Mecklenburg Complaint

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
___________________________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
MECKLENBURG COUNTY,
NORTH CAROLINA,
Defendant.
___________________________________
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiff, the United States of America, alleges:
1. This action is brought on behalf of the United States to enforce the provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e, et seq. ("Title VII").
2. This Court has jurisdiction over the action under 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e-5(f) and 28 U.S.C. Section 1345.
3. Defendant Mecklenburg County, North Carolina (hereinafter referred to as "Mecklenburg County" or "the County") is a political subdivision of the State of North Carolina created pursuant to North Carolina law.
4. Defendant Mecklenburg County is a person within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e(a), and an employer within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e(b).
5. Defendant Mecklenburg County has discriminated against Ruth Annette Harris, a female formerly employed as a temporary social worker assistant in the Division of Youth and Family Services of the County's Department of Social Services, and other women employed and/or formerly employed in the Division of Youth and Family Services, because of their sex in violation of Section 703(a) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e-2(a), among other ways, by:
a. subjecting Ms. Harris and other women employed and/or formerly employed in the Division of Youth and Family Services to sexual harassment; and
b. failing or refusing to take appropriate action to remedy the effects of the discriminatory treatment.
6. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") received a timely charge filed by Ms. Harris (Charge No. 140-97-0977) in which she alleged that she had been discriminated against in

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/emp/documents/mecklen.htm

8/14/2007

Mecklenburg Complaint

Page 2 of 3

employment on the basis of sex by being sexually harassed while employed in Mecklenburg County's Division of Youth and Family Services. Ms. Harris further alleged she had reason to believe that the same supervisor of the Defendant who had sexually harassed her had sexually harassed other females.
7. Pursuant to Section 706 of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e-5, the EEOC investigated the charge, found reasonable cause to believe that Ms. Harris's allegations of sexual harassment were true, unsuccessfully attempted to achieve through conciliation a voluntary resolution of these matters, and subsequently referred the charge to the Department of Justice.
8. All conditions precedent to the filing of suit have been performed or have occurred.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff United States prays that this Court grant the following relief:
(a) Enjoin the Defendant Mecklenburg County and its directors, officers, agents, employees, successors, and all persons in active concert or participation with the Defendant, as appropriate, from failing or refusing to:
(i) distribute its anti-sexual harassment policy to all persons employed on either a temporary or permanent basis by the County;
(ii) revise its anti-sexual harassment policy to make clear that all persons employed by the County, whether on a permanent or temporary basis, may file a complaint with the County if they experience sexual harassment in the workplace; and
(iii) take other appropriate nondiscriminatory measures to overcome the effects of the discrimination.
(b) Award compensatory damages to Ruth Annette Harris and other women employed and/or formerly employed in the Division of Youth and Family Services who have incurred mental and/or physical injuries as a result of the discrimination against them alleged in this complaint as would fully compensate them for such injuries, pursuant to and within the statutory limitations of Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. Section 1981a.
The plaintiff prays for such additional relief as justice may require, together with its costs and disbursements in this action.
JURY DEMAND
The United States hereby demands a trial by jury of all issues so triable pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. Section 1981a.
JANET RENO Attorney General
By: _________________________________
BILL LANN LEE Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/emp/documents/mecklen.htm

8/14/2007

Mecklenburg Complaint
_________________________________
WILLIAM B. FENTON D.C. Bar Registration No. 414990 CHARLOTTE BURROWS Member, N.Y. Bar Attorneys Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 65968 Washington, D.C. 20035-5968
_________________________________
MARK T. CALLOWAY United States Attorney Western District of North Carolina

Page 3 of 3

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/emp/documents/mecklen.htm

8/14/2007

 
 U.S. v. Mecklenburg Consent Decree

Page 1 of 6

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION CHARLOTTE, N. C.
Civil Action No. 3:99CV353-V
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
and
RUTH A. HARRIS,
Plaintiff-Intervenor
CONSENT SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
v.
BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND
MECKLENBURG COUNTY, MECKLENBURG COUNTY,
NORTH CAROLINA NORTH CAROLINA. Defendant and. Third Party Plaintiff
v.
RANDSTAD US, L.P. D/B/A
Third Party Defendant.
_____________________________________
This action was brought on behalf of the United States against Mecklenburg County, North Carolina ("Mecklenburg County" or "the County") to enforce the provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., as amended ("Title VII"), following receipt by the Department of Justice from the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") of a charge of discrimination filed by Ruth A. Harris (Charge No. 140-97-0977). This Court has jurisdiction over this action under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f) and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1345.
In its complaint, the United States alleges that Mecklenburg County discriminated against Ruth A. Harris, a female formerly assigned to work as a temporary social worker assistant in the Division of Youth and Family Services of the County's Department of Social Services, and other women employed and/or formerly employed in the Division of Youth and Family Services, because of their sex in violation of Section 703(a) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e-2(a), among other ways, by:
a. subjecting Ms. Harris and other women employed and/or formerly
employed in the Division of Youth and Family Services to sexual

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/emp/documents/meckdoc.htm

8/14/2007

U.S. v. Mecklenburg Consent Decree

Page 2 of 6

harassment; and
b. failing or refusing to take appropriate action to remedy the effects of
the discriminatory treatment.
Her motion for intervention having been granted by the Court, in her complaint in intervention, PlaintiffIntervenor Ruth A. Harris alleges claims of discrimination in violation of Title VII similar to those alleged by the United States. In addition, Ms. Harris' complaint in intervention alleges claims under North Carolina law.
On October 12, 1999, Mecklenburg County filed an answer to the United States' complaint and a third party complaint against Randstad US, L.P. d/b/a AccuStaff ("AccuStaff") in this matter. AccuStaff filed its answer to Mecklenburg County's third party complaint on November 2, 1999. On November 29, 1999, Mecklenburg County filed an answer to the intervenor complaint. Neither the United States nor Plaintiff-Intervenor Ruth A. Harris has alleged any claim against Third Party Defendant AccuStaff. Ruth A. Harris and AccuStaff are not parties to this Settlement Agreement.
Mecklenburg County denies that it has discriminated against Ms. Harris in violation of Title VII. Nevertheless, the United States and Mecklenburg County, desiring that this action be settled by an appropriate Settlement Agreement, and without the burden of protracted litigation, agree to the jurisdiction of this Court over the parties, and the subject matter of this action, and hereby waive, for purposes of this Settlement Agreement only, hearings and findings of fact and conclusions of law on all issues, and further agree to the entry of this Settlement Agreement as final and binding between them with regard to the issues raised in the complaint filed by the United States in this case.
This Settlement Agreement, being entered with the consent of the United States and Defendant Mecklenburg County, shall in no way constitute an adjudication or finding on the merits of the case, nor be construed as an admission by Mecklenburg County or a finding of any wrongdoing or violation of arty applicable federal or state law or regulation.
It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED as follows:
For purposes of this Settlement Agreement, "date of entry of the Settlement Agreement" shall refer to the date on which the Court approves and signs this Settlement Agreement as an order of the Court.
GENERAL RELIEF
1. Defendant Mecklenburg County, by and through its officials, agents, employees and all persons in active concert or participation with Defendant Mecklenburg County in the performance of employment or personnel functions, will continue Mecklenburg County's current policy of not engaging, and will not engage, in any act or practice that has the purpose or effect of unlawfully discriminating against any employee because of that employee's sex.
2. Defendant Mecklenburg County shall continue its policy of not retaliating against or in any way adversely affecting any person because that person has opposed any practice made unlawful by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., filed a charge with the EEOC, or testified, assisted or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding or hearing under Title VII.
3. The County will continue to maintain and keep in effect an anti-sexual harassment policy that, in addition to prohibiting sexual harassment, specifies that:
a. Mecklenburg County's anti-sexual harassment policy covers individuals hired through a

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/emp/documents/meckdoc.htm

8/14/2007

U.S. v. Mecklenburg Consent Decree

Page 3 of 6

temporary employment agency to work for Mecklenburg County;
b. employees hired through a temporary employment agency to work for Mecklenburg County
may file a complaint with the Mecklenburg County human resource department if they
believe they have been subjected to sexual harassment; and
c. Mecklenburg County will not dismiss, terminate the employment of, or otherwise retaliate
against any permanent or temporary employee, including persons assigned through an
agency for temporary employees, because that employee has reported what he or she
reasonably believes to be sexual harassment.
4. No later than thirty (30) days after the entry of this Settlement Agreement, Defendant Mecklenburg County shall ensure that a copy of its anti-sexual harassment policy, including the provisions described in Paragraph 3, above, is distributed to all of its permanent and temporary employees, including persons assigned through an agency for temporary employees.
5. Defendant Mecklenburg County will continue to make available to its employees its anti-sexual harassment policy, including the provisions described in Paragraph 3, above, by posting it in centrally-located places commonly used for posting notices (e.g, bulletin boards) in all Mecklenburg County buildings and facilities and in the administrative offices of Mecklenburg County.
6. Mecklenburg County shall take reasonable steps to ensure that each of the employees it hires, including persons assigned through an agency for temporary employees, receives a copy of the County's anti-sexual harassment policy, including the provisions described in Paragraph 3, above, within ten (10) days of the date of that employee's hire or assignment.
7. Mecklenburg County shall retain or have access to the following records during the life of this Settlement Agreement or as otherwise required by applicable state or federal record retention requirements:
a. the provisions of any anti-sexual harassment policy then in effect, and a record of the effective
date or dates of those provisions:
b. any poster(s) or notice(s) displayed in Mecklenburg County work areas that are intended to convey information regarding the prohibition of sexual harassment in the workplace;
c. documents signed by temporary employees hired through an employment agency acknowledging
proof of receipt of the County's anti-sexual harassment policy;
d. all documents that come into the County's possession relating to allegations that the County
or any of its employees have retaliated against or adversely affected any person because
he or she testified, assisted or participated in any manner in this case or this Settlement
Agreement.
8. For purposes of this Settlement Agreement, reporting periods shall run from January 1, through June 30, and July 1

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/emp/documents/meckdoc.htm

8/14/2007

U.S. v. Mecklenburg Consent Decree

Page 4 of 6

through December 31 of each year, the first of which ends on June 30, 2000. Within 30 days after the close of each reporting period, Mecklenburg County shall provide to the United States copies of the materials described in Subparagraphs 7(a),(b) and (d), above.
9. The United States Department of Justice shall have the right to inspect and copy any and all of the documents described in Paragraph 7, above, upon thirty (30) days notice to the County, without further order of this Court.
SPECIFIC RELIEF
Without admitting the contentions of the United States as set forth in its complaint, and in settlement of the claims of the United States for relief on behalf of Ms. Ruth A. Harris, and, if she accepts the relief to be offered to her pursuant to this Settlement Agreement, in settlement of Ms. Harris' individual claims, Mecklenburg County agrees to do the following:
10. Mecklenburg County shall offer Ruth A. Harris a monetary payment of $45,000.00. This amount shall be considered to include both compensatory damages and reasonable attorney's fees. No amounts will be withheld from the monetary award, although Mecklenburg County shall issue an Internal Revenue service ("IRS") 1099-Misc Form to Ms. Harris and report this award to the IRS and any other applicable taxing authority.
11. No later than ten (10) days after the date of entry of this Settlement Agreement, Mecklenburg County shall notify Ms. Harris of the terms of this Settlement Agreement by mailing to her, by certified mail in care of her attorney, return receipt requested, a notice letter substantially in the form of Appendix A hereto and enclosing a copy of this Settlement Agreement and a copy of the release form agreed upon by the United States and Mecklenburg County. The notice letter will advise Ruth A. Harris that in order to accept the relief offered to her or any part of it, she must return the executed release form to Mecklenburg County within fourteen (14) days of her receipt of the notice letter unless she shows good cause for failing to do so.
12. The County shall also forward a copy of the notice letter to the United States no later than ten (10) days after the date of entry of this Settlement Agreement.
13. To accept any of the relief to be offered her by Mecklenburg County under this consent Settlement Agreement, Harris must execute the release form provided with the notice letter, and return it to Mecklenburg County within fourteen (14) days after the date she receives the notice letter.
14. Mecklenburg County shall provide the United States with a copy of Ms. Harris' executed release form within ten (10) days after receipt of it. Within fourteen (14) days from the date of its receipt of Ms. Harris' executed release form Mecklenburg County shall mail to Ms. Harris, in care of her attorney, a certified or bank check made payable to Ruth A. Harris in the amount of $45,000.00.
DISPUTES
15. The parties to this Settlement Agreement shall attempt to resolve informally any disputes that may occur under this Settlement Agreement. If the United States and Mecklenburg County are unable to reach agreement after informally seeking to resolve a dispute, the issue may be submitted by either party to the Court for resolution.
16. All documents required to be delivered under this Settlement Agreement to the United States shall be sent to the attention of:
Charlotte Burrows, Esq. Stephen J. Curran, Esq. U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Employment Litigation Section 601 D Street, N. W., Room 4500 Washington, D.C. 20004
17. All documents required to be delivered under this Settlement Agreement to Plaintiff-Intervenor Ruth A. Harris
shall be sent to the attention of:

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/emp/documents/meckdoc.htm

8/14/2007

U.S. v. Mecklenburg Consent Decree

Page 5 of 6

Thomas D. Roberts, Esq. 20 Battery Park Avenue #305 Asheville, North Carolina 28801-2734,
or to another person whom Ms. Harris shall designate in writing to receive such documents on her behalf. 18. All documents required to be delivered under this Settlement Agreement to Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, shall be sent to the attention of:
James O. Cobb, Esq. Ruff, Bond, Cobb, Wade & Bethune 2100 Two First Union Center 301 South Tryon Street Charlotte, North Carolina 28282-8283
RETENTION OF JURISDICTION 19. The Court shall retain jurisdiction over this Settlement Agreement and the claims alleged in the United States' complaint for the purpose of resolving disputes or entering any orders or judgments that may be necessary to implement the relief provided herein. Eighteen (18) months after the date of entry of this Settlement Agreement by the Court, the United States' complaint against Mecklenburg County shall be dismissed unless the United States moves, for good cause shown, to extend this Consent Settlement Agreement. If such a motion is filed by the United States before the Settlement Agreement expires, the Settlement Agreement shall remain in effect while the motion is pending before the Court. SO ORDERED, this _______ day of _________, 2000.
__________________________________ United States District Judge Western District of North Carolina
AGREED AND CONSENTED TO: For the United States, For Mecklenburg County, Plaintiff North Carolina, Defendant Bill Lann Lee Ruff, Bond, Cobb, Wade & Acting Assistant Attorney Bethune, L.L.P. General

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/emp/documents/meckdoc.htm

8/14/2007

U.S. v. Mecklenburg Consent Decree

Page 6 of 6

BY: BY:

_______________________________ _______________________________ Charlotte Burrows James 0. Cobb

Member, NY Bar Ruff; Bond, Cobb, Wade

Stephen J. Curran Bethune, L.L.P.

MA Bar Registration No. 633593 2100 Two First Union Center

Civil Rights Division 301 South Tryon Street

U.S. Department of Justice Charlotte, NC 28282-8283

601 D Street, N. W.

(704)377-1634

Washington, D.C. 20004

(202) 514-3862

Richard L. Rainey

_______________________________

Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, PLLC

3300 One First Union Center

301 South College Street,

Charlotte, NC 28202-6025

(704)331-4967

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/emp/documents/meckdoc.htm

8/14/2007

 
 F I LED
CHARLOTIE, N. C.

IN THB UNITED STATBS DISTRICT COURT rOR THB WBSTBRK DISTRICT or NORTH CAROLINA

OCT 261999

CHARLO~B DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:99CV353-V

U. S. DISTRICT COURT

W. DIST. OF N. C.

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

vs.

)

)

MECKLENBURG COUNTY,

)

NORTH CAROLINA,

)

)

Defendant.

)

)

InterytnQr's Caaplaint

Intervenor Ruth Annette Harris, through undersigned counsel, for her claims for relief against the defendant states:

Response to Complaint of the United states of America 1. The intervenor admits all allegations of the complaint.

Genera] Alleqations 2. The intervenor is a resident and citizen of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. 3. The intervenor was employed by the defendant as a temporary social worker assistant in its Division of youth and Family services from approximately December 20, 1996 until March 5, 1997. 4. On and after a first occasion which occurred in approximately mid-January 1997, the intervenor was subjected to repeated unwelcome sexual advances and displays from her immediate supervisor, the defendant's Social Work Assistant Supervisor, which advances she repeatedly rejected.

II

5. The defendant's supervisor subsequently initiated a course of retaliatory conduct against the plaintiff, also involving other of the defendant's employees, which conduct ultimately resulted in the loss of the plaintiff's employment.
6. The defendant is responsible for the discriminatory conduct of its supervisor towards the intervenor regardless of whether such conduct was authorized or forbidden by the defendant and regardless of whether the defendant knew or shOUld have known of it.
7. Defendant is liable to the intervenor for other wrongful acts and omissions including:
a. its failure to promulgate meaningful policies and procedUres relating to sexual harassment in the workplace and employee remedies under Title VII;
b. its failure to take affirmative steps to prevent sexual harassment and other discriminatory acts in its workplace, and to actively promote a discrimination-free workplace;
c. its implicit condoning of sexual harassment and other discriminatory acts by supervisory personnel and/or its other employees;
d. its failure to take reasonable measures to discipline perpetrators of sexual harassment against its permanent and temporary county employees; and
e. in such other particular acts or omissions as may be proved upon trial of this matter.
- 2-

8. By reason of the defendant's wrongful actions and omissions, the intervenor has sustained damages and losses including, but not limited to:
a. lost wages, past and future; b. physical and mental pain and suffering; c. severe mental and emotional distress; and d. attorneys fees and costs.
First Claim for Relief (Violation of 42 U.S.C. S2000e-2(a» 9. The intervenor incorporates herein by reference all prior allegations of this Complaint, insofar as they may apply. 10. The intervenor's rejection of her supervisor's advances was used as the basis for subsequent employment decisions affecting her, in that the supervisor initiated a course of retaliatory, unfair and unreasonable public and private criticisms and reprimands of the plaintiff which were intended and calculated to render her working environment hostile and oppressive. 11. The defendant's supervisor's sexually discriminatory and retaliatory conduct as alleged created a working environment extremely detrimental to the intervenor's emotional and physical health, interfered with the intervenor's work performance, and caused the intervenor physical pain and suffering and severe emotional distress manifested in fear, anxiety, embarrassment, shame and humiliation, sleeplessness, and crying spells. 12. The defendant's supervisor impliedly promised the intervenor permanent employment with the defendant in return for compliance with his egregious behaviors, inasmuch as immediately
- 3-

following many of his sexual advances he recommended to the intervenor that she complete an application for permanent employment with the defendant.
13. Such actions constituted discrimination on the basis of sex in the form of sexual harassment, quid pro quo, and the creation of a hostile and oppressive working environment.
WHEREFORE the intervenor Ruth Annette Harris prays for relief against the defendant as set forth following the Third Claim For Relief.
Second Cl~im for Relief (Wrongful Discharge)
14. The intervenor incorporates herein by reference all previous allegations of this Complaint, insofar as they may apply.
15. During her said period of temporary employment the intervenor at all times satisfactorily performed her duties for the defendant.
16. The defendant constructively discharged the intervenor from permanent employment with the county on or about March 5, 1997 when she was terminated from employment, rather than being assigned to a permanent county position, because she refused to acquiesce in her supervisor's discriminatory conduct.
17. The defendant's constructive discharge of the intervenor was in violation of North Carolina public policy, including but not limited to that legislative declaration of public policy set forth at North Carolina General Statutes S143-422.2, in that the defendant, through its officers, employees and agents,
- 4-

including the intervenor's immediate supervisor, implicitly conditioned the intervenor's continued or permanent employment upon her compliance with discriminatory and oppressive acts.
18. The defendant's constructive discharge of the intervenor was accomplished by means of reckless, willful and malicious conduct, entitling the plaintiff to an award of punitive damages pursuant to North Carolina General statutes S10-l et seq.
WHEREFORE the intervenor Ruth Annette Harris prays for relief against the defendant as set forth following the Third Claim For Relief.
Third Claim for Relief (Negligent Supervision and Retention of an Employee) 19. The intervenor incorporates herein by reference all previous allegations of this Complaint, insofar as they may apply. 20. The intervenor was harmed by Wrongful and oppressive acts of the defendant's supervisor, as above set forth. 21. The defendant's supervisor was not qualified or competent to perform his duties, having a consistent and longstanding pattern, upon information and belief, of unlawfully treating female subordinates in an oppressive and discriminatory manner in the following respects:
a. In seeking sexual relationships with subordinate female employees and in granting (or promising to grant) preference in job assignments and in other circumstances of employment to female subordinates on the basis of sexual favoritism;
- 5-

b. In harassing female subordinates indiscriminately with verbal and/or physical sexual advances or displays;
c. In oppressing noncompliant female subordinates with coarse language, derogatory comments and unwarranted criticisms; and
d. In such other and further respects as may be established upon trial of this matter.
22. The defendant had actual knowledge of its supervisor's discriminatory conduct towards female employees, prior to the supervisor's commencement of oppressive and harmful conduct towards the intervenor, as above described; and should have taken prompt, reasonable and appropriate remedial measures to end all such unlawful and unwarranted conduct, but did not.
23. In the alternative the defendant, in the exercise of reasonable care, should have known of its supervisor's discriminatory conduct towards female employees, which conduct was open and flagrant; and should have taken prompt, reasonable and appropriate remedial measures to end all such unlawful and unwarranted conduct, but did not.
24. The defendant's breach of its duties to exercise reasonable care in discovering and remedying its supervisor's unlawful and discriminatory conduct towards female employees proximately and foreseeably resulted in the intervenor's aforementioned damages.
25. The defendant's negligent supervision and retention of the intervenor's supervisor was accompanied by circumstances of reckless, willful and malicious conduct, entitling the plaintiff
- 6-

to an award of punitive damages pursuant to North Carolina General statutes §lD-l et seq.
WHEREFORE the intervenor Ruth Annette Harris prays for relief against the defendant:
a. For all economic damages attributable to the defendant's wrongful acts and omissions;
b. For compensatory damages for the intervenor's physical and mental pain and suffering and emotional distress;
c. For the intervenor's medical and therapy related expenses;
d. For punitive damages in a just and reasonable amount appropriate to punish the defendant and to deter it and others from engaging in similar conduct in the future;
e. For the intervenor's reasonable attorneys fees; f. For interest as provided by law, costs and expert
witness fees; and g. For such other and further relief as the Court
deems just and proper. The intervenor demands a trial of all issues by jury.
This the 28th day of September, 1999.
Thomas D. Roberts N.C. Bar Reg. No. 19735 20 Battery Park Avenue #305 Asheville Ne 28801-2734 (828) 252-0602 Attorney for the intervenor
- 7-

 
 0 FOR

IN THE UNITED STATES THE WESTERN DISTRICT

DISTRICT OF NORTH

COURT C J::'" I I CAROLINA 'liARlO'r

~

CHARLOTTE DIVISION

It, N.

CIVIL ACTION NO.3: 99CV353-V

' ..~ I

. C.

lJ.• $

<~1JA
t::"oJ,

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff; and

I

W• 'DDISISr:,.,I.T. /e.,.
. Of: Cou!?.,. IV. C.

RUTH A. HARRIS,

~

) INTERVENOR'S AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff-Intervenor;

v.

MECKLENBURG COUNTY,

1

NORTH CAROLINA, Defendant.

l

Intervenor Ruth Annette Harris, through undersigned counsel, for her claims for relief against the defendant states:
Response to Complaint of the united States of America 1. The intervenor admits all allegations of the Complaint.
General Allegations 2. The intervenor is a resident and citizen of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. 3. The intervenor was employed by the defendant as a temporary social worker assistant in its Division of youth and Family Services from approximately December 20, 1996 until March 5, 1997. 4. On and after a first occasion which occurred in approximately mid-January 1997, the intervenor was subjected to repeated unwelcome sexual advances and displays from her immediate supervisor, the defendant's Social Work Assistant Supervisor, which advances she repeatedly rejected.

5. The defendant's supervisor subsequently initiated a course of retaliatory conduct against the plaintiff, also involving other of the defendant's employees, which conduct ultimately resulted in the loss of the plaintiff's employment.
6. The defendant is responsible for the discriminatory conduct of its supervisor towards the intervenor regardless of whether such conduct was authorized or forbidden by the defendant and regardless of whether the defendant knew or should have known of it.
7. Defendant is liable to the intervenor for other wrongful acts and omissions including:
a. its failure to promulgate meaningful policies and procedures relating to sexual harassment in the workplace and employee remedies under Title VII;
b. its failure to take affirmative steps to prevent sexual harassment and other discriminatory acts in its workplace, and to actively promote a discrimination-free workplace;
c. its implicit condoning of sexual harassment and other discriminatory acts by supervisory personnel and/or its other employees;
d. its failure to take reasonable measures to discipline perpetrators of sexual harassment against its permanent and temporary county employees; and
e. in such other particular acts or omissions as may be proved upon trial of this matter.
- 2-

7(A). Defendant Mecklenburg county has waived governmental immunity to the extent that it has purchased liability insurance coverage applicable to the plaintiff-intervenor's claims.
8. By reason of the defendant's wrongful actions and omissions, the intervenor has sustained damages and losses including, but not limited to:
a. lost wages, past and future; b. physical and mental pain and suffering; c. severe mental and emotional distress; and d. attorneys fees and costs.
First claim for Relief (Violation of 42 U.S.C. §2000e-2(a)) 9. The intervenor incorporates herein by reference all prior allegations of this Complaint, insofar as they may apply. 10. The intervenor's rejection of her supervisor's advances was used as the basis for subsequent employment decisions affecting her, in that the supervisor initiated a course of retaliatory, unfair and unreasonable public and private criticisms and reprimands of the plaintiff which were intended and calculated to render her working environment hostile and oppressive. 11. The defendant's supervisor's sexually discriminatory and retaliatory conduct as alleged created a working environment extremely detrimental to the intervenor's emotional and physical health, interfered with the intervenor's work performance, and caused the intervenor physical pain and suffering and severe emotional distress manifested in fear, anxiety, embarrassment, shame and humiliation, sleeplessness, and crying spells.
- 3-

12. The defendant's supervisor impliedly promised the intervenor permanent employment with the defendant in return for compliance with his egregious behaviors, inasmuch as immediately following many of his sexual advances he recommended to the intervenor that she complete an application for permanent employment with the defendant.
13. Such actions constituted discrimination on the basis of sex in the form of sexual harassment, quid pro quo, and the creation of a hostile and oppressive working environment.
WHEREFORE the intervenor Ruth Annette Harris prays for relief against the defendant as set forth following the Third Claim For Relief.
Second Claim for Relief (Wrongful Discharge)
14. The intervenor incorporates herein by reference all previous allegations of this Complaint, insofar as they may apply.
15. During her said period of temporary employment the intervenor at all times satisfactorily performed her duties for the defendant.
16. The defendant constructively discharged the intervenor from permanent employment with the county on or about March 5, 1997 when she was terminated from employment, rather than being assigned to a permanent county position, because she refused to acquiesce in her supervisor's discriminatory conduct.
17. The defendant's constructive discharge of the intervenor was in violation of North Carolina public policy, including but not limited to that legislative declaration of public policy
- 4-

set forth at North Carolina General statutes §143-422.2, in that the defendant, through its officers, employees and agents, including the intervenor's immediate supervisor, implicitly conditioned the intervenor's continued or permanent employment upon her compliance with discriminatory and oppressive acts.
18. The defendant's constructive discharge of the intervenor was accomplished by means of reckless, willful and malicious conduct, entitling the plaintiff to an award of punitive damages pursuant to North Carolina General statutes §lD-1 et seq.
WHEREFORE the intervenor Ruth Annette Harris prays for relief against the defendant as set forth following the Third Claim For Relief.
Third Claim for Relief (Negligent Supervision and Retention of an Employee) 19. The intervenor incorporates herein by reference all previous allegations of this Complaint, insofar as they may apply. 20. The intervenor was harmed by wrongful and oppressive acts of the defendant's supervisor, as above set forth. 21. The defendant's supervisor was not qualified or competent to perform his duties, having a consistent and longstanding pattern, upon information and belief, of unlawfully treating female subordinates in an oppressive and discriminatory manner in the following respects:
a. In seeking sexual relationships with subordinate female employees and in granting (or promising to grant) preference in job assignments and in other
- 5-

circumstances of employment to female subordinates on the basis of sexual favoritism; b. In harassing female subordinates indiscriminately with verbal and/or physical sexual advances or displays; c. In oppressing noncompliant female subordinates with coarse language, derogatory comments and unwarranted criticisms; and d. In such other and further respects as may be established upon trial of this matter. 22. The defendant had actual knowledge of its supervisor's discriminatory conduct towards female employees, prior to the supervisor's commencement of oppressive and harmful conduct towards the intervenor, as above described; and should have taken prompt, reasonable and appropriate remedial measures to end all such unlawful and unwarranted conduct, but did not. 23. In the alternative the defendant, in the exercise of reasonable care, should have known of its supervisor's discriminatory conduct towards female employees, which conduct was open and flagrant; and should have taken prompt, reasonable and appropriate remedial measures to end all such unlawful and unwarranted conduct, but did not. 24. The defendant's breach of its duties to exercise reasonable care in discovering and remedying its supervisor's unlawful and discriminatory conduct towards female employees proximately and foreseeably resulted in the intervenor's aforementioned damages.
- 6-

25. The defendant's negligent supervision and retention of the intervenor's supervisor was accompanied by circumstances of reckless, willful and malicious conduct, entitling the plaintiff to an award of punitive damages pursuant to North Carolina General statutes §lD-l et seq.
WHEREFORE the intervenor Ruth Annette Harris prays for relief against the defendant:
a. For all economic damages attributable to the defendant's wrongful acts and omissions;
b. For compensatory damages for the intervenor's physical and mental pain and suffering and emotional distress;
c. For the intervenor's medical and therapy related expenses;
d. For punitive damages in a just and reasonable amount appropriate to punish the defendant and to deter it and others from engaging in similar conduct in the future;
e. For the intervenor's reasonable attorneys fees; f. For interest as provided by law, costs and expert
witness fees; and g. For such other and further relief as the Court
deems just and proper. The intervenor demands a trial of all issues by jury.
- 7-

This the 11th day of July, 2000.
Thomas D. Roberts N.C. Bar Reg. No. 19735 20 Battery Park Avenue #305 Asheville NC 28801-2879 (828) 252-0602 Attorney for the plaintiffintervenor
certificate of Service I certify that a true copy of the foregoing was served upon all parties
and counsel of record by u.s. mail, first class postage prepaid, on July 11,
2000, addressed to: James O. Cobb, Esq. Ruff, Bond, Cobb, Wade & Bethune 2100 Two First Union Center 301 South Tryon Street Charlotte NC 28282-8283
Richard L. Rainey, Esq. Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice 3300 One First Union Center 301 South College Street Charlotte NC 28202-6025
- 8-

 
 CLOSED
U.S. District Court Western District of North Carolina (Charlotte) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:99-cv-00353-RLV

USA v. Mecklenburg County Assigned to: Richard Voorhees Demand: $0 Cause: 42:2000 Job Discrimination (Sex)

Date Filed: 08/26/1999 Date Terminated: 01/10/2001 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 153 Contract: Recovery Veteran Ben. Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff
USA TERMINATED: 05/09/2000

represented by Bill Lann Lee U.S. Dept. of Justice Civil Division, Room 3328 10th & Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20530 202/514-4522 TERMINATED: 05/09/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charlotte Burrows U.S. Dept. of Justice P.O. Box 65968 Washington, DC 20035-5968 202-307-5769 TERMINATED: 05/09/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Clifford C. Marshall, Jr. Marshall & Roth, PC P.O. Box 769 Asheville, NC 28802 828/281-2100 Fax: 828/281-2120 Email: cmarshall@mmrlawfirm.com TERMINATED: 05/09/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Intervenor Plaintiff

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph L. Brinkley U.S. Attorney's Office 227 W. Trade St. 1700 Carillon Charlotte, NC 28202 704/344-6222 TERMINATED: 05/09/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark Timothy Calloway U.S. Attorney's Office 101 S. Tryon Street Ste. 4000 Charlotte, NC 28280 704-444-1089 Fax: 704-444-1689 Email: mark.calloway@alston.com TERMINATED: 12/06/1999 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen J. Curran U.S. Dept. of Justice Civil Rights Division P. O. Box 65968 Washington, DC 20035-5968 (202) 616-9614 TERMINATED: 05/09/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William B. Fenton U.S. Dept. of Justice P.O. Box 65968 Washington, DC 20035-5968 202-307-5769 TERMINATED: 05/09/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ruth Annette Harris
V. Defendant Mecklenburg County TERMINATED: 05/09/2000

represented by Thomas DuBose Roberts 20 Battery Park Ave. Suite 305 Asheville, NC 28801 828/252-0602 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by James O. Cobb Ruff, Bond, Cobb, Wade & Bethune Suite 860 The Addison Bldg. 831 East Morehead St. Charlotte, NC 28202 704/377-1634 TERMINATED: 05/09/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patricia E. Dowds Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge & Rice 3500 One Wachovia Center 301 South College St. Charlotte, NC 28202-6025 704/331-4900 Fax: 331-4955 TERMINATED: 05/09/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard Lee Rainey Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge & Rice 3500 One Wachovia Center 301 S. College St. Charlotte, NC 28202-6025 704-331-4967 Fax: 704-338-7835 Email: rrainey@wcsr.com TERMINATED: 05/09/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Intervenor Defendant Mecklenburg County
ThirdParty Defendant Mecklenburg County TERMINATED: 05/19/2000
ThirdParty Defendant Accustaff, Incorporated TERMINATED: 05/19/2000

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by James O. Cobb (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patricia E. Dowds (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by James O. Cobb (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/19/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patricia E. Dowds (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/19/2000 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by John P. Kelly Troutman Sanders 600 Peachtree St., NE Suite 5200 Atlanta, GA 30308-2216 404/885-3000 TERMINATED: 05/19/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John S. Snelling Troutman Sanders 600 Peachtree St., NE Suite 5200 Atlanta, GA 30308-2216 404/885-3000 TERMINATED: 05/19/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Parmele P. Calame Poyner & Spruill One Wachovia Center 301 South College St. Suite 2300 Charlotte, NC 28202-6039 704/342-5250 Fax: 342-5264 TERMINATED: 05/19/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 08/26/1999 08/26/1999 08/26/1999 09/09/1999
09/17/1999 09/17/1999
09/30/1999
10/12/1999 10/12/1999 10/12/1999

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT (clc) (Entered: 08/31/1999)

SUMMONS(ES) issued for Mecklenburg County (clc) (Entered: 08/31/1999)

2 CONSENT/REFUSAL to Magistrate Jurisdiction by USA Refusal (clc) (Entered: 08/31/1999)

3 RETURN OF SERVICE Executed as to Mecklenburg County 9/2/99 served with s&c Answer due on 9/22/99 for Mecklenburg County (clc) (Entered: 09/13/1999)

4 MOTION by Mecklenburg County to Extend Time up to and including 10/12/99 to ans cmplt (clc) (Entered: 09/22/1999)

4 ORDER granting [4-1] motion to Extend Time up to and including 10/12/99 to ans cmplt, and reset Answer deadline to 10/12/99 for Mecklenburg County () [EOD DATE: 9/22/99] (clc) (Entered: 09/22/1999)

5 MOTION by Ruth Annette Harris to Intervene as Pltf by Ruth Annette Harris referred to: Magistrate Judge H. B. McKnight (clc) (Entered: 09/30/1999)

6 ANSWER to Complaint by Mecklenburg County (clc) (Entered: 10/12/1999)

7 THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT by Mecklenburg County against Accustaff, Inc (clc) (Entered: 10/12/1999)

SUMMONS(ES) issued for Accustaff, Inc (clc) (Entered:

10/12/1999 10/18/1999 10/26/1999 10/26/1999 11/02/1999 11/02/1999 11/12/1999 11/12/1999
11/24/1999 11/29/1999 12/06/1999 12/30/1999
01/05/2000

10/12/1999)
8 CONSENT/REFUSAL to Magistrate Jurisdiction by Mecklenburg County, Mecklenburg County - Refusal (clc) (Entered: 10/12/1999)
9 RETURN OF SERVICE Executed as to Accustaff, Inc 10/13/99 served with s&c Answer due on 11/2/99 for Accustaff, Inc (clc) (Entered: 10/19/1999)
10 ORDER granting [5-1] motion to Intervene as Pltf by Ruth Annette Harris ( signed by Magistrate Judge H. B. McKnight ) [EOD DATE: 10/27/99] (clc) (Entered: 10/27/1999)
11 Intervenor's COMPLAINT by Ruth Harris against Mecklenburg County (clc) (Entered: 10/27/1999)
12 ANSWER by Accustaff, Inc (Attorney Parmele P. Calame, John S. Snelling, John P. Kelly) to [7-1] third-party complaint by Mecklenburg County (clc) (Entered: 11/04/1999)
13 CONSENT/REFUSAL to Magistrate Jurisdiction by Accustaff, Inc - Refusal (clc) (Entered: 11/04/1999)
14 MOTION by Mecklenburg County to Extend Time to 12/6/99 to resp to intervenor complt (bsw) (Entered: 11/12/1999)
14 ORDER entered by Clerk granting [14-1] motion to Extend Time to 12/6/99 to resp to intervenor complt, set Answer deadline to 12/6/99 for Mecklenburg County [EOD DATE: 11/12/99] (bsw) (Entered: 11/12/1999)
15 Certificate of I.A.C. by plaintiff USA, defendant Mecklenburg County, intervenor-plaintiff Ruth Annette Harris, third-party defendant Accustaff, Inc (clc) (Entered: 11/29/1999)
16 ANSWER by Mecklenburg County to [11-1] intervenor complaint (clc) (Entered: 12/02/1999)
17 Substitution of Counsel terminating attorney Mark T. Calloway for USA and substituting Joseph L. Brinkley (clc) (Entered: 12/08/1999)
18 MOTION by AccuStaff to Extend Time up to and including 2/2/00 to resp to interrogatories and request for production of docs referred to: Magistrate Judge H. B. McKnight (clc) Modified on 01/07/2000 (Entered: 01/04/2000)
19 MOTION by Accustaff, Inc to Extend Time up to and including 2/18/00 to resp to interrogatories and request for production of

01/06/2000 01/06/2000 01/07/2000 01/10/2000 01/13/2000
01/14/2000
01/14/2000 01/26/2000 01/31/2000 01/31/2000

docs referred to: Magistrate Judge H. B. McKnight (clc) (Entered: 01/06/2000)
20 ORDER granting [18-1] motion to Extend Time up to and including 2/2/00 to resp to interrogatories and request for production of docs ( signed by Magistrate Judge H. B. McKnight ) [EOD DATE: 1/7/00] (clc) (Entered: 01/07/2000)
21 ORDER granting [19-1] motion to Extend Time up to and including 2/24/00 to resp to interrogatories and request for production of docs ( signed by Magistrate Judge H. B. McKnight ) [EOD DATE: 1/7/00] (clc) (Entered: 01/07/2000)
23 ORDER, set for IPC at 10:40 1/20/00 before Magistrate Judge H. B. McKnight ( signed by Magistrate Judge H. B. McKnight ) [EOD DATE: 1/11/00] (clc) (Entered: 01/11/2000)
22 NOTICE of Appearance for Mecklenburg County, Mecklenburg County, Mecklenburg County by Richard L. Rainey, Patricia E. Dowds (clc) (Entered: 01/11/2000)
24 ORDER granting [19-1] motion to Extend Time up to and including 2/18/00 to resp to Meck Co's interrogatories and request for production of docs ( signed by Magistrate Judge H. B. McKnight ) [EOD DATE: 1/14/00] (clc) (Entered: 01/14/2000)
25 RESPONSE by USA to [19-1] motion to Extend Time up to and including 2/18/00 to resp to interrogatories and request for production of docs by Accustaff, Inc, [18-1] motion to Extend Time up to and including 2/2/00 to resp to interrogatories and request for production of docs by Accustaff, Inc (clc) (Entered: 01/21/2000)
26 NOTICE of Appearance for USA by Stephen J. Curran (clc) (Entered: 01/21/2000)
27 RETURN OF SERVICE Executed 1/19/00 served with Subpoena (clc) (Entered: 01/31/2000)
28 CONSENT ORDER, for Protective Order ( signed by Magistrate Judge H. B. McKnight ) [EOD DATE: 2/1/00] (clc) (Entered: 02/01/2000)
29 INITIAL PRETRIAL ORDER IPC held 10:40 1/20/00 Discovery deadline is 8/24/00 Motion filing deadline is 9/29/00 Mediation due: 5/15/00 Report of Mediator due: 5/15/00 Jury Trial set for 9:30 1/8/01 ETT: 10 days ( signed by Magistrate Judge H. B. McKnight ) (clc) (Entered: 02/01/2000)

03/08/2000 04/12/2000 04/12/2000 04/13/2000
05/02/2000 05/09/2000 05/09/2000 05/09/2000 05/16/2000 05/17/2000 05/19/2000 05/24/2000
07/12/2000 07/24/2000

30 RETURN OF SERVICE Executed as to Mecklenburg County 3/1/00 served with Subpoena (clc) (Entered: 03/13/2000)
Deadline updated; set Calendar Call for 10:00 1/8/01 before Judge Richard L. Voorhees , set Jury Trial for 10:00 1/8/01 before Judge Richard L. Voorhees (dcap) (Entered: 04/12/2000)
32 MOTION by Accustaff Inc to excuse appearance at mediated settlement conf (former emp) (Entered: 04/17/2000)
31 ORDER excusing 3rd pty deft Randstad US, LL d/b/a accustaff from attending mediation conf sched for 4/14/00 ( signed by Magistrate Judge H. B. McKnight ) [EOD DATE: 4/14/00] (former emp) (Entered: 04/14/2000)
33 JOINT MOTION by USA, Mecklenburg County for entry of consent Settlement agreement referred to: Judge Richard L. Voorhees (former emp) (Entered: 05/09/2000)
34 ORDER granting [33-1] joint motion for entry of consent Settlement agreement ( signed by Judge Richard L. Voorhees ) [EOD DATE: 5/15/00] (former emp) (Entered: 05/15/2000)
Case closed (former emp) Modified on 08/09/2000 (Entered: 05/15/2000)
35 ORDER granting [33-1] joint motion for entry of consent Settlement agreement ( signed by Judge Richard L. Voorhees ) [EOD DATE: 5/15/00] (former emp) (Entered: 05/15/2000)
36 MOTION by Ruth Annette Harris to Amend [11-1] intervenor complaint by interlineation referred to: Magistrate Judge H. B. McKnight (former emp) (Entered: 05/19/2000)
Case reopened (former emp) (Entered: 05/17/2000)
37 STIPULATION of dismissal of third-party complaint (former emp) (Entered: 05/22/2000)
38 ORDER granting [36-1] motion to Amend [11-1] intervenor complaint by interlineation ( signed by Magistrate Judge H. B. McKnight ) [EOD DATE: 5/25/00] (former emp) (Entered: 05/25/2000)
39 AMENDED intervenor's COMPLAINT by Ruth Annette Harris: amending [11-1] intervenor complaint (former emp) (Entered: 07/17/2000)
40 ANSWER by Mecklenburg County to [39-1] intervenor complaint by Ruth Annette Harris (former emp) (Entered:

09/29/2000 09/29/2000 09/29/2000 10/04/2000 10/17/2000
10/18/2000
10/26/2000 10/30/2000 10/30/2000 11/07/2000 12/07/2000
01/04/2001

07/28/2000)
41 MOTION by Mecklenburg County to Seal motion for summary judgment referred to: Magistrate Judge H. B. McKnight (former emp) (Entered: 10/03/2000)
42 Sealed MOTION by Mecklenburg County for Summary Judgment referred to: Magistrate Judge H. B. McKnight (former emp) (Entered: 11/01/2000)
43 Sealed MEMORANDUM by Mecklenburg County in support of [42-1] motion for Summary Judgment by Mecklenburg County (former emp) (Entered: 11/01/2000)
44 Sealed MEMORANDUM by Mecklenburg County in support of [42-1] motion for Summary Judgment by Mecklenburg County (former emp) (Entered: 11/01/2000)
45 MOTION by Ruth Annette Harris to Extend Time until 10/30/00 to respond to motion for summary judgment referred to: Magistrate Judge H. B. McKnight (former emp) (Entered: 10/18/2000)
46 ORDER granting [45-1] motion to Extend Time until 10/30/00 to respond to motion for summary judgment, Response to Motion reset to 10/30/00 for [42-1] motion for Summary Judgment ( signed by Magistrate Judge H. B. McKnight ) [EOD DATE: 10/26/00] (former emp) (Entered: 10/26/2000)
47 Mecklenburg Countys notification of subsequent case history (former emp) (Entered: 10/30/2000)
48 MOTION by Ruth Annette Harris to Seal response and memorandum briefa referred to: Magistrate Judge H. B. McKnight (former emp) (Entered: 11/03/2000)
49 *SEALED* RESPONSE by Ruth Annette Harris to [42-1] motion for Summary Judgment by Mecklenburg County (former emp) (Entered: 11/03/2000)
50 SEALED DOCUMENT reply to response to motion for summary jgm (former emp) (Entered: 11/09/2000)
51 ORDER granting [48-1] motion to Seal response and memorandum briefa ( signed by Magistrate Judge H. B. McKnight ) [EOD DATE: 12/11/00] (former emp) (Entered: 12/11/2000)
Deadline updated; reset Calendar Call for 9:29 1/22/01 before Judge Richard L. Voorhees re: (ssh) (Entered: 01/04/2001)

01/10/2001 01/10/2001 01/18/2001

52 STIPULATION of dismissal by and between parties w/prej (former emp) Modified on 01/18/2001 (Entered: 01/16/2001)
Case closed (former emp) Modified on 01/18/2001 (Entered: 01/16/2001)
CASE NO LONGER REFERRED TO Magistrate Judge H. B. McKnight (former emp) (Entered: 01/18/2001)