex to the extent

21 required by Federal and State law.

22

MONETARY RELIEF

23

3. Defendant shall pay, by check or money order, the total amount of

24 $550,000 as compensatory damages for emotional distress, making its best efforts

25 to pay within fifteen (15) days, but no later than thirty (30) days from the date of the

26 entry of this Decree, to be distributed to Intervenors Tiara Brazle, Tamara Grubbs,

27 Amanda Henry, Jessica Tubandt and to class members Dianna Candelaria, Mary

28 Hellman, Candice Hannah and Charlene Hannah, as set forth in Attachment A.

3

1 Defendant will not condition the receipt of individual relief on the Intervenors’ or class

2 members’ agreement to: (a) maintain confidentiality; or (b) waive their statutory

3 rights to file a charge with any Federal or State anti-discrimination agency.

4 Defendant will issue applicable United States Internal Revenue Service Forms to the

5 Intervenors and class members for all such payments on or before January 31,

6 2008.

7

4. The checks or money orders provided for in paragraph 3 of this Decree

8 shall be made payable in the manner directed by the Commission and mailed

9 directly by Defendant to Tiara Brazle, Tamara Grubbs, Amanda Henry, Jessica

Tubandt, Dianna Candelaria, Mary Hellman, Candice Hannah and Charlene Hannah 10

at the addresses supplied by the Commission. Within seven business days of the 11

issuance of the checks, Defendant shall submit a copy of the checks and related

12

correspondence to the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,

13 Regional Attorney, 3300 North Central Avenue, Suite 690, Phoenix, Arizona, 85012.

14 OTHER RELIEF

15

5. Defendant will institute and carry out policies and practices at its

16 Arizona restaurants that help assure a work environment free from sex-based

17 discrimination, harassment and retaliation for its employees; that allow employees

18 to raise concerns or complaints without retaliation about matters, whether alleged,

19 perceived or actual, made unlawful by Title VII; and that provide procedures for

20 employees to report incidents of sex-based discrimination, harassment and

21 retaliation.

22

6. To assist Defendant in achieving and maintaining compliance in the

23 area of anti-discrimination and equal employment opportunity, within 30 (thirty) days

24 of the entry of the Decree, Defendant's Chief Executive Officer will appoint an

25 appropriate and qualified employee to be responsible for: (a) reviewing and revising

26 Defendant's anti-discrimination policies; (b) reviewing and revising Defendant’s

27 procedures with respect to responding to and keeping records regarding complaints

28 received; (c) receiving and investigating complaints of discrimination; (d) evaluating

4

1 and, if appropriate, disciplining or terminating employees for violation of Defendant's

2 anti-discrimination policies; and(e) preparing reports to the Commission, as required

3 by this Decree.

4

7. Defendant agrees that it shall not re-hire Steven Ehresman in any

5 capacity.

6

8. Annually for the duration of the injunctive provisions of this Decree,

7 Defendant will provide training for all employees which shall include, but is not

8 limited to: (1) what constitutes sex-based discrimination, retaliation, and

9 harassment; (2) that Title VII prohibits such misconduct; (3) how to prevent such

misconduct; (4) to whom employees may complain if they feel they have been 10
subjected to such misconduct; and (5) that managers will be evaluated on their 11
enforcement of Defendant’s anti-discrimination policies. Recognizing that 12
Defendant’s workers are often young people with little or no work experience, the 13
training shall include a clear and strong statement from a high-ranking management 14
official requesting that any employee who feels she or he has been the victim of

15 sexual harassment or retaliation come forward and that the company will make every

16 effort to rectify the situation, including stopping the conduct and disciplining the

17 offending individual(s) where appropriate.

18

Training will also include an explanation of Defendant’s policies regarding sex-

19 based discrimination, harassment and retaliation; the importance of maintaining an

20 environment free from harassment; and the discipline that may be taken against any

21 employee found to have harassed or retaliated against other employees.

22

a. Defendant will arrange and be financially responsible for a

23 consultant/lecturer(s), who will provide consultation and training session(s) for all of

24 its employees at its Arizona restaurants. The training session(s) shall be provided

25 by the consultant/lecturer(s). Defendant shall obtain the EEOC’s approval of the

26 consultant by providing the name and resume of the consultant at least sixty days

27 prior to the first training session. Defendant may videotape the session for those

28 employees who cannot attend the live session. Live training must be conducted at

5

1 its Camp Verde and Cordes Junction restaurants, while videotaped training will be

2 sufficient at Defendant’s other Arizona restaurants.

3

b. During the live training session(s), a high-ranking management

4 official of GLC will speak to the employees about the discipline that can be taken

5 against supervisors, managers and employees who commit acts of discrimination,

6 harassment or retaliation or allow discrimination, harassment or retaliation to occur

7 in the workplace; the importance of maintaining an environment free of

8 discrimination; and Defendant's anti-discrimination policies.

9

c. The seminar training session shall be at least two (2) hours in

length, including thirty (30) minutes for questions and answers. All of Defendant’s 10
employees, including managers, shall register for and attend the seminar session. 11
Employees who are unable to attend the live session may watch a videotape of it. 12
Additionally, Defendant will require new employees who are hired after the annual 13
training to complete the requisite two (2) hours of training, via videotape, within ten 14
(10) days of being hired.

15

d. Employees shall sign a registry when they attend the training or

16 watch the videotape. Defendant shall keep, for the duration of the injunctive

17 provisions of this Decree, this written record of all employees who attend the training

18 or watch it on video.

19

e. The first seminar training session shall be held within four months

20 of the Consent Decree being entered.

21

9. Defendant will require all individuals who work in a managerial or

22 supervisory capacity to receive at least six (6) hours of training annually regarding

23 Title VII and other federal anti-discrimination laws. The training shall directly

24 address sexual harassment, retaliation, gender discrimination, how to conduct an

25 effective sexual harassment investigation and how to prevent and correct sexual

26 harassment. Additionally, after the completion of the annual training, Defendant will

27 require employees newly hired or promoted into a managerial or supervisory position

28 to complete the requisite training within twenty (20) days of being hired or promoted.

6

1 Defendant will notify the Commission when this annual training session has been

2 completed. Defendant shall obtain the EEOC’s approval of the consultant by

3 providing the name and resume of the expert at least sixty days prior to the first

4 training session. The EEOC will have ten days to respond or waive its right to do so.

5

10. Within thirty days of the entry of this Decree, Defendant will review and

6 revise its written policies concerning discrimination and retaliation to conform with

7 the law. Defendant’s written policies must include, at a minimum:

8

a. A clear and strong commitment to a workplace free of sex-based

9

discrimination, harassment and retaliation;

b. A clear and strong message of encouragement to persons who 10
believe they have been discriminated against to come forward; 11
c. A description of the consequences, up to and including 12
termination, that will be imposed upon violators of the policy; 13
d. An assurance of non-retaliation for persons who believe they 14
have been discriminated against and for witnesses;

15

e. That sexual harassment and discrimination on the basis of sex

16

by anyone, including management officials, supervisors,

17

vendors, suppliers, third parties and customers, is prohibited and

18

will not be tolerated;

19

f. The identification of specific alternative individuals, including

20

managers with their telephone numbers, to whom employees

21

who have been subjected to sex-based discrimination,

22

harassment or retaliation can report the discrimination and who

23

have the authority to investigate allegations of discrimination in

24

a neutral and confidential manner;

25

g. A written statement that an employee may report the harassment

26

to a designated person outside of his or her chain of

27

management should the employee prefer to do so;

28

h. Assurances that Defendant will investigate allegations of sex-

7

1

based discrimination, harassment and retaliation promptly, fairly,

2

reasonably, effectively and as confidentially as possible under

3

the circumstances, by appropriate investigators and that

4

appropriate corrective action will be taken by Defendant and best

5

efforts will be made to ensure compliance with Title VII; and

6

i. Information regarding the employee's right to file a charge of

7

discrimination with the EEOC, including contact telephone

8

numbers, TDY/TDD and addresses for the EEOC.

9

11. These policies shall be posted in a prominent location, frequented by

employees, at Defendant’s restaurants in Cordes Junction and Camp Verde. These 10

policies shall also be distributed to each current employee within thirty days of the 11

entry of the Decree, and distributed to all new employees when hired.

12

12. Defendant shall promptly and appropriately investigate all complaints

13 of sex-based discrimination, harassment or retaliation.

14 APOLOGY

15

13. Within fourteen (14) days of the entry of the Decree, Defendant’s CEO

16 shall prepare and mail a letter of apology to Tiara Brazle, Tamara Grubbs, Amanda

17 Henry, Jessica Tubandt and to class members Dianna Candelaria, Mary Hellman,

18 Candice Hannah and Charlene Hannah as set forth in Attachment B.

19

NOTICE

20

14. Defendant will post the Notice attached as Attachment C at Defendant’s

21 Cordes Junction and Camp Verde restaurants. The Notice will be posted in an

22 appropriate place frequented by employees, for the duration of this Decree. The

23 Notice, which shall be posted in both English and Spanish, shall be the same type,

24 size, and style as Attachment C.

25

REPORTING BY DEFENDANT AND ACCESS BY EEOC

26

15. In addition to the reporting specified throughout the Decree above,

27 Defendant shall report in writing and in affidavit form to the Regional Attorney of

28 the Commission's Phoenix District Office at 3300 N. Central Ave., Suite 690,

8

1 Phoenix, Arizona 85012, beginning six months from the date of the entry of this

2 Decree, and then annually for the duration of the Decree confirmation that: (i) the

3 Notice required in paragraph 14 of this Decree was posted and the location(s)

4 where it was posted; (ii) the policies required in paragraph 10 were distributed to

5 each current and new employee and posted. Within six months of the entry of

6 the decree, Defendant will notify the EEOC that the apology required in

7 paragraph 13 was sent to Tiara Brazle, Tamara Grubbs, Amanda Henry, Jessica

8 Tubandt and to class members Dianna Candelaria, Mary Hellman, Candice

9 Hannah and Charlene Hannah.

10

COSTS AND ATTORNEYS' FEES

11

16. Except as decreed in the "Order, Re: Costs and Attorneys' Fees"

entered herein, and the proceedings directed therein for determination of an 12
award of costs and attorneys' fees, under Title VII to Intervenors, the other parties 13
to the portion of this action dealing with the Title VII claims shall bear their own 14
attorneys' fees and costs in this action up to the date of entry of this Decree. 15
FORCE AND EFFECT 16
17. The duration of the injunctive provisions of this Decree shall be 17
thirty-six (36) months from its entry. This Court shall retain jurisdiction over this
18 action for the duration of the injunctive provisions of this Decree, during which the

19 Commission may petition this Court for compliance with this Decree. Should the

20 Court determine that Defendant has not complied with this Decree, appropriate

21 relief, including extension of this Decree for such period as may be necessary to

22 remedy its non-compliance, may be ordered. Absent extension, the injunctive

23 provisions of this Decree shall expire by its own terms at the end of thirty-six (36)

24 months from the date of entry, without further action by the Parties.

25

PENALTIES FOR NON-COMPLIANCE

26

18. In the event that the Commission believes that Defendant has failed

27 to comply with any provision(s) of the Decree, the Commission shall:

28

(a) Notify Defendant in writing of the alleged non-compliance,

9

1

which notice shall state that it is being given pursuant to this

2

paragraph 18(a) of this Decree and shall be sent by fax and by

3

first-class mail both to the counsel and the corporate officer

4

who sign this Decree on behalf of Defendant, using the fax

5

numbers and addresses shown in connection with their

6

signatures below.

7

19. Should the Court determine that Defendant has not complied with

8 this Decree, appropriate relief may be ordered. This Decree shall expire by its

9 own terms at the end of thirty-six (36) months from the date of entry, without
further action by the Parties. 10
20. The Parties agree to entry of this Decree and judgment subject to 11
final approval by the Court. 12
DATED this 20th day of March, 2007. 13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21 APPROVED AND CONSENTED TO BY:
22

23 ____________________________ CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
24 GLC Restaurants, Inc.

25

s/Yvette Heintzelman

26 Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. Yvette A. Heintzelman

27

SEYFARTH SHAW, L.L.P. 55 East Monroe Street, Suite 4200

28 Chicago, Illinois 60603

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT

10

1 s/Mary Jo O’Neill Mary Jo O’Neill
2 Regional Attorney

3 s/Sally C. Shanley Sally C. Shanley
4 Supervisory Trial Attorney

5

s/Michell G. Marshall Michelle G. Marshall

6 Trial Attorney

7

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

8

Phoenix District Office 3300 North Central Ave., Suite 690

9 Phoenix, Arizona 85012

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF 10

11
s/Milton W. Hathaway 12 Milton W. Hathaway, Jr.
Murphy, Lutey, Schmitt & Fuchs, 13 P.L.L.C.
117 East Gurley, Third Floor 14 P.O. Box 591
Prescott, Arizona 86302-0591
15 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF16 INTERVENORS

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

11

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11 12

ATTACHMENT

A

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

12

1 CLASS MEMBER

2 Tiara Brazle and Milton W. Hathaway $100,000

Jr., her attorney

3

Tamara Grubbs and Milton W.

$100,000

4 Hathaway Jr., her attorney

5

Amanda Henry and Milton W. Hathaway Jr., her attorney

$100,000

6 Jessica Tubandt and Milton W. Hathaway Jr., her attorney
7 Dianna Candelaria
8 Candice Jackson Hannah

$100,000
$37,500 $37,500

9 Charlene Darnell (formerly Hannah) $37,500

10 Mary Hellman

$37,500

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

13

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14 15

ATTACHMENT B

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

14

1

[GLC Letterhead]

2 [Date]
3

4

5 [address]:

6

As you are aware, a lawsuit was filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity

7

Commission against GLC Restaurants, Inc., alleging that it discriminated against a number of employees by subjecting them to sexual harassment, a hostile work

8 environment and retaliation.

9

Please accept my sincere apology on behalf of GLC Restaurants, Inc. We are committed to creating and maintaining an environment where no employee must

endure harassment based on his or her sex, or suffer retaliation for bringing

10 grievances to our attention.

11

Sincerely,

12

13

14 President, GLC Restaurants, Inc.
15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

15

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 ATTACHMENT C
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
16

1

NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF

2

GLC RESTAURANTS, INC.

3

This Notice is posted pursuant to a Consent Decree entered into

4

between GLC Restaurants, Inc. and the Equal Employment

5

Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

6

7

It is unlawful under federal law, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act

and state law to discriminate against an employee on the basis of

8

sex, including sexual harassment, in the recruitment, hiring, firing,

9

compensation, assignment, or other terms, and conditions or

10

privileges of employment. Sexual harassment includes unwelcome

11

or offensive sexual advances or touching, requests for sexual favors, or other verbal or physical conduct directed at a person

12

because of her/his sex. It is also unlawful to retaliate against any

13

person because the person protested discriminatory practices or

14

contacted the EEOC or the Arizona Civil Rights Division (ACRD).

15

GLC shall not discriminate against any employee on the basis of

16

sex, including sexual harassment, and shall not retaliate against any

17

employee for complaining about sexual harassment.

18
If you believe you have been discriminated against or

19

sexually harassed, you have the right to seek assistance from:

20

21

(1) EEOC

22

3300 North Central Ave., Suite 690

23

Phoenix, Arizona 85012

24

Telephone: (602) 640-5000

25

TTY: (602) 640-5072

Website (national): www.eeoc.gov; or

26

27

28

(2) Arizona Civil Rights Division (ACRD)

Attorney General's Office

17

1

1275 W. Washington

2

Phoenix, Arizona, 85007

3

(602) 255-5263.

4

You have the right to file a charge with the EEOC or ACRD if you

5

believe you are being discriminated against, retaliated against or

6

sexually harassed.

7

No Retaliation Clause. It is against the law for any action to be

8

taken against you by any supervisory or management official of

9

GLC for: (1) opposing sexual harassment or other discriminatory

10

practices made unlawful by federal or state law; (2) filing a charge

11

or assisting or participating in the filing of a charge of discrimination; or (3) assisting or participating in an investigation

12

or proceeding brought under Title VII. Should any such retaliatory

13

actions be taken against you, you should immediately contact the

14

EEOC or the ACRD at the addresses or telephone numbers listed

above.

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

18

 
 1

2

3

4

5

6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
9 Plaintiff,
10 vs.
11 GLC RESTAURANTS, INC. d/b/a
12 MCDONALD’S RESTAURANT, an Arizona corporation,
13 Defendant.
14 JESSICA J. TUBANDT, AMANDA HENRY,
15 TIARA M. BRAZLE, and TAMARA A. GRUBBS,
16 Plaintiffs/Interveners,
17 vs.
18 GLC RESTAURANTS, INC. d/b/a
19 MCDONALD’S RESTAURANT, an Arizona corporation, STEVEN ALAN EHRESMAN and
20 SHARI LOUISE EHRESMAN, husband and wife; CINDY KEPPEL and JOHN DOE
21 KEPPEL, wife and husband,

Case No. CV05-618 PCT-DGC STIPULATED JUDGMENT

22

Defendants.

23

In the interests of resolving the remaining state law claims for this matter under

24 the “Amended Complaint of Plaintiffs/Interveners Tubandt, Henry, Brazle and

25 Grubbs” (Dkt. #58; Counts 6 and 8 regarding assault and battery) by

26 Plaintiffs/Interveners JESSICA J. TUBANDT, AMANDA HENRY, TIARA M. BRAZLE

1 AND TAMARA A. GRUBBS (“Plaintiffs/Interveners”) against Defendants STEVEN

2 ALAN EHRESMAN and SHARI LOUISE EHRESMAN (“Defendants Ehresman”), and

3 with full disclosure to the Court of the attached “Agreement to Consent to Judgment

4 and Covenant Not to Execute Judgment” and “Assignment” resulting from said

5 Parties’ comprehensive settlement negotiations, Plaintiffs/Interveners and

6 Defendants Ehresman, by and through their respective counsel undersigned, hereby

7 stipulate and agree to the Court’s entry of this Stipulated Judgment:

8

IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED:

9

1. Jessica J. Tubandt is awarded as against Defendants Steven Alan

10 Ehresman and Shari Louise Ehresman, husband and wife, and each of them, the

11 principal sum of Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($250,000), which sum shall

12 bear interest at the rate of 4.93% (as authorized pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a))

13 from the date of this Judgment’s entry until paid in full.

14

2. Amanda Henry is awarded as against Defendants Steven Alan

15 Ehresman and Shari Louise Ehresman, husband and wife, and each of them, the

16 principal sum of Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($250,000), which sum shall

17 bear interest at the rate of 4.93% (as authorized pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a))

18 from the date of this Judgment’s entry until paid in full.

19

3. Tiara M. Brazle is awarded as against Defendants Steven Alan

20 Ehresman and Shari Louise Ehresman, husband and wife, and each of them, the

21 principal sum of Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($250,000), which sum shall

22 bear interest at the rate of 4.93% (as authorized pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a))

23 from the date of this Judgment’s entry until paid in full.

24

4. Tamara A. Grubbs is awarded as against Defendants Steven Alan

25 Ehresman and Shari Louise Ehresman, husband and wife, and each of them, the

26 principal sum of Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($250,000), which sum shall

2

1 bear interest at the rate of 4.93% (as authorized pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a))

2 from the date of this Judgment’s entry until paid in full.

3

5. Pursuant to rulings made under this Court’s October 26, 2006 “Order”

4 (Dkt. #212), all other state law counts and claims of Plaintiffs/Interveners’ Amended

5 Complaint (Dkt. #58) against Defendants Ehresman (Counts 4 and 10) are dismissed

6 with prejudice.

7

DATED this 21st day of March, 2007.

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16 APPROVED AND CONSENTED TO BY:

17

18

s/James L. Blair James L. Blair

s/Milton W. Hathaway, Jr. Milton W. Hathaway, Jr.

19

N. Todd McKay RENAUD, COOK, DRURY, MESAROS

MURPHY, LUTEY, SCHMITT & FUCHS PO Box 591

20

One North Central Avenue, Suite 900 Phoenix, AZ 85004-4417

Prescott, AZ 86302-0591

21 Attorneys for Defendants Ehresman

Attorneys for Plaintiffs/interveners

22

23

24

25

26

3

 
 1

2

Milton W. Hathaway, Jr.

AZ State Bar No. 005442

3

milthathaway@qwest.net

MURPHY, LUTEY, SCHMITT & FUCHS, P.L.L.C.

4

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

ELKS BUILDING, 117 E. GURLEY STREET

POST OFFICE BOX 591

5

PRESCOTT, ARIZONA 86302-0591 (928) 445-6860

6 Attorneys for Plaintiffs/Interveners Tubandt, Henry, Brazle and Grubbs
7

8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

10

Equal Employment Opportunity

)

11 Commission,

) No. CV05-618 PCT-DGC

)

12

Plaintiffs,

)

)

13

vs.

)

AMENDED COMPLAINT OF

) PLAINTIFFS/INTERVENERS TUBANDT,

14 GLC Restaurants, Inc. d/b/a McDonald’s )

Restaurant, an Arizona corporation,

)

HENRY, BRAZLE AND GRUBBS

15

)

Defendant.

)

16

)

_________________________________ )

17 Jessica J. Tubandt, Amanda Henry, Tiara )

M. Brazle, and Tamara A. Grubbs,

)

18

)

Plaintiffs/Interveners

)

19

)

vs.

)

20

)

GLC Restaurants, Inc. d/b/a McDonald’s )

21 Restaurant, an Arizona corporation;

)

Steven Alan Ehresman and Shari Louise )

22 Ehresman, husband and wife; Cindy

)

Keppel and John Doe Keppel, wife and

)

23 husband,

)

)

24

Defendants.

)

__________________________________ )

25

26

1

Plaintiffs Jessica J. Tubandt, Amanda Henry, Tiara M. Brazle and Tamara A. Grubbs,

2 for their causes of action against Defendant, allege as follows:

3

PARTIES

4

1. Jessica J. Tubandt is a single woman and is a resident of Yavapai County,

5 Arizona.

6

2. Amanda Henry is a single woman and is a resident of Yavapai County, Arizona.

7

3. Tiara M. Brazle is a single woman and is a resident of Maricopa County, Arizona.

8

4. Tamara A. Grubbs is a single woman and is a resident of Yavapai County,

9 Arizona.

10

5. Defendant GLC Restaurants, Inc., d/b/a McDonald’s Restaurant (hereinafter

11 “McDonald’s”), is an Arizona corporation authorized to and doing business in the state of

12 Arizona.

13

6. Defendants Steven A. Ehresman and Shari Louise Ehresman are husband and

14 wife and are residents of Yavapai County, Arizona.

15

7. All acts and/or obligations of Defendant, Steven A. Ehresman, hereinafter set

16 forth, were committed and/or incurred on behalf of the marital community of Steven A.

17 Ehresman and Shari Louise Ehresman, which is, therefore, responsible for same.

18

8. Defendants Cindy Keppel and John Doe Keppel are wife and husband and are

19 residents of Yavapai County, Arizona.

20

9. All acts and/or obligations of Defendant Cindy Keppel hereinafter set forth, were

21 committed and/or incurred on behalf of the marital community of Cindy Keppel and John Doe

22 Keppel, which is, therefore, responsible for same.

23

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

24

10. This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ Title VII claims against Defendant

25 McDonald’s pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1337, 1343 and 1345 and 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e

26 et seq.

2

1

11. This court has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state common law claims against

2 Defendants McDonald’s, Ehresman and Keppel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

3

12. Defendants McDonald’s, Ehresman and Keppel and/or their agents, servants or

4 employees all acted in Yavapai County, Arizona, or caused events to occur in Yavapai County,

5 Arizona out of which Plaintiffs’ claims arise and, therefore, venue is proper in this Court.

6

STATEMENT OF CLAIMS

7

13. Defendant McDonald’s owns and operates several McDonald’s Restaurants in

8 northern Arizona, including the McDonald’s Restaurant located in Cordes Junction, Arizona,

9 and at all times material hereto has had at least 15 employees.

10

14. Plaintiff Jessica J. Tubandt is currently 19 years old and began working at

11 Defendant McDonald’s Cordes Junction Restaurant, her first job, on or about May 2002.

12

15. Plaintiff Amanda Henry is currently 19 years old and began working at Defendant

13 McDonald’s Cordes Junction Restaurant, her first job, on or about July 2002.

14

16. Plaintiff Tiara M. Brazle is currently 18 years old and began working at Defendant

15 McDonald’s Cordes Junction Restaurant, her first job, on or about August 2002.

16

17. Plaintiff Tamara Grubbs is currently 18 years old and began working at

17 Defendant McDonald’s Cordes Junction Restaurant, her first job, on or about September 2000.

18

18. Defendant Steven A. Ehresman, at all material times hereto, was employed as

19 an Assistant Manager in a supervisory capacity by Defendant McDonald’s.

20

19. In his capacity as Assistant Manager, Defendant Steven A. Ehresman, had

21 supervisory responsibility over Plaintiffs and other subordinate employees which responsibility

22 included various human resource functions, such as hiring, training, scheduling, discipline, job

23 assignment, and firing of these employees.

24

20. In his capacity as Assistant Manager and supervisor of subordinates, Defendant

25 Steven A. Ehresman worked in close proximity with his subordinate employees, including

26 Plaintiffs herein.

3

1

21. All actions of Defendant Steven A. Ehresman alleged herein, were in furtherance

2 of, on behalf of the interest of and within the scope of his employment with his employer

3 Defendant McDonald’s.

4

22. Defendant Cindy Keppel at all material times hereto was employed as a Manager

5 by Defendant McDonald’s.

6

23. In her capacity as Manager, Defendant Cindy Keppel had supervisory

7 responsibility over Plaintiffs, Defendant Steven A. Ehresman and others. In her capacity as

8 manager, Defendant Cindy Keppel was responsible for the assignment of job functions for

9 Defendant Steven A. Ehresman.

10

24. Beginning in the latter part of 2001, and continuing through September, 2002,

11 Defendant Steven A. Ehresman, in his capacity as Assistant Manager for Defendant

12 McDonald’s, engaged in constant illegal, inappropriate, and/or offensive conduct toward

13 Plaintiffs, and others, which included, but was not limited to, the following acts:

14

(a) placing his hand and arm over Plaintiff Tiara M. Brazle‘s right shoulder and

15 groping her right breast;

16

(b) standing close to Plaintiff Tiara M. Brazle so that his leg and/or body rubbed

17 against her leg and/or body;

18

(c) grabbing and rubbing Plaintiff Tiara M. Brazle’s hands while she made change

19 for the cash register;

20

(d) massaging and rubbing the shoulders of Plaintiff Amanda Henry;

21

(e) slapping the thighs of Plaintiff Amanda Henry;

22

(f) rubbing the belly of Plaintiff Amanda Henry;

23

(g) placing his hands in the pants pocket of Plaintiff Tamara A. Grubbs;

24

(h) grabbing the hands of Plaintiff Tamara A. Grubbs;

25

(i) grabbing the hands of Plaintiff Jessica J. Tubandt;

26

4

1

(j) touching Plaintiff Jessica J. Tubandt around her waist;

2

(k) rubbing the stomach of Plaintiff Jessica J. Tubandt;

3

(l) rubbing the sides of Plaintiff Jessica J. Tubandt; and

4

(m) massaging the shoulders of Plaintiff Jessica J. Tubandt.

5

25. From late 2001 to September 2002, Defendant Steven A. Ehresman, in his

6 capacity as an assistant manager of Defendant McDonald’s, engaged in illegal, inappropriate

7 and/or offensive verbal communications directed at Plaintiffs which included, but was not

8 limited to:

9

(a) a statement to Plaintiff Tamara A. Grubbs when she pulled out her pants pocket,

10 that Mr. Ehresman wanted to “lick between the bunny ears”;

11

(b) a statement to Plaintiff Tamara A. Grubbs that she had “beautiful hands”;

12

(c) repeated questions to Plaintiff Amanda Henry asking whether she had a

13 boyfriend;

14

(d) comments by Steven A. Ehresman to Plaintiff Tiara M. Brazle that she had

15 “pretty hair”;

16

(e) statements to Plaintiff Jessica J. Tubandt that Steven A. Ehresman wanted to

17 “bend her over and spank her”;

18

(f) a statement to Plaintiff Jessica J. Tubandt that Steven A. Ehresman “liked her”;

19

(g) a statement to Plaintiff Jessica J. Tubandt that Steven A. Ehresman wanted to

20 “lay her down and spread her legs open”.

21

26. In late 2001 to September 2002, Steven A. Ehresman, in his capacity as an

22 assistant manager of Defendant McDonald’s, engaged in illegal, inappropriate and offensive

23 physical and verbal conduct involving those other than Plaintiffs, some in Plaintiffs’ presence,

24 which included, but was not limited to:

25

(a) regular incidents of hugging of co-employees;

26

5

1

(b) regular incidents of kissing of co-employees;

2

(c) whispering in the ears of female co-employees;

3

(d) constant “dirty” talking and/or telling dirty jokes loud enough for other employees,

4 including Plaintiffs, and even customers to hear;

5

(e) placing his hands in the pockets of the shirts and pants of other female co-

6 employees;

7

(f) numerous references to oral sex;

8

(g) rubbing/holding hands of other female co-employees;

9

(h) a statement made to a female co-employee, in the presence of a customer, that

10 he wanted the employee to jump up on the counter so he could have her for lunch.

11

27. Plaintiffs and/or Plaintiffs’ parents reported to Plaintiffs’ supervisors, including

12 Defendant Cindy Keppel, illegal, inappropriate and/or offensive conduct of Defendant Steven

13 A. Ehresman directed toward Plaintiffs and others. Defendants McDonald’s and Cindy Keppel

14 did nothing in response and assisted and allowed the actions to continue.

15

28. At least one customer complained of the inappropriate verbal conduct of

16 Defendant Steven A. Ehresman. This complaint was referred to an assistant manager of

17 Defendant McDonald’s, and this customer’s complaint was referred by this assistant manager

18 to supervisors including Defendant Cindy Keppel. Defendants McDonald’s and Cindy Keppel

19 did nothing in response and assisted and allowed the actions to continue.

20

29. Based upon the nature and frequency of the illegal, inappropriate and/or

21 offensive conduct of Defendant Steven A. Ehresman, and/or based upon reports to

22 Defendants McDonald’s and Cindy Keppel, Defendants McDonald’s and Cindy Keppel were

23 actually aware of and/or should have been aware of the illegal, inappropriate and/or offensive

24 conduct of Defendant Steven A. Ehresman.

25

26

6

1

30. Prior to working at the restaurant at Cordes Junction, Arizona, owned by

2 Defendant McDonald’s, Defendant Steven A. Ehresman was employed by Defendant

3 McDonald’s in at least one other restaurant owned by Defendant McDonald’s.

4

31. Prior to his employment at the restaurant in Cordes Junction, Arizona, owned by

5 Defendant McDonald’s, Defendant Steven A. Ehresman, while employed by Defendant

6 McDonald’s at another of its restaurants, engaged in similar illegal, inappropriate and offensive

7 conduct toward his subordinates.

8

32. Defendant McDonald’s was informed and aware of Defendant Steven A.

9 Ehresman’s propensity to commit illegal, inappropriate and offensive conduct toward his

10 subordinates, even before he began working at the restaurant in Cordes Junction, Arizona,

11 owned by Defendant McDonald’s.

12

33. Upon information and belief, Defendant Cindy Keppel was informed and aware

13 of Defendant Steven A. Ehresman’s propensity to commit illegal, inappropriate and offensive

14 conduct toward his subordinates, even before he began working at the restaurant in Cordes

15 Junction, Arizona, owned by Defendant McDonald’s.

16

34. As a direct and proximate result of the wrongful acts of Defendants and each of

17 them , as more fully alleged below, Plaintiffs have suffered injuries to their persons, causing

18 physical and mental pain and suffering, mental anguish, diminished quality of life, and a loss

19 of past and future earnings and income.

20

35.

The actions of Defendants alleged herein were consciously pursued by

21 Defendants to serve their own interests knowing that it created a substantial risk of harm to

22 Plaintiffs and/or those actions were motivated by spite and/or ill will and support an award of

23 punitive damages against all Defendants.

24

COUNT 1

25

36. Plaintiffs incorporate all paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth

26 herein.

7

1

37. Plaintiffs timely filed charges with the United States Equal Employment

2 Opportunities Commission (“EEOC”) on or about March 17, 2003.

3

38. The actions of Steven A. Ehresman alleged herein were severe, pervasive,

4 created an abusive and hostile work environment, and constituted sexual harassment in

5 violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. for which Defendant McDonald’s is responsible.

6

39. Defendant McDonald’s actually knew and/or should have known of the illegal,

7 inappropriate and/or offensive conduct of Steven A. Ehresman failed to warn Plaintiffs, and

8 others similarly situated, failed to take any steps to prevent that conduct and, in fact, knowingly

9 allowed that conduct to continue in violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq.

10

40. In failing to warn Plaintiffs and failing to take appropriate steps to prevent the

11 conduct of Steven A. Ehresman, and in knowingly allowing that conduct to continue,

12 Defendant McDonald’s was negligent, and grossly so, and this negligence is a violation of 42

13 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq.

14

41. Defendant McDonald’s failed to investigate reports of Steven A. Ehresman ‘s

15 illegal, inappropriate and offensive conduct toward Plaintiffs, failed to disseminate and enforce

16 an appropriate anti-harassment policy and complaint procedure and, in fact, ignored the

17 complaints of Plaintiffs and others, and failed to take appropriate action against Steven A.

18 Ehresman after receiving reports of his illegal, inappropriate and offensive conduct toward

19 Plaintiffs and this is a violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq.

20

42. The unlawful employment practices complained of above were and are intentional

21 and done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Jessica

22 Tubandt, Amanda Henry, Tiara Brazle and Tamara Grubbs and support an award of punitive

23 damages.

24

43. As a direct and proximate result of the wrongful acts of Defendant, Plaintiffs have

25 suffered injuries to their persons, causing physical and mental pain and suffering, mental

26 anguish, diminished quality of life, and a loss of past and future earnings and income.

8

1 Because of the wrongful acts of Defendant, Plaintiff Tiara Brazle was forced to resign her

2 employment and was constructively discharged.

3

COUNT 2

4

44. Plaintiffs incorporate all paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth

5 herein.

6

45. Defendant McDonald’s knew or reasonable should have known of Defendant

7 Steven A. Ehresman’s dangerous and exploitive propensities and/or that Defendant Steven

8 A. Ehresman was an unfit agent and, despite such knowledge, Defendant McDonald’s

9 negligently employed, retained, failed to properly supervise and/or failed to monitor Defendant

10 Steven A. Ehresman and failed to provide adequate warning to Plaintiffs or their families and,

11 therefore, allowed Defendant Steven A. Ehresman to commit the wrongful acts against

12 Plaintiffs and others alleged above.

13

COUNT 3

14

46. Plaintiffs incorporate all paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth

15 herein.

16

47. The action and inaction of Defendant McDonald’s and Defendant McDonald’s

17 agents, knowing of the dangerous propensities and unfitness of Defendant Steven A.

18 Ehresman, was both extreme and outrageous.

19

48. Defendant McDonald’s acted in reckless disregard of the near certainty that

20 physical injury and emotional distress would result to Plaintiffs and others by ignoring the clear

21 risk of harm to Plaintiffs and others, ignoring the complaints of Plaintiffs and others and

22 thereby allowed Defendant Steven A. Ehresman to continue his illegal, inappropriate and

23 offensive conduct toward Plaintiffs and others thereby intentionally inflicting emotional distress

24 upon Plaintiffs.

25

26

9

1

COUNT 4

2

49. Plaintiffs incorporate all paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth

3 herein.

4

50. In engaging in the acts earlier described and others, Defendant Steven A.

5 Ehresman committed the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress as against all

6 Plaintiffs.

7

COUNT 5

8

51. Plaintiffs incorporate all paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth

9 herein.

10

52. McDonald’s is vicariously liable for the acts of Defendant Steven A. Ehresman

11 in committing the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress as against all Plaintiffs.

12

COUNT 6

13

53. Plaintiffs incorporate all paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth

14 herein.

15

54. In engaging in the acts earlier described and others, Defendant Steven A.

16 Ehresman committed the tort of assault as against all Plaintiffs.

17

COUNT 7

18

55. Plaintiffs incorporate all paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth

19 herein.

20

56. Defendant McDonald’s is vicariously liable for the acts of Defendant Steven A.

21 Ehresman in committing the tort of assault as against all Plaintiffs.

22

COUNT 8

23

57. Plaintiffs incorporate all paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth

24 herein.

25

58. In engaging in the acts earlier described and others, Defendant Steven A.

26 Ehresman committed the tort of battery as against all Plaintiffs.

10

1

COUNT 9

2

59. Plaintiffs incorporate all paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth

3 herein.

4

60. Defendant McDonald’s is vicariously liable for the acts of Defendant Steven A.

5 Ehresman in committing the tort of battery as against all Plaintiffs.

6

COUNT 10

7

61. Plaintiffs incorporate all paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth

8 herein.

9

62. In engaging in the acts earlier described and others, Defendant Steven A.

10 Ehresman tortiously interfered with Plaintiffs’ contractual employment rights as against all

11 Plaintiffs.

12

COUNT 11

13

63. Plaintiffs incorporate all paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth

14 herein.

15

64. In engaging in the acts earlier described and others, Defendant Cindy Keppel

16 is liable for tortiously interfering with Plaintiffs’ contractual employment rights as against all

17 Plaintiffs.

18

COUNT 12

19

65. Plaintiffs incorporate all paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth

20 herein.

21

66. In engaging in the acts earlier described and others, Defendant Cindy Keppel

22 tortiously aided and abetted and/or acted in concert with Defendant Steven A. Ehresman with

23 respect to his wrongful conduct and is responsible therefor as against all Plaintiffs.

24

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request judgment against Defendant McDonald’s as follows:

25

A. For their statutorily allowed damages at the maximum limit allowed by 42 U.S.C.

26 §§ 2000e, et seq.;

11

1

B. For a fair and reasonable amount as determined by the trier of fact to

2 compensate Plaintiffs for their respective general and special damages;

3

C. For punitive damages against Defendant, to prevent similar future conduct and

4 to make an example of Defendant;

5

D. For the reasonable costs incurred herein;

6

E. For their attorneys’ fees incurred herein; and

7

F. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

8

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

9

Plaintiffs request a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by their Complaint.

10

MURPHY, LUTEY SCHMITT & FUCHS, P.L.L.C.

11

12

By s/ Milton W. Hathaway, Jr.

Milton W. Hathaway, Jr.

13

P.O. Box 591

Prescott, Arizona 86302

14

Attorneys for Plaintiffs/Interveners

Tubandt, Henry, Brazle and Grubbs

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

12

 
 1 WO

2

3

4

5

6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8 Equal Employment Opportunity
9 Commission,

) ) )

10

Plaintiff,

) )

11

vs.

) )

12 13 14 15

GLC Restaurants, Inc. d/b/a McDonald’s Restaurant, an Arizona corporation,

) ) )

Defendant. _________________________________ Jessica J. Tubandt, Amanda Henry, Tiara M. Brazle, and Tamara A. Grubbs,

) ) ) ) )

16 17 18

Plaintiffs/Intervenors, vs.

) ) )

GLC Restaurants, Inc. d/b/a McDonald’s Restaurant , an Arizona corporation,

) ) )

19

Defendant.

) )

20

)

CV 05-0618 PCT DGC O R D E R

21

Pending before the Court are Defendants’ motions for summary judgment and motions

22 to strike. Dkt. ##149, 152, 163, 135, 138, 178, 204. For the reasons set forth below, the

23 Court will grant in part a nd deny in part Defendants’ m otions for summary judgment and

24 deny Defendants’ motions to strike as moot.1

25

26

27

1The Court will deny the request for oral argument because it will not aid the Court’s

decisional process. See Mahon v. Credit Bur. of Placer County, Inc., 171 F.3d 1197, 1200 28 (9th Cir. 1999).

1 I. Background.

2

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) brings this suit on behalf

3 of Tamara Grubbs, Amanda Henry, Jessica Tubandt, Tiara Brazle and a class of four other

4 women – Charlene Hannah, Mary Hellm an, Dianna Candelaria , and Candice Jackson-

5 Hannah. Dkt. #1. Defendant is GLC Restaurants, Inc. (“GLC”). The EEOC claim s the

6 women were subjected to a hostile work environment by GLC in violation of Title VII of the

7 Civil Rights Act of 1964 due to sexual harassment.2 The harassment allegedly was caused

8 primarily by assistant m anager Steven Ehresm an and took place at the Cordes Junction

9 McDonald’s Restaurant between January, 2001 and September, 2002. Additionally, the four

10 named plaintiffs in the EEOC complaint filed suit as Plaintiff-Intervenors, alleging state law

11 claims against GLC, store manager Cindy Keppel, and Ehresman.3 Dkt. #58.

12

The record shows that Ehresman began working for GLC in its Campe Verde store

13 in March 1998. Plaintiffs’ Joint Statement of Material Facts (“PSF”), Dkt. # 196, ¶ 3. After

14 receiving numerous complaints of inappropriate behavior toward female employees, GLC

15 transferred Ehresman to its Cordes Junction store in December 2000. PSF ¶ 34. Plaintiffs

16 allege that, beginning in January, 2001, Ehresman exhibited inappropriate behavior toward

17 female employees, including touching their waists, stomachs, breasts, and backs, as well as

18 putting his hands in their pockets, rubbing against them , and m aking inappropriate

19 comments. Dkt. #1 at 3. Plaintiffs allege that they reported Ehre sman’s conduct to

20 supervisors, including Cindy Keppel, who did little in response until GLC finally terimnated

21 Ehresman in September of 2002 for an incident in which he allegedly touched Brazle’s

22

23

2In its Complaint, the EEOC claims GLC “violated Title VII by discriminating against

24

[female employees] on the basis of their sex, female, and creating a hostile work environment because of sex.” Dkt. #1, ¶11. None of the pleadings indicate that the EEOC is pursuing a

25 disparate treatment claim or a claim based on discrete discriminatory acts. Thus, the Court

deems EEOC’s sole argument to be that the sexual harassment or discrimination caused the 26 hostile work environment.

27

3The Court will refer to both the EEOC and Plaintiff-Intervenors, who brought the

28 state-law claims discussed in Part IV of this order, as Plaintiffs.

- 2 -

1 breast. Dkt. #58 at 6. This unresponsivene ss forms the basis of EEOC’s hostile work

2 environment claim as well as Plaintiffs’ twelve-count complaint.

3 II. Legal Standard for Summary Judgment.

4

Summary judgment is appropriate if the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable

5 to the nonmoving party, “show[s] that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and

6 that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); see

7 Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986). “Only disputes over facts that might

8 affect the outcome of the suit . . . will properly preclude the entry of sum mary judgment.”

9 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). The disputed evidence must be

10 “such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonm oving party.” Id. at 248.

11 Summary judgment may be entered against a party who “fails to make a showing sufficient

12 to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s case, and on which that party

13 will bear the burden of proof at trial.” Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322.

14 III. Title VII Claims.

15

A. Timing.

16

GLC argues that som e of the EEOC’s Title VII claims are time-barred. Title VII

17 requires a plaintiff raising a hostile work environment claim to file a charge within 300 days

18 of any act that is part of the hostile work environment. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1);see Nat’l

19 Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 116-17 (2002). A plaintiff’s failure to

20 file a timely complaint forfeits her right to bring a claim at a later time. Id. at 109.

21

The time requirements for hostile work environment claims are less stringent than the

22 requirements for claims of discrete discriminatory acts because hostile work environm ent

23 claims are “composed of a series of separate acts that collectively constitute one ‘unlawful

24 employment practice.’” Id. at 117 (citation omitted). Hostile work environment claims “will

25 not be time barred so long as all acts which contsitute the claim are part of the same unlawful

26 employment practice and at least one act falls within the time period.” Id. at 122.

27

The EEOC alleges a hostile work environm ent on behalf of eight people it claims

28 were harassed from January, 2001 to Septem ber, 2002. The four nam ed Plaintiffs filed

- 3 -

1 charges with the EEOC on March 17 and 20, 2003. Under Title VII, the EEOC can assert

2 hostile work environment claims on behalf of these individuals only if at least one of the acts

3 that contributes to the hostile work environment occurred within the 300 days that preceded

4 those filings – that is, after May 21 and 24, 2002, respectively. Individual claims based on

5 acts that occurred before that period are time-barred.

6

Class members Charlene Hannah and Mary Hellman allege harassment that occurred

7 entirely before May 21, 2002. 4 PSF ¶¶ 6-7, 16, 51, 54. Neithe r filed a charge with the

8 EEOC. The EEOC argues, nevertheless, that as long as some harassment directed toward

9 some of the plaintiffs occurred within 300 days of the filing of the charge, it can bring suit

10 on behalf of any Plaintiff, even if that Plaintiff did not experience harassm ent within the

11 300-day period. In support, the EEOC cites EEOC v. Local 350 Plumbers and Pipefitters,

12 which allowed a challenge to a union’s allegedly discrim inatory policy using evidence of

13 discrimination both within and outside the 300-day period. 998 F.2d 641, 644-45 (9th Cir.

14 1993). Reliance on this case is misplaced, however, because the evidence of discrimination

15 outside the 300-day period was used only to support the claims of a plaintiff who had alleged

16 discrimination within the 300-day period. Local 350 differs from this case, in which the

17 EEOC attempts to use some Plaintiffs’ timely charges to support othe r Plaintiffs’ entirely

18 untimely claims.

19

The EEOC next argues that because it m ay seek class-wide relief without being

20 subject to the class action requirem ents of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, it has the

21 authority to bring suit on behalf of any aggrieved individual, no m

atter when the

22 discrimination occurred. Dkt. #193 at 11 (discussing General Telephone Co. of the

23 Northwest, Inc. v EEOC, 446 U.S. 318, 331 (1980)). The EEOC is correct that it has broader

24 standing than a private class representative, but its standing is not unlimited. The two cases

25 the EEOC cites in support are distinguishable. While EEOC v. Gurnee Inn Corp. stated in

26

27

4The record is unclear as to when during 2002 Tamara Grubbs was harassed. There

is the possibility that she was harassed after May 21, 2002. If it is proven that she was not

28 harassed after May 21, 2002, her claims will be time-barred.

- 4 -

1 a footnote that the EEOC’s standing is “not limited to discriminations that the charging party

2 had standing to raise,” it specifically noted that the defendant had not raised a tim eliness

3 challenge to plaintiffs’ discrimination claims. 914 F.2d 815, 819 n.6 (7th Cir. 1990). The

4 second case, an unpublished distr ict court case from Wisconsin, does not involve hostile

5 work environment claims, but instead deals withbackpay awards for discrimination in hiring.

6 See EEOC v. Newspapers, Inc., 39 Fair Empl. Prac. Case (BNA) 891 (E.D. Wis. 1985).

7

The EEOC next cites Morgan for the proposition, with which this Court agrees, that

8 “for the charge to be timely, the employee need only file a charge within . . . 300 days of any

9 act that is part of the hostile work environment.” 536 U.S. at 118. Morgan, however, dealt

10 with the same plaintiff alleging discriminatory behavior both before and after the beginning

11 of the 300-day lim itations period. Id. at 122. Morgan does not support the EEOC’s

12 argument that discrim ination toward Charlene Hannah and Mary Hellm an, though not

13 occurring after May 21, 2002, is ac tionable because the claim s of other class m embers

14 involve discrimination occurring after that date. This argument is unsupported by existing

15 case law. The Court accordingly concludes that the EEOC’s hostile work environm ent

16 claims on behalf of Charlene Hannah and Mary Hellman are time-barred.

17

The hostile work environm ent claims of class me mbers Dianna Candelaria and

18 Candice Jackson-Hannah are not barred. Even though they did not file charges with the

19 EEOC, some of the misconduct they allege on the part of GLC occurred after May 21, 2002.

20 See Williams v. Owens-Illinois, Inc., 665 F.2d 918, 923 (9th Cir. 1982) (finding non-filing

21 class members governed by the statute of limitations of class representatives).

22

Defendants argue that the statement in Plaintiffs’ amended complaint that the alleged

23 harassment did not begin until late 2001 is a judicial admission that no harassment occurred

24 before 2001, and, therefore, that any events occurring before 2001 may not be considered by

25 the Court. Dkt. #58, ¶ 24. The Court rejects this argument. The Plaintiffs’ complaint was

26 merely stating that Grubbs, Tubandt, Brazle,and Henry were not harassed before late 2001.

27 Nothing in the complaint is an admission that GLC or Ehresm an did not violate Title VII

28 before late 2001. Indeed, the EEOC’s complaint alleges harassment beginning in January

- 5 -

1 2001. Dkt. #1 at 3. Therefore, to the extent that events occurring before late 2001 are

2 relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims that are not time-barred, such events will be permitted.

3

The Court will grant summary judgment to GLC on the claims of Charlene Hannah

4 and Mary Hellman.

5

B. Hostile Work Environment.

6

1. Prima Facie Case.

7

To prevail on a Title VII hostile work environment claim, a plaintiff must show that

8 (1) she was subjected to verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature, (2) the conduct was

9 unwelcome, and (3) the conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions

10 of her employment and create an abusive work environment. See Vasquez v. County of Los

11 Angeles, 349 F.3d 634, 642 (9 th Cir. 2003). To determ ine whether the conduct was

12 sufficiently severe or pervasive, courts look a t all the circum stances, “including the

13 frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or

14 humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with an

15 employee’s work performance.” Faragher v. City of Boca Raton , 524 U.S. 775, 787-88

16 (1998) (internal quotations omitted).

17

The Ninth Circuit has held that “the required showing of severity or seriousness of the

18 harassing conduct varies inversely with the pervasiveness or frequency of the conduct.”

19 Ellison v. Brady, 924 F.2d 872, 878 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing King v. Bd. of Regents of Univ.

20 of Wis. Sys., 898 F.2d 533, 537 (7th Cir. 1990)). Thus, multiple acts that individually might

21 not create a hostile work environment may cumulatively amount to a violation of Title VII.

22 Prior incidents of which a plaintiff is unaware cannot contribute to a hostile work

23 environment with respect to that plaintiff. Brooks, 229 F.3d at 924.

24

A reasonable jury could find that the alleged harassment in this case was severe and

25 pervasive toward the six Plaintiffs whose claims are not time-barred. Tubandt alleges that

26 Ehresman touched her waist, massaged her, put his hands in her pockets, lifted up her shirt

27 and touched her belly. PSF ¶¶ 144-170. On one occasion, he told her he wanted to spank

28 her. On another, he told her he wanted to lay her down and spread her legs open. Id. at

- 6 -

1 ¶ 158. The harassm ent continued even after she asked him to stop and reported him to

2 supervisors. Id.

3

Henry alleges that Ehresman touched her shoulder, hand, belly, back, sides, and thigh,

4 and claims she asked himseveral times to stop. Id. at ¶ 187-89, 198. She complained to shift

5 manager Joe Hubbard, who told her he would report the incidents and then said he had gone

6 to upper management, but “‘as always’ nothing had been done and nothing was going to be

7 done.” Id. at ¶ 193. Henry knew about harassment of other employees and had heard that

8 Keppel never acted on the complaints. Id. at ¶¶ 195, 199-200.

9

Brazle alleges that Ehre sman touched her leg, shoulder, hands, and breast. Id. at

10 ¶¶ 230-276. She claims that she told him to stop and reported his conduct to Keppel. Id. at

11 ¶¶ 247-48. Additionally, she he ard Ehresman touch and address other em ployees

12 inappropriately. Id. at ¶¶ 250-54, 261.

13

Grubbs alleges that Ehresman told her she was pretty, rubbed her hands, touched her

14 hair, rubbed her back, and told dirty jokes in her presence. Id. at ¶ 78. She alleges similar

15 physical contact with other employees with whom she worked, as well as sim ilar pleas to

16 management to correct the problem. Id. at ¶¶ 78-119. At one point, Ehresman reached into

17 her pocket, causing Grubbs to pull out both her pockets. Ehresman then told her he wanted

18 to “lick between the bunny ears.” Id. at ¶ 90. The inappropriate conduct occurred nearly

19 every time she worked with Ehresman. Id. at ¶ 101.

20

Candelaria was significantly older than the other Plaintiffs, but was also subjected to

21 sexual harassment. She heard Ehresman make sexually offensive jokes. Id. at ¶ 283. On at

22 least five occasions, Ehresman stood so close to her that if she m oved she would have to

23 brush against his penis, and every time this happened she would tell himthat he was making

24 her uncomfortable. Id. at ¶¶ 285-86. He made comments about breaking into her house and

25 having sex with her and told her that her buttocks had a “nice shape” and that her breasts

26 were the “perfect size for [his] hands but they’re too much for [his] mouth.” Id. at ¶¶ 287-

27 298. She had heard of others’ complaints and of Keppel’s unresponsiveness. Id. at ¶ 302.

28

- 7 -

1

Jackson-Hannah alleges that employee Juan Cruz would push her into the walk-in

2 freezer, kiss her, touch her, and try to grab her breastsI.d. at ¶¶ 314, 317. She further alleges

3 that Joe Hubbard made sexual comments to her. Id. at ¶¶ 321-22. She claims that part of the

4 reason she did not com plain to m anagement was that she had heard about Ehresm an’s

5 behavior and how GLC had done little to try tostop it until it terminated him in September,

6 2002. Id. at ¶ 319.

7

Taking the facts in the light m ost favorable to Plaintiffs, it is clear that Ehresm an,

8 Cruz, and others engaged in repeated and unwanted sexual advances toward Plaintiffs.

9 Ehresman’s behavior was especially severe in light of the age disparity between himand five

10 of the Plaintiffs. At the time of the allegedharassment, he was between forty-three and forty-

11 five years old, while all Plaintiffs except Candelaria were minors. Taking into account the

12 totality of the circumstances, a reasonable jury could find in the EEOC’s favor on this claim.

13 The Court will deny GLC’s motion for summary judgment on the EEOC’s Title VII claim.

14

2. Faragher/Ellerth Affirmative Defense.

15

When a supervisor is responsible for harassment that results in a tangible employment

16 action, his employer may be held strictly liable for the employee’s unlawful conduct. See

17 Faragher, 524 U.S. at 777; Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742, 765 (1998). If

18 there has not been a tangible employment action, the Faragher/Ellerth affirmative defense

19 is available to the employer. To avail itself of this defense, the employer must show (1) that

20 it exercised reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct harassing behavior, and (2) that

21 the women unreasonably failed to take advantage of a ny preventive or corrective

22 opportunities provided by the defendant or unreasonably failed to otherwise avoid harm. Id.

23 at 765.

24

Whether GLC can satisfy the first prong of theFaragher/Ellerth defense is a question

25 of fact. There is ample evidence in the record from which a reasonable jury could find that

26 GLC failed to correct harassment promptly when it transferred Ehresman instead of firing

27 him, then gave him a final warning, yet merely reprimanded him after the first allegation of

28 harassment in the Cordes Junction store. Plaintiffs’ allegations regarding Ehresm an’s

- 8 -

1 constant harassment of Julie Downing and Holly Procunier at the Camp Verde store between

2 1998 and 2000 are relevant to this inquiry. PSF ¶¶ 6-42. While this evidence may not be

3 used to establish a hostile work environment because none of the Cordes Junction employees

4 knew of Ehresman’s previous harassment, the Ninth Circuit has ruled that “lack of adequate

5 discipline might be a rele vant consideration in assessing the em ployer’s liability once a

6 hostile work environment is shown to exist.” Brooks, 229 F.3d at 925, n.5.

7

Moreover, whether GLC used reasonable care to prevent later harassm ent once it

8 transferred Ehresman to Cordes Junction is also a question of fact. Plaintiffs suggest that the

9 management – regional m anager Eric Colem an, and managers Chaar Boyd, Kathy

10 O’Sullivan, Keppel, and Hubbard – were all at various points apprised of Ehresm an’s

11 behavior in his new capacity as assistantmanager at Cordes Junction. PSF ¶¶ 38-39, 80, 92-

12 96, 102-109, 111, 157, 193-94, 248-50, 262-68, 272, 325-28, 331. From this, a reasonable

13 jury could conclude that GLC fails the first requirement of the affirmative defense. Factual

14 issues preclude the Court from granting summa ry judgment on the basis of the

15 Faragher/Ellerth defense.5

16

C. Constructive Discharge.

17

To prevail on a claim for constructive discharge, a plaintiff must demonstrate “that

18 the abusive working environment became so intolerable that her resignation qualified as a

19 fitting response.” Pennsylvania State Police v. Suders , 542 U.S. 129, 134 (2004).

20 Defendants argue that because Brazle resigned after Ehresm an had been suspended, there

21 were no grounds for her to believe reasonably that allegedly intolerable working conditions

22 would continue. But whether Brazle knew Ehresman had been suspended is a question of

23 fact. Moreover, even if she had known, she dindot know that the suspicion and investigation

24 would result in his dismissal; GLC could have de cided to bring him back to work. Thus,

25

26

27

5Because GLC cannot prevail on the Faragher/Ellerth affirmative defense at the

summary judgment stage, the Court need not decide if a ny Plaintiff suffered a tangible 28 employment action that would preclude use of the affirmative defense.

- 9 -

1 whether Brazle acted reasonably in finding her work environment intolerable is a question

2 that must be resolved by the jury.

3

D. Punitive Damages.

4

For Plaintiffs to recover punitive damages, they must prove that GLC intentionally

5 discriminated with malice or indifference to their federally protected rights. See Kolstad v.

6 American Dental Ass’n, 527 U.S. 526, 534 (1999). The conduct complained of need not be

7 egregious. Rather, the employer may be liable for punitive damages “in any case where it

8 ‘discriminate[s] in the face of a perceived risk that its actions will violate federal law.’”

9 Passantino v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Prods., Inc,. 212 F.3d 493, 515 (9th Cir. 2000)

10 (citing Kolstad, 527 U.S. at 536). An e mployer may escape liability when it undertakes

11 “good faith efforts at T itle VII compliance.” Kolstad, 527 U.S. at 544. Existence of a

12 discrimination policy alone, however, is insufficient. The em ployer must implement the

13 policy. Swinton v. Potomac Corp., 270 F.3d 794, 810-11 (9th Cir. 2001). The Ninth Circuit

14 has stated that Title VII would be undermined if employers could escape punitive damages

15 merely by having a sexual harassment policy that was never implemented. Passantino, 212

16 F.3d at 517.

17

GLC argues that it had a policy against discrimination and claims that it disseminated

18 and explained the policy to its employees. Plaintiffs allege GLC failed to explain its non-

19 discrimination policy to new e mployees, failed to post the “8-in-1" sexual harassm ent

20 prevention poster as required by the company, failed to provide Plaintiffs a sufficient avenue

21 to complain, and failed to train its supervisors according to company policy. See, e.g., PSF

22 ¶¶ 86-87, 139, 141-43, 184, 232, 234, 239. Moreover, there are questions of fact regarding

23 the handling of Plaintiffs’ complaints. Tubandt claims she told manager Chaar Boyd about

24 Ehresman; Henry says she told shift manager Joe Hubbard; Brazle asserts she told Keppel;

25 Grubbs claims she spoke with O’Sullivan, Keppel, and Coleman about Ehresman. Id. at ¶¶

26 80, 92-93, 102, 157, 193-94, 248-50. If Plaintiffs are correct, their complaints fell on deaf

27 ears and GLC did little to stop Ehresman from victimizing them. A jury must decide whether

28 to award punitive damages to Plaintiffs under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981a.

- 10 -

1 IV. Plaintiffs’ State Law Claims.

2

A. Negligent Hiring and Retention - Count II.

3

Plaintiffs contend in Count II of their am ended complaint that GLC “negligently

4 employed, retained, failed to properly supervise and/or failed to monitor [Ehresman] . . . and

5 failed to provide adequate warning to Plaintiffs or their families.” Dkt. # 58, ¶45. “It is well

6 settled that work-related injury claims are generally redressed exclusively under Arizona’s

7 workers’ compensation scheme.” Gamez v. Brush Wellman, Inc., 34 P.3d 375, 378 (Ariz.

8 App. 2001). An exception to this rule e xists when the employee’s injury results from an

9 employer’s willful misconduct, defined as “an act done knowingly and purposely with the

10 direct object of injuring a nother.” A.R.S. §§ 23-1022(A)-(B); Mosakowski v. PSS World

11 Medical, Inc., 329 F.Supp.2d 1112, 1129 (D. Ariz. 2003).

12

The standard for willful m isconduct is high. It is m ore than gross negligence and

13 even excludes some acts of intentional or reckless misconduct. Mosakowski, 329 F.Supp.2d

14 at 1130. In Mosakowski, the plaintiff claimed that the employer defendant had negligently

15 supervised its workplace, resulting in the plaintiff being subjected to a hostile work

16 environment. Id. at 1131. The court concluded that “a negligence claimis precluded by the

17 [Arizona’] worker’s com pensation statutes while a claim for intentional infliction of

18 emotional distress is not precluded.” Id. Concluding tha t “Arizona law precludes an

19 employee from bringing a tort action based on negligent hiring and negligent rete ntion

20 against their employer,” the court granted summary judgment to the employer. Id.

21

Plaintiffs cite Ford v. Revlon for the proposition that inaction by GLC is not an

22 accident that would bring the conduct under the coverage of the worker’s copmensation laws.

23 734 P.2d 580 (Ariz. 1987). They claim “there is no worker’s compensation coverage and,

24 therefore, no preemption.” Dkt. #195 at 7. Yet Plaintiffs present no evidence that they have

25 been denied worker’s com pensation because the conduct was not accidental. Moreover,

26 Ford is inapposite because the claimfor intentional infliction of emotional distress the court

27 addressed required plaintiff to show intent to harm on the part of the employer. Ford, 734

28

- 11 -

1 P.2d at 585. Plaintiffs offer no evidence to support a claim that GLC intentionally tried to

2 harm them.

3

The Court agrees that Plaintiffs’ negligent em ployment and retention claim is

4 preempted by the Arizona worker’s compensation laws. Accordingly, the Court will grant

5 summary judgment to GLC on Count II.

6

B. Vicarious Liability - Counts V, VII, IX.

7

Defendants argue that GLC is not held vicariously liable for the acts of Ehresm an.

8 For an employer to be held liable, an em ployee must have acted within the scope of his

9 employment, been subject to the em ployer’s control or right of control, and acted in

10 furtherance of the employer’s business. State v. Shallock, 941 P.2d 1275, 1281 (Ariz. 1997)

11 (vicarious liability based on Restatement (Second) of Agency § 219 et seq.) Normally, an

12 employee acts within the scope of employment when he performs the kind of work he was

13 hired to perform, his conduct occurs substantially within authorized time and space limits,

14 and his conduct is motivated, at least in part, by a purpose to serve the employer. Id.

15

Defendants claim that Arizona law does not support vicarious liability in a sexual

16 harassment case because such actions are outside the scope of em ployment. See Smith v.

17 American Express Travel Related Serv. Co., 876 P.2d 1166, 1170-71 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994).

18 In Smith, the court affirmed the grant of summary judgment to an employer on a respondeat

19 superior claim after concluding that “no evidence exists fromwhich a reasonable juror could

20 conclude that [the employer] knew about [anindividual’s] sexual misconduct and ratified it.”

21 Id. at 1172. Smith differs fromthis case because Plaintiffs have offered evidence fromwhich

22 a reasonable jury could conclude that GLC knew about Ehresman’s sexual misconduct and

23 failed to act.

24

The Arizona Supreme Court’s decision in Shallock is more instructive. The court

25 acknowledged that sexual harassment activities would never be directly within the scope of

26 employment as no employer would explicitly authorize such behavior. Shallock, 941 P.2d

27 at 1282. Nevertheless, it determined that “many factors are to be considered in determining

28 whether conduct not expressly authorized is so incidental as to be within course and scope

- 12 -

1 [of employment].” Id. (citing the list of factors in Re statement (Second) of Agency §

2 229(2)(a)-(j). Because the employer had known for years about the employee’s on-the-job

3 harassment and had done nothing about it, the court concluded that “a juryimght well choose

4 not to believe claims that these acts were unauthorized and outside the course of employment

5 when the employer permitted them to occur and recur over a long period at its place of

6 business and during business hours.” Id. at 1283. The court reversed the lower court’s grant

7 of summary judgment on the sexual harassment claim.

8

Plaintiffs’ evidence suggests that GLC knew for years that Ehresm an engaged in

9 sexual harassment in the workplace. Even though GLC did not expressly authorize such

10 harassment, a jury might find that Ehresman’s conduct was incidental enough to his work

11 that it falls within the scope of em ployment. The Court w ill deny GLC’s m otion for

12 summary judgment on Counts V, VII, and IX tothe extent that it denies summary judgment

13 to Ehresman on Counts IV, VI, and VIII, respectively. The Court will address each of those

14 counts in turn.

15

C. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress - Count IV.

16

To recover for intentional infliction of em otional distress (“IIED”) in Arizona, a

17 plaintiff must prove that (1) the defendant’s conduct was extrem e and outrageous, (2) the

18 defendant either intended to cause em otional distress or rec klessly disregarded the near

19 certainty that distress would result fromthe conduct, and (3) the conduct caused the plaintiff

20 severe emotional distress. See Lucchesi v. Stimmell, 716 P.2d 1013, 1015-16 (Ariz. 1986)

21 (citing Watts v. Golden Age Nursing Home, 619 P.2d 1032, 1035 (Ariz. 1980)).

22

Under the first elem ent, a plaintiff “m ay recover for [IIED] only where the

23 defendant’s acts are ‘so outrageous in character and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond

24 all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a

25 civilized community.’” Patton v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n of Phoenix, 578 P.2d 152,

26 155 (Ariz. 1978) (quoting Cluff v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 460 P.2d 666, 668 (Ariz. 1969)). It

27 is not enough “that the defendant has acted with an intent which is tortious or even criminal,

28 or that he has intended to inflict em otional distress, or even that his conduct ha s been

- 13 -

1 characterized by ‘malice,’ or a degree of aggravation which would entitle the plaintiff to

2 punitive damages for another tort.” Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 46 cmt. d (1965). It

3 is “extremely rare to find conduc t in the employment context that will rise to the level of

4 outrageousness necessary to provide a basis for recovery for the tort of intentional infliction

5 of emotional distress.” Mintz v. Bell Atlantic Sys. Leasing , 905 P.2d 559, 563 (Ariz. App.

6 1995) (internal citations om itted). Specifically, conduct that cr eates a hostile work

7 environment under Title VII “occurs at a much lower threshold of inappropriate conduct than

8 the threshold required for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress” Stingley v.

9 Arizona, 796 F.Supp. 424, 431 (D. Ariz. 1992); Coffin v. Safeway, No. CV 03-0470-PHX-

10 NVW (D. Ariz. August 25, 2005).

11

Ehresman’s sexual harassment, if as alleged by Plaintiff, was deplorable. It does not,

12 however, fall within “that quite narrow range of ‘extreme and outrageous’ conduct needed

13 to establish a claim of emotional distress.” See Watts, 619 P.2d at 1035.

14

Moreover, Plaintiffs fail to satisfy the third prong of an IIED c laim – that they

15 suffered severe emotional distress. Because “severe emotional distress” isnot readily capable

16 of precise legal definition, Arizona courts appyl a case-by-case analysis with respect to these

17 determinations. See Lucchesi, 716 P.2d at 1016 (citing Midas Muffler Shop v. Ellison, 650

18 P.2d 496, 499 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1982));Lindsey v. Dempsey, 735 P.2d 840, 844 (Ariz. Ct. App.

19 1987). “A line of dem arcation should be drawn between conduct like ly to cause m ere

20 ‘emotional distress’ and that causing ‘severe em otional distress.’” Midas Muffler Shop v.

21 Ellison, 650 P.2d 496, 501 (Ariz. App. 1982). Crying,being stressed and upset, and having

22 headaches is not enough to establish severe harm. Spratt v. Northern Automotive Corp,. 958

23 F.Supp. 456, 461 (D. Ariz. 1996). Nor is difficulty sleeping sufficientM. idas Muffler Shop,

24 650 P.2d at 501. Shock, stress, moodiness, and estrangement from friends and coworkers is

25 not severe. Bodett v. Coxcom, 366 F.3d 736, 747 (9th Cir. 2004). In contrast, anxiety that

26 results in physical symptoms such as high blood pressure, chest pains, fatigue, and dizziness

27 constitutes severe emotional distress. See Ford, 734 P.2d at 583. Anger and depression

28 coupled with physical ailm ents such as headaches a nd hemorrhoids as a result of losing

- 14 -

1 contact with one’s child has also been found to constitute severe em otional distress. See

2 Pankratz v. Willis, 744 P.2d 1182, 1191 (Ariz. App. 1987). To determine whether any of the

3 Plaintiffs raise a viable claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress, it is necessary

4 to examine their individual symptoms.

5

1. Tamara Grubbs:

6

Grubbs asserts that Ehresman’s conduct caused her to suffer fromdepression, dreams

7 of Ehresman touching her, sleeping problem s and eating problem s. S he claims her

8 schoolwork suffered. She received treatment for depression fromher doctor, who prescribed

9 sleeping pills. She was issued a prescription for anti-depressants and referred to a counselor,

10 but did not see the counselor. She claims the dreams occurred in 2001 and 2002 and a few

11 times from 2003-2005. PSF ¶¶ 121-28.

12

2. Jessica Tubandt:

13

Tubandt claims that Ehresman’s conduct caused her not to trust m en and triggered

14 recurrence of a dream that began when her stepfather molested her as a child. She has had

15 the dream ten to fifteen times since leaving GLC. She has lost sleep and occasionally sleeps

16 in her grandmother’s bed. When she workedwith Ehresman, her stomach hurt. Her family

17 suggested she go to a psychiatrist, but she did not. She does not like to work anymore. Id.

18 at ¶¶ 171-181.

19

3. Amanda Henry:

20

Henry alleges that Ehresman’s conduct caused her to become anxious, lose sleep, and

21 dream about Ehresman chasing her. She quit a subsequent job at Sears because Ehresman

22 saw her there and she believed he would com e back. Her fam ily suggested she seek

23 counseling, but she did not. She did not let people touch her for six months after Ehresman

24 was terminated. She had what she believes was a panic attack. Her parents told her she

25 seemed depressed. Id. at ¶¶ 201-06, 218-20.

26

4. Tiara Brazle:

27

Brazle claims that Ehresman’s actions triggered a bloody nose, stomach problems, and

28 vomiting four or five times. She says she is not as outgoing as a result of the harassm ent.

- 15 -

1 Her mother believes she has lost sleep, gainedweight, and not wanted men to touch her. Id.

2 at ¶¶ 277-279.

3

In sum, Plaintiffs’ em otional effects approach the line of dem arcation between

4 emotional distress and severe emotional distress, but they do not cross it. Plaintiffs have

5 cited no cases that have found sim ilar symptoms to rise to the level of severe em otional

6 distress. The Court will grant summary judgment for Ehresman on Count IV and for GLC

7 on Count V.

8

D. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress - Count III.

9

In Arizona, an employer may be held independently liable for intentional infliction

10 of emotional distress for failure to respond to an employee’s charges of sexual harassment

11 even if the individual committing the harassment is not liable. Ford, 734 P.2d at 584. In

12 Ford, the plaintiff com plained about her s upervisor’s behavior to the local plant’s

13 comptroller, three local personnel m anagers, a plant ma nager, and a national hum an

14 resources manager. Id. at 582. The com plaints reached as high as the corporate vice-

15 president, who determined the harassment was not a national problemand should be handled

16 by the local Phoenix plant. Id. Thirteen months after the initial com plaint, the harassing

17 supervisor was issued a letter of censure, but was not otherwise disciplined until he was

18 terminated after the plaintiff attempted suicide as a result of his harassment. Id. at 583.

19

Unlike the corporate defendant inFord, GLC took some steps to discipline Ehresman.

20 It transferred him from Camp Verde to Cordes Junction after employees complained about

21 his behavior. PSF ¶¶ 34-37. GLC then reprimanded him after Charlene Hannah complained

22 about his behavior to Keppel. Id. at ¶¶ 47-51. Finally, it suspended and then terminated him

23 following Brazle’s complaint that he touched her breast. Id. at ¶ 5; Dkt. #193 at 10. These

24 efforts distinguish GLC’s behavior from the employer’s behavior in Ford. While these

25 efforts are insufficient to support summary judgment in favor of GLC on the Title VII claim,

26 they do serve to m itigate the alleged outrageousness of GLC’s actions. The failure to

27 discipline Ehresman sooner m ay have resulted from corporate incom petence or gross

28 negligence, but it does not am ount to conduct that is “so outrageous in characte r and so

- 16 -

1 extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency.”Patton, 578 P.2d at 155.

2 Moreover, as already noted, Plaintiffs’ emotional distress was not severe enough to support

3 an IIED claim. The Court will grant GLC’s motion for summary judgment on Count III.

4

E. Assault/Battery - Counts VI and VIII.

5

Claims for assault and battery must involve contact that would offend a reasonable

6 person. See Revised Arizona Jury Instructions (4th ed.) Intentiona l Torts 1 (Assault), 2

7 (Battery). To prove assault, Plaintiffs must show that Ehresman acted with the intent to (1)

8 cause a harm ful or offensive contact with another person, or (2) cause another person

9 apprehension of an im mediate harmful or offensive contact. See Revised Arizona Jury

10 Instructions (4th ed.) Intentional Torts 1 - Assault (citing to Restatement (Second) of Torts

11 (1965) §§ 21-34); Garcia v. United States, 826 F.2d 806, 810 n.9 (9th Cir. 1987). To prove

12 battery, Plaintiffs must show not only that Ehresm an acted with the intent to (1) cause a

13 harmful or offensive contact with another person, or (2) cause another person apprehension

14 of an immediate harmful or offensive contact, but also that the contact occured.See Revised

15 Arizona Jury Instructions(4th ed.) Intentional Torts2 - Battery (citingRestatement (Second)

16 of Torts (1965) §§ 13-20); Garcia, 826 F.2d at 810 n.9.

17

Ehresman claims that his conduct was “innocuous a nd inherent in every sim ilar

18 working situation.” Dkt. # 149 at 26. That assertion is patently wrong. Each Plaintiff has

19 presented facts that a reasonable jury could use to find that Ehresman assaulted and battered

20 her. While some of Ehresman’s behavior took the formof sexually inappropriate comments

21 that could not meet the elements of battery, his actions also included multiple instances of

22 touching. The evidence shows that the work at GLC could be done without physical contact

23 at all, let alone the unwanted and utterlyinappropriate contact Plaintiffs allege. See, e.g. PSF

24 ¶ 89. The Court will deny summary judgment on Counts VI, VII, VIII, and IX.

25

F. Tortious Interference with Contract - Count X.

26

Plaintiffs claim that Ehresman tortiously interfered with their contracts with GLC by

27 interfering with the expectancy that there would be no sexual harassment on the job. The

28 elements for tortious interference with contract are (1) existence of a valid contractual

- 17 -

1 relationship, (2) knowledge of the relationship on the part of the interferor, (3) intentional

2 interference inducing or causing a breach, (4) resultant dam age to the party whose

3 relationship or expectancy has been disrupted, and (5) proof that the defendant acted

4 improperly. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 766 (adopted by Wagenseller v. Scottsdale

5 Memorial Hospital, 710 P.2d 1025, 1043 (Ariz. 1985)). Ehresman argues that he cannot be

6 held liable because, as an em ployee of GLC, he was not a third party who could interfere

7 with Plaintiffs’ contracts with GLC. See Payne v. Pennzoil Corp., 672 P.2d 1322, 1326-27

8 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983). While Arizona law is not entirely clear on the m atter, Wagenseller

9 stands for the proposition that a person acting in the scope of employment may nonetheless

10 be found liable for tortious interference if his behavior was improper. Ehresman’s conduct

11 was improper, so the question is whether he interfered with a contract or busine

ss

12 expectancy.

13

Plaintiffs claim Ehresman interfered with the business expectancy that they would not

14 be subjected to sexual harassment on the job. They claim that GLC’s employment manual

15 created an expectation that there would be no sexual harassm ent. The Arizona Suprem e

16 Court has held, however, that a statement in an employee handbook “is contractual only if

17 it discloses a prom issory intent or is one that the em ployee could reasonably conclude

18 constituted a commitment by the employer.” Demasse v. ITT Corp., 984 P.2d 1138, 1143

19 (Ariz. 1999). A mere description of present policies is not a promise on which an employee

20 could reasonably rely. Id. Em ployee guidelines generally fall into the non-prom issory

21 category. Id.

22

GLC’s employment handbook notes that sexual harassment is forbidden. Dkt. #159,

23 Ex 2. It encourages em ployees to report incidents of sexual harassm ent and commits to

24 investigate such reports. Id. Nothing in the handbook, however, promises that no employee

25 will ever experience sexual harassm ent. Even if the handbook prom ises to investigate

26 reports, there is no way Ehresm an could have interfered with this expectancy, because he

27 would not have been charged with investigating complaints against himself. Accordingly,

28 the Court will grant summary judgment to Ehresman on Count X.

- 18 -

1

G. Tortious Interference with Contract - Count XI.

2

As noted above, Wagenseller rejected the notion that a supervisor can never be liable

3 for tortious interference with contract. See Wagenseller, 710 P.2d at 1043. Even though a

4 supervisor who acted improperly may be held liable for the tort, Keppel’s inaction does not

5 amount to tortious interference with Plaintiff-Intervenor’s em ployment contracts. As the

6 Ninth Circuit has stated: “[we] are awareof no authority for the counter-intuitive proposition

7 that nonfeasance can amount to interference[.]” Caudle v. Bristow Optical Company, Inc.,

8 224 F.3d 1014, 1024 (9th Cir. 2000) (affirming district court’s grant of directed verdict on

9 interference with contract claim when the evidence showed only that supervisor failed to

10 assist plaintiff to avoid term ination). Nothing in the record indicates that Keppel did

11 anything but fail to discipline Ehresman. While such inaction supports the EEOC’s hostile

12 work environment claim, it does not amount to tortious interference with contract. The Court

13 will grant summary judgment to Keppel on Count XI.

14

H. Aiding and Abetting - Count XII.

15

Aiding and abetting requires that (1) the primary tortfeasor commit a tort that causes

16 injury to the plaintiff, (2) the defendant know that the primary tortfeasor’s act constitutes a

17 breach of duty, and (3) the defendant substantially assist or encourage the primary tortfeasor

18 in achieving the breach. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 876(b) (1979); Wells Fargo Bank

19 v. Arizona Laborers, Teamsters, and Cement Masons Local No. 395 Pension Trust Fun,d38

20 P.3d 12, 23 (Ariz. 2002). Ehresman’s alleged assault and battery of Plaintiffs satisfies the

21 first element. Regarding the second element, it is unclear if Keppel knew that Ehresman’s

22 acts constituted sexual harassment, although that would be a question for the jury. The third

23 element, substantial assistance, requires “more than a little aid.” Wells Fargo, 38 P.3d at 26.

24 Plaintiffs have not provided facts that show that Keppel substantially assisted or encouraged

25 Ehresman in committing the tort. All they allege is that Keppel did not respond to their

26 complaints about Ehresm an. This lack of response m ay mean that Keppel was a poor

27 manager of the Cordes Junction store and m ay help Plaintiffs ove rcome an affirm ative

28

- 19 -

1 defense to their Title VII claim s, but it does not rise to the level of substantial assistance.

2 The Court will grant summary judgment in favor of Keppel on Count XII.

3

I. Punitive Damages.

4

Punitive damages on state claims are appropriate when a defendant acts with an “evil

5 mind” and engages in “consciously m alicious or outrageous acts of m isconduct where

6 punishment and deterrence is both param ount and likely to be achieved.” Linthicum v.

7 Nationwide Life Insurance Co., 723 P.2d 675, 679 (1986). In resolving claims for punitive

8 damages, “[c]ourts consider ‘the nature of the defendant’s conduct, including the

9 reprehensibility of the conduct and the severity of the harm likely to result, as well as the

10 harm that has occurred, the duration of the misconduct, the degree of defendant’s awareness

11 of the harm or risk of harmand any concealment of it.’” Murcott v. Best W. Int’l, Inc,. 9 P.3d

12 1088, 1100 ¶ 68 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002) (citingThompson v. Better-Bilt Aluminum Prods. Co,.

13 832 P.2d 203, 211 (Ariz. 1992)) (internal alterations omitted). The plaintiff must prove the

14 right to punitive damages by clear and convincing evidence. Linthicum, 723 P.2d at 681.

15

Ehresman alleges that because he testified that he did not intend to cause harmto the

16 Plaintiffs, he lacked the requisite evil mind and his acts were not malicious or outrageous.

17 This is a question for the jury. The Plaintiffs’ facts demonstrate that Ehresman had a history

18 of sexual harassment that resulted in his transfer fromCamp Verde to Cordes Junction. He

19 was given a reprimand by Cindy Keppel forgrabbing Charlene Hannah in 2001. PSF ¶¶ 50-

20 51. Yet there is evidence that his harassment never subsided. Each of the Plaintiffs claims

21 that she repeatedly told him to stop harass ing her, yet he continued to do so, despite the

22 obvious impropriety of an adult man harassing minors. A reasonable jury could determine

23 by clear and convincing evidence that Pla intiffs are entitled to punitive dam ages from

24 Ehresman.

25

With regards to GLC, however, nothing in the record indicates that the com pany

26 engaged in consciously m alicious or outrageous acts of misc onduct or acted with an evil

27 mind. As already noted, GLC’s unresponsiveness to Plaintiffs’ com plaints demonstrates

28 corporate incompetence for which there is a remedy, including punitive damages under Title

- 20 -

1 VII. But Plaintiffs cannot satisfy the legal standard or burden of proof for punitive damages

2 against GLC on the state law claims. The Court will deny summary judgment to Ehresman

3 on the issue of state-law punitive damages and grant summary judgment to GLC.

4 V. Miscellaneous Motions

5

The parties have filed various motions to strike. Dkt. ##135, 138, 178, 204. Because

6 the Court does not need to decide these motions to resolve the pending motions for summary

7 judgment, they will be denied as moot. This ruling does not prevent the parties fromraising

8 these issues in motions in limine.

9

IT IS ORDERED:

10

1. Defendants’ motions for judgment (Dkt. ##149, 152, 163) aregranted in part

11 and denied in part as set forth in this order.

12

2. Defendants’ motions to strike (Dkt. ## 135, 138, 178, 204) ardeenied as moot.

13

2. The Court will set a final pretrial conference by separate order.

14

DATED this 26th day of October, 2006.

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 21 -

 
 Case: 3:05-cv-00618-DGC As of: 02/24/2017 08:39 PM MST 1 of 29

U.S. District Court DISTRICT OF ARIZONA (Prescott Division) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:05−cv−00618−DGC

CLOSED,STD

EEOC v. GLC Restaurants Inc Assigned to: Judge David G Campbell Demand: $0 Cause: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 02/24/2005 Date Terminated: 03/21/2007 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by C Emanuel Smith EEOC 3300 N Central Ave Ste 690 Phoenix, AZ 85012−1848 602−640−5033 Fax: 602−640−5009 Email: emanuel.smith@eeoc.gov TERMINATED: 03/14/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Karen E Nutter EEOC 3300 N Central Ave Ste 690 Phoenix, AZ 85012−1848 602−640−4773 Email: karen.nutter@eeoc.gov TERMINATED: 07/18/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mary Joleen O'Neill Equal Employment Opportunity Commission − Phoenix, AZ 3300 N Central Ave., Ste. 690 Phoenix, AZ 85012−1848 602−640−5044 Fax: 602−640−5009 Email: mary.oneill@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michelle G Marshall EEOC 3300 N Central Ave Ste 690 Phoenix, AZ 85012−1848 602−640−5020 Fax: 602−640−5009 Email: michelle.marshall@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sally Clifford Shanley Equal Employment Opportunity Commission − Phoenix, AZ 3300 N Central Ave., Ste. 690 Phoenix, AZ 85012−1848 602−640−5007

Case: 3:05-cv-00618-DGC As of: 02/24/2017 08:39 PM MST 2 of 29
Fax: 602−640−5009 Email: sally.shanley@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Valerie Leigh Meyer US EEOC 3300 N Central Ave Ste 690 Phoenix, AZ 85012−2504 602−640−4988 Fax: 602−640−5009 Email: valerie.meyer@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Shari Louise Ehresman
Defendant Steven Alan Ehresman
Defendant Cindy Keppel

represented by James Lawrence Blair Renaud Cook Drury Mesaros PA 1 N Central Ave., Ste. 900 Phoenix, AZ 85004−4417 602−307−9900 Fax: 602−307−5853 Email: jblair@rcdmlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Neil Todd McKay Renaud Cook Drury Mesaros PA 1 N Central Ave., Ste. 900 Phoenix, AZ 85004−4417 602−307−9900 Fax: 602−307−5853 Email: tmckay@rcdmlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by James Lawrence Blair (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Neil Todd McKay (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Yvette A Heintzelman Seyfarth Shaw LLP 131 S Dearborn St Ste 2400 Chicago, IL 60603 312−460−5291 Fax: 312−460−7000 Email: yheintzelman@seyfarth.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gerald Leonard Maatman , Jr

Case: 3:05-cv-00618-DGC As of: 02/24/2017 08:39 PM MST 3 of 29

Seyfarth Shaw LLP − Chicago, IL 131 S Dearborn St., Ste. 2400 Chicago, IL 60603 312−460−5000 Fax: 312−460−7000 Email: gmaatman@seyfarth.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Herb Keppel

represented by Yvette A Heintzelman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gerald Leonard Maatman , Jr (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Tiara Brazle

represented by Milton W Hathaway , Jr. Murphy Schmitt Hathaway & Wilson PLLC PO Box 591 Prescott, AZ 86302−0591 928−445−6860 Fax: 928−445−6488 Email: mhathaway@mshwlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michelle G Marshall (See above for address)

Intervenor Tamara A Grubbs

represented by Milton W Hathaway , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michelle G Marshall (See above for address)

Intervenor Amanda Henry

represented by Milton W Hathaway , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michelle G Marshall (See above for address)

Intervenor Jessica J Tubandt

represented by Milton W Hathaway , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michelle G Marshall (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant

Case: 3:05-cv-00618-DGC As of: 02/24/2017 08:39 PM MST 4 of 29

GLC Restaurants Incorporated an Arizona corporation doing business as McDonald's Restaurants

represented by Christopher A Garcia Seyfarth Shaw LLP 55 E Monroe St Ste 4200 Chicago, IL 60603 312−346−8000 Fax: 312−269−8869 Email: cgarcia@seyfarth.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gerald Leonard Maatman , Jr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James M Nelson Seyfarth Shaw LLP 400 Capitol Mall Ste 2350 Sacramento, CA 95814−4428 916−448−0159 Fax: 916−558−4839 Email: jmnelson@seyfarth.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nicole K Peracke , Seyfarth Shaw LLP 131 S Dearborn St Ste 2400 Chicago, IL 60603 312−460−5000 Fax: 312−460−7000 Email: nperacke@seyfarth.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Yvette A Heintzelman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 02/24/2005 02/28/2005
03/07/2005
03/14/2005 03/18/2005 03/28/2005

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT FILED (JIR) (Entered: 02/24/2005)
2 ORDER SETTING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE by Judge Paul G. Rosenblatt ; prel scheduling conf set for 1:30 8/1/05 (cc: all counsel) (CMM) (ADI−ICMS, ). (Entered: 02/28/2005)
3 RETURN OF SERVICE EXECUTED summons/complaint upon dft GLC Restaurants Inc on 2/28/05 in Flagstaff, AZ, left with statutory agent Robert Miller (CMM) (Entered: 03/09/2005)
4 NOTICE by pla of service of order setting scheduling conference upon Robert L. Miller, statutory agent for GLC Restaurants, Inc (CMM) (Entered: 03/15/2005)
5 ANSWER to complaint [1−1] by dft (CMM) (Entered: 03/24/2005)
6 MOTION (Application) of Attorney for Admission to Practice Pro Hac Vice Pursuant to LR Civ 83.1(b)(3) as to Gerald L Maatman Jr, atty for dft [6−1] (SAT) (Entered: 03/31/2005)

Case: 3:05-cv-00618-DGC As of: 02/24/2017 08:39 PM MST 5 of 29

03/28/2005
04/01/2005 04/01/2005 04/04/2005
04/04/2005
04/15/2005 04/21/2005
04/21/2005 05/13/2005 05/16/2005
06/15/2005 06/22/2005 07/12/2005 07/13/2005 07/14/2005 07/18/2005
07/18/2005
07/25/2005 07/27/2005 08/01/2005

7 MOTION (Application) of Attorney for Admission to Practice Pro Hac Vice Pursuant to LR Civ 83.1(b)(3) as to Yvette A Heintzelman, atty for dft [7−1] (SAT) (Entered: 03/31/2005)
Pro Hac Vice $100.00 Fee Paid as to Yvette A Heintzelman (BAS) (Entered: 04/01/2005)
Pro Hac Vice $100.00 Fee Paid as to Gerald L Maatman Jr (BAS) (Entered: 04/01/2005)
8 ORDER by Judge Paul G. Rosenblatt granting motion (Application) of Attorney for Admission to Practice Pro Hac Vice Pursuant to LR Civ 83.1(b)(3) as to Yvette A Heintzelman, atty for dft [7−1] (cc: all counsel) (CMM) (ADI−ICMS, ). (Entered: 04/04/2005)
9 ORDER by Judge Paul G. Rosenblatt granting motion (Application) of Attorney for Admission to Practice Pro Hac Vice Pursuant to LR Civ 83.1(b)(3) as to Gerald L Maatman Jr, atty for dft [6−1] (cc: all counsel) (CMM) (ADI−ICMS, ). (Entered: 04/04/2005)
10 NOTICE of service of discovery by dft. (CMM) (Entered: 04/15/2005)
11 NOTICE by dft GLC Restaurants Inc OF TAKING DEPO OF Jessica Tubandt, Tamara Grubbs, Amenda Henry, Tiara Brazle, EEOC, Identified Victim, Identified Victim, Identified Victim on the following date(s): 6/14/05, 6/15/05, 6/16/05 and 6/17/05 (SRB) (Entered: 04/21/2005)
12 NOTICE by dft GLC Restaurants Inc of sercice of dft's notice of depositions (SRB) (Entered: 04/21/2005)
13 STIPULATION for extension of time until 6/13/05 for pla to respond to dft first set of discovery raquests (first request) by pla, dft (CMM) (Entered: 05/16/2005)
14 ORDER by Judge Paul G. Rosenblatt granting stipulation for extension of time until 6/13/05 for pla to respond to dft first set of discovery raquests (first request) by pla, dft (cc: all counsel) (CMM) (ADI−ICMS, ). (Entered: 05/16/2005)
15 NOTICE of Service of Initial Rule 26(a)(1) Disclosure Statement pursuant to FRCivP 26(a)(1) by pla (SAT) (Entered: 06/15/2005)
16 NOTICE of service of discovery by pla EEOC (LAD) (Entered: 06/23/2005)
17 Notice of Service of Defendant's Second Request for Production of Documents by GLC Restaurants Inc (RDS) (Entered: 07/12/2005)
19 Notice of Discovery by GLC Restaurants Inc (MAP, ) (Entered: 07/18/2005)
18 Notice of Service of Plaintiff EEOC's First Supplemental Disclosure Statement by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (RDS) (Entered: 07/14/2005)
20 NOTICE of Attorney Substitution by attorney(s) Mary Joleen O'Neill, Sally Clifford Shanley, C Emanuel Smith, and Michelle G Marshall adding Michelle G Marshall for Equal Employment Opportunity Commission terminating Karen El Nutter (KMG, ) (Entered: 07/20/2005)
21 JOINT CASE MANAGMENT REPORT re: Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, GLC Restaurants Inc. (KMG, ) (Entered: 07/20/2005)
22 Notice of Service of EEOC's Second Supplemental Disclosure Statement, by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (RDS) (Entered: 07/25/2005)
23 Notice of Service of EEOC's First Supplemental Discovery Responses, by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (RDS) (Entered: 07/28/2005)
24 SCHEDULING ORDER: Discovery due by 2/24/2006. Dispositive motions due by 3/24/2006. Proposed Pretrial Order due by 5/15/2006. Final Pretrial Conference set for 6/12/2006 03:30 PM in Courtroom 601, 401 West Washington Street, Phoenix, AZ 85003 before Judge Paul G. Rosenblatt.(PGR) (Entered: 08/01/2005)

Case: 3:05-cv-00618-DGC As of: 02/24/2017 08:39 PM MST 6 of 29

08/01/2005 08/01/2005 08/04/2005 08/12/2005 09/01/2005
09/22/2005 10/06/2005 10/18/2005 10/19/2005 10/19/2005
10/28/2005 10/31/2005 10/31/2005 11/03/2005 11/04/2005 11/04/2005 11/04/2005 11/07/2005

25 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Paul G. Rosenblatt : Scheduling Conference held on 8/1/2005. Scheduling order to follow. (Court Reporter Liz Lemke.) (KAR, ) (Entered: 08/03/2005)
Copy of document number 25, mailed to Yvette Hentzelman, Gerald Maatman, and James Nelson on this date. (KAR, ) (Entered: 08/03/2005)
Copy of document number 24, mailed to Yvette Heintzelman, Gerald Maatman, James Nelson on this date. (EAT, ) (Entered: 08/04/2005)
26 MOTION to Intervene As Plaintiffs by Tiara Brazle, Tamara A. Grubbs, Amanda Henry, Jessica J. Tubandt. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed Complaint)(Hathaway, Milton) (Entered: 08/12/2005)
27 RECUSAL ORDER that the Honorable Paul G. Rosenblatt recuses himself from this action and that this action is reassigned by automated random selection, Judge David G Campbell added, Judge Paul G Rosenblatt no longer assigned to case. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all future documents filed and/or served in this action shall be captioned with case number CV 05−618 PCT−DGC. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Pretrial Conference set for 6/12/06 is hereby vacated, to be reset, if necessary, by the reassigned Judge. Signed by Judge Paul G Rosenblatt on 8/31/05. (LSP) (Entered: 09/01/2005)
28 Notice re Plaintiff EEOC's Third Supplemental Disclosure by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Marshall, Michelle) (Entered: 09/22/2005)
29 Notice re Fourth Supplemental Disclosure Statement by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Marshall, Michelle) (Entered: 10/06/2005)
30 Notice re Plaintiff EEOC's Fifth Supplemental Disclosure Statement by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Marshall, Michelle) (Entered: 10/18/2005)
31 ORDER granting 26 Motion to Intervene . Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 10/19/05. (DGC, ) (Entered: 10/19/2005)
32 ORDER re 26 MOTION to Intervene As Plaintiffs by Tiara Brazle, Tamara A. Grubbs, Amanda Henry, Jessica J. Tubandt. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed Complaint)(Hathaway, Milton) filed by Jessica J. Tubandt, Amanda Henry, Tiara Brazle, Tamara A. Grubbs, 31 ORDER granting 26 Motion to Intervene. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 10/19/05. (DGC, ), SCHEDULING ORDER: Discovery due by 3/31/2006. Dispositive motions due by 4/28/2006. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 10/19/05. (DGC, ) (Entered: 10/19/2005)
33 Notice re Service of First Request for Production of Documents to Defendant by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Marshall, Michelle) (Entered: 10/28/2005)
34 Notice re Service of Sixth Supplemental Disclosure Statement by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Marshall, Michelle) (Entered: 10/31/2005)
35 First MOTION to Dismiss Case Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 12(b)(7) and 19 by GLC Restaurants Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration of Yvette A. Heintzelman)(Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 10/31/2005)
36 Notice re Service of First Set of Requests for Admissions by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Marshall, Michelle) (Entered: 11/03/2005)
37 Notice re Notice of Service of Notice of Depositions and Subpoenas by GLC Restaurants Inc (Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 11/04/2005)
38 Notice re Service of Rule 26(a)(1) Intial Disclosure Statement by Tiara Brazle, Tamara A. Grubbs, Amanda Henry, Jessica J. Tubandt (Hathaway, Milton) (Entered: 11/04/2005)
39 NOTICE of Deposition of Jessica Tubandt, Amanda Henry, Tamara Grubbs, filed by GLC Restaurants Inc. (Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 11/04/2005)
40 Notice re Notice of Service of Notice of Deposition by GLC Restaurants Inc (Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 11/07/2005)

Case: 3:05-cv-00618-DGC As of: 02/24/2017 08:39 PM MST 7 of 29

11/07/2005 11/08/2005 11/08/2005 11/08/2005
11/09/2005 11/09/2005 11/09/2005 11/09/2005 11/15/2005 11/17/2005 11/18/2005 11/21/2005 11/22/2005 11/22/2005 11/22/2005 11/23/2005
11/30/2005 12/01/2005 12/01/2005

41 NOTICE of Deposition of Tiara Brazle, filed by GLC Restaurants Inc. (Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 11/07/2005)
42 Notice re Notice of Service of Notice of Depositions by GLC Restaurants Inc (Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 11/08/2005)
43 NOTICE of Deposition of Mary Hellman, Dianna Candelaria, Michelle Guerin, and Charlene Hannah, filed by GLC Restaurants Inc. (Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 11/08/2005)
44 ORDER. The Court held a discovery conference call with the parties on 11−08−05. The Court ruled that the depositions of plaintiffs−intervenors may occur before the Court rules on the pending motion to dismiss, but that the parties should confer with each other before scheduling depositions. As a result, the currently−noticed depositions of plaintiff−intervenors will not occur on the dates noticed unless those dates are acceptable to plaintiffs. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 11−08−05. (DGC, ) This is a text−only order; there is no corresponding pdf document. (Entered: 11/08/2005)
45 STATEMENT of Rule 68 Offer of Judgment for Tiara Brazle by Defendant GLC Restaurants Inc. (Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 11/09/2005)
46 STATEMENT of Rule 68 Offer of Judgment for Tamara Grubbs by Defendant GLC Restaurants Inc. (Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 11/09/2005)
47 STATEMENT of Rule 68 Offer of Judgment for Amanda Henry by Defendant GLC Restaurants Inc. (Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 11/09/2005)
48 STATEMENT of Rule 68 Offer of Judgment for Jessica Tubandt by Defendant GLC Restaurants Inc. (Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 11/09/2005)
49 MOTION to Amend/Correct Complaint by Tiara Brazle, Tamara A. Grubbs, Amanda Henry, Jessica J. Tubandt. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed Amended Complaint)(Hathaway, Milton) (Entered: 11/15/2005)
50 ORDER re discovery conference call. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 11/17/05. (DGC, ) (Entered: 11/17/2005)
51 STIPULATION by GLC Restaurants Inc. (Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 11/18/2005)
52 Notice re Service of Seventh Supplemental Disclosure by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Marshall, Michelle) (Entered: 11/21/2005)
53 NOTICE of Deposition of Steve Ehresman (Video Tape), filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Marshall, Michelle) (Entered: 11/22/2005)
54 NOTICE of Deposition of Cindy Keppel, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Marshall, Michelle) (Entered: 11/22/2005)
55 NOTICE of Deposition of William Wheeler, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Marshall, Michelle) (Entered: 11/22/2005)
56 ORDER finding as moot 35 Motion to Dismiss Case, granting 49 Motion to Amend/Correct. The parties have filed a stipulation that the Motion to Amend may be granted, and have indicated that the Motion to Dismiss will be moot in light of the amendment. The granting of the Motion to Amend will not alter the discovery and motion schedule in this case. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 11−23−05. (DGC, )(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 11/23/2005)
57 NOTICE of Deposition of Tiara Brazle, filed by GLC Restaurants Inc. (Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 11/30/2005)
58 AMENDED DOCUMENT by Tiara Brazle, Tamara A. Grubbs, Amanda Henry, Jessica J. Tubandt. Amended Complaint. (Hathaway, Milton) (Entered: 12/01/2005)
59 Notice re NOTICE OF SERVICE OF DEFENDANT'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF EEOC'S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS TO DEFENDANT by GLC Restaurants Inc (Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 12/01/2005)

Case: 3:05-cv-00618-DGC As of: 02/24/2017 08:39 PM MST 8 of 29

12/07/2005 12/08/2005 12/08/2005 12/08/2005 12/09/2005 12/19/2005 12/19/2005 12/19/2005 12/19/2005 12/21/2005 12/23/2005 12/23/2005 12/28/2005
01/03/2006 01/05/2006 01/09/2006
01/09/2006 01/09/2006 01/09/2006 01/11/2006

60 Notice re NOTICE OF SERVICE OF DEFENDANT'S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO PLAINTIFFS IN INTERVENTION by GLC Restaurants Inc (Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 12/07/2005)
61 NOTICE of Appearance by James Lawrence Blair on behalf of Shari Louise Ehresman, Steven Alan Ehresman (Blair, James) (Entered: 12/08/2005)
62 NOTICE of Deposition of Tiara Brazle, filed by Shari Louise Ehresman, Steven Alan Ehresman. (Blair, James) (Entered: 12/08/2005)
63 Notice re Service of Plaintiff EEOC's Second Supplemental Discovery Responses to Defendant by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Shanley, Sally) (Entered: 12/08/2005)
64 Notice re Notice of Service of Defendant GLC's Responses to Plaintiff EEOC's Request for Production of Documents by GLC Restaurants Inc (Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 12/09/2005)
65 NOTICE of Appearance by Yvette A Heintzelman on behalf of Cindy Keppel, Herb Keppel (Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 12/19/2005)
66 Defendant GLC's ANSWER to Complaint in Intervention by GLC Restaurants Inc.(Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 12/19/2005)
67 Defendants Cindy Keppel and Herb Keppel's ANSWER to Complaint in Intervention by Cindy Keppel, Herb Keppel.(Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 12/19/2005)
68 NOTICE of Appearance by Gerald L Maatman, Jr on behalf of Cindy Keppel, Herb Keppel (Maatman, Gerald) (Entered: 12/19/2005)
69 Notice re Notice of Service of Defendants Cindy Keppel and Herb Keppel's Rule 26(a)(1) Disclosures by Cindy Keppel, Herb Keppel (Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 12/21/2005)
70 Defendants Steven and Shari Ehresman's ANSWER to Complaint Amended Complaint of Plaintiffs/Intervenors Tubandt, Henry, Brazle and Grubbs by Shari Louise Ehresman, Steven Alan Ehresman.(McKay, Neil) (Entered: 12/23/2005)
71 Notice re Service of Rule 26(a)(1) Initial Disclosures by Shari Louise Ehresman, Steven Alan Ehresman (McKay, Neil) (Entered: 12/23/2005)
72 Notice re NOTICE OF SERVICE OF DEFENDANT'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF EEOC'S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS by GLC Restaurants Inc (Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 12/28/2005)
73 ORDER re discovery conference call 12/16/05. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 12/29/05. (DGC,nvj) (Entered: 01/03/2006)
74 NOTICE of Deposition of Charlene Hannah, Candice Hannah, and Dianna Candelaria, filed by GLC Restaurants Inc. (Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 01/05/2006)
75 First MOTION to Amend/Correct Defendants Answers to Plaintiff EEOC's Complaint and Plaintiffs−Intervenors' Amended Complaint by GLC Restaurants Inc, Cindy Keppel, Herb Keppel. (Attachments: # 1 # 2 # 3)(Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 01/09/2006)
76 Amended ANSWER to Complaint Filed by Plaintiff EEOC by GLC Restaurants Inc.(Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 01/09/2006)
77 Amended ANSWER to Complaint filed by Plaintiffs−Intervenors by GLC Restaurants Inc.(Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 01/09/2006)
78 Amended ANSWER to Complaint by Cindy Keppel, Herb Keppel.(Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 01/09/2006)
79 NOTICE of Deposition of Mary Hellman, filed by GLC Restaurants Inc. (Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 01/11/2006)

Case: 3:05-cv-00618-DGC As of: 02/24/2017 08:39 PM MST 9 of 29

01/12/2006 01/26/2006 01/26/2006 01/26/2006 02/16/2006 02/16/2006 02/17/2006 02/21/2006 02/27/2006 03/02/2006 03/07/2006 03/08/2006 03/14/2006 03/16/2006 03/16/2006 03/16/2006 03/16/2006 03/16/2006 03/16/2006 03/16/2006

80 NOTICE of Deposition of Greg Cook, Richard Harges, and Eric Coleman, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Marshall, Michelle) (Entered: 01/12/2006)
81 NOTICE of Deposition of Custodian of Records Yavapai Community College, filed by Shari Louise Ehresman, Steven Alan Ehresman. (McKay, Neil) (Entered: 01/26/2006)
82 NOTICE of Deposition of Custodian of Records Excel Education Centers, filed by Shari Louise Ehresman, Steven Alan Ehresman. (McKay, Neil) (Entered: 01/26/2006)
83 NOTICE of Deposition of Custodian of Records Yavapai Community College, filed by Shari Louise Ehresman, Steven Alan Ehresman. (McKay, Neil) (Entered: 01/26/2006)
84 Notice re Joint Notice of Service of Expert Report by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Shanley, Sally) (Entered: 02/16/2006)
85 Notice re Service of Subpoenas Duces Tecum by GLC Restaurants Inc, Cindy Keppel, Herb Keppel (Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 02/16/2006)
86 Notice re Joint Notice of Service of Expert Disclosure and Report by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Marshall, Michelle) (Entered: 02/17/2006)
87 Notice re Subpoena Duces Tecum by GLC Restaurants Inc (Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 02/21/2006)
88 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney for Plaintiff EEOC by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Smith, C) (Entered: 02/27/2006)
89 Notice re Subpoena Duces Tecum by GLC Restaurants Inc (Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 03/02/2006)
90 First MOTION for Extension of Time to DISCLOSE EXPERT WITNESSES PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. PRO. 26(a)(2) by GLC Restaurants Inc. (Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 03/07/2006)
91 Notice re Errata by GLC Restaurants Inc re 90 First MOTION for Extension of Time to DISCLOSE EXPERT WITNESSES PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. PRO. 26(a)(2) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 03/08/2006)
92 ORDER granting 88 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney C Emanuel Smith terminated. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 3/14/06. (DGC,nvj) (Entered: 03/14/2006)
93 ORDER re discovery conference call 3/15/2006. Dispositive motions due by 7/14/2006. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 3/16/06. (DGC,nvj) (Entered: 03/16/2006)
94 NOTICE of Deposition of Custodian of Records for Dr. Golen, filed by Shari Louise Ehresman, Steven Alan Ehresman. (McKay, Neil) (Entered: 03/16/2006)
95 NOTICE of Deposition of Custodian of Records for Community Center of West Yavapai, filed by Shari Louise Ehresman, Steven Alan Ehresman. (McKay, Neil) (Entered: 03/16/2006)
96 NOTICE of Deposition of Custodian of Records of Yavapai Regional Medical Center, filed by Shari Louise Ehresman, Steven Alan Ehresman. (McKay, Neil) (Entered: 03/16/2006)
97 NOTICE of Deposition of Custodian of Records for Dr. Westervelt, filed by Shari Louise Ehresman, Steven Alan Ehresman. (McKay, Neil) (Entered: 03/16/2006)
98 NOTICE of Deposition of Custodian of Records for Dr. Hancock, filed by Shari Louise Ehresman, Steven Alan Ehresman. (McKay, Neil) (Entered: 03/16/2006)
99 NOTICE of Deposition of Custodian of Records for Mayer High School, filed by Shari Louise Ehresman, Steven Alan Ehresman. (McKay, Neil) (Entered: 03/16/2006)

Case: 3:05-cv-00618-DGC As of: 02/24/2017 08:39 PM MST 10 of 29

03/22/2006 03/23/2006 04/07/2006 04/07/2006 04/10/2006 04/10/2006 04/10/2006 04/12/2006 04/12/2006 04/14/2006 04/14/2006 04/20/2006 04/20/2006 04/21/2006
04/24/2006 04/26/2006 04/26/2006 05/01/2006 05/02/2006

100 Notice re Service of Eighth Supplemental Disclosure by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Marshall, Michelle) (Entered: 03/22/2006)
101 Notice re Subpoena Duces Tecum by GLC Restaurants Inc, Cindy Keppel, Herb Keppel (Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 03/23/2006)
102 REPORT of Settlement Talks by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Intervenor Parties Tiara Brazle, Tamara A. Grubbs, Amanda Henry, Jessica J. Tubandt. (Hathaway, Milton) (Entered: 04/07/2006)
103 REPORT of Settlement Talks by Defendants GLC Restaurants Inc, Shari Louise Ehresman, Steven Alan Ehresman, Cindy Keppel, Herb Keppel. (Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 04/07/2006)
104 Notice re Notice of Service of Defendant GLC's First Set of Requests for Admissions To Plaintiff EEOC by GLC Restaurants Inc, Cindy Keppel, Herb Keppel (Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 04/10/2006)
105 Notice re Notice of Service of Defendant GLC's Second Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff EEOC by GLC Restaurants Inc, Cindy Keppel, Herb Keppel (Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 04/10/2006)
106 Notice re Notice of Service of Defendant GLC's Third Set of Requests for Production of Documents to Plaintiff EEOC by GLC Restaurants Inc, Cindy Keppel, Herb Keppel (Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 04/10/2006)
107 NOTICE of Deposition of Expert Witness C. Brady Wilson, Ph.D., filed by GLC Restaurants Inc, Cindy Keppel, Herb Keppel. (Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 04/12/2006)
108 NOTICE of Deposition of Expert Witness Jan Salisbury, filed by GLC Restaurants Inc, Cindy Keppel, Herb Keppel. (Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 04/12/2006)
109 Notice re of Disclosure of Expert Witness of Jesse Viner, MD by GLC Restaurants Inc, Cindy Keppel, Herb Keppel (Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 04/14/2006)
110 Notice re Notice of Disclosure of Expert Witness of Ginger McRae by GLC Restaurants Inc, Cindy Keppel, Herb Keppel (Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 04/14/2006)
111 ORDER granting 75 Motion for Leave to File Amended Answers. Amended Answers will be deemed to have been filed on 1/9/06. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 4/20/06. (DGC,nvj) (Entered: 04/20/2006)
112 NOTICE of Deposition of Chaar Boyd, Ron Watkins, Kathy O'Sullivan, and John Montoya, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Marshall, Michelle) (Entered: 04/20/2006)
113 Notice re DEFENDANTS' JOINT NOTICE OF SERVICE OF THEIR SUPPLEMENTAL RULE 26(a)(1) DISCLOSURES by GLC Restaurants Inc, Shari Louise Ehresman, Steven Alan Ehresman, Cindy Keppel, Herb Keppel (Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 04/21/2006)
114 NOTICE of Deposition of Holly Procunier and Anna Young, filed by GLC Restaurants Inc, Cindy Keppel, Herb Keppel. (Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 04/24/2006)
115 Notice re Service of First Supplemental Disclosure Statement by Tiara Brazle, Tamara A. Grubbs, Amanda Henry, Jessica J. Tubandt (Hathaway, Milton) (Entered: 04/26/2006)
116 Notice re Service of Plaintiffs' Request for Entry Upon Land by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Marshall, Michelle) (Entered: 04/26/2006)
117 NOTICE of Deposition of Phil Wichrowski, filed by Shari Louise Ehresman, Steven Alan Ehresman. (McKay, Neil) (Entered: 05/01/2006)
118 NOTICE of Deposition of Ryan Lewis, filed by Shari Louise Ehresman, Steven Alan Ehresman. (McKay, Neil) (Entered: 05/02/2006)

Case: 3:05-cv-00618-DGC As of: 02/24/2017 08:39 PM MST 11 of 29

05/03/2006 05/03/2006 05/05/2006 05/08/2006 05/08/2006 05/08/2006 05/08/2006 05/09/2006 05/10/2006 05/11/2006 05/22/2006 05/26/2006 06/07/2006 06/08/2006 06/08/2006
06/16/2006 06/19/2006 06/19/2006

119 NOTICE of Deposition of Jesse Viner MD, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Marshall, Michelle) (Entered: 05/03/2006)
120 Notice re Notice of Service of Defendant GLC's Objection to Plaintiffs' Request for Entry Upon Land for Inspection by GLC Restaurants Inc (Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 05/03/2006)
121 Notice re Service of Discovery [Ninth Supplemental Disclosure and Discovery Responses to Defendant GLC Restaurants, Inc.] by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Marshall, Michelle) (Entered: 05/05/2006)
122 NOTICE of Deposition of Ginger McRae, filed by Tiara Brazle, Tamara A. Grubbs, Amanda Henry, Jessica J. Tubandt. (Hathaway, Milton) (Entered: 05/08/2006)
123 NOTICE of Deposition of Custodian of Records for Paradise Valley Community College, filed by Shari Louise Ehresman, Steven Alan Ehresman. (McKay, Neil) (Entered: 05/08/2006)
124 NOTICE of Deposition of Custodian of Records for Spokane Falls Community College, filed by Shari Louise Ehresman, Steven Alan Ehresman. (McKay, Neil) (Entered: 05/08/2006)
125 NOTICE of Deposition of Custodian of Records for Yavapai Community College, filed by Shari Louise Ehresman, Steven Alan Ehresman. (McKay, Neil) (Entered: 05/08/2006)
126 NOTICE of Deposition of Cindy Mayotte, filed by GLC Restaurants Inc, Cindy Keppel, Herb Keppel. (Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 05/09/2006)
127 Notice re Notice of Service of Amended Joint Supplemental Rule 26 Disclosures by GLC Restaurants Inc, Shari Louise Ehresman, Steven Alan Ehresman, Cindy Keppel, Herb Keppel (Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 05/10/2006)
128 NOTICE of Deposition of Lynne Medlar, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Marshall, Michelle) (Entered: 05/11/2006)
129 Notice re Subpoena duces tecum by Tiara Brazle, Tamara A. Grubbs, Amanda Henry, Jessica J. Tubandt (Hathaway, Milton) (Entered: 05/22/2006)
130 Notice re Service of Defendants' Second Supplemental Joint Rule 26(a)(1) Disclosures by GLC Restaurants Inc, Shari Louise Ehresman, Steven Alan Ehresman, Cindy Keppel, Herb Keppel (McKay, Neil) (Entered: 05/26/2006)
131 NOTICE of Deposition of Cindy Mayotte (for records only), filed by Shari Louise Ehresman, Steven Alan Ehresman. (Blair, James) (Entered: 06/07/2006)
132 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice by Christopher A Garcia on behalf of GLC Restaurants Inc. (BAS, ) (Entered: 06/08/2006)
133 ORDER pursuant to General Order 05−25 granting 132 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice.Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. (BAS, )(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 06/08/2006)
134 Notice re Notice of Service of Supplemental Disclosures of Expert Witness Jesse Viner M.D. by GLC Restaurants Inc, Cindy Keppel, Herb Keppel (Garcia, Christopher) (Entered: 06/16/2006)
135 MOTION to Strike the Opinions of Expert Witness Brady Wilson by GLC Restaurants Inc, Cindy Keppel, Herb Keppel. (Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 06/19/2006)
136 MEMORANDUM re: Memorandum of Law in Support of Defedants' Motion re 135 MOTION to Strike the Opinions of Expert Witness Brady Wilson by Defendants GLC Restaurants Inc, Cindy Keppel, Herb Keppel. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit Exhibit B − Part I# 3 Exhibit Exhibit B − Part II# 4 Exhibit Exhibit B − Part III# 5 Exhibit Exhibit B − Part IV# 6 Exhibit Exhibit B − part V# 7 Exhibit Exhibit C)(Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 06/19/2006)

Case: 3:05-cv-00618-DGC As of: 02/24/2017 08:39 PM MST 12 of 29

06/23/2006 06/26/2006 06/26/2006
06/26/2006 06/27/2006
06/28/2006 06/28/2006 07/03/2006 07/05/2006
07/14/2006 07/14/2006 07/14/2006 07/14/2006

137 Notice re Notice of Service of Supplemental Disclosures of Expert Witness Ginger McRae, Esq. by GLC Restaurants Inc, Cindy Keppel, Herb Keppel (Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 06/23/2006)
138 MOTION to Strike the Opinions of Expert Witness Jan Salisbury by GLC Restaurants Inc, Cindy Keppel, Herb Keppel. (Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 06/26/2006)
139 MEMORANDUM re: Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendants' Motion re 138 MOTION to Strike the Opinions of Expert Witness Jan Salisbury by Defendants GLC Restaurants Inc, Cindy Keppel, Herb Keppel. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A − Part 1 of 6# 2 Exhibit Exhibit A − Part 2 of 6# 3 Exhibit Exhibit A − Part 3 of 6# 4 Exhibit Exhibit A − Part 4 of 6# 5 Exhibit Exhibit A − Part 5 of 6# 6 Exhibit Exhibit A − Part 6 of 6# 7 Exhibit Exhibits B & C# 8 Exhibit Exhibits D & E# 9 Exhibit Exhibit G − Part 1 of 2# 10 Exhibit Exhbit G − Part 2 of 2)(Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 06/26/2006)
140 Additional Attachments to Main Document re 139 Memorandum,, (Exhibit F) by Defendants GLC Restaurants Inc, Cindy Keppel, Herb Keppel. (Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 06/26/2006)
141 ORDER. The Court held a conference call with the parties on June 27, 2006. The Court ruled that Defendants may file one motion for summary judgment directed at the Title VII claims of both complaints, and a second motion for summary judgment directed at the remaining claims asserted by the individual plaintiffs. The Court will consider requests for additional pages if they are reasonable and if the briefs have been written efficiently. The Court also ruled that the supplemental reports provided by defense and plaintiff experts after the deadline for disclosure of expert reports are untimely and may not be used by the parties in this case. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 6−27−06. (DGC)This is a text−only order; there is no corresponding.pdf document. (Entered: 06/27/2006)
142 Notice re Notice of Substitution of Exhibit A to Defendants' Memorandum of Law in Support of Their Motion to Strike the Testimony of Brady Wilson by GLC Restaurants Inc, Cindy Keppel, Herb Keppel re 136 Memorandum, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A−1 − Wilson's Report)(Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 06/28/2006)
143 Notice re Defandants' Errata Regarding Exhibit A−1 to Defendants' Memeorandum of Law in Support of Their Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Brady Wilson by GLC Restaurants Inc, Cindy Keppel, Herb Keppel re 142 Other Notice, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A−1)(Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 06/28/2006)
144 STIPULATION re 135 MOTION to Strike the Opinions of Expert Witness Brady Wilson, 136 Memorandum, Requesting Extension of Response and Reply Deadlines by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Marshall, Michelle) (Entered: 07/03/2006)
145 ORDER re 144 STIPULATION re 135 MOTION to Strike the Opinions of Expert Witness Brady Wilson, 136 Memorandum, Requesting Extension of Response and Reply Deadlines by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Marshall, Michelle) filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 7/5/06. (NVJ) (Entered: 07/05/2006)
146 RESPONSE to Motion re 135 MOTION to Strike the Opinions of Expert Witness Brady Wilson filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of C. Brady Wilson)(Shanley, Sally) (Entered: 07/14/2006)
147 RESPONSE to Motion re 138 MOTION to Strike the Opinions of Expert Witness Jan Salisbury filed by Tiara Brazle, Tamara A. Grubbs, Amanda Henry, Jessica J. Tubandt. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A)(Hathaway, Milton) (Entered: 07/14/2006)
148 First MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Motion for Summary Judgment by Shari Louise Ehresman, Steven Alan Ehresman. (Blair, James) (Entered: 07/14/2006)
149 MOTION for Summary Judgment As To Plaintiffs/Intervenors Tubandt, Henry, Brazle and Grubbs by Shari Louise Ehresman, Steven Alan Ehresman. (Blair, James) (Entered: 07/14/2006)

Case: 3:05-cv-00618-DGC As of: 02/24/2017 08:39 PM MST 13 of 29

07/14/2006 07/14/2006 07/14/2006 07/14/2006 07/14/2006
07/14/2006
07/14/2006
07/14/2006 07/14/2006
07/14/2006 07/14/2006

150 STATEMENT of Defendant Ehrseman's Statement of Material Facts in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment re 149 MOTION for Summary Judgment As To Plaintiffs/Intervenors Tubandt, Henry, Brazle and Grubbs by Defendants Shari Louise Ehresman, Steven Alan Ehresman. (Blair, James) (Entered: 07/14/2006)
151 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Motion and Memorandum in Support of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment by GLC Restaurants Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order Granting Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages)(Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 07/14/2006)
152 MOTION for Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support of Its Motion by GLC Restaurants Inc. (Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 07/14/2006)
153 STATEMENT of Defendant GLC's Statement of Material Facts in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff and Plaintiff−Interverners' Title VII Claims re 152 MOTION for Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support of Its Motion by Defendant GLC Restaurants Inc. (Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 07/14/2006)
154 Additional Attachments to Main Document re 153 Statement, Appendix of Deposition Transcripts − Part 1 of 4 by Defendant GLC Restaurants Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Chaar Boyd Deposition Transcript# 2 Exhibit Tiara Brazle's Deposition Testimony − part 1 of 3# 3 Exhibit Tiara Brazle Deposition − part 2 of 3# 4 Exhibit Tiara Brazle Deposition − part 3 of 3# 5 Exhibit Dianna Candelaria Deposition − part 1 of 2# 6 Exhibit Dianna Candelaria Deposition − part 2 of 2# 7 Exhibit Eric Coleman Deposition − part 1 of 2# 8 Exhibit Eric Coleman Deposition − part 2 of 2# 9 Exhibit Greg Cook Deposition)(Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 07/14/2006)
155 Additional Attachments to Main Document re 153 Statement, Appendix of Deposition Transcripts − Part 2 of 4 by Defendant GLC Restaurants Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Steve Ehresman Deposition − part 1 of 3# 2 Exhibit Steve Ehresman Deposition − part 2 of 3# 3 Exhibit Steve Ehresman Deposition − part 3 of 3# 4 Exhibit Tamara Grubbs Deposition − part 1 of 3# 5 Exhibit Tamara Grubbs Deposition − part 2 of 3# 6 Exhibit Tamara Grubbs Deposition − part 3 of 3# 7 Exhibit Charlene Hannah Deposition# 8)(Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 07/14/2006)
156 Additional Attachments to Main Document re 153 Statement, Appendix of Deposition Transcripts − Part 3 of 4 by Defendant GLC Restaurants Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Amanda Henry Deposition − part 1 of 3# 2 Exhibit Amanda Henry Deposition − part 2 of 3# 3 Exhibit Amanda Henry Deposition − part 3 of 3# 4 Exhibit Richard Harges Deposition# 5 Exhibit Candice Jackson−Hannah Deposition# 6 Exhibit Cindy Keppel Deposition# 7 Exhibit Ryan Lewis Deposition − part 1 of 2# 8 Exhibit Ryan Lewis Deposition − part 2 of 2# 9 Exhibit Lynne Medlar Deposition# 10 Exhibit Kathy O'Sullivan Deposition)(Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 07/14/2006)
157 Notice re of Filing Exhibits to Defendant Ehresman's Statement of Facts by Shari Louise Ehresman, Steven Alan Ehresman re 150 Statement, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit 3# 4 Exhibit 4, Part 1# 5 Exhibit 4, Part 2# 6 Exhibit 5# 7 Exhibit 6# 8 Exhibit 7# 9 Exhibit 8# 10 Exhibit 9# 11 Exhibit 10# 12 Exhibit 11)(Blair, James) (Entered: 07/14/2006)
158 Additional Attachments to Main Document re 153 Statement, Appendix of Deposition Transcripts − Part 4 of 4 by Defendant GLC Restaurants Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Holly Procunier Deposition# 2 Exhibit Jessica Tubandt Deposition − part 1 of 3# 3 Exhibit Jessica Tubandt Deposition − part 2 of 3# 4 Exhibit Jessica Tubandt Deposition − part 3 of 3# 5 Exhibit William Wheeler Deposition − part 1 of 3# 6 Exhibit William Wheeler Deposition − part 2 of 3# 7 Exhibit William Wheeler Deposition − part 3 of 3)(Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 07/14/2006)
159 Additional Attachments to Main Document re 153 Statement, Appendix of Exhibits by Defendant GLC Restaurants Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Defendant GLC's Exhibits 1−30# 2 Exhibit Defendant GLC's Exhibits 31−67# 3 Exhibit Defendant GLC's Exhibits 68−77# 4 Exhibit Defendant GLC's Exhibits 78−101# 5 Exhibit Tom Buckley's Affidavit)(Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 07/14/2006)
160 Additional Attachments to Main Document re 153 Statement, Appendix of Discovery Pleadings by Defendant GLC Restaurants Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit EEOC Rule 26 Disclosures# 2 Exhibit Plaintiff−Interveners' Rule 26 Disclosures# 3 Exhibit EEOC

Case: 3:05-cv-00618-DGC As of: 02/24/2017 08:39 PM MST 14 of 29

07/14/2006 07/14/2006 07/14/2006 07/14/2006 07/14/2006 07/14/2006 07/14/2006 07/14/2006
07/14/2006
07/14/2006

Responses to GLC's Request for Admissions)(Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 07/14/2006)
161 Additional Attachments to Main Document re 152 MOTION for Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support of Its Motion − Appendix of Unpublished Cases by Defendant GLC Restaurants Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Curtis v. First Watch of Arizona, Inc.# 2 Exhibit Dilettoso v. Potter# 3 Exhibit EEOC v. Custom Co. Inc.)(Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 07/14/2006)
162 Notice re Notice of Filing of Defendant GLC's Motion for Leave to File the Deposition Transcript of Jesse Viner, M.D. Under Seal by GLC Restaurants Inc (in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff and Plaintiff−Interveners' Title VII claims) (Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 07/14/2006)
163 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff−Interveners' Amended Complaint by GLC Restaurants Inc, Cindy Keppel, Herb Keppel. (Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 07/14/2006)
164 STATEMENT of Statement of Material Facts in Support of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff−Interveners' Amended Complaint re 163 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff−Interveners' Amended Complaint by Defendants GLC Restaurants Inc, Cindy Keppel, Herb Keppel. (Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 07/14/2006)
165 Additional Attachments to Main Document re 163 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff−Interveners' Amended Complaint − Appendix of Unpublished Cases by Defendants GLC Restaurants Inc, Cindy Keppel, Herb Keppel. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Canez v. Gastelum# 2 Exhibit Hathaway v. Multnomah County Sheriff's Office# 3 Exhibit Vinette v. Sun Health Corp.)(Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 07/14/2006)
166 Additional Attachments to Main Document re 164 Statement, Appendix of Exhibits by Defendants GLC Restaurants Inc, Cindy Keppel, Herb Keppel. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits 1−30# 2 Exhibit Exhibits 31−67# 3 Exhibit Exhibits 68−77# 4 Exhibit Exhibits 78−79# 5 Exhibit Exhibit 101# 6 Exhibit Tom Buckley Affidavit)(Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 07/14/2006)
167 Additional Attachments to Main Document re 164 Statement, Appendix of Discovery Pleadings by Defendants GLC Restaurants Inc, Cindy Keppel, Herb Keppel. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit EEOC's Rule 26 Disclosures# 2 Exhibit Plaintiff−Interveners' Rule 26 Disclosures)(Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 07/14/2006)
168 Additional Attachments to Main Document re 164 Statement, Appendix of Deposition Transcripts − Part 1 of 3 by Defendants GLC Restaurants Inc, Cindy Keppel, Herb Keppel. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Chaar Boyd Deposition# 2 Exhibit Tiara Brazle Deposition − part 1 of 3# 3 Exhibit Tiara Brazle Deposition − part 2 of 3# 4 Exhibit Tiara Brazle Deposition − part 3 of 3# 5 Exhibit Eric Coleman Deposition − part 1 of 2# 6 Exhibit Eric Coleman Deposition − part 2 of 2# 7 Exhibit Greg Cook Deposition# 8 Exhibit Steve Ehresman Deposition − part 1 of 3# 9 Exhibit Steve Ehresman Deposition − part 2 of 3# 10 Exhibit Steve Ehresman Deposition − part 3 of 3)(Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 07/14/2006)
169 Additional Attachments to Main Document re 164 Statement, Appendix of Deposition Transcripts − Part 2 of 3 by Defendants GLC Restaurants Inc, Cindy Keppel, Herb Keppel. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Tamara Grubbs Deposition − part 1 of 3# 2 Exhibit Tamara Grubbs Deposition − part 2 of 3# 3 Exhibit Tamara Grubbs Deposition − part 3 of 3# 4 Exhibit Charlene Hannah Deposition# 5 Exhibit Amanda Henry Deposition − part 1 of 3# 6 Exhibit Amanda Henry Deposition − part 2 of 3# 7 Exhibit Amanda Henry Deposition − part 3 of 3# 8 Exhibit Richard Harges Deposition# 9 Exhibit Candice Jackson−Hannah Deposition# 10 Exhibit Cindy Keppel Deposition)(Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 07/14/2006)
170 Additional Attachments to Main Document re 164 Statement, Appendix of Deposition Transcripts − Part 3 of 3 by Defendants GLC Restaurants Inc, Cindy Keppel, Herb Keppel. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ryan Lewis Deposition − part 1 of 2# 2 Exhibit Ryan Lewis Deposition − part 2 of 2# 3 Exhibit Lynne Medlar Deposition# 4 Exhibit

Case: 3:05-cv-00618-DGC As of: 02/24/2017 08:39 PM MST 15 of 29

07/14/2006 07/14/2006 07/17/2006
07/17/2006
07/17/2006 07/17/2006 07/19/2006 07/19/2006 07/24/2006 07/24/2006 07/24/2006

Kathy O'Sullivan Deposition# 5 Exhibit Jessica Tubandt Deposition − part 1 of 3# 6 Exhibit Jessica Tubandt Deposition − part 2 of 3# 7 Exhibit Jessica Tubandt Deposition − part 3 of 3# 8 Exhibit William Wheeler Deposition − part 1 of 3# 9 Exhibit William Wheeler Deposition − part 2 of 3# 10 Exhibit William Wheeler Deposition − part 3 of 3)(Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 07/14/2006)
171 Notice re Notice of Filing of Defendants GLC, Cindy Keppel and John Doe Keppel's Motion for Leave to File the Deposition Transcript of Jesse Viner, M.D. Under Seal by GLC Restaurants Inc, Cindy Keppel, Herb Keppel (in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff−Interveners' Amended Complaint) (Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 07/14/2006)
184 MOTION for Leave to file the Deposition Transcript of Jesse Viner Under Seal by GLC Restaurants Inc, Cindy Keppel, Herb Keppel. (SBU) (Entered: 07/27/2006)
172 ERRATA re 158 Additional Attachments to Main Document,,, 153 Statement,, 161 Additional Attachments to Main Document,, 160 Additional Attachments to Main Document,, 155 Additional Attachments to Main Document,,, 154 Additional Attachments to Main Document,,, 156 Additional Attachments to Main Document,,, 159 Additional Attachments to Main Document, by Defendant GLC Restaurants Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Errata Appendix of Depositions# 2 Errata Appendix of Exhibits# 3 Errata Appendix of Discovery Pleadings# 4 Errata Appendix of Unpublished Cases# 5 Errata Defendant GLC Restaurants, Inc.'s Statement of Material Facts in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff and Plaintiffs−Interveners' Title VII Claims)(Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 07/17/2006)
173 ERRATA re 170 Additional Attachments to Main Document,,, 169 Additional Attachments to Main Document,,, 168 Additional Attachments to Main Document,,, 164 Statement,, 166 Additional Attachments to Main Document,, 165 Additional Attachments to Main Document,, 167 Additional Attachments to Main Document, by Defendants GLC Restaurants Inc, Cindy Keppel, Herb Keppel. (Attachments: # 1 Errata Defendants GLC Restaurants, Inc., Cindy Keppel and John Doe Keppel's Statement of Material Facts in Support of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff−Interveners' Amended Complaint# 2 Errata Appendix of Depositions# 3 Errata Appendix of Exhibits# 4 Errata Appendix of Discovery Pleadings# 5 Errata Appendix of Unpublished Cases)(Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 07/17/2006)
174 Additional Attachments to Main Document re 138 MOTION to Strike the Opinions of Expert Witness Jan Salisbury − Proposed Order Granting Motion to Strike by Defendants GLC Restaurants Inc, Cindy Keppel, Herb Keppel. (Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 07/17/2006)
175 Additional Attachments to Main Document re 135 MOTION to Strike the Opinions of Expert Witness Brady Wilson − Proposed Order Granting Motion by Defendants GLC Restaurants Inc, Cindy Keppel, Herb Keppel. (Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 07/17/2006)
176 ORDER granting 148 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 7/19/06. (NVJ) (Entered: 07/19/2006)
177 ORDER granting 151 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 7/19/06. (NVJ) (Entered: 07/19/2006)
178 MOTION to Strike Plaintiffs' Untimely Expert Witness Submissions by GLC Restaurants Inc, Cindy Keppel, Herb Keppel. (Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 07/24/2006)
179 MEMORANDUM re: Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendants' Motion re 178 MOTION to Strike Plaintiffs' Untimely Expert Witness Submissions by Defendants GLC Restaurants Inc, Cindy Keppel, Herb Keppel. (Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 07/24/2006)
180 Additional Attachments to Main Document re 179 Memorandum − Defendants' Appendix of Declarations, Exhibits and Unpublished Authorities by Defendants GLC Restaurants Inc, Cindy Keppel, Herb Keppel. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Part 1 of 5# 2 Appendix Part 2 of 5# 3 Appendix Part 3 of 5# 4 Appendix Part 4 of 5# 5 Appendix Part 5 of 5)(Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 07/24/2006)

Case: 3:05-cv-00618-DGC As of: 02/24/2017 08:39 PM MST 16 of 29

07/24/2006 07/24/2006 07/24/2006 07/27/2006 07/28/2006 07/28/2006 07/28/2006 08/04/2006
08/08/2006 08/16/2006 08/16/2006 08/16/2006 08/16/2006 08/16/2006 08/16/2006

181 Notice re of Filing Excerpts from the Deposition of Jesse Viner, M.D. Under Seal by GLC Restaurants Inc, Cindy Keppel, Herb Keppel re 179 Memorandum (Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 07/24/2006)
182 REPLY to Response to Motion re 138 MOTION to Strike the Opinions of Expert Witness Jan Salisbury filed by GLC Restaurants Inc, Cindy Keppel, Herb Keppel. (Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 07/24/2006)
183 Additional Attachments to Main Document re 182 Reply to Response to Motion − Appendix of Unpublished Opinions by Defendants GLC Restaurants Inc, Cindy Keppel, Herb Keppel. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix)(Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 07/24/2006)
185 ORDER granting 184 Motion For Leave to File the Deposition of Jesse Viner Under Seal. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 7/25/06. (SBU) (Entered: 07/27/2006)
186 REPLY to Response to Motion re 135 MOTION to Strike the Opinions of Expert Witness Brady Wilson filed by GLC Restaurants Inc, Cindy Keppel, Herb Keppel. (Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 07/28/2006)
187 Additional Attachments to Main Document re 186 Reply to Response to Motion − Appendix of Unpublished Authorities by Defendants GLC Restaurants Inc, Cindy Keppel, Herb Keppel. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix)(Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 07/28/2006)
188 Additional Attachments to Main Document re 178 MOTION to Strike Plaintiffs' Untimely Expert Witness Submissions − Proposed Order Granting Motion by Defendants GLC Restaurants Inc, Cindy Keppel, Herb Keppel. (Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 07/28/2006)
189 Joinder re 186 Reply to Response to Motion, 139 Memorandum,,, 182 Reply to Response to Motion, 138 MOTION to Strike the Opinions of Expert Witness Jan Salisbury, 135 MOTION to Strike the Opinions of Expert Witness Brady Wilson, 136 Memorandum,, 178 MOTION to Strike Plaintiffs' Untimely Expert Witness Submissions, 179 Memorandum by Defendants Shari Louise Ehresman, Steven Alan Ehresman. (McKay, Neil) (Entered: 08/04/2006)
190 RESPONSE to Motion re 178 MOTION to Strike Plaintiffs' Untimely Expert Witness Submissions filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Tiara Brazle, Tamara A. Grubbs, Amanda Henry. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits A − C)(Marshall, Michelle) (Entered: 08/08/2006)
191 NOTICE of Change of Address by Yvette A Heintzelman (Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 08/16/2006)
192 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Marshall, Michelle) (Entered: 08/16/2006)
193 RESPONSE to Motion re 152 MOTION for Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support of Its Motion filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Tiara Brazle, Tamara A. Grubbs, Amanda Henry, Jessica J. Tubandt. (Marshall, Michelle) (Entered: 08/16/2006)
194 RESPONSE to Motion re 149 MOTION for Summary Judgment As To Plaintiffs/Intervenors Tubandt, Henry, Brazle and Grubbs filed by Tiara Brazle, Tamara A. Grubbs, Amanda Henry, Jessica J. Tubandt. (Hathaway, Milton) (Entered: 08/16/2006)
195 RESPONSE to Motion re 163 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff−Interveners' Amended Complaint filed by Tiara Brazle, Tamara A. Grubbs, Amanda Henry, Jessica J. Tubandt. (Hathaway, Milton) (Entered: 08/16/2006)
196 STATEMENT re 193 Response to Motion, 195 Response to Motion, 194 Response to Motion (Statement of Facts) by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Intervenor Parties Tiara Brazle, Tamara A. Grubbs, Amanda Henry, Jessica J. Tubandt. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−F# 2 Exhibit G−O# 3 Exhibit P−V)(Marshall, Michelle) (Entered: 08/16/2006)

Case: 3:05-cv-00618-DGC As of: 02/24/2017 08:39 PM MST 17 of 29

08/16/2006
08/17/2006 08/18/2006 08/22/2006 09/05/2006
09/05/2006 09/05/2006 09/05/2006 09/05/2006 09/05/2006
09/05/2006 09/11/2006 09/21/2006 09/21/2006 10/02/2006

197 Additional Attachments to Main Document re 195 Response to Motion, 194 Response to Motion Appendix of Unpublished Cases by Intervenor Parties Tiara Brazle, Tamara A. Grubbs, Amanda Henry, Jessica J. Tubandt. (Attachments: # 1 Agustonelli v Springer# 2 Darden v Apollo# 3 Jackson v T&N# 4 Larson v Berumen# 5 Wilcox v Corrections)(Hathaway, Milton) (Entered: 08/16/2006)
198 REPLY in Support re 178 MOTION to Strike Plaintiffs' Untimely Expert Witness Submissions filed by GLC Restaurants Inc, Shari Louise Ehresman, Steven Alan Ehresman, Cindy Keppel, Herb Keppel. (Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 08/17/2006)
199 ERRATA re 196 Statement, by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits B and L)(Shanley, Sally) (Entered: 08/18/2006)
200 ORDER granting 192 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 8/22/06. (NVJ) (Entered: 08/22/2006)
201 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages to Defendant GLC's Reply in Support of Its Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs' Title VII Claims by GLC Restaurants Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed Document − Reply in Support of Defendant GLC's Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs' Title VII Claims# 2 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order Granting Defendant GLC's Motion to File Excess Pages)(Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 09/05/2006)
202 REPLY in Support re 152 MOTION for Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support of Its Motion filed by GLC Restaurants Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Appendix of Unpublished Cases Cited in Defendant GLC's Reply)(Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 09/05/2006)
203 REPLY in Support re 163 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff−Interveners' Amended Complaint filed by GLC Restaurants Inc, Cindy Keppel, Herb Keppel. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Appendix of Unpublished Cases Cited in Defendants' Reply)(Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 09/05/2006)
204 MOTION to Strike 196 Statement, by GLC Restaurants Inc, Cindy Keppel, Herb Keppel. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order Granting Defendants' Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiffs' Joint Statements of Fact)(Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 09/05/2006)
205 MEMORANDUM re: Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendants' Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiffs' Joint Statement of Material Facts re 204 MOTION to Strike 196 Statement, by Defendants GLC Restaurants Inc, Cindy Keppel, Herb Keppel. (Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 09/05/2006)
206 Additional Attachments to Main Document re 205 Memorandum, Appendix of Unpublished Cases Cited in Defendants' Memorandum of Law in Support of Its Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiffs' Joint Statement of Material Facts by Defendants GLC Restaurants Inc, Cindy Keppel, Herb Keppel. (Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 09/05/2006)
207 REPLY to Response to Motion re 149 MOTION for Summary Judgment As To Plaintiffs/Intervenors Tubandt, Henry, Brazle and Grubbs filed by Shari Louise Ehresman, Steven Alan Ehresman. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B)(McKay, Neil) (Entered: 09/05/2006)
208 ORDER granting 201 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 9/11/06. (NVJ) (Entered: 09/11/2006)
209 ERRATA re 196 Statement, by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Intervenor Parties Tiara Brazle, Tamara A. Grubbs, Amanda Henry, Defendant Cindy Keppel. (Attachments: # 1)(Marshall, Michelle) (Entered: 09/21/2006)
210 RESPONSE to Motion re 204 MOTION to Strike 196 Statement, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Tiara Brazle, Tamara A. Grubbs, Amanda Henry. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits 1 − 4)(Marshall, Michelle) (Entered: 09/21/2006)
211 REPLY in Support re 204 MOTION to Strike 196 Statement, filed by GLC Restaurants Inc, Cindy Keppel, Herb Keppel. (Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 10/02/2006)

Case: 3:05-cv-00618-DGC As of: 02/24/2017 08:39 PM MST 18 of 29

10/26/2006
10/26/2006
11/09/2006 11/20/2006 11/22/2006
11/28/2006 12/15/2006 12/15/2006 12/15/2006 12/15/2006 12/15/2006 12/15/2006 12/15/2006 12/15/2006 12/15/2006 12/15/2006

212 ORDER finding as moot 135 Motion to Strike, finding as moot 138 Motion to Strike, granting in part and denying in part 149 Motion for Summary Judgment, granting in part and denying in part 152 Motion for Summary Judgment, granting in part and denying in part 163 Motion for Summary Judgment, finding as moot 178 Motion to Strike, finding as moot 204 Motion to Strike. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 10/26/06. (NVJ) (Entered: 10/26/2006)
213 ORDER re Motions in limine due by 12/15/2006; responses due 12/22/2006; no replies permitted. Proposed Pretrial Order due by 12/15/2006. Final Pretrial Conference set for 1/5/2007 04:00 PM in Courtroom 603, 401 West Washington Street, Phoenix, AZ 85003 before Judge David G Campbell. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 10/26/06. (NVJ) (Entered: 10/26/2006)
214 MOTION for Reconsideration re 212 Order on Motion to Strike,,,, Order on Motion for Summary Judgment,,,,,,,,, by Shari Louise Ehresman, Steven Alan Ehresman. (McKay, Neil) (Entered: 11/09/2006)
215 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Nicole K Peracke on behalf of defendant GLC Restaurants Inc. (BAS, ) (Entered: 11/22/2006)
216 ORDER pursuant to General Order 05−25 granting 215 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice.Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. (BAS, )(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 11/22/2006)
217 ORDER denying 214 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 11/28/06. (NVJ) (Entered: 11/28/2006)
218 Proposed Voir Dire by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, GLC Restaurants Inc, Tiara Brazle, Tamara A. Grubbs, Amanda Henry, Shari Louise Ehresman, Steven Alan Ehresman, Cindy Keppel. (Marshall, Michelle) (Entered: 12/15/2006)
219 STATEMENT of Joint Statement of the Case by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Defendants GLC Restaurants Inc, Shari Louise Ehresman, Steven Alan Ehresman, Cindy Keppel, Intervenor Parties Tiara Brazle, Tamara A. Grubbs, Amanda Henry. (Marshall, Michelle) (Entered: 12/15/2006)
220 TRIAL BRIEF Regarding Monetary Damages by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Tiara Brazle, Tamara A. Grubbs, Amanda Henry. (Marshall, Michelle) (Entered: 12/15/2006)
221 TRIAL BRIEF Regarding Constructive Discharge by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Tiara Brazle, Tamara A. Grubbs, Amanda Henry. (Marshall, Michelle) (Entered: 12/15/2006)
222 TRIAL BRIEF Regarding Equitable Relief by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Tiara Brazle, Tamara A. Grubbs, Amanda Henry. (Marshall, Michelle) (Entered: 12/15/2006)
223 TRIAL BRIEF Regarding Faragher/Ellerth Affirmative Defense by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Tiara Brazle, Tamara A. Grubbs, Amanda Henry. (Marshall, Michelle) (Entered: 12/15/2006)
224 TRIAL BRIEF Regarding Harassment by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Tiara Brazle, Tamara A. Grubbs, Amanda Henry. (Marshall, Michelle) (Entered: 12/15/2006)
225 MOTION to Strike Expert Ginger S. McRae by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Tiara Brazle, Tamara A. Grubbs, Amanda Henry, Jessica J. Tubandt. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A)(Hathaway, Milton) (Entered: 12/15/2006)
226 TRIAL BRIEF by Tiara Brazle, Tamara A. Grubbs, Amanda Henry, Jessica J. Tubandt. (Hathaway, Milton) (Entered: 12/15/2006)
227 First MOTION in Limine re: Mayottes' Financial Condition by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Tiara Brazle, Tamara A. Grubbs, Amanda Henry, Jessica J.

Case: 3:05-cv-00618-DGC As of: 02/24/2017 08:39 PM MST 19 of 29

12/15/2006 12/15/2006
12/15/2006
12/15/2006
12/15/2006
12/15/2006 12/15/2006
12/15/2006 12/15/2006 12/15/2006 12/15/2006 12/15/2006
12/15/2006
12/15/2006 12/15/2006 12/15/2006

Tubandt. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Hathaway, Milton) (Entered: 12/15/2006)
228 ORDER re discovery conference call. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 12/15/06. (NVJ) (Entered: 12/15/2006)
229 Second MOTION in Limine re: Jessica Tubandt convictions by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Tiara Brazle, Tamara A. Grubbs, Amanda Henry, Jessica J. Tubandt. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Deposition excerpts# 2 Exhibit Minute entry# 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Hathaway, Milton) (Entered: 12/15/2006)
230 Third MOTION in Limine re: Drug/Alcohol use by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Tiara Brazle, Amanda Henry, Jessica J. Tubandt. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Deposition excerpts# 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Hathaway, Milton) (Entered: 12/15/2006)
231 Fourth MOTION in Limine re: Actions of Rick Mayotte by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Tiara Brazle, Tamara A. Grubbs, Amanda Henry, Jessica J. Tubandt. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Hathaway, Milton) (Entered: 12/15/2006)
232 Fifth MOTION in Limine re: Financial/Living conditions by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Tiara Brazle, Tamara A. Grubbs, Amanda Henry, Jessica J. Tubandt. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Deposition excerpts# 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Hathaway, Milton) (Entered: 12/15/2006)
233 TRIAL BRIEF re Punitive Damages by Shari Louise Ehresman, Steven Alan Ehresman. (Blair, James) (Entered: 12/15/2006)
234 Joint MOTION to Strike re Defendants' Expert Jesse Viner M.D. by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Tiara Brazle, Tamara A. Grubbs, Amanda Henry. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits A − C# 2 Exhibits D − F)(Marshall, Michelle) (Entered: 12/15/2006)
235 MOTION in Limine re: Measure of Damages by Shari Louise Ehresman, Steven Alan Ehresman. (Blair, James) (Entered: 12/15/2006)
236 MOTION to Bifurcate State Law Claims Pursuant to Rules 20(b) and 42(b), Fed.R.Civ.P. by Shari Louise Ehresman, Steven Alan Ehresman. (Blair, James) (Entered: 12/15/2006)
238 Notice re Plaintiffs' Proposed Verdict Form by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Tiara Brazle, Tamara A. Grubbs, Amanda Henry, Jessica J. Tubandt (Marshall, Michelle) (Entered: 12/15/2006)
239 Notice re Ehresman's Proposed Form of Verdict by Shari Louise Ehresman, Steven Alan Ehresman (McKay, Neil) (Entered: 12/15/2006)
240 MOTION in Limine re: To Bar Testimony and Evidence Regarding Alleged Misconduct by Juan Cruz (#1) by GLC Restaurants Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Brazle's EEOC Charge# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit D# 5 Exhibit E# 6 Exhibit F)(Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 12/15/2006)
241 MOTION in Limine re: To Bar Testimony and Evidence of Alleged Misconduct by Joe Hubbard (#2) by GLC Restaurants Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit D# 5 Exhibit E# 6 Exhibit F)(Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 12/15/2006)
242 MOTION in Limine re: To Bar Testimony and Evidence Regarding Holly Procunier's Allegations of Misconduct Against Steve Ehresman (#3) by GLC Restaurants Inc. (Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 12/15/2006)
243 MOTION in Limine re: To Bar Testimony and Evidence Regarding Julie Downing's Allegations of Misconduct Against Steve Ehresman (#4) by GLC Restaurants Inc. (Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 12/15/2006)
244 MOTION in Limine re: To Bar Testimony and Evidence Regarding Charlene Hannah's Allegations of Misconduct Against Steve Ehresman (#5) by GLC Restaurants Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B)(Heintzelman, Yvette)

Case: 3:05-cv-00618-DGC As of: 02/24/2017 08:39 PM MST 20 of 29

12/15/2006 12/15/2006 12/15/2006
12/15/2006
12/15/2006 12/15/2006 12/15/2006 12/15/2006 12/15/2006 12/15/2006 12/15/2006 12/15/2006
12/15/2006 12/15/2006 12/15/2006 12/15/2006 12/15/2006

(Entered: 12/15/2006)
245 MOTION in Limine re: To Bar Testimony and Evidence Regarding Mary Hellman's Allegations of Misconduct Against Steve Ehresman (#6) by GLC Restaurants Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 12/15/2006)
246 MOTION in Limine re: To Bar Tape Recording and Transcript of Camp Verde Investigation (#7) by GLC Restaurants Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B)(Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 12/15/2006)
247 MOTION in Limine re: To Bar Testimony and Evidence from Plaintiffs' Expert Witness, C. Brady Wilson, Phd. (#8) by GLC Restaurants Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit D# 5 Exhibit E# 6 Exhibit F# 7 Exhibit G)(Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 12/15/2006)
248 MOTION in Limine re: To Bar Testimony and Evidence from Plaintiffs' Expert Witness Jan Salisbury (#9) by GLC Restaurants Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit D# 5 Exhibit E# 6 Exhibit F# 7 Exhibit G# 8 Exhibit H)(Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 12/15/2006)
249 MOTION in Limine re: To Bar Testimony and Evidence of Allegations of Retaliation (#10) by GLC Restaurants Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B)(Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 12/15/2006)
250 MOTION in Limine re: To Bar Testimony and Evidence Regarding Swing Clubs (#11) by GLC Restaurants Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 12/15/2006)
251 MOTION in Limine re: To Bar Testimony and Evidence Regarding Subsequent Remedial Measures (#12) by GLC Restaurants Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 12/15/2006)
252 MOTION in Limine re: To Exclude Evidence Relating to Settlement Negotiations, Offers to Compromise, or Insurance (#13) by GLC Restaurants Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 12/15/2006)
253 MOTION in Limine re: To Bar Testimony Concerning GLC's Net Worth (#14) by GLC Restaurants Inc. (Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 12/15/2006)
254 MOTION in Limine re: To Bar Testimony Regarding Greg Cook's Net Worth (#15) by GLC Restaurants Inc. (Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 12/15/2006)
255 MOTION in Limine re: To Preclude Evidence or Remarks Concerning Seyfarth Shaw LLP or its Attorneys (#16) by GLC Restaurants Inc. (Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 12/15/2006)
256 MOTION in Limine re: To Bar Testimony and Evidence Regarding the Location and/or Status of Steve Ehresman's Personnel File (#17) by GLC Restaurants Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C)(Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 12/15/2006)
257 MOTION in Limine re: Regarding Equitable Remedies (#18) by GLC Restaurants Inc. (Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 12/15/2006)
258 MOTION in Limine re: To Exclude Witnesses' Testimony For Which They Have No Personal Knowledge (#19) by GLC Restaurants Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 12/15/2006)
259 MOTION in Limine re: To Exclude Testimony and Evidence Regarding Class Members' Lack of Medical Insurance (#20) by GLC Restaurants Inc. (Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 12/15/2006)
260 MOTION in Limine re: To Exclude Testimony Regarding Emotional Distress Damages Caused by Litigation (#21) by GLC Restaurants Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B)(Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 12/15/2006)
261 MOTION in Limine re: To Exclude Lay Witnesses' Testimony Regarding Amanda Henry's Panic Attacks (#22) by GLC Restaurants Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 12/15/2006)

Case: 3:05-cv-00618-DGC As of: 02/24/2017 08:39 PM MST 21 of 29

12/15/2006 12/15/2006 12/15/2006 12/15/2006 12/15/2006 12/15/2006 12/15/2006 12/15/2006 12/15/2006 12/15/2006 12/15/2006 12/15/2006 12/15/2006 12/15/2006 12/15/2006
12/18/2006
12/18/2006
12/18/2006

262 MOTION in Limine re: To Exclude Lay Witnesses' Testimony Regarding Alleged Emotional Distress Injuries (#23) by GLC Restaurants Inc. (Attachments: # 1)(Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 12/15/2006)
263 MOTION in Limine re: To Sequester Witnesses (#24) by GLC Restaurants Inc. (Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 12/15/2006)
264 MOTION in Limine re: To Bar Testimony of the EEOC's Custodian of Records (#25) by GLC Restaurants Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 12/15/2006)
265 MOTION in Limine re: To Bar Testimony of Candace Jackson−Hannah (#26) by GLC Restaurants Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B)(Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 12/15/2006)
266 MOTION in Limine re: To Bar Testimony and Evidence Regarding the Ultimate Issues for the Jury (#27) by GLC Restaurants Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 12/15/2006)
267 MOTION in Limine re: To Bar Testimony and Evidence Regarding Damages (#28) by GLC Restaurants Inc. (Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 12/15/2006)
268 MOTION to Bifurcate Evidence of Affirmative Defense from Evidence of Hostile Work Environment AND Damages from Liability by GLC Restaurants Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Errata A# 2 Exhibit B)(Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 12/15/2006)
269 TRIAL BRIEF Regarding Whether GLC Is Liable For Attorney's Fees & Costs by GLC Restaurants Inc. (Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 12/15/2006)
270 TRIAL BRIEF Regarding Legal Standards For Constructive Discharge by GLC Restaurants Inc. (Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 12/15/2006)
271 Notice re Filing of GLC's Proposed Special Verdice Form by GLC Restaurants Inc (Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 12/15/2006)
272 TRIAL BRIEF Regarding Punitive Damages by GLC Restaurants Inc. (Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 12/15/2006)
273 TRIAL BRIEF Regarding Candace Jackson−Hannah's Claims Being Outside the Scope of the Underlying EEOC Charge by GLC Restaurants Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 12/15/2006)
274 TRIAL BRIEF Regarding the Legal Standard for Title VII Hostile Work Environment Sexual Harassment by GLC Restaurants Inc. (Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 12/15/2006)
275 TRIAL BRIEF Regarding Equitable Relief by GLC Restaurants Inc. (Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 12/15/2006)
276 TRIAL BRIEF Regarding Whether Plaintiffs' Are Entitled To Raise An Adverse Inference Based On Spoilation of Evidence by GLC Restaurants Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit D# 5 Exhibit E)(Heintzelman, Yvette) (Entered: 12/15/2006)
277 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCY re 237 MOTION to Seal Document re Motion to File Rule 412 Motion in Limine Under Seal filed by Tamara A. Grubbs, Jessica J. Tubandt, Tiara Brazle, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Amanda Henry. Description of deficiency: Sealed Documents must be submitted in paper form. (ARM, ) (Entered: 12/18/2006)
278 Proposed Jury Instructions by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, GLC Restaurants Inc, Tiara Brazle, Tamara A. Grubbs, Amanda Henry, Jessica J. Tubandt, Shari Louise Ehresman, Steven Alan Ehresman. (Peracke, Nicole) (Entered: 12/18/2006)
279 Notice of Filing Proposed Pretrial Order filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, GLC Restaurants Inc, Tiara Brazle, Tamara A. Grubbs, Amanda Henry, Jessica J. Tubandt, Shari Louise Ehresman, Steven Alan Ehresman (Peracke, Nicole) (Entered: 12/18/2006)

Case: 3:05-cv-00618-DGC As of: 02/24/2017 08:39 PM MST 22 of 29

12/18/2006 12/20/2006 12/20/2006 12/20/2006 12/20/2006
12/20/2006
12/20/2006 12/20/2006
12/20/2006 12/20/2006 12/20/2006 12/20/2006 12/20/2006 12/20/2006

280 SEALED MOTION by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (MAP) (Entered: 12/19/2006)
281 NOTICE of Appearance by Valerie Leigh Meyer on behalf of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Meyer, Valerie) (Entered: 12/20/2006)
282 RESPONSE to Motion re 236 MOTION to Bifurcate State Law Claims Pursuant to Rules 20(b) and 42(b), Fed.R.Civ.P. filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Tiara Brazle, Tamara A. Grubbs, Amanda Henry, Jessica J. Tubandt. (Hathaway, Milton) (Entered: 12/20/2006)
283 RESPONSE to Motion re 268 MOTION to Bifurcate Evidence of Affirmative Defense from Evidence of Hostile Work Environment AND Damages from Liability filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Tiara Brazle, Tamara A. Grubbs, Amanda Henry, Jessica J. Tubandt. (Hathaway, Milton) (Entered: 12/20/2006)
284 RESPONSE to Motion re 242 MOTION in Limine re: To Bar Testimony and Evidence Regarding Holly Procunier's Allegations of Misconduct Against Steve Ehresman (#3) filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Tiara Brazle, Tamara A. Grubbs, Amanda Henry, Jessica J. Tubandt. (Hathaway, Milton) (Entered: 12/20/2006)
285 RESPONSE to Motion re 243 MOTION in Limine re: To Bar Testimony and Evidence Regarding Julie Downing's Allegations of Misconduct Against Steve Ehresman (#4) filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Tiara Brazle, Tamara A. Grubbs, Amanda Henry, Jessica J. Tubandt. (Hathaway, Milton) (Entered: 12/20/2006)
286 RESPONSE to Motion re 246 MOTION in Limine re: To Bar Tape Recording and Transcript of Camp Verde Investigation (#7) filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Tiara Brazle, Tamara A. Grubbs, Amanda Henry, Jessica J. Tubandt. (Hathaway, Milton) (Entered: 12/20/2006)
287 RESPONSE to Motion re 248 MOTION in Limine re: To Bar Testimony and Evidence from Plaintiffs' Expert Witness Jan Salisbury (#9) MOTION in Limine re: To Bar Testimony and Evidence from Plaintiffs' Expert Witness Jan Salisbury (#9) filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Tiara Brazle, Tamara A. Grubbs, Amanda Henry, Jessica J. Tubandt. (Hathaway, Milton) (Entered: 12/20/2006)
288 RESPONSE to Motion re 252 MOTION in Limine re: To Exclude Evidence Relating to Settlement Negotiations, Offers to Compromise, or Insurance (#13) filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Tiara Brazle, Tamara A. Grubbs, Amanda Henry, Jessica J. Tubandt. (Hathaway, Milton) (Entered: 12/20/2006)
289 RESPONSE to Motion re 253 MOTION in Limine re: To Bar Testimony Concerning GLC's Net Worth (#14) filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Tiara Brazle, Tamara A. Grubbs, Amanda Henry, Jessica J. Tubandt. (Hathaway, Milton) (Entered: 12/20/2006)
290 RESPONSE to Motion re 254 MOTION in Limine re: To Bar Testimony Regarding Greg Cook's Net Worth (#15) filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Tiara Brazle, Tamara A. Grubbs, Amanda Henry, Jessica J. Tubandt. (Hathaway, Milton) (Entered: 12/20/2006)
291 RESPONSE to Motion re 255 MOTION in Limine re: To Preclude Evidence or Remarks Concerning Seyfarth Shaw LLP or its Attorneys (#16) filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Tiara Brazle, Tamara A. Grubbs, Amanda Henry, Jessica J. Tubandt. (Hathaway, Milton) (Entered: 12/20/2006)
292 RESPONSE to Motion re 256 MOTION in Limine re: To Bar Testimony and Evidence Regarding the Location and/or Status of Steve Ehresman's Personnel File (#17) filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Tiara Brazle, Tamara A. Grubbs, Amanda Henry, Jessica J. Tubandt. (Hathaway, Milton) (Entered: 12/20/2006)
293 RESPONSE to Motion re 258 MOTION in Limine re: To Exclude Witnesses' Testimony For Which They Have No Personal Knowledge (#19) filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Tiara Brazle, Tamara A. Grubbs, Amanda Henry, Jessica J. Tubandt. (Hathaway, Milton) (Entered: 12/20/2006)

Case: 3:05-cv-00618-DGC As of: 02/24/2017 08:39 PM MST 23 of 29

12/20/2006 12/20/2006 12/20/2006 12/20/2006 12/20/2006 12/21/2006 12/21/2006 12/21/2006 12/21/2006
12/21/2006 12/21/2006 12/21/2006 12/21/2006 12/21/2006

294 RESPONSE to Motion re 259 MOTION in Limine re: To Exclude Testimony and Evidence Regarding Class Members' Lack of Medical Insurance (#20) filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Tiara Brazle, Tamara A. Grubbs, Amanda Henry, Jessica J. Tubandt. (Hathaway, Milton) (Entered: 12/20/2006)
295 RESPONSE to Motion re 260 MOTION in Limine re: To Exclude Testimony Regarding Emotional Distress Damages Caused by Litigation (#21) filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Tiara Brazle, Tamara A. Grubbs, Amanda Henry, Jessica J. Tubandt. (Attachments: # 1 # 2)(Hathaway, Milton) (Entered: 12/20/2006)
296 RESPONSE to Motion re 261 MOTION in Limine re: To Exclude Lay Witnesses' Testimony Regarding Amanda Henry's Panic Attacks (#22) filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Tiara Brazle, Tamara A. Grubbs, Amanda Henry, Jessica J. Tubandt. (Hathaway, Milton) (Entered: 12/20/2006)
297 RESPONSE to Motion re 262 MOTION in Limine re: To Exclude Lay Witnesses' Testimony Regarding Alleged Emotional Distress Injuries (#23) filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Tiara Brazle, Tamara A. Grubbs, Amanda Henry, Jessica J. Tubandt. (Hathaway, Milton) (Entered: 12/20/2006)
298 RESPONSE to Motion re 263 MOTION in Limine re: To Sequester Witnesses (#24) filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Tiara Brazle, Tamara A. Grubbs, Amanda Henry, Jessica J. Tubandt. (Hathaway, Milton) (Entered: 12/20/2006)
299 RESPONSE to Motion re 251 MOTION in Limine re: To Bar Testimony and Evidence Regarding Subsequent Remedial Measures (#12) filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Tiara Brazle, Tamara A. Grubbs, Amanda Henry, Jessica J. Tubandt. (Marshall, Michelle) (Entered: 12/21/2006)
300 RESPONSE to Motion re 257 MOTION in Limine re: Regarding Equitable Remedies (#18) filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Tiara Brazle, Tamara A. Grubbs, Amanda Henry, Jessica J. Tubandt. (Marshall, Michelle) (Entered: 12/21/2006)
301 ERRATA re 300 Response to Motion in Limine re: Equitable Remedies by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Corrected Doc. 300)(Marshall, Michelle) (Entered: 12/21/2006)
302 RESPONSE to Motion re 247 MOTION in Limine re: To Bar Testimony and Evidence from Plaintiffs' Expert Witness, C. Brady Wilson, Phd. (#8) MOTION in Limine re: To Bar Testimony and Evidence from Plaintiffs' Expert Witness, C. Brady Wilson, Phd. (#8) filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Tiara Brazle, Tamara A. Grubbs, Amanda Henry. (Attachments: # 1 C. Brady Wilson Deposition Excerpts)(Marshall, Michelle) (Entered: 12/21/2006)
303 RESPONSE to Motion re 249 MOTION in Limine re: To Bar Testimony and Evidence of Allegations of Retaliation (#10) filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Tiara Brazle, Tamara A. Grubbs, Amanda Henry. (Marshall, Michelle) (Entered: 12/21/2006)
304 RESPONSE to Motion re 264 MOTION in Limine re: To Bar Testimony of the EEOC's Custodian of Records (#25) filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Tiara Brazle, Tamara A. Grubbs, Amanda Henry. (Marshall, Michelle) (Entered: 12/21/2006)
305 RESPONSE to Motion re 266 MOTION in Limine re: To Bar Testimony and Evidence Regarding the Ultimate Issues for the Jury (#27) filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Tiara Brazle, Tamara A. Grubbs, Amanda Henry, Jessica J. Tubandt. (Marshall, Michelle) (Entered: 12/21/2006)
306 RESPONSE to Motion re 250 MOTION in Limine re: To Bar Testimony and Evidence Regarding Swing Clubs (#11) filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Tiara Brazle, Tamara A. Grubbs, Amanda Henry, Jessica J. Tubandt. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits A−C)(Marshall, Michelle) (Entered: 12/21/2006)
307 RESPONSE to Motion re 241 MOTION in Limine re: To Bar Testimony and Evidence of Alleged Misconduct by Joe Hubbard (#2) MOTION in Limine re: To Bar

Case: 3:05-cv-00618-DGC As of: 02/24/2017 08:39 PM MST 24 of 29

12/21/2006 12/22/2006
12/22/2006 12/22/2006
12/22/2006 12/22/2006 12/22/2006 12/22/2006 12/22/2006 12/22/2006 12/22/2006 12/22/2006 12/22/2006 12/26/2006

Testimony and Evidence of Alleged Misconduct by Joe Hubbard (#2), 240 MOTION in Limine re: To Bar Testimony and Evidence Regarding Alleged Misconduct by Juan Cruz (#1) MOTION in Limine re: To Bar Testimony and Evidence Regarding Alleged Misconduct by Juan Cruz (#1) filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Tiara Brazle, Tamara A. Grubbs, Amanda Henry. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits A − B)(Marshall, Michelle) (Entered: 12/21/2006)
308 RESPONSE to Motion re 265 MOTION in Limine re: To Bar Testimony of Candace Jackson−Hannah (#26) filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Tiara Brazle, Tamara A. Grubbs, Amanda Henry. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits A − B)(Marshall, Michelle) (Entered: 12/21/2006)
309 RESPONSE to Motion re 267 MOTION in Limine re: To Bar Testimony and Evidence Regarding Damages (#28), 235 MOTION in Limine re: Measure of Damages filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Tiara Brazle, Tamara A. Grubbs, Amanda Henry, Jessica J. Tubandt. (Marshall, Michelle) (Entered: 12/22/2006)
310 REPLY in Support re 236 MOTION to Bifurcate State Law Claims Pursuant to Rules 20(b) and 42(b), Fed.R.Civ.P. filed by Shari Louise Ehresman, Steven Alan Ehresman. (McKay, Neil) (Entered: 12/22/2006)
311 RESPONSE to Motion re 244 MOTION in Limine re: To Bar Testimony and Evidence Regarding Charlene Hannah's Allegations of Misconduct Against Steve Ehresman (#5), 245 MOTION in Limine re: To Bar Testimony and Evidence Regarding Mary Hellman's Allegations of Misconduct Against Steve Ehresman (#6) filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Tiara Brazle, Tamara A. Grubbs, Amanda Henry, Jessica J. Tubandt. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−C)(Marshall, Michelle) (Entered: 12/22/2006)
312 RESPONSE in Opposition re 227 First MOTION in Limine re: Mayottes' Financial Condition filed by GLC Restaurants Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A and B)(Peracke, Nicole) (Entered: 12/22/2006)
313 RESPONSE in Opposition re 229 Second MOTION in Limine re: Jessica Tubandt convictions filed by GLC Restaurants Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Peracke, Nicole) (Entered: 12/22/2006)
314 RESPONSE in Opposition re 230 Third MOTION in Limine re: Drug/Alcohol use filed by GLC Restaurants Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit D# 5 Exhibit E# 6 Exhibit F)(Peracke, Nicole) (Entered: 12/22/2006)
315 RESPONSE in Opposition re 231 Fourth MOTION in Limine re: Actions of Rick Mayotte filed by GLC Restaurants Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A and B)(Peracke, Nicole) (Entered: 12/22/2006)
316 RESPONSE in Opposition re 232 Fifth MOTION in Limine re: Financial/Living conditions filed by GLC Restaurants Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A and B)(Peracke, Nicole) (Entered: 12/22/2006)
318 RESPONSE in Opposition re 225 MOTION to Strike Expert Ginger S. McRae filed by GLC Restaurants Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B)(Peracke, Nicole) (Entered: 12/22/2006)
319 RESPONSE in Opposition re 234 Joint MOTION to Strike re Defendants' Expert Jesse Viner M.D. filed by GLC Restaurants Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Viner Report# 2 Exhibit Viner Deposition# 3 Exhibit Wilson Deposition)(Peracke, Nicole) (Entered: 12/22/2006)
321 Sealed MOTION to Seal Response by Shari Louise Ehresman, Steven Alan Ehresman. (REW, ) (Entered: 12/26/2006)
322 Sealed MOTION to Seal Response by GLC Restaurants Inc. (REW, ) (Entered: 12/26/2006)
320 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCY re 317 Other Notice filed by GLC Restaurants Inc. Description of deficiency: Sealed documents must be submitted in paper form.(ARM, ) (Entered: 12/26/2006)

Case: 3:05-cv-00618-DGC As of: 02/24/2017 08:39 PM MST 25 of 29

12/26/2006 12/27/2006 12/27/2006 12/29/2006 12/29/2006 01/04/2007
01/05/2007 01/05/2007 01/05/2007 01/05/2007 01/05/2007
01/05/2007

323 NOTICE of Deposition of Holly Procunier, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Marshall, Michelle) (Entered: 12/26/2006)
324 Sealed ORDER granting 280 Motion to Seal Document. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 12/21/06. (cc: all cnsl)(REW, ) (Entered: 12/27/2006)
325 Sealed MOTION by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits)(REW, ) (Entered: 12/27/2006)
326 REPLY in Support re 268 MOTION to Bifurcate Evidence of Affirmative Defense from Evidence of Hostile Work Environment AND Damages from Liability filed by GLC Restaurants Inc. (Peracke, Nicole) (Entered: 12/29/2006)
327 Joinder re 312 Response in Opposition to Motion, 314 Response in Opposition to Motion, 313 Response in Opposition to Motion, 315 Response in Opposition to Motion, 316 Response in Opposition to Motion by Defendants Shari Louise Ehresman, Steven Alan Ehresman filed by Shari Louise Ehresman, Steven Alan Ehresman. (Blair, James) (Entered: 12/29/2006)
328 ORDER denying 225 Motion to Strike ; denying 227 Motion in Limine; granting 229 Motion in Limine; granting 230 Motion in Limine; denying 231 Motion in Limine; granting in part and denying in part 232 Motion in Limine; granting 234 Motion to Strike ; granting 235 Motion in Limine; denying 236 Motion to Bifurcate; denying 240 Motion in Limine; denying 241 Motion in Limine; denying 242 Motion in Limine; denying 243 Motion in Limine; denying 244 Motion in Limine; denying 245 Motion in Limine; denying 246 Motion in Limine; granting 247 Motion in Limine; denying 248 Motion in Limine; denying 249 Motion in Limine; granting in part and denying in part 250 Motion in Limine; denying 251 Motion in Limine; granting 252 Motion in Limine; denying 253 Motion in Limine; granting 254 Motion in Limine; granting 255 Motion in Limine; denying 256 Motion in Limine; denying 257 Motion in Limine; denying 258 Motion in Limine; granting 259 Motion in Limine; denying 260 Motion in Limine; denying 261 Motion in Limine; denying 262 Motion in Limine; denying 263 Motion in Limine; denying 264 Motion in Limine; denying 265 Motion in Limine; denying 266 Motion in Limine; granting 267 Motion in Limine; denying 268 Motion to Bifurcate; granting in part and denying in part 325 Motion in Limine. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 1/4/07.(NVJ) (Entered: 01/04/2007)
329 SEALED ORDER granting 322 Motion. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 1/1/07. (cc: all cnsl)(MAP) (Entered: 01/05/2007)
330 SEALED RESPONSE to Motion re 325 MOTION filed by GLC Restaurants Inc. (Attachment(s): #1) (MAP). (Entered: 01/05/2007)
331 SEALED ORDER granting 321 Motion. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 1/1/07. (cc: All Cnsl)(MAP) (Entered: 01/05/2007)
332 SEALED RESPONSE to Motion re 325 MOTION filed by Shari Louise Ehresman, Steven Alan Ehresman. (MAP) (Entered: 01/05/2007)
333 Minute Entry. Proceedings held before Judge David G Campbell. Appearances: Michelle Marshall, Sally Shanley and Milton Hathaway for pla; Yvette Heintzelman, Nicole Peracke, James Blair and Neil McKay for dfts. Pretrial Conference held on 1/5/2007. IT IS ORDERED setting jury trial for 3/20/2007 at 9:00 AM before Judge David G. Campbell, counsel to appear at 8:30 AM, (estimated length: 9 days). Counsel stipulate to a jury of nine. The rule of exclusion of witnesses will be invoked. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED setting Final Pretrial Conference for 3/15/2007 04:30 PM before Judge David G Campbell. (Court Reporter Liz Lemke.) This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (LMR, ) (Entered: 01/09/2007)
334 AMENDED Minute Entry. Proceedings held before Judge David G Campbell. Appearances: Michelle Marshall, Sally Shanley and Milton Hathaway for pla; Yvette Heintzelman, Nicole Peracke, James Blair and Neil McKay for dfts. Pretrial Conference held on 1/5/2007. IT IS ORDERED setting jury trial for 3/20/2007 at 9:00 AM before Judge David G. Campbell, counsel to appear at 8:30 AM, (estimated length: 9 days). Counsel stipulate to a jury of nine. The rule of exclusion of witnesses will be invoked. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED setting Final Pretrial Conference for 3/15/2007 04:30 PM before Judge David G Campbell. Pursuant to agreement of the

Case: 3:05-cv-00618-DGC As of: 02/24/2017 08:39 PM MST 26 of 29

01/10/2007 01/25/2007 02/22/2007
02/23/2007 03/15/2007 03/16/2007
03/16/2007 03/16/2007 03/16/2007 03/16/2007 03/16/2007 03/19/2007

parties and Magistrate Judge Mark E. Aspey having been randomly drawn, IT IS ORDERED referring this matter to Magistrate Judge Aspey for settlement conference. Counsel are directed to contact said chambers to schedule a hearing date and time. (Court Reporter Liz Lemke.) This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry.(LMR, ) (Entered: 01/09/2007)
335 ORDER Jury Trial set for 3/20/2007 09:00 AM in U.S. Post Office and Courthouse, Second Floor, Cortez and Goodwin Streets, Prescott, AZ 86301 before Judge David G Campbell. Final Pretrial Conference set for 3/15/2007 04:30 PM before Judge David G Campbell.. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 1/10/07. (SBU) (Entered: 01/10/2007)
336 ORDER Settlement Conference set for 2/21/2007 10:00 AM in Suite 200, 123 North San Francisco Street, Flagstaff, AZ 86001 before Magistrate Judge Mark E Aspey. Signed by Judge Mark E Aspey on 1/24/07. (MEA,ps) (Entered: 01/25/2007)
337 Minute Entry. Proceedings held before Judge Mark E Aspey : Settlement Conference held on 2/21/2007. All parties with their counsel appeared at the time set for Settlement Conference. The parties were able to resolve their differences and settlement was reached in this matter. Appropriate settlement documents will be filed with the court within 30 days.(Court Reporter none.) This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (MEA,ps) (Entered: 02/22/2007)
338 TAPE ORDER FORM by Tiara Brazle, Tamara A Grubbs, Amanda Henry and Jessica J. Tubandt for proceedings held on 2/21/07 before Judge Mark E Aspey. (BAS, ) Filers Modified on 2/27/2007 (FMP). (Entered: 02/23/2007)
339 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION AND ORDER FORM by GLC Restaurants Inc for proceedings held on March 14, 2007 before Judge David Campbell. (Peracke, Nicole) (Entered: 03/15/2007)
340 Joint MOTION to Approve Consent Judgment and Order Re Costs and Fees by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, GLC Restaurants Inc, Tiara Brazle, Tamara A. Grubbs, Amanda Henry, Jessica J. Tubandt, Shari Louise Ehresman, Steven Alan Ehresman, Cindy Keppel, Herb Keppel. (Attachments: # 1 Consent Decree# 2 Order re Costs and Fees)(Shanley, Sally) Modified on 3/19/2007 (TLJ). DOCUMENT NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH LR 7.1(a). (Entered: 03/16/2007)
341 NOTICE of Settlement Between Plaintiffs/Interveners and Defendant GLC Restaurants, Inc. by Tiara Brazle, Tamara A. Grubbs, Amanda Henry, Jessica J. Tubandt (Hathaway, Milton)INCORRECT EVENT TYPE SELECTED. ATTORNEY HAS RE−FILED, SEE DOCUMENT #342 Modified on 3/16/2007 (ESL). (Entered: 03/16/2007)
342 Notice re Notice of Filing Settlement Agreement Between Plaintiffs/Interveners and Defendant GLC Restaurants, Inc. by Tiara Brazle, Tamara A. Grubbs, Amanda Henry, Jessica J. Tubandt (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Settlement Agreement)(Hathaway, Milton) (Entered: 03/16/2007)
343 STIPULATION of Dismissal of state law claims by Tiara Brazle, Tamara A. Grubbs, Amanda Henry, Jessica J. Tubandt. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Hathaway, Milton) Modified on 3/19/2007 (TLJ). DOCUMENT NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH LR 7.1(a). (Entered: 03/16/2007)
344 STIPULATION Proposed Stipulated Judgment by Tiara Brazle, Tamara A. Grubbs, Amanda Henry, Jessica J. Tubandt. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Agreement# 2 Exhibit Assignment)(Hathaway, Milton) (Entered: 03/16/2007)
345 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCY re 341 Notice of Settlement filed by Tamara A. Grubbs, Jessica J. Tubandt, Tiara Brazle, Amanda Henry. Description of deficiency: Incorrect document type selected. (ESL) (Entered: 03/16/2007)
346 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCY re 340 Joint MOTION to Approve Consent Judgment and Order Re Costs and Fees filed by Cindy Keppel, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Tamara A. Grubbs, Herb Keppel, GLC Restaurants Inc, Jessica J. Tubandt, Tiara Brazle, Amanda Henry, Shari Louise Ehresman, Steven Alan Ehresman. Description of deficiency: Document not in compliance with LR 7.1(a). (TLJ) (Entered: 03/19/2007)

Case: 3:05-cv-00618-DGC As of: 02/24/2017 08:39 PM MST 27 of 29

03/19/2007 03/21/2007 03/21/2007
03/21/2007 03/21/2007

347 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCY re 343 Stipulation of Dismissal filed by Tamara A. Grubbs, Jessica J. Tubandt, Tiara Brazle, Amanda Henry. Description of deficiency: Document not in compliance with LR 7.1(a). (TLJ) (Entered: 03/19/2007)
348 ORDER, RE: COSTS AND ATTORNEYS' FEES: Pursuant to the 340 Joint MOTION to Approve Consent Judgment and Order Re Costs and Fees, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: Plaintiffs/Intervenors are deemed prevailing parties on their Title VII claims for this action and are entitled to file a motion seeking to recover costs, and, as part of those costs, reasonable attorneys' fees (including expert witness fees) under Title VII, in such amounts determined by the Court to be fair and reasonable. Following the entry of the Consent Decree in this matter, Plaintiffs/Intervenors shall file a bill of costs and a motion for attorneys' fees and related non−taxable expenses. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 3/20/07. (SAT) (Entered: 03/21/2007)
349 CONSENT DECREE − IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: This Decree resolves all Title VII claims between the Commission, Intervenors and Defendant in this lawsuit, including without limitation, back pay, compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive relief, and, in conjunction with separate order and proceedings, costs, and attorneys' fees. Defendant and its officers, agents, employees, successors, and assigns both at the time that this Decree becomes effective and for the duration of this Decree, are enjoined from: (a) discriminating against any employee on the basis of sex, (b) harassing any employee based on sex; (c) retaliating against any employee because he or she: (i) opposes or opposed discriminatory practices made unlawful by Title VII; (ii) files or filed a charge of discrimination or assists, assisted, participates, or participated in the filing of a charge of discrimination; or (iii) assists, assisted, participates or participated in an investigation or proceeding brought under federal or state laws prohibiting discrimination or retaliation; and (d) altering the terms and conditions of any employee's employment because of sex to the extent required by Federal and State law. Defendant shall pay, by check or money order, the total amount of $550,000 as compensatory damages for emotional distress, making its best efforts to pay within fifteen (15) days, but no later than thirty (30) days from the date of the entry of this Decree, to be distributed to Intervenors Tiara Brazle, Tamara Grubbs, Amanda Henry, Jessica Tubandt and to class members Dianna Candelaria, Mary Hellman, Candice Hannah and Charlene Hannah, as set forth in Attachment A. In the event that the Commission believes that Defendant has failed to comply with any provision(s) of the Decree, the Commission shall: (a) Notify Defendant in writing of the alleged non−compliance,which notice shall state that it is being given pursuant to this paragraph 18(a) of this Decree and shall be sent by fax and by first−class mail both to the counsel and the corporate officer who sign this Decree on behalf of Defendant, using the fax numbers and addresses shown in connection with their signatures below. Should the Court determine that Defendant has not complied with this Decree, appropriate relief may be ordered. This Decree shall expire by its own terms at the end of thirty−six (36) months from the date of entry, without further action by the Parties. The Parties agree to entry of this Decree and judgment subject to final approval by the Court. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 3/20/07. (SAT) (Entered: 03/21/2007)
350 ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFFS/INTERVENORS' STATE LAW CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANT GLCRESTAURANTS, INC. AND DEFENDANTS KEPPEL − Pursuant to 343 STIPULATION of Dismissal of state law claims, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that all of Plaintiffs/Intervenors' state law counts and claims for their "Amended Complaint of Plaintiffs/Intervenors Tubandt, Henry, Brazle and Grubbs" (Dkt. #58) against Defendants GLC Restaurants, Inc., d/b/a McDonald's Restaurant, an Arizona corporation, Cindy Keppel and John Doe Keppel (Counts 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11 and 12 of said Amended Complaint) are dismissed with prejudice, with Defendants GLC Restaurants, Inc., d/b/a McDonald's Restaurant, Cindy Keppel and John Doe Keppel to bear their own costs, attorneys' fees and expenses relative to such counts/claims, and without prejudice to Plaintiffs/ Intervenors' right to claim recovery of costs, attorneys' fees and expenses as decreed in the "Order, Re: Costs and Attorneys' Fees" entered herein. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 3/20/07. (SAT) (Entered: 03/21/2007)
351 STIPULATED JUDGMENT − IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED:1. Jessica J. Tubandt is awarded as against Defendants Steven Alan Ehresman and Shari Louise Ehresman, husband and wife, and each of them, the principal sum of Two

Case: 3:05-cv-00618-DGC As of: 02/24/2017 08:39 PM MST 28 of 29

03/30/2007 03/30/2007 04/12/2007 05/21/2007
06/05/2007 06/18/2007
01/03/2008 01/04/2008

Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($250,000), which sum shall bear interest at the rate of 4.93% (as authorized pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961 (a)) from the date of this Judgment's entry until paid in full. 2. Amanda Henry is awarded as against Defendants Steven Alan Ehresman and Shari Louise Ehresman, husband and wife, and each of them, the principal sum of Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($250,000), which sum shall bear interest at the rate of 4.93% (as authorized pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961 (a)) from the date of this Judgment's entry until paid in full. 3. Tiara M. Brazle is awarded as against Defendants Steven Alan Ehresman and Shari Louise Ehresman, husband and wife, and each of them, the principal sum of Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($250,000), which sum shall bear interest at the rate of 4.93% (as authorized pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961 (a)) from the date of this Judgment's entry until paid in full. 4. Tamara A. Grubbs is awarded as against Defendants Steven Alan Ehresman and Shari Louise Ehresman, husband and wife, and each of them, the principal sum of Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($250,000), which sum shall bear interest at the rate of 4.93% (as authorized pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a)) from the date of this Judgment's entry until paid in full. 5. Pursuant to rulings made under this Courts October 26, 2006 "Order"(Dkt. #212), all other state law counts and claims of Plaintiffs/Interveners' Amended Complaint (Dkt. #58) against Defendants Ehresman (Counts 4 and 10) are dismissed with prejudice. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 3/21/07. (SAT) (Entered: 03/21/2007)
352 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Related Non−Taxable Expenses by Tiara Brazle, Tamara A. Grubbs, Amanda Henry, Jessica J. Tubandt. (Hathaway, Milton) (Entered: 03/30/2007)
353 BILL OF COSTS by Tiara Brazle, Tamara A. Grubbs, Amanda Henry, Jessica J. Tubandt. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit List of Itemized Costs# 2 Exhibit Invoices/Receipts/Documentation)(Hathaway, Milton) (Entered: 03/30/2007)
354 TRANSCRIPT of Telephonic Conference Proceedings held on 3/14/07 before Judge David G Campbell. Court Reporter: Patricia Lyons. (BAS, ) (Entered: 04/13/2007)
355 MEMORANDUM re: Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for Award of Attorneys Fees and Related Non−Taxable Expenses re 352 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Related Non−Taxable Expenses by Intervenor Parties Tiara Brazle, Tamara A. Grubbs, Amanda Henry, Jessica J. Tubandt. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A − Certification of Consultation# 2 Exhibit Exhibit B − Minors' Contingent Fee Agreements# 3 Exhibit Exhibit C − Contingent Fee Agreements# 4 Exhibit Exhibit D − Task Based Itemized Statement# 5 Affidavit Exhibit E − Affidavit of Milton W. Hathaway, Jr.# 6 Exhibit Exhibit E1 − Firm resumes# 7 Exhibit Exhibit E2 − Expense backup documentation# 8 Exhibit Exhibit E3 − CV of Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.# 9 Exhibit Exhibit E4 − CV of Yvette A. Heintzelman# 10 Affidavit Exhibit F − Affidavit of Michael R. Pruitt# 11 Affidavit Exhibit G − Affidavit of Carolyn R. Matthews)(Hathaway, Milton) (Entered: 05/21/2007)
356 Taxation of Costs in amount of $ 7,826.33 against Defendant.Signed by Chief Deputy Michael O'Brien on 6/5/07. (AMS, ) (Entered: 06/05/2007)
357 ORDER AND JUDGMENT on Attorney Fees (Motion) in favor of Amanda Henry, Jessica J. Tubandt, Tamara A. Grubbs, Tiara Brazle against GLC Restaurants Inc. That, in its discretion, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 2000e−5(k), the court orders that Pla be awarded their attorneys' fees in the amount of $321,600.00 and their non−taxable expenses of $26,115.43 against Dft GLC Restaurants, Inc., and that Judgment be entered in those amounts (totaling $347,715.43) against Dft GLC Restaurants, Inc., and in favor of Plas, Jessica J. Tubandt, Amanda Henry,Tiara M. Brazle, and Tamara A. Grubbs, which total amount shall bear interest at the rate of 4.98 % (as authorized by and in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 1961) from the date of this Judgment's entry until paid in full. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 6/18/07. (KMG) (Entered: 06/18/2007)
358 Notice re Change in Name of Law Firm and E−Mail Address by Tiara Brazle, Tamara A. Grubbs, Amanda Henry, Jessica J. Tubandt (Hathaway, Milton) (Entered: 01/03/2008)
359 SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENT re 351 Judgment,,,,,,, JgmPtyText by Tiara Brazle, Tamara A. Grubbs, Amanda Henry, Jessica J. Tubandt. (Hathaway, Milton) (Entered: 01/04/2008)

Case: 3:05-cv-00618-DGC As of: 02/24/2017 08:39 PM MST 29 of 29

01/04/2008

360 SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENT re 348 Order,, 349 Decree,,,,,,,,,, 357 Judgment on Attorney Fees,,, JgmPtyText Partial Satisfaction of Consent Decree, and Satisfaction of Orders/Judgments for Costs, Attorneys Fees and Related Non−taxable Expenses by Tiara Brazle, Tamara A. Grubbs, Amanda Henry, Jessica J. Tubandt. (Hathaway, Milton) (Entered: 01/04/2008)

 
 GLC Restaurants to Pay $550,000 for Sexual Harassment of Teen Workers by Male Boss Page 1 of 2

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE March 22, 2007

CONTACT: TTY:

Mary Jo O’Nei (602) 640-504
Sally Shanley (602) 640-503
Michelle Mars (602) 640-502 (602) 640-507

GLC RESTAURANTS TO PAY $550,000 FOR SEXUAL HARASSMENT OF TEEN WORKERS BY MALE BOSS
EEOC Settles Suit for Young Women Subjected to Lewd Behavior by Repeat Offender
PHOENIX – The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) today announced the settlement of a discrimination lawsuit against GLC Restaurants, Inc. (GLC) for $550,000 and substantial remedial relief on behalf of a class of teenage workers who were sexually harassed by a middle-aged male supervisor, including unwanted touching and lewd comments. Flagstaff based GLC is a franchisee doing business as McDonald’s Restaurants in Arizona and California.
The EEOC maintained in the suit that the male supervisor in question was a repeat offender who subjected eight young women, who were part-time crew members, to a sexually hostile workplace at the McDonald’s run by GLC in Cordes Junction, Ariz. Previously, the same male manager allegedly harassed teen female employees at a GLC-owned McDonald’s Restaurant in Camp Verde, Ariz. The EEOC said that GLC knew of this manager’s earlier conduct but failed to take appropriate action to prevent him from repeating the unlawful behavior at another of its restaurants. The EEOC also alleged that the working conditions for one teenager in Cordes Junction were so intolerable that she was forced to resign.
“This was the first job experience for many of these young women, some of whom were only 14-years old at the time,” said EEOC Trial Attorney Michelle Marshall. “No one should have to endure sexual harassment to earn a paycheck. Employers must be extra vigilant in protecting teen workers, who are one of the must vulnerable segments of the labor force.”
In addition to paying $550,000 to the eight young women, the EEOC settlement by consent decree requires GLC to provide training and other relief aimed at educating its employees about sexual harassment and their rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Under additional terms of the settlement, Prescott attorney Milton W. Hathaway, Jr, the private lawyer for four of the young women, will apply to the court for an award of attorney fees up to $400,000.00.
EEOC Regional Attorney Mary Jo O’Neill, who oversaw the case, said, “Employers have a responsibility to take appropriate corrective and preventive action the first time they learn of discriminatory conduct in their workplace. We encourage employers to take adequate steps to protect the rights of all employees. Promoting a positive workplace for teens by stopping harassment before it starts is in

http://eeoc.gov/press/3-22-07.html

5/23/2007

GLC Restaurants to Pay $550,000 for Sexual Harassment of Teen Workers by Male Boss Page 2 of 2
everyone’s best interest.”
In addition to the monetary relief for the young women, the GLC also agreed to an injunction prohibiting the company from discriminating based on sex. In order to prevent discrimination in the future, the company will provide sexual harassment training to employees; review and revise its policy and procedures for reporting harassment; take complaints about unlawful conduct seriously; investigate complaints promptly; and ensure that there will be no retaliation against employees who complain. The EEOC filed the suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona after investigating multiple charges of discrimination and exhausting its efforts to reach a voluntary settlement (EEOC v. GLC Restaurants, Inc., d/b/a McDonald’s Restaurant, Civil Action No. CIV- 05-0618-PCT-DGC).
Amanda Henry, currently a junior at Northern Arizona University, one of the victims said, "Teenagers who are employed need to know that they should report any inappropriate behavior to their employers, to their parents, and the EEOC, if necessary. I am happy that our complaints and our actions against GLC for the last four and a half years will finally lead to changes which should keep something like this from happening again in the future."
In September 2004, EEOC Chair Naomi C. Earp (then vice chair) launched the federal agency’s national Youth@Work Initiative -- a comprehensive outreach and education campaign designed to inform teens about their employment rights and responsibilities and to help employers create positive first work experiences for young adults. The EEOC has held more than 2,100 Youth@Work events nationwide since the program was launched, reaching more than 141,000 students, education professionals, and employers. Further information about the Youth@Work campaign, including how to schedule a free Youth@Work outreach presentation, is available on the agency’s web site at http://www.eeoc.gov/initiatives/youth/index.html. Specific EEOC-related information for teens is available on the Youth@Work web site at http://www.youth.eeoc.gov.
The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.
This page was last modified on March 22, 2007.
Return to Home Page

http://eeoc.gov/press/3-22-07.html

5/23/2007