.'

' .

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

)

COMMISSION,

)

David W. Daniel, Clerk US District Court, EDNC
By ~ Oep. Clerk

Plaintiff, v.

)

) )

rf CIVIL ACTION NO. S:qC{-CV

) )

15~ J--\~

THE NEWS AND OBSERVER PUBLISHING )

COMPANY,

)

)

)

Defendant.

)

COMPLAINT JURY TRIAL DEMAND

-----------------------------------)

NATURE OF THE ACTION

This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of

1964 and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to correct

unlawful employment practices on the basis of religion, and to

provide appropriate relief to Timothy Wilkins who was adversely

affected by such practices. The Commission alleges that the

Defendant discriminated against Timothy Wilkins when it failed to

promote him and discharged him because of his religious beliefs,

~, Baptist, including his belief that gay men and lesbians can

be transformed into heterosexuals.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28

U.S.C. §§ 451, 1331, 1337, 1343 and 1345. This action is

authorized and instituted pursuant to Sections 706(f) (1) and (3)

of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42

U. S . C. § § 2 000e - 5 (f) (1) and (3) and 2000e - 6 (" Tit1e VI I ") and

Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. Section

1981a.

SCANNED

...~

\
_.__. _ - - - - - -

'.
2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, Western Division.
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "Commission"), is the agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title VII, and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Sections 706 (f) (1) and (3), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-5 (f) (1) and (3). 4. At all relevant times, Defendant, The News & Observer Publishing Company has continuously been doing business in the State of North Carolina and the City of Raleigh, and has continuously had at least 15 employees. 5. At all relevant times, Defendant has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701(b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e (b), (g) and (h).
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 6. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Timothy Wilkins filed charges with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by Defendant. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled. 7. In or about August 1997, Defendant engaged in unlawful employment practices at its Raleigh, North Carolina facility, in violation of Section 703 (a) (1) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-
2

2(a) (1), including the following: a.) refusing to promote Timothy Wilkins because of his religious belief and practice. Specifically, Defendant refused to promote Timothy Wilkins because he publicly voiced his sincerely held religious belief, that as a Baptist, he could transform gay men and lesbians into heterosexuals; and b.) discharging Timothy Wilkins because of his sincerely held religious belief described above.
8. The effect of the practices complained of in paragraph 7 has been to deprive Timothy Wilkins of equal employment opportunities and otherwise affect his status as an employee, because of his religion.
9. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 7 above were intentional.
10. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 7 above were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Timothy Wilkins.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant, its officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in religious discrimination.
3

B. Order Defendant to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for all employees, including an effective policy prohibiting religious discrimination, all of which eradicate the effects of its past unlawful employment practices.
C. Order Defendant to make whole Timothy Wilkins by providing affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices as alleged in paragraph 7, including but not limited to back pay, with pre- and postjudgment interest and reinstatement.
D. Order Defendant to make whole Timothy Wilkins by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described in paragraph 7 in amounts to be determined at trial.
E. order Defendant to make whole Timothy Wilkins by providing compensation for past and future nonpecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices complained of in paragraph 7, including pain, suffering, emotional pain, humiliation, loss of business opportunity, loss of enjoyment of life, and inconvenience, in amounts to be determined at trial.
F. Order Defendant to pay punitive damages to Timothy Wilkins for its malicious and reckless conduct as described in paragraph 7 in amounts to be determined at trial.
G. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public interest.
H. Award the Commission its costs of this action.
4

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of

fact raised by its complaint.

Dated this 30th day of August t 1999.

C. GREGORY STEWART General Counsel Designate

GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 1801 "L" Streett N.W. Washington t D.C. 20507

'~~ 1· .~. ,

.7k44J~

MINDY E. E STEIN

Region Attorney

Supervisory

Attorney

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Charlotte District Office 129 West Trade Street Suite 400 Charlotte t North Carolina 28202 (704) 344-6878

5

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION
No. 5:99-CV-582-F(3)

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

)

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

THE NEWS AND OBSERVER

)

PUBLISHING COMPANY,

)

Defendants.

)

ORDER
(2);08# ,!)i{, p, 1&

This matter is before the court upon motion by the News and Observer Publishing

Company ("News & Observer") for summary judgment. The EEOC has responded to the

motion, the News & Observer has replied, and the matter is ripe for disposition.

L Factual and Procedural Background

Timothy Wilkins began his association with the News & Observer in March 1996, as an

independent contractor selling newspaper subscriptions. Because of his exemplary sales record

as a contractor, Wilkins was informed that a direct sales supervisor position was soon to be

vacant. Wilkins also learned that Mary Moxin, the News & Observer's Direct Sales Manager,

was interested in Wilkins applying for the position.

Wilkins decided to apply for the position and, after several interviews, was hired by

Moxin in June 1996 as direct sales supervisor. Moxin hired Wilkins with knowledge of his

religious background. In his application for employment, Wilkins indicated that he held a

Masters in Divinity degree from Southwest Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas. His application also

disclosed that he was a consultant to Single Adult Special, a religious organization counseling

single adults, and was on the board of directors of SOLO, another religious organization. In his

~I

application, Wilkins also listed his fonner position as a pastor at Southside Baptist Church in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. Moxin served as Wilkins' immediate supervisor throughout his course of employment. In turn, Moxin reported directly to Kate Cleary, the Circulation Director.
As he had done as an independent contractor, Wilkins implemented several new ideas as direct sales supervisor. His innovations included: introducing incentive-based programs to increase sales and encourage and retain independent contractors; creating promotional materials for pushing new subscriptions; improving marketing materials; and researching effective marketing techniques at other newspapers.
For the first twelve months of his employment as direct sales supervisor, Wilkins' job perfonnance satisfied Moxin, his immediate supervisor, and Cleary, head of Wilkins' department. On the one-year anniversary of his employment, Moxin, with input from Cleary, completed a favorable annual appraisal for Wilkins, marking him "commendable-plus." Wilkins Depo. Ex. 12. In conjunction with the appraisal, on June 26, 1997, Wilkins received a merit pay increase, which is reflected in a Payroll Change Notice signed by both Moxin and Cleary. Moxin Depo. Ex. 19.
During his first year of employment with the newspaper, Wilkins on several occasions voiced his specific religious beliefs to Moxin and other employees. According to Wilkins, he is a believer and follower of the teachings of Jesus Christ. Wilkins Aff. ~ 8. As part of his religion, he believes that homosexual behavior is moral perversion forbidden by the express command of God, and constitutes sin. Id. Wilkins adheres to the belief that a homosexual who desires to change, can change and lead a "nonnal, healthy, heterosexual existence through repentance for past behavior, future obedience to God, and the changing power of Christ." Id. Wilkins' beliefs are bolstered by his own experience. He believes that through repentance, the
2

power of Christ, and his obedience to God, he was delivered from living as a homosexual to leading a heterosexual lifestyle. !d. '1f 9.
In October 1996, Wilkins wrote a letter to the editor of The News & Observer, stating that homosexuals "[clan be transformed to heterosexuality, or ... at the very least experience the power of Christ to cease any type of sexual immorality .... " I Wilkins Depo. 18-2 I. In March 1997, Wilkins submitted for publication in the N&O Notes, the News & Observer's employee newsletter, an article on his religious beliefs and personal experiences. In this connection, Wilkins wrote to Amy Powers a "briefbio" in which Wilkins stated that he is an "ex-gay" who was transformed by "obeying God's word." Wilkins Depo. Ex. 3.
In early 1997, the president of the Southern Baptist Convention ofIowa invited Wilkins to speak at a conference in Des Moines, Iowa. To attend, Wilkins sought clearance from Moxin to be absent from his job. According to Wilkins, the essence of his speech was "that Jesus Christ can transform men and women from homosexuality, ifnot into heterosexual, certainly into celibate disciples of Christ Jesus." 1 Wilkins Depo. 30. After receiving Moxin's permission to miss work for the Des Moines speech, Wilkins shared with Moxin, "chapter and verse," the thesis of his speech, his personal experience of transformation from gay to straight, and his specific belief that this transformation arose from his faith. Wilkins shared all of this information with Moxin several weeks prior to leaving for Des Moines. Moxin did not withdraw permission for Wilkins to have leave from employment to deliver the speech, nor did she suggest any disapproval or disquietude about the speech. Moxin recalled telling Wilkins: "It's okay. If that's what-how you feel, it's all right." 1 Moxin Depo. 93. Wilkins testified that Moxin responded to his testimony with "words to the effect that I should be glad that I had not contracted AIDS." 1 Wilkins Depo. 32. Wilkins further testified that he found this comment
3

"slightly sarcastic," id. at 39, but could identifY no religious content in the statement. See id. at 39-40.
On June 20, 1997, The News & Observer published an article by Yonat Shimron, a News & Observer religion writer, entitled Baptists aim to define family. Shimron reported that Wilkins, who had attended the Southern Baptist Convention on behalf of Providence Baptist Church in Raleigh, had delivered a "message" asking that the denomination" 'aggressively promote ministries that try to guide gays and lesbians toward heterosexuality.' " I Wilkins Depo. 92; Wilkins Depo. Ex. 5. Wilkins complimented Shimron on the article and told her by email: "As an ordained Southern Baptist minister, a messenger to the Convention and an ex-gay, I might have a unique perspective on this issue." Wilkins Depo. Ex. 4; I Wilkins Depo. 92.
Shirnron eventually approached Wilkins about doing a feature article for the paper regarding his beliefs and experiences. Shimron spent several hours interviewing both Wilkins and his wife in preparation for the article. Shimron's article, entitled The Quest for "Transformation "-Can Faith Make Gays Go Straight? [hereinafter" The Quest for Transformation"] appeared on August 4, 1997, on the front page of The News & Observer. The article featured the testimony and story of Wilkins' transformation from homosexuality to heterosexuality. Although Moxin was aware of Wilkins' religious beliefs regarding homosexuality, Cleary did not become aware of his views until she read the article.
On the same day the article was published, Cleary attended a weekly circulation meeting with the supervisors under her. At the meeting, an unidentified individual commented that The Quest for Transformation could affect circulation sales. One of the supervisors present at the meeting, Joan Craft, attributed the comment to Cleary. Craft testified that she assumed the comment referenced a possible negative impact on circulation numbers. Additionally, during
4

a meeting within a day or two of publication of the article, Wilkins met with Moxin and Cleary, and Cleary made the comment: "Religion has no place in the workplace." Wilkins testified that Cleary's statement was prompted by his inclusion of the phrase "Pray harder!" on a document given to Cleary and that the comment pertained to religion only "in a kind of generic sense." 2 Wilkins Depo. 356.
Prior to the publication ofthe article, Wilkins' working relationship with Moxin had begun to deteriorate. Moxin testified regarding heated exchanges with Wilkins during the month of July. Moxin testified that she met with Wilkins on July 19, 1997, regarding certain salesrelated issues and was disappointed in the manner in which he reacted to the questions posed to him. She testified that, on July 22, 1997, she made known to Wilkins her concerns about his July 19 behavior and that he "did not agree he was wrong." I Moxin Depo. 213. Moxin also became upset because Wilkins had distributed a memorandum without her prior knowledge or input. Moxin also testified that Wilkins "became angry" with her during a meeting on July 28, when she interrupted him in an attempt to move the meeting along. ld. at 226. She testified: "I would try to talk with him, to reason with him, and he would-at this point, he was-had become
so outrageous that he was [sic1just ramble on and on and talk. And I would not-if! did not
interrupt, I would not have been able to say anything .... " ld. On July 30, Wilkins sent an email message to Cleary complaining about a request Moxin
made of him. When Moxin learned of the email, she asked Wilkins why he failed to raise the concern directly with her. Moxin testified that Wilkins reacted by exclaiming: "she's harassing me." 2 Moxin Depo. 9. In a chronology of events prepared by Wilkins, he acknowledged that at least by this date, July 30, his relationship with Moxin had deteriorated to the point that she "chewed
5

him out" at length, an event leading him to request Cleary's immediate intercession. Wilkins Depo. Ex. 38, at 4.
Wilkins' version of events regarding his relationship with Moxin and overall job performance differs from the version presented by the News & Observer. According to Wilkins, he cooperated with every supervisory request made throughout the months of July and August. He submits that each formal meeting he had with Moxin or with Moxin and Cleary was at his request. He submits that he took initiative to help resolve communication issues that had developed and that he did all that was requested of him by Moxin or Cleary.
During a July 31 meeting, Moxin, Cleary, and Wilkins scheduled a follow-up meeting, which occurred on either August 5 or August 7. At the July 31 meeting, it was decided that Wilkins would develop a list of suggestions for communicating more effectively with Moxin. Taking three to four hours to do so, Wilkins prepared four pages of notes, which he brought to the follow-up meeting. In these notes, Wilkins made several suggestions, including that he and Moxin "[bJe more considerate of each other, particularly in front of peers." Wilkins Depo. Ex. 14. Wilkins' notes make no mention of religious discrimination. One of the ways in which Cleary, Moxin, and Wilkins decided to address the concerns expressed in Wilkins' four pages of notes was for Moxin and Wilkins to meet on a weekly basis. The first of these meetings was scheduled for August IS, 1997. The meeting failed to occur and it was Moxin's perception that Wilkins simply opted not to attend the meeting.
On August 23, 1997, during a meeting with Cleary and Moxin, Wilkins was suspended for three days with pay. At the meeting, Moxin and Cleary questioned Wilkins about his failure to show up for the meeting with Moxin scheduled for August 15, 1997. Wilkins explained that he showed up for the meeting and had searched for Moxin to no avail. Cleary responded that
6

Wilkins refused to admit that he was at fault. Cleary testified that Wilkins was suspended for being disrespectful, ignoring meetings, and because he was determined not to do what Moxin asked him to do. Cleary testified that she suspended Wilkins "to give him a few days to stop and think about how we were going to move forward." Cleary Depo. 89.
Wilkins returned from his suspension on August 27 and met with Cleary. Moxin did not attend this meeting because she was at a family funeral. Wilkins testified that the meeting with Cleary lasted several hours. Cleary discussed with Wilkins the specific reasons for his suspension-lack of respect for management, insubordination, and failure to take responsibility-and then left him alone to think of ideas concerning how he could effectively perform his job and work with Moxin. Cleary testified that if Wilkins had demonstrated during the meeting a commitment to work with Moxin, he would not have been discharged. However, as the meeting progressed, Cleary determined that the issues were not going to be resolved because she perceived that Wilkins was unwilling to move forward in ways that she desired. She testified that, in the end, she fired Wilkins because she "had not seen any effort on his part to take responsibility and show commitment to change the situation and move forward." Cleary Depo. 128-29.
The EEOC initiated this lawsuit on August 31,1999, alleging that the News & Observer, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2, had failed to promote Wilkins and had discharged him because Wilkins "publicly voiced his sincerely held religious belief, that as a Baptist, he could transform gay men and lesbians into heterosexuals." Complaint '1l 7. On August 11, 2000, the EEOC filed a stipulation of dismissal as to the failure to promote claim. The News & Observer has now moved for summary judgment on the discharge claim.
7

IL Summary Judgment Standard Summary judgment is appropriate when no genuine issues of material fact exist and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter oflaw. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247 (1986). The party seeking summary judgment bears the burden initially of coming forward and demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). Once the moving party has met its burden, the nonmoving party then must come forward and demonstrate that such a fact issue does indeed exist. See Matsushita Electric Indus. Co., v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). Summary judgment is appropriate against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish any one of the essential elements of the party's claim on which he wiIl bear the burden of proof at trial. See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322-23.
IlL Analysis Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it "an unlawful practice for an employer ... to discharge any individual ... because of such individual's religion." 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2. The Fourth Circuit recognizes two theories under which an employee may assert a claim for religious discrimination: disparate treatment based on religion and failure to accommodate religious beliefs. See Chalmers v. Tulon Co., 101 F.3d 1012, 1017 (4th Cir. 1996). The EEOC has alleged a claim based on disparate treatment. A plaintiff may prove a disparate treatment claim by demonstrating "that the employer treated [him] differently than other employees because of [his] religious beliefs." Id. (emphasis in original). The claim may be established either by direct evidence or by use of the burden shifting scheme articulated in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973).
8

Lacking direct evidence of discrimination, the EEOC seeks to establish its claim by utilizing the McDonnell Douglas scheme.
To establish a claim under the McDonnell Douglas scheme of proof, the plaintiff first must establish a prima facie case of discrimination. See Stokes v. Westinghouse Savannah River Co., 206 F.3d 420,429 (4th Cir. 2000). Once the plaintiff establishes a prima facie case, "the burden shifts to the employer to 'rebut the presumption of discrimination' by producing evidence that the employment action in question was taken 'for a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason.' " Stokes, 206 F.3d at 429 (quoting Texas Dep't ofCommunity Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 254 (1981)). Once the employer meets this burden, the EEOC must prove that the News & Observer's proffered reason was mere pretext and that religious discrimination was the real reason for the employer's actions. See Hawkins v. Pepsico, Inc., 203 F.3d 274,278 (4th Cir. 2000). The plaintiff "bears the ultimate burden of proving that he has been the victim of intentional discrimination." Stokes, 206 F.3d at 429; see also Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 141 (2000) (the discriminating factor "must have actually played a role in [the employer's decision making] process and had a determinative influence on the outcome") (internal citations omitted)).
In order to make out a prima facie case of discriminatory discharge, a plaintiff must prove: (I) he is in a protected group; (2) he was discharged; (3) at the time of his discharge, he was performing his job at a level that met his employer's legitimate expectations; and (4) this discharge occurred under circumstances that raise a reasonable inference of unlawful discrimination. See Haulbrook v. Michelin North America, 252 F.3d 696, 702 (4th Cir. 2001) (applying standard to ADA wrongful discharge claim); Taylor v. Virginia Union University, 193 F.3d 219,230 (4th Cir. 1999) (applying standard to gender discrimination claim based on failure
9

to promote); see also Glunt v. GES Exposition Services. Inc., 123 F. Supp. 2d 847, 865-66 (D. Md. 2001) (citing cases from other circuits and discussing higher courts' movement away from "similarly situated replacement" requirement as fourth factor in McDonnell Douglas analysis to consideration of whether adverse employment action occurred under circumstances giving rise to reasonable inference of discrimination).
Assuming, arguendo, for the purposes of this motion that the EEOC can meet its initial burden in proving a prima facie case, the EEOC's discriminatory discharge claim ultimately fails as a matter oflaw because the EEOC has not adduced sufficient evidence to prove that the News & Observer's proffered reason for discharge was mere pretext and that religious discrimination was the real reason for the newspaper's actions.
The News & Observer has produced competent evidence that Wilkins was discharged for a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason. Specifically, the employer adduced proof that Moxin and Cleary perceived Wilkins to be unwilling to work out problems with his immediate supervisor. Following a number of meetings with Moxin and Wilkins, and Wilkin's suspension, Cleary concluded that Wilkins was not moving forward to resolve his issues with Moxin in a reasonable manner. Cleary fired him because she believed Wilkins failed to take responsibility, had shown lack of respect for management, and exhibited insubordination toward Moxin.
Whether Cleary'S perception of Wilkins was reasonable or accurate, or whether such perception justified Wilkin's termination is not at issue before this court. "[W]hen an employer gives a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for discharging the plaintiff, 'it is not [the court's] province to decide whether the reason was wise, fair, or even correct, ultimately, so long as it truly was the reason for the plaintiffs termination.''' Hawkins, 203 F.3d at 279 (quoting DeJarnette v. Corning. Inc., 133 F.3d 293,299 (4th Cir. 1998)); see also Giannopou/os v. Branch
10

& Brock Confections, Inc., 109 F.3d 406, 410 (7th Cir. 1997) (The court "does not sit as a kind of super-personnel department weighing the prudence of employment decisions made by firms charged with employment discrimination. "). The EEOC's claim fails because it cannot demonstrate that the News & Observer's stated reason for discharging Wilkins was not the real reason for his discharge.
The EEOC's primary argument that the News & Observer's proffered reason for termination was mere pretext and that religious discrimination was the real reason for the employer's actions centers around the timing of Wilkins' termination. The EEOC notes that Wilkins was fired only three weeks after publication of The Quest for Transformation and within a mere two months of receiving an evaluation from Moxin that his job performance was commendable. The EEOC argues that Cleary's favorable impression of Wilkins suddenly changed after the article was released. The EEOC contends that this chronology raises the reasonable inference that the proffered reason for termination is pretextual and that Wilkins was fired for having professed his religious beliefs.
The temporal proximity of Wilkins' firing to the publication of the article is not sufficient to establish pretext without showing some causal connection between the two events. That Wilkins expressed a religious viewpoint and subsequently was terminated is immaterial without evidence that Wilkins' religious beliefs in some way affected his employment status. See Sattar v. Motorola, Inc., 138 F.3d I 164, I 170 (7th Cir. 1998) (affirming summary judgment where plaintiff employee failed to adequately link his discharge to his former supervisor's religious harassment). As evidence that Wilkins' religious views did affect his employment status, the EEOC identifies two stray comments made by Cleary, which it contends demonstrate her discriminatory intent. First, the EEOC refers to the comment, attributed to Cleary by Joan Clark,
II

made at the weekly circulation meeting on the date The Quest for Transformation was published that the article could affect circulation sales.! Presumably, the EEOC desires the court to infer that the News & Observer fired Wilkins because it believed Wilkins' religious views negatively impacted circulation. The inference is tenuous, however, since it was the News & Observer's decision to publish the article in the first place. Furthermore, that Cleary, the newspaper's Circulation Director, commented upon the article's possible effect on circulation does not demonstrate that Cleary herself objected to Wilkins' religious views or otherwise bore discriminatory animus toward Wilkins.
The second comment identified by the EEOC is Cleary's comment to Wilkins that "religion has no place in the workplace." EEOC Response 20-21. Wilkins testified that Cleary's statement was prompted by his inclusion of the phrase "Pray harder!" on a document given to Cleary and that the comment pertained to religion only "in a kind of generic sense." 2 Wilkins Depo.356-57. The EEOC shows no nexus between this remark and Wilkins' termination. Furthermore, there is no evidence that Cleary made any reference to Wilkins' particular religious views.
In sum, the two statements attributed to Cleary do not demonstrate discriminatory animus toward Wilkin's religious viewpoint. Furthermore, there is no nexus between the stray remarks and any employment decision made by the newspaper. See EEOC v. Clay Printing Co., 955 F.2d 936, 942 (4th Cir. 1992).
! In her testimony, Craft categorically denied that Cleary made any reference to Wilkins' continued employment by the News & Observer when she commented upon the impact of the article upon circulation.
12

The EEOC argues that the manner in which the News & Observer accomplished Wilkins' termination also demonstrates that the newspaper's reasons for discharging him are not true and that Cleary fired him based on his religious beliefs. The EEOC seeks to rely on four points: (1) the fact that the decision to terminate Wilkins was made by Cleary and not Wilkins' direct supervisor, Moxin; (2) the fact that the newspaper offered shifting reasons for terminating Wilkins; (3) the failure of News & Observer supervisors to counsel Wilkins; and (4) the fact that one of Moxin's sets of notes of events surrounding Wilkins' termination contains an incorrect date.
These four issues, even viewed collectively, do not raise a genuine issue of material fact sufficient to preclude summary judgment. Moxin was not present at Cleary's final meeting with Wilkins, during which he was fired, because of a death in the family. Besides this final meeting, Moxin had been directly involved in all other decisions involving Wilkins' employment. The fact that Cleary, who had received full benefit ofMoxin's briefings and had attended (with Moxin) three sessions with Wilkins in the preceding four weeks, did not wait for Moxin to return from a funeral in order to move forward on the termination decision does not demonstrate pretext. Cf Kulumani v. Blue Cross Blue Shield, 224 F.3d 681, 684 (7th Cir. 2000) (affirming summary judgment in Title VII case where plaintiff attempted to show pretext by intervention of higher level supervision in his termination).
The EEOC next notes that in the newspaper's original position statement in response to the EEOC charge, dated January 8, 1998, the News & Observer states that Wilkins performance began to deteriorate in early 1997 and deteriorated to the point that he was no longer an effective recruiter and trainer. Because Cleary and Moxin both later testified that Wilkins' performance was satisfactory until July 19, 1997, the EEOC argues that the News & Observer offered shifting
13

reasons for tenninating Wilkins, which provides evidence that the reasons given are pretext for discrimination. Read in its entirety, the court finds that the grounds for tennination submitted in the newspaper's response letter are not inconsistent with Wilkins' tennination for insubordination. Indeed, the position statement notes that the News & Observer fired Wilkins when he was "not willing to alter his mindset," despite Cleary's intervention. Jackson Depo. Ex. 14. Furthennore, "discrimination does not lurk behind every inaccurate statement," Fisher v. Vassar College, 114 F.3d 1332, 1338 (2d Cir. 1997), and the court finds no evidence here of "deceit used to cover one's tracks" that constitutes pretext. Ku/umani, 224 F.3d at 684.
The EEOC next argues that the newspaper's grounds for tenninating Wilkins are pretextual because Wilkins was treated differently from another direct sales representative who allegedly experienced perfonnance problems, in that Wilkins was never "counseled" regarding his perfonnance deficiencies. The EEOC notes that Paul Basile, who was also supervised by Moxin, participated in two separate documented counselings prior to his tennination for perfonnance reasons. Moxin and Cleary met with Basile and presented him with counseling documents that set forth specific steps which Basile was required to follow or risk tennination of employment. Basile was later tenninated at Moxin's recommendation because he failed to abide by the counseling documents. The EEOC argues that, in contrast, Wilkins was never "counseled" or given a document that stating that he could be tenninated for failure to abide by certain conditions. Additionally, the EEOC notes, Wilkins was never told that he was in danger of being tenninated.
Despite the fact that Wilkins was not fonnally "counseled," Moxin and Cleary met with Wilkins on at least three separate occasions within three weeks in an effort to work through Wilkins' relationship with Moxin. At these meetings, Wilkins was pennitted to air his concerns
14

regarding his relationship with Moxin orally and in writing and Moxin scheduled periodic meetings with Wilkins to continue to address these issues. Finally, Wilkins was placed on a period of paid suspension before the ultimate decision was made to discharge him. The fact that Wilkins termination differed from another employee's does not demonstrate pretext.
Finally, the EEOC argues that Moxin's notes regarding grounds for Wilkins' suspension and termination are not credible and cast doubt on the News & Observer's proffered reasons for termination. Specifically, the EEOC points out that Moxin indicated in handwriting in one of her several sets of typewritten notes that the document was prepared on August 9, 1997, even though the document describes events taking place as late as August 15, 1997. Moxin acknowledged the mistaken date but testified that she believed she completed the document prior to Wilkins' termination. The court does not agree that the discrepancy in Moxin's notes casts doubt on their credibility. However, even were the court to disregard Moxin's notes because of this error, adequate competent evidence regarding the newspaper's grounds for terminating Wilkins exists in the record.
IV. Conclusion In sum, the court finds no evidence that Wilkins' religious views affected the decision to discharge him. Wilkins' numerous exchanges with Moxin and Cleary during July and August are devoid of any attack on his religious beliefs. Wilkins never indicated a manifestation of religious discrimination while employed. Additionally, Wilkins can identifY no comment made by Moxin or Cleary critical of his religious beliefs. In the end, Wilkins (and the EEOC) simply disagree with the newspaper's conclusion that his overall insubordination required that he be discharged. This evidence, even when construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, belies discrimination, religious or otherwise. Although the EEOC goes to great lengths to
15

portray Wilkins' firing as a bad decision, as noted above, the correction of the News & Observer's determination that Wilkins was insubordinate and needed to be terminated is irrelevant. The only relevant issues is the existence or absence of discrimination. See Evans v. Technologies Applications & Servo Co., 80 F.3d 954,960-61 (4th Cir. 1996); see also Hawkins, 203 F.3d at 282 (allowing an employee to dispute the corrections of the employer's decision under the guise of Title VII would permit Title VII to be used as "a vehicle for substituting the judgment of a court for that of the employer" and "turn the workplace into a litigious cauldron of ... suspicion. "). Nothing in the record before the court suggests that Wilkins' religious beliefs had "a determinative influence on the outcome" of his employment. Reeves, 530 U.S. at 141. Therefore, for the reasons set forth above, the News & Observer's motion for summary judgment is ALLOWED, and this matter hereby is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED. This the Lday of August, 2001.
C. Fox or United States District Judge
16

 
 CM/ECF - NCED - Docket Report

https://ecf.nced.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?702076501204236-L_3...

CLOSED, Jury Trial, USMJ_Webb
U.S. District Court EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA (Western Division)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 5:99-cv-00582-F

EEOC v. The News and Observe Assigned to: Judge James C. Fox Demand: $0 Cause: 28:451 Employment Discrimination Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
V. Defendant

Date Filed: 08/31/1999 Date Terminated: 08/10/2001 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff
represented by Lynette A. Barnes EEOC/ Charlotte District Officed 129 West Trade St. Suite 400 Charlotte, NC 28202-5306 704-344-6878 Fax: 704-344-6780 Email: lynette.barnes@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rosemary J. Fox E.E.O.C. 129 W. Trade St. Suite 400 Charlotte, NC 28202 704-344-6878 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Zoe G. Mahood E.E.O.C. 1309 Annapolis Dr. Raleigh, NC 27608 919-856-4080 Fax: 919-856-4156 Email: zoe.mahood@EEOC.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

1 of 8

6/29/2007 9:30 AM

CM/ECF - NCED - Docket Report

https://ecf.nced.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?702076501204236-L_3...

The News and Observer Publishing Company

represented by John R. Wester Robinson Bradshaw & Hinson jwester@rbh.com 101 N. Tryon St. 1900 Charlotte, NC 28246 704-377-2536 Fax: 373-3925 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert E. Harrington Robinson, Bradshaw & Hinson 101 N. Tryon St. Suite 1900 Independence Ctr. Charlotte, NC 28246 704-377-8287 Fax: 704-373-3987 Email: rharrington@rbh.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed
08/31/1999 08/31/1999 08/31/1999 10/14/1999 11/09/1999 11/29/1999 12/01/1999 12/21/1999 12/22/1999 12/22/1999 12/30/1999

#

Docket Text

1 Complaint filed JURY TRIAL DEMANDED (se) (Entered: 09/07/1999)
(se) (Entered: 09/07/1999)
Received an unsigned waiver of summons. Was informed that a signed form was to be filed with our office. (se) (Entered: 09/07/1999)
2 Notice of attorney appearance for EEOC by Zoe G. Mahood (se) (Entered: 10/15/1999)
3 Waiver of Service Returned Executed as to The News and Observer on 10/1/99 Answer due on 11/30/99 for The News and Observer (se) (Entered: 11/10/1999)
4 Answer to Complaint by The News and Observer (se) (Entered: 11/30/1999)
5 Request for Discovery Plan: Discovery Plan due by 12/21/99 (se) (Entered: 12/01/1999)
6 Discovery Plan filed by EEOC, The News and Observer (se) (Entered: 12/22/1999)
Case submitted to: USMJ William Webb [6-1] discovery submitted for an order on scheduling (se) (Entered: 12/22/1999)
(se) (Entered: 12/22/1999)
CASE FILE RETURNED from: USMJ William Webb (se) (Entered: 12/30/1999)

2 of 8

6/29/2007 9:30 AM

CM/ECF - NCED - Docket Report

https://ecf.nced.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?702076501204236-L_3...

12/30/1999
01/06/2000 04/28/2000 05/26/2000 05/26/2000
05/30/2000 05/30/2000 06/05/2000
06/05/2000 06/05/2000 06/08/2000 08/11/2000 08/28/2000 08/28/2000 08/31/2000 08/31/2000

7 Order on Scheduling by Magistrate William Webb setting Discovery cutoff 5/31/00 Deadline for filing of all motions 6/30/00 Jury Trial scheduled for 10/30/00 before Judge James C. Fox Place: Wilmington, NC, cc: Counsel, S. Enyart, C. Morgan, C. Wells (se) (Entered: 12/30/1999)
8 Notice of attorney appearance for EEOC by Lynette A. Barnes as co-counsel. (se) (Entered: 01/10/2000)
9 Declaration of service of Subpoena upon Timothy J. Wilkins by The News and Observer Publishing Co. (fdc) (Entered: 05/01/2000)
Received the parties proposed joint protective order. Will forward to USMJ Webb to consider. (se) (Entered: 05/30/2000)
10 Joint Motion by EEOC, The News and Observer to extend time for discovery for 60 days with proposed order attached. Referred motion to USMJ Webb. (fdc) (Entered: 05/30/2000)
Case submitted to: USMJ William Webb for review and consideration of the parties joint protective order. (se) (Entered: 05/30/2000)
Motion(s) referred: referred [10-1] motion to extend time for discovery to USMJ William A. Webb (fdc) (Entered: 05/30/2000)
11 Order granting [10-1] motion to extend time for discovery, reset discovery due for 7/31/00 , reset motion filing deadline for 8/31/00 , reset Jury trial before Judge James C. Fox for 12/11/00 signed by USMJ William A. OB Ref: MISCOB#19, P. 81. cc: counsel, S. Enyart, C. Morgan and C. Wells. (fdc) (Entered: 06/05/2000)
CASE FILE RETURNED from: USMJ William A. Webb (fdc) (Entered: 06/05/2000)
12 Order, for joint protective order signed by USMJ William A. Webb. See order for particulars. OB Ref: MISCOB#19, P. 82. cc: counsel. (fdc) (Entered: 06/05/2000)
13 Declaration by The News and Observer Re: Service of Subpoena upon Lisa Wilkins to take deposition. (fdc) (Entered: 06/09/2000)
14 Stipulation of dismissal filed as to First Claim of Relief. (fdc) Modified on 08/14/2000 (Entered: 08/14/2000)
15 Motion for permission to intervene by Timothy J. Wilkins with exhibit attached (Intevenor's Complaint). Exhibit not scanned. (fdc) (Entered: 08/30/2000)
16 Memorandum by Timothy J. Wilkins in support of [15-1] motion for permission to intervene by Timothy J. Wilkins (fdc) (Entered: 08/30/2000)
17 Motion by The News and Observe for summary judgment (fdc) (Entered: 09/01/2000)
18 Memorandum by The News and Observer in support of [17-1] motion for summary judgment with exhibits attached. Exhibits not scanned. (fdc) (Entered: 09/01/2000)

3 of 8

6/29/2007 9:30 AM

CM/ECF - NCED - Docket Report

https://ecf.nced.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?702076501204236-L_3...

09/19/2000 09/20/2000 09/20/2000 09/21/2000
10/05/2000 10/13/2000 10/19/2000 10/19/2000 10/19/2000 10/19/2000 10/20/2000 10/20/2000
10/25/2000 10/25/2000 10/30/2000 11/15/2000

19 Motion by EEOC to extend time to respond to defendant's motion for summary judgment with consent; without a proposed order. Counsel is requesting up until 10/5/00. Will forward to Judge Fox to consider. (se) (Entered: 09/20/2000)
20 Response by The News and Observer in opposition to [15-1] motion for permission to intervene by Timothy J. Wilkins with exhibits attached (exhibits not scanned) (se) (Entered: 09/20/2000)
Motion(s) submitted: [19-1] motion to extend time to respond to defendant's motion for summary judgment submitted to Judge James C. Fox (se) (Entered: 09/20/2000)
21 Order granting [19-1] motion to extend time to respond to defendant's motion for summary judgment, Response to reset to 10/5/00 for [17-1] motion for summary judgment signed by Judge James C. Fox. OB Ref: FOXOB#21, P. 122. cc: counsel. (faxed copy to Z. Mahood). (fdc) (Entered: 09/21/2000)
22 Response by EEOC to [17-1] motion for summary judgment with appendix of exhibits attached and placed in expanding folder (exhibits not scanned). (fdc) (Entered: 10/06/2000)
Motion(s) submitted: [15-1] motion for permission to intervene by Timothy J. Wilkins submitted to Judge Fox for consideration. (fdc) (Entered: 10/13/2000)
CASE FILE RETURNED from: Judge James C. Fox (fdc) (Entered: 10/19/2000)
23 Order denying [15-1] motion for permission to intervene by Timothy J. Wilkins signed by Judge James C. Fox. OB Ref: FOXOB#21, P. 174. cc: counsel. (fdc) (Entered: 10/19/2000)
Pre-trial conference set at 10:30 11/28/00 before USMJ William N. Mason in Wilmington, NC, Ctrm #3 (se) (Entered: 10/20/2000)
Jury trial set at 9:00 12/11/00 before Judge James C. Fox in Wilmington, NC, Ctrm #1 (se) (Entered: 10/20/2000)
24 Motion by The News and Observe to extend time to file reply brief in support of Motion for Summary Judgment requesting 2-day extension with consent. Proposed order attached. (fdc) (Entered: 10/20/2000)
25 Order granting [24-1] motion to extend time to file reply brief in support of Motion for Summary Judgment, Reply to Response to Motion reset to 10/25/00 for [17-1] motion for summary judgment signed by Jayne C. Clark, Deputy Clerk. Counsel to serve copies. (fdc) (Entered: 10/20/2000)
26 Reply brief by The News and Observer to response to [17-1] motion for summary judgment with exhibits attached. (fdc) (Entered: 10/25/2000)
Motion(s) submitted: [17-1] motion for summary judgment submitted to Judge James C. Fox for consideration. (fdc) (Entered: 10/25/2000)
Pre-trial conference re-set at 3:00 11/28/00 before USMJ William N. Mason in Wilmington, NC, Ctrm #3 (se) (Entered: 11/02/2000)
27 Motion by The News and Observer for Expanded Voir Dire and Incorporated Memorandum. (fdc) (Entered: 11/16/2000)

4 of 8

6/29/2007 9:30 AM

CM/ECF - NCED - Docket Report

https://ecf.nced.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?702076501204236-L_3...

11/21/2000 11/27/2000 11/29/2000 11/29/2000 11/30/2000
12/01/2000 12/05/2000
12/05/2000 12/07/2000

28 Notice of attorney appearance for EEOC by Kerith Cohen (se) (Entered: 11/25/2000)
29 Response by EEOC to [27-1] motion for Expanded Voir Dire (fdc) (Entered: 11/28/2000)
30 Pretrial order filed; estimated trial time is four days. Signed by USMJ William N. Mason. cc: deputy, court reporter and Judge Fox. (fdc) (Entered: 11/29/2000)
Motion(s) submitted: [27-1] motion for Expanded Voir Dire submitted to Judge James C. Fox for consideration. (Trial date is 12/11/00.) (fdc) (Entered: 11/29/2000)
31 Order; This matter, which is currently set for the undersigned's 12/11/00 term of court, hereby is CONTINUED until the 1/22/01 term of court. reset Jury trial before Judge James C. Fox for 1/22/01 , The court DIRECTS the parties to file their proposed voir dire questions, including, if any party so chooses, a proposed jury questionnaire on matters involving sexual orientation, no later than December 15, 2000. The court will reserve ruling on the Defendant's Motion for Expanded Voir Dire pending review of any such proposed questionnaire. Signed by Judge James C. Fox. OB Ref: FOXOB#21, P. 259. cc: counsel, C. Morgan, S. Cannon, S. Enyart. (fdc) (Entered: 12/01/2000)
Issued Notice of Hearing: set status conference before Judge James C. Fox for 11:00 12/5/00 in Courtroom 1, Wilmington, NC. cc: counsel via fax and regular mail, Judge Fox, C. Morgan, Court Reporter, Courtroom Deputy, Raleigh and Southern Div. Offices, USMS in Raleigh, Greenville and Wilmington, CSO, GSA. (fdc) (Entered: 12/01/2000)
Status conference held before Judge James C. Fox. Court Reporter: Stacy Schwinn, Courtroom Deputy: Susan Enyart; Law Clerk: Brian Roark. Counsel for all parties were present for the status conference. The court advises counsel that it has turned their attention to the pending summary judgment motion in this case and reviewed the pretrial order filed in the case. If this case goes to trial, the court wants to be sure that there is ample time to resolve any issues before hand. The court does not want to resolve the objections to the exhibits at trial so it wants to meet with counsel at some point in time early January 2001. The court further discussed possible settlement of this case. Counsel for the pltf advised the court that it has been discussed but that the parties are unable to come to an agreement. The court will try to rule on the pending motion for summary judgment before the holidays. (se) (Entered: 12/07/2000)
Jury trial set at 9:00 1/22/01 before Judge James C. Fox in Wilmington, NC, Ctrm #1 (se) (Entered: 12/18/2000)
32 Order, By order hereby, the date by which the parties shall submit their proposed voir dire questions, including, if any party so chooses, a proposed jury questionnaire on matters involving sexual orientation, is EXTENDED until January 5, 2001. The court will reserve ruling on the Defendant's Motion for Expanded Voir Dire pending review of any such proposed questionnaire , reset Response to Order due 1/5/01 . Signed by Judge James C. Fox. OB Ref: FOXOB#22, P. 26. cc: counsel. (fdc) (Entered: 12/07/2000)

5 of 8

6/29/2007 9:30 AM

CM/ECF - NCED - Docket Report

https://ecf.nced.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?702076501204236-L_3...

12/14/2000 12/18/2000 01/04/2001
01/12/2001
01/25/2001 02/28/2001 02/28/2001 03/01/2001 03/01/2001
05/02/2001 05/30/2001

33 Document filed by defendant The News and Observer titled: Defendant's Suggestion of Subsequently Decided Controlling Authority. (fdc) (Entered: 12/14/2000)
34 Document filed by defendant The News and Observer Publishing Co. titled: Disclosure of Corporate Affiliations and Other Entities with a Direct Financial Interest in Litigation. (se) (Entered: 12/19/2000)
35 Order, By order hereof, the date by which the parties shall submit their proposed voir dire questions, including, if any party so chooses, a proposed jury questionnaire on matters involving sexual orientation, is EXTENDED until January 15, 2001. reset Response to Order due 1/15/01 , The court will reserve ruling on the Defendant's Motion for Expanded Voir Dire pending review of any such proposed questionnaire. signed by Judge James C. Fox. OB Ref: FOXOB#22, P. 46. cc: counsel. (fdc) (Entered: 01/04/2001)
36 Order, This matter, which is currently scheduled for the undersigned's January 22, 2001 term of court, hereby is CONTINUED until the March 19, 2001 term of court. The court DIRECTS the parties to file their proposed voir dire questions, including, if any party so chooses, a proposed jury questionnaire on matters involving sexual orientation, no later than March 5, 2001. The court will reserve ruling on the Defendant's Motion for Expanded Voir Dire pending review of any such proposed questionnaire. , reset Response to Order due 3/5/01 signed by Judge James C. Fox. OB Ref: FOXOB#22, P. 63. cc: counsel, C. Morgan, S. Cannon, S. Enyart. (fdc) (Entered: 01/12/2001)
Jury trial set at 9:00 3/19/01 before Judge James C. Fox in Wilmington, NC, Ctrm #1 (se) (Entered: 01/30/2001)
37 Joint Motion by The News and Observe, EEOC to continue trial proposed order attached. Will forward to Judge Fox for consideration. (fdc) (Entered: 02/28/2001)
Motion(s) submitted: [37-1] motion to continue trial submitted to Judge James C. Fox for review and consideration. (fdc) (Entered: 02/28/2001)
CASE FILE RETURNED from: Judge James C. Fox (fdc) (Entered: 03/01/2001)
38 Order granting [37-1] motion to continue trial until the June 25, 2001 term of Court. The Court DIRECTS the parties to file their proposed voir dire questions, including, if any party so chooses, a proposed jury questionnaire on matters involving sexual orientation, no later than 6/11/01. The Court will reserve ruling on the Defendant's Motion for Expanded Voir Dire pending review of any such proposed questionnaire. , reset Jury trial before Judge James C. Fox for 9:00 6/25/01 , set Response to Order due 6/11/01 signed by Judge James Fox. OB Ref: FOXOB#22, P. 148. cc: counsel, C. Morgan, S. Cannon and S. Enyart. (fdc) (Entered: 03/01/2001)
Jury trial set at 9:00 6/25/01 before Judge James C. Fox in Wilmington, NC, Ctrm #1 (se) (Entered: 05/03/2001)
39 Motion by The News and Observe to continue trial with consent. Proposed order attached and forwarded to Judge James C. Fox for consideration. (fdc) (Entered: 05/30/2001)

6 of 8

6/29/2007 9:30 AM

CM/ECF - NCED - Docket Report

https://ecf.nced.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?702076501204236-L_3...

05/30/2001 06/01/2001
07/17/2001 08/10/2001 08/10/2001 08/10/2001
08/10/2001 08/24/2001 09/28/2001 11/07/2001 11/26/2001 11/26/2001
12/07/2001 12/07/2001

Motion(s) submitted: [39-1] motion to continue trial submitted to Judge James C. Fox for consideration. (fdc) (Entered: 05/30/2001)
40 Order granting [39-1] motion to continue trial, The court DIRECTS the parties to file their proposed voir dire questions, including, if any party so chooses, a proposed jury questionnaire on matters involving sexual orientation, no later than August 20, 2001. The Court will reserve ruling on the Defendant's Motion for Expanded Voir Dire pending review of any such proposed questionnaire. , reset Jury trial before Judge James C. Fox for 9:00 9/4/01 , reset Response to Order due 8/20/01 . Signed by Judge James C. Fox. OB Ref: FOXOB#23, P. 120. cc: counsel, C. Morgan, S. Cannon, S. Enyart. (fdc) (Entered: 06/01/2001)
Jury trial set at 9:00 9/4/01 before Judge James C. Fox in Wilmington, NC, Ctrm #1 (se) (Entered: 07/19/2001)
CASE FILE RETURNED from: Judge James C. Fox (fdc) (Entered: 08/10/2001)
41 Order granting [17-1] motion for summary judgment; and this matter hereby is dismissed. Signed by Judge James C. Fox. OB Ref: FOXOB#24, P. 16. cc: counsel by regular mail and notified by telephone. (fdc) (Entered: 08/10/2001)
42 Judgment for The News and Observer against EEOC. IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that for the reasons set forth in the court's order of August 10, 2001, the News & Observer's motion for summary judgment is ALLOWED, and this matter hereby is DISMISSED. Signed by David W. Daniel, Clerk by Jayne C. Clark, Deputy. OB Ref: FOXOB#24, P. 17. cc: counsel via regular mail and notified by telephone. (fdc) (Entered: 08/10/2001)
Case closed NP (fdc) (Entered: 08/10/2001)
43 Bill of costs filed by Robert E. Harrington, atty for deft. (fdc) (Entered: 08/27/2001)
Case submitted to: David W. Daniel, Clerk [43-1] submitted for review of Bill of Costs. (fdc) (Entered: 09/28/2001)
CASE FILE RETURNED from: David W. Daniel, Clerk (fdc) (Entered: 11/07/2001)
44 Order for bill of costs signed by David W. Daniel, Clerk. OB Ref: FOXOB#24, pg. 180, cc:counsel. (se) (Entered: 11/26/2001)
45 Judgment; IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the total award of costs ALLOWED against the Plaintiff in favor of the Defendant is $5,116.88; signed by David W. Daniel, Clerk by Susan Enyart, Deputy. OB Ref: FOXOB#24, pg. 181, cc:counsel. (se) (Entered: 11/26/2001)
46 AMENDED Order, for bill of costs in the amount of $5,156.88. Signed by David W. Daniel, Clerk. OB Ref: FOXOB#25, P. 7. cc: counsel. (fdc) (Entered: 12/07/2001)
47 AMENDED Judgment for The News and Observer against EEOC in the amended total award of costs in the amount of $5,156.88. Signed by David W. Daniel, Clerk by Jayne C. Clark, Deputy. OB Ref: FOXOB#25, P. 8. cc: counsel. (fdc) (Entered: 12/07/2001)

7 of 8

6/29/2007 9:30 AM

CM/ECF - NCED - Docket Report
11/04/2002

https://ecf.nced.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?702076501204236-L_3...
Case file sent to Raleigh for storage. (se) (Entered: 11/04/2002)

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

06/29/2007 10:30:59

PACER Login: hs0328

Client Code: eeoc

Description:

Docket Report

Search Criteria: 5:99-cv-00582-F

Billable Pages: 5

Cost:

0.40

8 of 8

6/29/2007 9:30 AM