UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

-----------------------------------X

:

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

:

COMMISSION,

:

:

Plaintiff,

:

:

v.

:

:

:

DAVID LERNER ASSOCIATES, INC.

:

:

Defendant.

:

:

-----------------------------------X

CIVIL ACTION NO.
COMPLAINT AND 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 sex, and to provide appropriate relief to Shawna Mead, Barbara Mrozik, Susan Sheehan, Rose Carroll and a class of similarly situated female employees (hereinafter “the class”) who were affected by such practices. As alleged with greater particularity in paragraph 7 below, Defendant, David Lerner Associates, Inc.(hereinafter “Defendant”), subjected a class of female employees to repeated sexual harassment and unlawful retaliation. In addition, Defendant constructively discharged Shawna Mead, Barbara Mrozik, Susan Sheehan and a class of

similarly situated women when it failed to remedy the sexually hostile work environment.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 451, 1331, 1337, 1343 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Section 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5(f)(1) and (3) ("Title VII") and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a. 2. Defendant regularly does business in the District of Connecticut and venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391.
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the “Commission”) is the agency of the United States of America charged with administration, interpretation, and enforcement of Title VII, and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Section 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5(f)(1) and (3). 4. At all relevant times, Defendant has continuously been a New York corporation doing business in the State of Connecticut, Fairfield County, and has continuously employed
2

at least fifteen persons. 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, Shawna Mead, Barbara Mrozik, Susan Sheehan, and Rose Carroll filed charges with the Commission, on behalf of themselves and similarly situated female employees, alleging violations of Title VII by Defendant. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled. 7. Since at least August of 2001, Defendant has engaged in unlawful employment practices at its facilities in Darien, Connecticut and White Plains, New York, in violation of Section 703(a)(1) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). These practices include, but are not limited to, the following: a. Employees of Defendant subjected the class to sexually harassing conduct including but not limited to: unwelcome touching of their bodies, solicitation for sex, offensive sexual gestures, questions of a sexual nature and
3

pressure to wear sexually provocative clothing. b. Employees of Defendant also subjected the class to
threats of violent retaliation against those who complained about the harassment.
c. Although female employees complained about the harassment, Defendant made no efforts reasonably calculated to prevent or eradicate the continuing behavior and hostile work environment.
d. Defendant constructively discharged the class in violation of Title VII when it failed to remedy a hostile work environment which made conditions so intolerable that they were forced to leave their positions.
8. The effect of the practices complained of above has been to deprive the class of equal employment opportunity, inflict emotional pain and suffering upon them, cause them to suffer financial losses and otherwise adversely affected them.
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 the class, and are imputable to the Defendant.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this
4

Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant,
its officers, successors, assigns and all persons in active concert or participation with Defendant, from engaging in any employment practice which discriminates on the basis of sex.
B. Order Defendant to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal opportunities for employees to work in an environment free of unlawful discrimination and provide affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of Defendant’s past and present unlawful employment practices.
C. Order Defendant to make the class whole by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from their unlawful treatment, including prejudgement interest, in amounts to be determined at trial.
D. Order Defendant to compensate the class for past and future nonpecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described above, including but not limited to emotional pain, suffering and inconvenience in amounts to be determined at trial.
E. Order Defendant to pay the class punitive damages for its conduct described above, in amounts to be determined at trial.
F. Grant such further relief as the Court deems
5

necessary and proper in the public interest.
G. Award the Commission its costs in this action.
JURY TRIAL DEMAND
The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of
fact raised by its complaint.
Respectfully submitted,
Eric S. Dreiband General Counsel EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 1801 L Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20507
Elizabeth Grossman Acting Regional Attorney EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION New York District Office 33 Whitehall Street, 5th Floor, New York, New York 10004-2112 Tel.(212)336-3696 Fax.(212)336-3623 elizabeth.grossman@eeoc.gov
s/ Arnold J. Lizana III _______________________________ Arnold J. Lizana III Bar No. ct22919 Trial Attorney EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Boston Area Office John F. Kennedy Federal Building, Room 475 Boston, MA 02203-0506 Tel.(617) 565-3210 Fax.(617) 565-3196 alizana.lizana@eeoc.gov
6

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, on this 17th day of February, 2005, to the following: Mark Mancher JACKSON LEWIS LLP 58 South Service Road Melville, New York 11747
s/ Arnold J. Lizana III _____________________________ Arnold J. Lizana III Bar Roll No. ct22919 Trial Attorney EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Boston Area Office JFK Federal Building, 4th Floor, Room 475 Boston, Massachusetts 02203
7

 
 Case 3:05-cv-00292-MRK Document 27 Filed 09/26/2005
OR\G\N~l UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT --------------------------------------------------------------x EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, SUSAN SHEEHAN, SHAWNA MEAD and ROSE CARROLL,

Page 1 of 12

Plaintiffs,

-against-

DAVID LERNER ASSOCIATES, INC.,
Defendants.
--------------------------------------------------------------x

September 14, 2005

- c:
en == ~,
r ·1.···]

. ,,,'," -,
COMPLAINT OF INTERVENORS

Plaintiffs/Intervenors, Susan Sheehan, Shawna Mead and Rose CarroU" by :!Jjeir

attorneys, allege as follows for their Complaint against Defendant, David Lerner Associates, Inc.:

PARTIES

I. Plaintiff, Susan Sheehan ("Sheehan"), resides at 53 Pheasant Road, West Haven, Connecticut 06516.
2. Plaintiff, Shawna Mead ("Mead"), resides at 196 Eagle Ridge, Torrington, Connecticut 06790.
3. Plaintiff, Rose Carroll ("Carroll"), resides at 10 Clinton Avenue, Stratford, Connecticut 06614.
4. At all relevant times, defendant David Lerner Associates, Inc. ("DLA"), has been a New York corporation doing business in the State of Connecticut, Fairfield County at 1540 Post Road, Darien, Connecticut, where plaintiffs were employed, and has continuously employed three or more persons.

---~-------~-----

NATURE OF THE ACTION
5. This is a civil action to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of sex, and to provide appropriate relief to plaintiffs, who were affected by such practices. As allcged with greater particularity herein, DLA subjected plaintiffs to repeated sexual harassment and unlawful retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII") and the Connecticut Human Rights Law. In addition, DLA constructively discharged plaintiffs when it failed to remedy the hostile work environment.
JURISDICTION
6. This CoUtt has jurisdiction over this action unuer 28 U.S.c. § 1331 and principles of supplemental jurisdiction, 28 U.S.c. § 1367.
7. Plaintiff Sheehan filed a charge of discrimination with the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities ("CHRO") on September 17, 2003. The CHRO issued a release of jurisdiction on July 26, 2005, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
8. Plaintiff Carroll filed a charge of discrimination with the CHRO on January 23, 2004. The CHRO issued a release of jurisdiction on July 25,2005, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
9. Plaintiff Mead filed a charge of discrimination with the CHRO on November 20, 2003. The CHRO issued a release of jurisdiction on September 13,2005, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit C.
10. Plaintiffs Sheehan, Mead and Carroll filed charges of discrimination with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). The EEOC commenced an
2

action in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut against DLA on or around February 17, 2005.
II. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.c. 1391 in that DLA regularly conducts business in the District of Connecticut.
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS
12. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations contained in paragraphs I through II as if separately set forth herein.
13. Since August 2001 or earlier, DLA engaged in unlawful employment practices at its office in Darien, Connecticut against plaintiffs in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.c. § 2000e-2(a)(I) and the Connecticut Human Rights Law, C.G.S.A. § 46a-60 et~.
14. Defendant's conduct had the purpose or effect of substantially interfering with plaintiffs' work perfomlance and creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive working environment. Specifically, plaintiffs' supervisor engaged in: unwelcome touching, solicitation for sex, offensive sexual gestures, questions of a sexual nature, inappropriate comments about their appearance, and pressure to wear sexually provocative clothing.
15. Plaintiffs complained about this conduct. 16. Plaintiffs' supervisor threatened them with retaliation for complaining about the harassment. 17. Defendant failed to take steps reasonably calculated to prevent or eradicate the continuing behavior and hostile work environment, despite plaintiffs' complaints. 18. Defendant's unlawful practices as described above were intentional and were done with malice or reckless indifference to plaintiffs' protected rights.
3

19. As a result of defendant's conduct, plaintiffs were forced to resign their employment involuntarily.
20. The effect of the practices complained of above has been to deprive plaintiffs of equal employment opportunity. inflict emotional poin ond suffering upon them, cause them to suffer financial losses and otherwise adversely affected them.
4

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Court:

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs Sheehan, Mead and Carroll respectfully request that this

A. Order DLA to make plaintiffs whole by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from their unlawful treatment, including prejudgment interest, in amounts to be detel111ined at trial;

B. Order DLA to compensate plainti ffs for past and future non-pecuniary losses resulting frol11 the unlawful employment practices described above, including but not limited to emotional pain, suffering and inconvenience, in amounts to be determined at trial;
C. Order DLA to pay plaintiffs punitive damages for its conduct described above, in amounts to be determined at trial; and

D. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper.

Plaintiffs/Intervenors hereby demand ajury trial on all claims triable to ajury.

, .1 i

t '- By: ,Xl.- ([

(c!~ /-'-

Sarah W. Poston (ctI9702)

ZELDES, NEEDLE & COOPER, P.e. 1000 Lafayette Boulevard P.O. Box 1740 Bridgeport, Connecticut 0660 I (203) 332-5707 Fax: (203) 333-1489 Email: sposton@znclaw.com

LIDDLE & ROBINSON, L.L.P. 800 Third Avenue New York, New York 10022 (212) 687-8500

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

5

(@
COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND OPPORTUNITIES FORM 500(3)
RELEASE OF JURISDICTION
COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND OPPORTUNITIES, ex reI.

Complainant vs.
David Lerner Associates, Inc. Respondent
RELEASE OF JURISDICTION

Date: July 26, 2005
CCHRO CASE NO.: 0420129 EEOC CASE NO.: 16aa302126

Pursuant to Complainant's and/or Complaint's attorney(s) request dated July 11,2005 the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities hereby releases its jurisdiction over the above numbered and captioned complaint in accordance with Section 46a-101 of the Connecticut General Statutes. Also, in accordance with Section 46a-100, C.G.S. Complainant is hereby authorized to commence a civil action against the Respondent in the Superior Court for the judicial district in which the discriminatory practice is alleged to have occurred or in which the Respondent transacts business. If this action involves a state agency or official. it may be brought in the Superior Court for thp. Hl'lrtfnrrl-NAw 8rit::1!n judicial district.
Please be advised that, pursuant to CONN. GEN. STAT. §46a-103, the Complainant or Complainant's attorney must serve on the Commission, at 21 Grand Street, Hartford, Connecticut 06106 at the same time all other parties are served, a copy of any civil action filed pursuant to this release. The Commission must be so served because it has a right to intervene in any action filed based on a release of jurisdiction.
In granting this release, the Commission expressly finds, in accordance with Sections 46a100 and 46a-101(b) of the C.G.S., that all conditions precedent to the issuance of the release of jurisdiction have been complied with inasmuch as the complaint was timely filed in accordance with 46a-82 of the C.G.S. and the complaint has been pending for a period of not less than 210 days, inasmuch as it was filed on September 17, 2003 and is still pending on July 26,2005 a period in excess of two hundred and ten (210) days.
Rev. 2/6/02

Page 1 of 2

Moreover, there is no reason to believe that the complaint will be resolved within a period of thirty (30) days from July 13, 2005, the date the Commission received Complainant's request for the Release of Jurisdiction, nor is the complaint currently scheduled for public hearing. [see Section 46a-1 01 (c) of the Connecticut General Statutesj.
The complainant must bring an action in Superior Court within ninety (90) days of receipt of this release and within two (2) years of the date of filing the complaint with the Commission. The Superior Court shall have such authority as is conferred upon it by Section 463 104 of the C.G.S., and other la'vv3 of the State of Connecticut.
Concurrently, with the issuance of this Release of Jurisdiction, the Commission hereby administratively dismisses this complaint in accordance with Section 46a-101(d) the Connecticut General Statutes. Furthermore, said dismissal is not subject to administrative judicial review.
R. Hamisi Ingram Executive Director
BY:bl£,~ Donald E. Newton Chief of Field Operations
Dated and entered of record in the Commission's Administrative Office in Hartford, Connecticut on this 26th day of July, 2005.
cc: Complainant: Susan Sheehan Complainant's Attorney: Attorney Christine A. Palmieri Rec;eilJi fUI Ceriifieu iviaii 7003 2260 0006 5927 2674 Respondent(s): Donna Reutter, Manager, Human Resources Department David Lerner Associates, Inc. Respondent's Attorney: Attorney Mark Mancher Regional Manager: Tanya A. Hughes, Regional Manager Southwest Regional Office
Rev. 2/6/02
Page 2 of 2

COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND OPPORTUNITIES FORM 500(3)
RELEASE OF JURISDICTION
COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND OPPORTUNITIES, ex reI.

Rose F. Carro!! Complainant
vs. David Lerner Associates, Inc. Respondent
RELEASE OF JURISDICTION

Date: July 25, 2005
CCHRO CASE NO.: 0420330 EEOC CASE NO.: 16aa400696

Pursuant to Complainant's and/or Complainant's attorney(s) request dated July 18, 2005 the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities hereby releases its jurisdiction over the above numbered and captioned complaint in accordance with Section 46a-1 01 of the Connecticut General Statutes. Also, in accordance with Section 46a-100, C.G.S. Complainant is hereby authorized to commence a civil action against the Respondent in the Superior Court for the judicial district in which the discriminatory practice is alleged to have occurred or in which the Respondent transacts business. If this action involves a state agency or official, it may be brought in the Superior Court for the Hartford-New Britain judiciai disirict.
Please be advised that, pursuantto CONN. GEN. STAT. §46a-103, the Complainant or Complainant's attorney must serve on the Commission, at 21 Grand Street, Hartford, Connecticut 06106 at the same time all other parties are served, a copy of any civil action filed pursuant to this release. The Commission must be so served because it has a right to intervene in any action filed based on a release of jurisdiction.
In granting this release, the Commission expressly finds, in accordance with Sections 46a100 and 46a-101(b) of the C.G.S., that all conditions precedent to the issuance of the release ofjurisdiction have been complied with inasmuch as the complaint was timely filed in accordance with 46a-82 of the C.G.S. and the complaint has been pending for a period of not less than 210 days, inasmuch as it was filed on January 23, 2004 and is still pending on July 25,2005 a period in excess of two hundred and ten (210) days.
Rev. 2/6/02

Page 1 of 2

.'
Moreover, there is no reason to believe that the complaint will be resolved within a period of thirty (30) days from July 20, 2005, the date the Commission received Complainant's request for the Release of Jurisdiction, nor is the complaint currently scheduled for public hearing. [see Section 46a-1 01 (c) of the Connecticut General Statutes].
The complainant must bring an action in Superior Court within ninety (90) days of receipt of this release and \Nithin tv'.'o (2) years of the date of fHing the corflpli:1li It with the Commission. The Superior Court shall have such authority as is conferred upon it by Section 46a-104 of the C.G.S., and other laws of the State of Connecticut.
Concurrently, with the issuance of this Release of Jurisdiction, the Commission hereby administratively dismisses this complaint in accordance with Section 46a-101(d) the Connecticut General Statutes. Furthermore, said dismissal is not subject to administrative judicial review.
R. Hamisi Ingram
Executive Director
By: ~J. r;,~
Donald E. Newton Chief of Field Operations
Dated and entered of record in the Commission's Administrative Office in Hartford, Connecticut on this 25th day of July, 2005.
_. _ _ _ r-.r." r-.nm.n..l..~..j.n:.:. :"l-. n' t~·' R..n-c:-:.o...... 1= ....r..~..r..".l.."..\..l. I..
Complainant's Attorney: Attorney Christine A. Palmieri Receipt for Certified Mail 7003 2260 0006 5927 2704 Respondent(s): Personnel Department, David Lerner Associates, Inc. Respondent's Attorney: Attorney Mark Mancher Regional Manager: Tanya A. Hughes, Regional Manager Southwest Regional Office
Rev. 2/6/02
Page 2 of2

Ct1!<U

141 002

COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND OPPORTUNITIES

RELEASE OF JURISDICTION

FORM 500(3)

COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND OPPORTUNITIES. ex reI.

Shawna Mead Complainant
vs. David Lemer Associates. Inc. Respondent
RELEASE OF JURISDICTION

Date: September 13. 2005
CCHRO CASE NO.: 0620117 EEOC CASE NO.: 161-2004-00030

Pursuant to Complainant's and/or Complaint's attomey(s) request dated September 9,

2005 the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities hereby releases its jurisdiction

over the above numbered and captioned complaint in accordance with Section 46a-101 of

the Connecticut General Statutes. Also. in accordance with Section 46a-100, C.G.S.

Complainant is hereby authorized to commence a civil action against the Respondent in

the Superior Court for the judicial district in which the discriminatory practice is alleged to

have occurred or in which the Respondent transacts business. If this action involves a

r ...... ,t~t~
_ ~_ - -

!lnlQnr\l f'V'
~::J-" - J - .

f'\ffiri~1 it,.,.,~" - : •• _ ....... ~ ., ...... ;,

he.
_ ......

hl"l"\ll ..... ht
~'''''''':;:1''''

i'"nI

+h.-.
Ll ......

~I In"..." ...i ......... >oJ .............. " V I

,04
- V .... I ~

f'.. ~ ..
IVI

11.-. .... lIlv

u ......u·~_.J 1'1.1_ ••• n ..:.s._: _
I IQlliVI U-I "few UlIlt'lllI

judicial district.

P lease be advised that, pursuant to CONN. GEN. STAT. §46a-1 03, the Complainant or Complainant's attorney ~ ~ on the Commission, at 21 Grand Street, Hartford, Connecticut 06106 at the same time all other parties are served, a copy of any civil
action filed pursuant to this release. The Commission must be so served because it has a right to intervene in any action filed based on a release of jUrisdiction.
In granting this release, the Commission expressly finds, in accordance with Sections 46a100 and 46a-101(b) of the C.G.s., that all conditions precedent to the issuance of the release of jurisdiction have been complied with inasmuch as the complaint was timely filed in accordance with 46a-82 of the C.G.S. and the complaint has been pending for a period of not less than 210 days. inasmuch as it was filed on November 20,2003 is still pending on September 13, 2005 a period in excess of two hundred and ten (210) days.

Rev. 2/6/02

Page 1 of2

\..,nl\U

l,Z)OOJ

Moreover, there is no reason to believe that the complaint will be resolved within a period of thirty (30) days from September 9, 2005, the date the Commission received Complainant's request for the Release of Jurisdiction, nor is the complaint currently scheduled for public hearing. [see Section 46a-101(c) of the Connecticut General Statutes].
The complainant must bring an action in Superior Court within ninety (90) days of receipt of this release and within two (2) years of the date of filinq the comolaint with the Commission. The Superior Court shall have such authority as is conferred upon it by Section 46a-104 of the C.G.S., and other laws of the State of Connecticut.
Concurrently, with the issuance of this Release of Jurisdiction, the Commission hereby administratively dismisses this complaint in accordance with Section 46a-1 0 1(d) the Connecticut General Statutes. Furthermore, said dismissal is not subject to administrative judicial review.
R. Hamisi Ingram Executive Director
By:
Donald E. Newton Chief of Field Operations
Dated and entered of record in the Commission's Administrative Office in Hartford, Connecticut on this 13th day of September, 2005.
cc: Complainant: Shawna Meade Complainant's Attorney: Attorney Christine A. Palmieri Attorney Sarah W. Poston Receipt for Certified Mail 7003 2260 0006 5927 2957 Respondent(s): David Lerner, Owner, Lerner Associates, Inc. Respondent's Attorney: Attorney Mark Mancher
Rev. 2/6/02

Page 2 of 2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing has been sent via facsimile and First Class
United States Mail to:
Mark S. Mancher David Greenhaus Jackson Lewis LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 410 Melville, NY 11747
Alison Jacobs Wice Jackson Lewis, LLP 177 Broad Street Stamford, CT 06904-4704
Arnold J. Lizana, III Equal Employment Opportunity Commission JFK Federal Building, Room 475 Boston, MA 02203-0506
Christine Palmieri Liddle & Robinson, LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022
Dated at Bridgeport, Connecticut on this 14th day of September, 2005.
(

 
 Case 3:05-cv-00292-MRK Document 38-2 Filed 11/04/2005 Page 1 of 7

UNITE D STATE S DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

E QU AL E MP LOYME N T OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, SU SAN SH E E H AN , SH AWN A ME AD ROSE CARROLL, AN D BARBARA MROZIK,
P la in t iffs,

CIVIL ACTION N O. 3:05CV292(RN C)

v. DAVID LE RN E R ASSOCIATE S, IN C., Defen da n t .

OCTOBER 28, 2005

COMP LAINT OF INTERVENOR P la in t iff-In t er ven or Ba r ba r a Mr ozik a lleges t h e followin g for h er com pla in t a ga in st Da vid Ler n er Associa t es, In c. (DLA):
NATURE OF THE ACTION 1. Th is is a n a ct ion seek in g da m a ges a n d equ it a ble r elief t o r edr ess u n la wfu l em ploym en t pr a ct ices on t h e ba sis of sex, a n d t o pr ovide a ppr opr ia t e r elief t o t h e pla in t iff, wh o wa s a ffect ed by su ch pr a ct ices. As a lleged fu r t h er below, DLA su bject ed t h e pla in t iff t o r epea t ed sexu a l h a r a ssm en t a n d u n la wfu l r et a lia t ion in viola t ion of Tit le VII of t h e Civil Righ t s Act of 1964. In a ddit ion , DLA con st r u ct ively disch a r ged pla in t iff wh en it fa iled t o r em edy t h e h ost ile wor k en vir on m en t .

Case 3:05-cv-00292-MRK Document 38-2 Filed 11/04/2005 Page 2 of 7
P ARTIES 2. P la in t iff Ba r ba r a Mr ozik r esides a t 7 La k eview Aven u e, Seym ou r , Con n ect icu t 06483. 3. At a ll r eleva n t t im es, d efen d a n t D a vid Ler n er Associa t es, In c. (“DLA”), h a s been a N ew Yor k cor por a t ion doin g bu sin ess in t h e St a t e of Con n ect icu t , F a ir field Cou n t y a t 1540 P ost Roa d, Da r ien , Con n ect icu t , wh er e pla in t iffs wer e em ployed, a n d h a s con t in u ou sly em ployed 15 or m or e per son s.
J U R IS D ICTION 4. Th is cou r t h a s ju r isdict ion over t h is a ct ion u n der 28 U .S.C. § 1331. 5. P la in t iff Mr ozik filed a ch a r ge of discr im in a t ion wit h t h e U n it ed St a t es E qu a l E m ploym en t Oppor t u n it y Com m ission on Apr il 15, 2004. On Au gu st 20, 2004, t h e E E OC issu ed a Det er m in a t ion fin din g t h a t t h e pla in t iff, a n d ot h er co-wor k er s sim ila r ly sit u a t ed, h a d been su bject t o on goin g in ciden t s of sexu a l h a r a ssm en t, r eta lia tion a n d/or con st r u ct ive disch a r ge. 6. Ven u e is pr oper in t h is dist r ict pu r su a n t t o 28 U .S.C. § 1391 in t h a t DLA r egu la r ly con du cts bu sin ess in Con n ecticu t.
ALLE GATION S 7. Sin ce Au gu st 2001 or ea r lier , DLA en ga ged in u n la wfu l em ploym en t pr a ct ices a t
2

Case 3:05-cv-00292-MRK Document 38-2 Filed 11/04/2005 Page 3 of 7
it s office in Da r ien , Con n ect icu t a ga in st pla in t iff in viola t ion of Tit le VII, 42 U .S.C. § 2000e-2(a )(1). 8. Defen d a n t DLA’s con d u ct h a d t h e p u r p ose or effect of su bst a n t ia lly in t er fer in g wit h p la in t iff’s wor k p er for m a n ce a n d cr ea t in g a n in t im id a t in g, h ost ile or offen sive wor k en vir on m en t . Sp ecifica lly, pla in t iff’s su p er visor en ga ged in : u n welcom e t ou ch in g, solicit a t ion for sex, offen sive sexu a l gest u r es, qu est ion s of a sexu a l n a t u r e, in a ppr opr ia t e com m en t s a bou t h er a ppea r a n ce, a n d pr essu r e t o wea r sexu a lly pr ovoca t ive clot h in g. H e a lso displa yed a k n ife t o h er a n d h er co-wor k er s in a n effor t t o in t im id a t e t h em in t o pr odu cin g la r ger r even u e figu r es. Wh ile pla yin g wit h t h e k n ife for a ppr oxim a t ely 20 m in u t es, h e st a t ed t h a t h e wou ld st a r t “ch opp in g t h eir fin ger s off” if t h ey did n ot st a r t pr odu cin g bet t er n u m ber s. 9. P la in t iff com pla in ed a bou t t h is con du ct . 10. P la in t iff’s su p er visor t h r ea t en ed h er wit h r et a lia t ion for com p la in in g a bou t t h e h a r a ssm en t . At a ll t im es r eleva n t t o t h is a ct ion , pla in t iff’s su p er visor wa s a n a gen t or em ployee of t h e defen da n t . 11. Defen da n t fa iled t o t a k e st eps r ea son a bly ca lcu la t ed t o pr even t or er a dica t e t h e con t in u in g beh a vior a n d h ost ile wor k en vir on m en t , despit e pla in t iff’s com pla in t s. 12. Defen d a n t ’s u n la wfu l pr a ct ices a s d escr ibed a bove wer e in t en t ion a l a n d wer e don e wit h m a lice or r eck less in d iffer en ce t o pla in t iff’s pr ot ect ed r igh t s. 13. As a r esu lt of defen d a n t ’s con d u ct , pla in t iff wa s for ced t o r esign h er em p loym en t
3

Case 3:05-cv-00292-MRK Document 38-2 Filed 11/04/2005 Page 4 of 7
in volu n t a r ily. 14. Th e effect of t h e pr a ct ices com pla in ed of a bove h a s been t o depr ive pla in t iff of equ a l em ploym en t oppor t u n it y, in flict em ot ion a l pa in a n d su ffer in g u pon h er , ca u se h er t o su ffer fin a n cia l losses a n d ot h er wise a dver sely a ffect h er .
COUNT I Sexua l Ha ra ssm ent in Viola tion of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a s
a m en d ed , 42 U .S .C . § 2000e-2(a )(1)
15. P la in t iff in cor por a t es pa r a gr a ph s 1 t h r ou gh 14 by r efer en ce. 16. By it s a ct ion s, t h e defen da n t h a s viola t ed pr ot ect ion s a ffor ded t o t h e pla in t iff u n der Tit le VII pr oh ibit in g sexu a l h a r a ssm en t of em ployees a n d t h e exist en ce of a sexu a lly h ost ile en vir on m en t . 17. Th e pla in t iff h a s su ffer ed da m a ges a s a r esu lt of t h e defen d a n t ’s illega l con d u ct , in clu din g lost wa ges a n d ben efit s, fu t u r e lost wa ges a n d ben efit s, a n d em ot ion a l d ist r ess.
P RAYER FOR RELIEF WH E RE F ORE , P la in t iff r espect fu lly r equ est s t h is Cou r t t o en t er : (a ) A m on ey ju dgm en t r epr esen t in g com pen sa t or y da m a ges, in clu din g lost
wa ges, bon u ses a n d a ll ot h er su m s of m on ey, wit h in t er est on sa id a m ou n t s;
4

Case 3:05-cv-00292-MRK Document 38-2 Filed 11/04/2005 Page 5 of 7
(b) An Or der dir ect in g Defen da n t t o r ein st a t e P la in t iff or , in t h e a lt er n a t ive, fr on t pa y for seven (7) yea r s;
(c) A m on ey ju dgm en t r epr esen t in g pu n it ive da m a ges; (d) A m on ey ju dgm en t r epr esen t in g in t er est on t h is Cou r t 's a wa r d fr om t h e
d a t e of P la in t iff’s t er m in a t ion u n t il t h e da t e of pa ym en t on a com p ou n d ba s is ; (e) A m on ey ju dgm en t t o r ecou p a n y t a x loss su ffer ed by P la in t iff a s a r esu lt of r eceivin g a lu m p su m a wa r d; (f) Com pen sa t or y da m a ges for t h e per son a l in ju r y su ffer ed by P la in t iff; (g) Th a t t h e Cou r t r et a in ju r isdict ion over t h is a ct ion u n t il Defen da n t h a s fu lly com plied wit h t h e Or der s of t h is Cou r t a n d t h a t t h e Cou r t r equ ir e Defen da n t t o file su ch r epor t s a s m a y be n ecessa r y t o su per vise su ch com plia n ce; (h ) Th e cost s of su it , in clu din g a n a wa r d of r ea son a ble a t t or n eys’ fees; a n d (i) Su ch ot h er a n d fu r t h er r elief a s t h e Cou r t m a y deem t o be ju st a n d pr oper .
5

Case 3:05-cv-00292-MRK Document 38-2 Filed 11/04/2005 Page 6 of 7
J U RY DE MAN D P la in t iff h er ein dem a n ds t r ia l by ju r y of a ll issu es in t h is a ct ion .
Respect fu lly su bm it t ed, BARBARA MROZIK
By: St eph en P . H or n er F eder a l Ba r N o. ct 02460 J effr ey S. Ba gn ell F eder a l Ba r N o. ct 18983 H or n er & Ba gn ell, LLC 2183 Boston P ost Roa d Da r ien , Con n ect icu t 06820 (203) 655-7905 (203) 656-1075 (fa x) J ba gn ell@h or n er ba gn ell.com
6

Case 3:05-cv-00292-MRK Document 38-2 Filed 11/04/2005 Page 7 of 7
CERTIFICATION I h er eby cer t ify t h a t a t r u e copy of t h e for goin g wa s sen t via fir st cla ss m a il, post a ge pr epa id on Oct ober 28, 2005 to: Ma r k S. Ma n ch er David Greenh aus J a ckson Lewis LLP 58 Sou t h Ser vice Roa d, St e. 410 Melville, N ew Yor k 11747 Alison J a cobs Wice J a ckson Lewis LLP 177 Br oa d St r eet St a m for d, Con n ect icu t 06904-4704 Ar n old J . Lizza n a , III E qu a l E m ploym en t Oppor tu n ity Com m ission J F K F eder a l Bu ildin g, Room 475 Bost on , Ma ssa ch u set t s 02203-0506 Christine Palmieri Liddle & Robin son , LLP 800 Th ir d Aven u e N ew Yor k , N ew Yor k 10022 Sa r a h W. P ost on Zeldes, N eedle & Cooper , P .C. 1000 La fa yet t e Blvd. P .O. Box 1740 Br idgepor t , Con n ect icu t 06601
J effr ey S. Ba gn ell
7

 
 -------------------'-

o

o

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTIC%Ii ',.

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY:

~! .~:,..

COMMISSION,

I.

" ,'. 31' --', (I"

.....

, i

Plaintiff
v.

No, 3:05cv292 (MRK)

DAVID LERNER ASSOCIATES, INC.,

Defendant

RULING AND ORDER The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") brings this action against Lerner Associates ("Lerner") on behalf of several women (the "Charging Parties") and a class of similarly
harmed women for sexual harassment suit in violation of Title VII. See CompI. [doc. # IV
Presently pending before the Court are Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, to Strike [doc. # 12] the EEOC's complaint. Lerner advances two arguments: First, Lerner asserts that the EEOC did not satisfy its duty to engage in good faith conciliation efforts; second, Lerner argues that the EEOC's claims of"unwe1come sexual touching" were not raised by the Charging Parties and therefore should be stricken from the Complaint. The Court rejects both arguments and therefore DENIES Lerner's Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Strike [doc. # 12].
1. Alleged Inadequate Conciliation Efforts. Once it finds "reasonable cause" to believe discrimination has occurred, the EEOC has a statutory duty to attempt conciliation before

1 Since the filing of the Complaint and the Motion to Dismiss, several ofthe Charging Parties have intervened [doc. #23] and filed an Intervenor's Complaint [doc. # 27] against Defendant.

."- . " . " . _0 __ 0 _ . ' _ -c~-"

o

()

filing a fonnal complaint. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(b).2 Conciliation has been described as "a flexible and responsible process which necessarily differs from case to case." EEOC v. Prudential Fed. Say. & Loan Ass'n, 763 F.2d 1166, 1169 (10th Cir. 1985). "The conciliation period allows the employer and the EEOC to negotiate how the employer might alter its practices to comply with the law, as well as how much, if any, the employer will pay in damages." EEOC v. Johnson & Higgins, Inc., 91 F.3d 1529, 1535 (2d Cir. 1996).
In the Second Circuit, the EEOC "fulfills its duty to conciliate before initiating litigation if it 1) outlines to the employer the reasonable cause for its belief that the employer is in violation of [Title VII], 2) offers an opportunity for voluntary compliance, and 3) responds in a reasonable and flexible manner to the reasonable attitude of the employer." Id. at 1534-35. The Second Circuit has cautioned that the EEOC should be given "wide latitude in shaping both the general framework of conciliation and the specific offers made." EEOC v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 650 F.2d 14, 18 (2d Cir. 1981). Since the fonn and substance of its conciliation efforts is within the discretion of the EEOC, district courts ordinarily "should only detennine whether the EEOC made an attempt at conciliation." EEOC v. Keco Indus. Inc., 748 F.2d 1097, 1102 (6th Cir. 1984). The Court is satisfied that the EEOC has satisfied these standards in this case.
After finding reasonable cause to believe discrimination had occurred, the EEOC sent Lerner a Detennination Letter, dated August 20, 2004, explaining the nature and extent of the alleged violations, which occurred at Lerner's Darien branch office. See Affidavit of Mark Mancher
2 As Lerner candidly recognizes, a "stay" of proceedings, rather than dismissal, is ordinarily the preferred remedy for the EEOC's failure adequately to conciliate. See, e.g., EEOC v. Die Fliedermaus, LLC, 77 F. Supp. 2d 460, 467 (S.D.N.Y. 1999); EEOC v. First Midwest Bank, N.A., 14 F. Supp. 2d 1028, 1033 (N.D. Ill. 1998). But cf EEOC Asplundh Tree Expert Co., 340 F.3d 1256,1261 (11th Cir. 2003) (dismissing for failure to engage in conciliation).
2

o

o

("Mancher Affidavit") [doc. #14] Ex. F. The EEOC's detennination letter more than satisfied its first obligation under the Second Circuit's standard - that is, to infonn Lerner of the basis for its belief that Lerner had violated Title VII. Next, the EEOC provided Lerner with a conciliation proposal. That proposal set out nine different categories of relief sought, including a fund to be set aside to compensate other hanned female employees. Mancher Aff. [doc. #14] Ex. G. By offering an opportunity for voluntary compliance, the EEOC satisfied the Second Circuit's second requirement noted above.
As to the third requirement - the EEOC's obligation to respond in a reasonable and flexible mauner to the employer - some further facts are needed. After obtaining an extension of time to respond to the EEOC's offer, Lerner made a counter-offer to the EEOC. However, Lerner's counteroffer addressed only the non-monetary aspects ofthe relief sought by the EEOC. Lerner offered no specific monetary amount for the Charging Parties or other members ofthe class ofallegedly hanned females; instead, Lerner challenged the propriety ofthe EEOC's investigation and insisted on further infonnation regarding the damages sought. Id. at Ex. H. The EEOC responded that conciliation was designed to avoid litigation-like discovery with its concomitant expense and delay, that Lerner had in its possession sufficient infonnation to evaluate the monetary proposals and that Lerner should make a counter-offer by October 13, 2004. Id. at Ex. I. The EEOC also outlined its process for identifying and compensating victims ofLerner's hostile work enviromnent and reiterated that the EEOC had good reason to believe that there were additional victims of sexual harassment. Id. at Exs.K,M.
Lerner sought two further extensions oftime to respond to the EEOC, and the EEOC granted each ofLerner's requests. In November, Lerner wrote to the EEOC and once again disputed the need
3

o

(J

to compensate nnidentified and similarly harmed female employees. Therefore, Lerner once again offered no compensation for additional similarly-situated female employees. Id. at Ex. L. The EEOC responded to Lerner's letter by clarifYing the need for a fnnd for nnidentified victims and reducing the agency's demand for such a fnnd to one-halfthe amonnt ofLerner's potential exposure nnder the Title VII damage cap. Id. at Ex. M. The EEOC again invited Lerner to connter-offer with a specific amonnt for such a fund. The EEOC's letter expressly stated, "Ifthe Commission does not receive a specific counter-offer toward a fund, in writing by November 17, 2004, your failure to cooperate will result in a failed conciliation."Id. at Ex. M. In its response to the EEOC's letter, Lerner again disputed the need for a fnnd for unidentified victims and made no offer of compensation for that group. Affidavit of Edward Ostolski [doc. #15-1] Ex. B. In reply, the EEOC stated that given the distance between the parties on the issue of compensation for unidentified victims, further efforts at conciliation would be nonproductive. Ostolski Aff. [doc. #15-1] '1l4. This lawsuit followed.
The foregoing chronology demonstrates that the EEOC also fulfilled its obligation to respond in a reasonable and flexible manner to the employer. The court in EEOC v. Dial Corp., 156 F. Supp. 2d 926, (N.D. Ill. 2001) aptly summed up the situation presented by this case as follows: "Both parties had the opportnnity to put their respective proposals on the table before the EEOC determined that conciliation would be futile. Once [Lerner] rejected the EEOC's counterproposal, the EEOC had no further duty at that point to conciliate any further." Id. at 942 (internal quotation marks omitted).
Lerner complains that the EEOC never gave Lerner the information it requested regarding each member ofthe potential victim class and that it needed that information to formulate a monetary offer. The Court disagrees. First, Lerner was fully aware ofthe number ofpast and present female
4

o

(J

employees at its Darien office during the relevant time period (there were only fourteen), and therefore, Lerner was more than capable of identifying the potential universe of victims and detennining an appropriate amount of compensation to set aside for them. Second, the EEOC is rightly concerned about identifying potential victims to employers. Third, the EEOC's conciliation obligation does not require the agency to identifY every potential claimant. See, e.g., Dial Corp., 156 F. Supp. 2d at 942; EEOC v. Rhone-Poulenc, Inc., 677 F.Supp. 264, 266 (D.NJ. 1988), affd per curiam, 876 F.2d 16 (3d Cir. 1989).
Lerner also asserts that the EEOC's actions in this case were "analogous" to several cases in which courts have found the EEOC's conciliation efforts inadequate. See, e.g., EEOC v. Asplundh Tree, 340 F.3d 1256; EEOC v. Die Fliedemaus LLC, 77 F. Supp. 2d 460, EEOC v. American Express Pub. Co., 681 F. Supp. 216 (S.D.N.Y. 1988). Lerner's attempt at analogy is unpersuasive. The nature and extent ofthe EEOC's conciliation efforts and whether those efforts are adequate will necessarily vary from case to case. See, e.g., Prudential Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 763 F.2d at1169. As the chronology set forth above shows, the EEOC's conciliation efforts in this case were far more extensive than those presented in the cases relied on by Lerner. Over the course of several months, the EEOC: (1) identified the basis for its charges; (2) made a specific offer that provided an opportunity for voluntary compliance; (3) invited counter-offers from Lerner; (4) granted Lerner extensions oftime to respond; (5) revised the agency's original offer in response to Lerner's concerns; and (6) provided Lerner with fair waming that its failure to make any specific monetary proposal for unidentified victims would result in litigation. Title VII requires no more from the EEOC.
2. Motion to Strike. Lerner asserts that the EEOC may not pursue any claims of "unwelcome touching" because those claims were not raised in the initial charges filed with the
5

()

()

EEOC and were not investigated by the EEOC. It is well settled that the EEOC does not act merely as a proxy for a charging party; the agency also acts as an enforcer of Title VII's requirements. General Telephone Co. v. EEOC, 446 U.S. 318, 331 (1980); see also, EEOC v. Johnson & Higgins, Inc., 91 F.3d 1529 (2d. Cir. 1996) ("the EEOC may file suit where a charge was not filed by the affected employee"); EEOC v. Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc., 132 F. Supp. 2d 146, 153 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) ("EEOC is not merely a proxy for the victims of discrimination"). As a consequence, the EEOC's enforcement actions are not strictly limited to the allegations that began the EEOC's investigation. To the contrary, the Supreme Court has held that "[a]ny violations that the EEOC ascertains in the course of a reasonable investigation of the charging party's complaint are actionable." General Telephone Co., 446 U.S. at 331.
Here, while the initial charge did not mention unwelcome touching, the EEOC's investigation ofthe charge revealed that Lerner's District Manager engaged in at least some physical contact with female employees that could be construed as unwelcome touching. Ostolski Aff. [doc. #15-1] ~ 7. Moreover, the EEOC's determination letter alleges ongoing "sexual harassment" of and "sexual advances" toward females at the Darien branch office. Unwelcome touching is certainly one variant or form of sexual harassment or advances. Therefore, the Court will not strike the claims of unwelcome touching from the EEOC's complaint.
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Lerner's Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Strike [doc. #12].

6

C)

IT IS SO ORDE~D/ /1
A

t M~rk R. Kravit'

~

United States District Judge

Dated at New Haven, Connecticut: October 27, 2005.

7

 
 Appendix E

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION New York District Office

33 Whitehall Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10002-2112
Phone (212) 336-3620 TTY (212) 336-3622

NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF DAVID LERNER ASSOCIATATES, INC.

This NOTICE to all employees of the David Lerner Associates, Inc. (“DLA”) is being posted and provided as part of a Consent Decree between David Lerner Associates, Incorporated and the U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, in EEOC v. David Lerner Associates, Inc Civil Action No. 3:05-cv-00292 (D.Conn). In that action the EEOC alleged that DLA subjected a class of female employees to sexual harassment and unlawful retaliation and as a result some female employees felt compelled to quit. DLA denies those allegations. DLA, as part of the resolution of this matter, re-affirms that it does not discriminate against any individual because of the individual’s sex, subject persons to differential treatment regarding the terms and conditions of employment because of their sex, or engage in sex-based harassment toward any employee.
Federal law requires and DLA’s policy provides that there be no discrimination against any employee or applicant for employment because that person made a complaint of discrimination because of sex, race, national origin, color, age, disability, or religion with respect to hiring, compensation, promotion, discharge, or other terms, conditions or privileges of employment.
DLA will comply with such Federal law in all aspects, and reiterates that it will not take any action against employees because they have exercised their rights under the law by filing charges or cooperated with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or by otherwise opposing employment practices made unlawful under federal law.

DLA maintains an Open Door policy through which employees may, and are encouraged to raise any concerns regarding their employment, including our sexual harassment policy or any issues relating to perceived discrimination or harassment. Employees may use the Open Door by discussing the matter with their Branch Manager, Vice President, Human Resources or General Counsel directly at 1-800 645-1611.

Should you have a complaint of discrimination or harassment you may contact:
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 33 Whitehall Street New York, NY 10002 (212) 336-3620 or (800) 669-4000 Website: www.eeoc.gov
Date: _______________
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND MUST NOT BE ALTERED,OR DEFACED BY ANYONE OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER MATERIALS
This NOTICE must remain posted for three years from the date shown above and must not be altered, defaced or covered by any other materials. Any questions regarding this notice or compliance with its provisions may be directed to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission at the above numbers, (800) 669-4000, or TTY (800) 669-6820, or to your Manager or Human Resource representative.

APPENDIX M
NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT [On DLA Letterhead]

FIRST NAME LAST NAME STREET CITY, STATE ZIP Via Certified Mail

September __, 2006

Re: EEOC v. David Lerner Associates, Inc CA#: 3:05 -00292

Dear Ms. LAST NAME:

A Consent Decree has been entered by the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, in an action commenced by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) and four former employees of David Lerner Associates, Inc. (“DLA”) against DLA to resolve certain claims of sexual harassment, sex discrimination and retaliation. Pursuant to that Decree, women who were employed by DLA in its Darien office, at any time from August 1, 2001 to the [insert date of entry of consent decree], and who believe that they were subjected to harassment or discrimination because of their sex, or retaliation for complaining of such conduct, may present their claims in writing to the EEOC. The EEOC is authorized to award compensation to any such women who demonstrate that they are entitled to recover for unlawful harassment or discrimination.

If you believe that you have such a claim, you must contact Arnold Lizana, Trial Attorney, United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Boston Area Office, John F. Kennedy Federal Building, Room 475, Government Center, Boston, MA 02203-0506, and make such claim in writing, which must be postmarked on or before September ___, 2006. If Mr. Lizana has not received notification from you in writing which was postmarked by [insert date which is 90th day after date of entry of decree], you will not be allowed to make any such claim for compensation and any claims you might have will be barred. Your claim form should be returned to EEOC. DO NOT RETURN YOUR CLAIM FORM TO DLA. DLA will not take any adverse action against any current or former employees for making such a claim.

Sincerely yours,
Arnold J. Lizana III EEOC Trial Attorney
Joseph Pickard General Counsel

APPENDIX N
CONNECTICUT: CASE NO. ________
PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING INSTRUCTIONS AND DEFINITIONS CAREFULLY
INSTRUCTIONS 1. If you wish to submit a claim, this Claim Form must be completed and sent to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) 475 JFK Federal Building 4th Floor Boston, Massachusetts 02203 AND MUST BE POSTMARKED ON OR BEFORE: [INSERT DATE OF THE 90TH DAY AFTER THE DATE OF ENTRY OF THIS DECREE] 2. Your claim will be denied if: a. your claim form does not contain all of the requested information. You may staple extra sheets to this form if you need additional space to respond. b. your claim form is not timely received by EEOC c. EEOC determines that you are otherwise ineligible, 3. You must immediately notify EEOC of any change in your name, address or telephone number. 4. If you have any question, call Arnold J. Lizana, Trial Attorney at (617) 565-3210.
DEFINITIONS 1. Sexual Harassment: Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination which is prohibited by federal and state law. Conduct which is considered sexual harassment includes: ● unwelcome sexual advances; ● unwelcome requests for sexual favors; and/or ● unwelcome verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature. Sexual harassment may include a range of subtle and not-so-subtle behaviors. Whether certain behavior constitutes sexual harassment depends upon the specific circumstances, including whether the recipient of the behavior finds it unwelcome or offensive, and whether the behavior is severe or pervasive, e.g., whether it is extreme or continuous in nature. The following are specific
1

examples of behaviors, which, depending upon the circumstances, may be considered sexual harassment:
● derogatory or vulgar statement regarding one’s sexuality or gender; ● unnecessary touching or attention to one’s body; ● subtle or overt pressure for sexual favors; ● physical assault; ● strip search; ● making unwanted sexual compliments, innuendos, suggestions or jokes; ● telling lies or spreading rumors about a person’s sex life; ● turning work discussions into sexual topics; ● displaying sexually suggestive visual materials; or ● sexually suggestive remarks about a person’s physical anatomy
or characteristics. Conduct as described above can constitute sexual harassment when that conduct affects an individual’s employment, interferes with the individual’s work performance or creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment. 2. Retaliation: Retaliation is a form of employment discrimination prohibited by federal law. Retaliation occurs when an employee formally or informally complains, protests or opposes sexual harassment and the employer takes a negative or adverse employment action against the employee because of his or her complaint, protest or opposition. 3. Constructive Discharge: Constructive Discharge occurs when you are forced to leave your employment because you reasonably find your work environment intolerable because of the discrimination - sexual harassment or retaliation which exists in the workplace.
2

CLAIM FORM

1. Please print the following identification information:

NAME (First, Middle Initial, Last)

ADDRESS (Residence)

CITY

COUNTRY

STATE

ZIP CODE

HOME PHONE

SOCIAL SECURITY #

DAY PHONE (work or cell)

BEST TIME TO CALL

2. When were you employed with David Lerner Associates Inc. (DLA) ?

Start Date

End Date

Location

3. What positions did you hold during your employment with DLA? For each position, please provide the departments where you worked, the name of your immediate supervisor and the dates for which you held each position. If you are unsure of the exact dates, approximate the dates using month or season and year.

Positions Held

Department

Immediate Supervisor Dates You Held Position

PHYSICAL HARASSMENT 4. If you believe that you that you have been sexually harassed (as sexual harassment is defined on the attached “Definitions” page) due to inappropriate physical contact, provide below specific information about each contact, including who touched you, how were you touched, what part of your body was touched, the location of the incident, and whether anyone witnessed the incident. If you cannot provide the name and title of your harasser, at least indicate whether that individual was your supervisor or co-worker. If you cannot provide the exact date of the event, at least provide the month or season and year. If no dates are provided, your claim cannot be properly assessed.
3

VERBAL HARASSMENT
5. If you believe that you have been sexually harassed verbally, such as through sexual comments, jokes, or propositions, provide below specific information about each communication, including what was said to you, who made the statement, where the statement was made, and whether anyone witnessed the communication.
If you cannot provide the name and title of your harasser, at least indicate whether that individual was your supervisor or co-worker. If you cannot provide the exact date of the event, at least provide the month or season and year. If no dates are provided, your claim cannot be properly assessed.

6. Did you complain or inform anyone at DLA about the incident(s)?

Yes __

7. If the answer to question 6 is yes, please state what you said and to whom?

Who you complained to or What you said

Their response

informed (provide dates)

No __

4

8. If the answer to question 6 is no, please explain below why you did not inform DLA of the incident(s).

9. Did you complain about the sexual harassment to anyone outside DLA, including any attorney; organization, or federal, state or local government agency? If so, state below when you complained and what was your complaint? Did that entity resolve your complaint? How?

Who you complained to or What you said informed (provide dates)

Their response

RETALIATION
10. If you believe that DLA retaliated against you (as retaliation is defined on the attached “Definitions” page) because you objected, protested, refused to tolerate or complained about the sexual harassment, please provide specific information about each action against you, including what action was taken against you, who took action against you, when action was taken against you, and how you were affected by the adverse action.
If you cannot provide the name and title of the individual who retaliated against you, at least indicate whether that individual was your supervisor or co-worker. If you cannot provide the exact date of the event, at least provide the month or season and year. If no dates are provided, your claim cannot be properly assessed.

Who took action against you? (job title)

What specific action was taken against you?

When was this How were you action taken? affected by this
action?

5

11. If you are no longer employed with DLA, please state below why you are no longer working at DLA.

12. Indicate whether you are presently employed and, if so, name your employer(s), its address and your position.

Present Employer Address

Your Position Length of employment

13. Please enclose any documents, papers, notes, diaries, etc. which you believe support or corroborate any information you provided on this form. Please list here the documents you are enclosing.
List enclosed documents:

I declare under penalty of perjury that the statements in this Claim Form are true.

__________________________ SIGNATURE

_________ DATE

6

 
 Case: 3:05-cv-292 As of: 06/09/2017 02:52 PM EDT 1 of 7
CLOSED,EFILE,REFCNF,WIG
U.S. District Court United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (New Haven)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:05−cv−00292−MRK

Equal Employment Opportunity Comm v. David Lerner Assoc, Inc. Assigned to: Judge Mark R. Kravitz Referred to: Judge William I. Garfinkel (Settlement) Cause: 28:451 Employment Discrimination
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 02/17/2005 Date Terminated: 10/06/2006 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Equal Employment Opportunity Comm

represented by Arnold J. Lizana , III. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission JFK Federal Building Room 475 Boston, MA 02203−0506 617−565−3200 Fax: 617−565−3196 Email: arnold.lizana@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sarah W. Poston Zeldes, Needle & Cooper 1000 Lafayette Blvd., PO Box 1740 Bridgeport, CT 06604 203−333−9441 Email: sposton@znclaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Intervenor Plaintiff Rose Carroll
Intervenor Plaintiff Shawna Mead

represented by Christine A. Palmieri Liddle & Robinson 800 Third Ave., 8th Fl. New York, NY 10022−7604 212−687−8500 Fax: 212−687−1505 Email: cpalmieri@liddlerobinson.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah W. Poston (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Christine A. Palmieri (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah W. Poston (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:05-cv-292 As of: 06/09/2017 02:52 PM EDT 2 of 7

Intervenor Plaintiff Susan Sheehan
Intervenor Plaintiff Barbara Mrozik

represented by Christine A. Palmieri (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah W. Poston (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jeffrey S. Bagnell Jeffrey S. Bagnell, Esq., LLC 55 Greens Farms Road, #200−60 Westport, CT 06880 203−286−7936 Email: jeff@bagnell−law.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant David Lerner Assoc, Inc

represented by Alison Jacobs Wice Jackson Lewis − P.C. Htfd, CT 90 State House Sq., 8th Fl. Hartford, CT 06103−3708 860−522−0404 Fax: 860−247−1330 Email: wicea@jacksonlewis.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David Greenhaus Jackson Lewis P.C. −Melville−NY 58 South Service Road, Suite 250 Melville, NY 11747 631−247−0404 Fax: 631−247−0417 Email: greenhausd@jacksonlewis.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark S. Mancher Jackson Lewis P.C. −Melville−NY 58 South Service Road, Suite 250 Melville, NY 11747 631−247−0404 Fax: 631−247−0417 Email: mancherm@jacksonlewis.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 02/17/2005
02/17/2005

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against David Lerner Assoc, Inc. , filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Comm.(Blue, A.) (Entered: 02/17/2005)
2 Order on Pretrial Deadlines: Amended Pleadings due by 4/18/2005. Discovery due by 8/19/2005, Signed by Clerk on 2/17/05. (Blue, A.) (Entered: 02/17/2005)

Case: 3:05-cv-292 As of: 06/09/2017 02:52 PM EDT 3 of 7

02/17/2005 04/25/2005 04/25/2005
04/26/2005
04/26/2005 04/26/2005 05/04/2005
05/06/2005 05/12/2005 05/12/2005
05/16/2005 05/16/2005 05/24/2005 05/24/2005 05/24/2005
06/20/2005
06/29/2005 06/29/2005
07/19/2005 07/21/2005 07/21/2005 08/18/2005

Summons Issued as to David Lerner Assoc, Inc.. (Blue, A.) (Entered: 02/17/2005)
3 NOTICE of Appearance by Alison Jacobs Wice on behalf of David Lerner Assoc, Inc. (Bauer, J.) (Entered: 04/26/2005)
4 MOTION for Extension of Time until 5/9/05 to respond to 1 Complaint by David Lerner Assoc, Inc.. (Bauer, J.) Text Modified on 4/26/2005 (Bauer, J.). (Entered: 04/26/2005)
Docket Entry Correction re 4 MOTION for Extension of Time until 5/9/05 to respond to 1 Complaint − text modified to correct typo in date (Bauer, J.) (Entered: 04/26/2005)
5 ORDER granting 4 Motion for Extension of Time until 5/9/05 to respond to 1 Complaint . Signed by Clerk on 4/26/05. (Bauer, J.) (Entered: 04/26/2005)
Answer deadline updated for David Lerner Assoc, Inc. to 5/9/2005. (Bauer, J.) (Entered: 04/26/2005)
6 MOTION for Leave to Appear pro hac vice Attorney Mark Mancher & David Greenhaus. Filing Fee $50.00. Receipt Number N015353. by David Lerner Assoc, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 # 2 Affidavits)(Blue, A.) (Entered: 05/06/2005)
7 ORDER granting 6 Motion to Appear pro hac vice Attorney Mark Mancher & David Greenhaus, Signed by Clerk on 5/6/05. (Blue, A.) (Entered: 05/06/2005)
8 Telephone Conference held 5/12/2005 at 02:30 PM before Judge Robert N. Chatigny. (Kunofsky, L.) (Entered: 05/13/2005)
9 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Robert N. Chatigny : Telephone Conference held on 5/12/2005. (Court Reporter D. Warner.) (Kunofsky, L.) (Entered: 05/13/2005)
10 NOTICE of Appearance by Mark S. Mancher on behalf of David Lerner Assoc, Inc (Blue, A.) (Entered: 05/16/2005)
11 NOTICE of Appearance by David Greenhaus on behalf of David Lerner Assoc, Inc (Blue, A.) (Entered: 05/16/2005)
12 MOTION to Dismiss, MOTION to Strike 1 Complaint by David Lerner Assoc, Inc.Responses due by 6/14/2005 (Blue, A.) (Entered: 05/24/2005)
13 Memorandum in Support re 12 MOTION to Dismiss, MOTION to Strike 1 Complaint filed by David Lerner Assoc, Inc. (Blue, A.) (Entered: 05/24/2005)
14 AFFIDAVIT re 12 MOTION to Dismiss, MOTION to Strike 1 Complaint Signed By Mark Mancher filed by David Lerner Assoc, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 # 2 # 3 # 4 # 5 # 6 # 7 # 8 # 9 # 10 # 11 # 12 # 13 # 14 # 15 # 16 # 17 # 18 Exhibits)(Blue, A.) (Entered: 05/24/2005)
15 Memorandum in Opposition re 12 MOTION to Dismiss, MOTION to Strike 1 Complaint filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Comm. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit)(Blue, A.) (Entered: 06/20/2005)
16 NOTICE Rule 26 Meeting Report due by 7/19/2005, Signed by Judge Robert N. Chatigny on 6/28/05. (Blue, A.) (Entered: 06/29/2005)
17 Amended Memorandum in Opposition re 12 MOTION to Dismiss,MOTION to Strike 1 Complaint filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Comm. (Attachments: # 1 Amended Affidavit)(Blue, A.) (Entered: 06/29/2005)
18 REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting. (Wice, Alison) (Entered: 07/19/2005)
19 ENDORSEMENT ORDER re 18 Report of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting, Signed by Judge Robert N. Chatigny on 7/21/05. (Blue, A.) (Entered: 07/21/2005)
20 REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting. (Walker, J.) (Entered: 07/25/2005)
21 SCHEDULING ORDER: Discovery due by 4/1/2006. Dispositive Motions due by 2/14/2006. Status Report due by 11/15/2005. Trial Brief due by 7/1/2006, Signed by Judge Robert N. Chatigny on 8/17/05. (Blue, A.) (Entered: 08/18/2005)

Case: 3:05-cv-292 As of: 06/09/2017 02:52 PM EDT 4 of 7

09/14/2005 09/14/2005 09/20/2005 09/23/2005 09/26/2005
09/26/2005 09/26/2005 09/30/2005 09/30/2005
10/03/2005 10/03/2005 10/11/2005 10/13/2005
10/20/2005 10/24/2005

22 NOTICE of Appearance by Sarah W. Poston on behalf of Equal Employment Opportunity Comm (Blue, A.) (Entered: 09/15/2005)
23 MOTION to Intervene by Rose Carroll, Shawna Mead, Susan Sheehan, Equal Employment Opportunity Comm.Responses due by 10/5/2005 (Blue, A.) (Entered: 09/15/2005)
24 ORDER OF TRANSFER. Case reassigned to Judge Mark R. Kravitz for all further proceedings. Signed by Judge Robert N. Chatigny on 9/20/05. (Bauer, J.) (Entered: 09/21/2005)
25 ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER . Signed by Judge Mark R. Kravitz on 9/23/2005. (Ghilardi, K.) (Entered: 09/23/2005)
26 NOTICE OF E−FILED ORDER: THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE THE COURT WILL ISSUE. ORDER granting 23 Motion to Intervene. The Clerk is directed to docket the Complaint of Intervenors, dated September 14, 2005. A telephonic status conference is scheduled for NOVEMBER 28, 2005 at 4:30 p.m. Plaintiff's attorney will initiate the telephone conference call. After all of the parties are on the conference call, they should then call chambers at (203) 773−2022 on the above date and time. Counsel are ordered by the court to be prepared to discuss all pending motions. NOTE: All discovery issues should be resolved in good faith by counsel in accordance with their obligations to the Court under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the District's Local Rules. Before filing any motion relating to discovery, the parties are required to jointly confer with the Court by telephone, 203−773−2022. See attached instructions. Signed by Judge Mark R. Kravitz on 9/26/2005. (Carotenuto, R.) (Entered: 09/26/2005)
27 Intervernors'COMPLAINT against David Lerner Assoc, Inc , filed by Rose Carroll, Shawna Mead, Susan Sheehan.(Brown, S.) (Entered: 09/28/2005)
Set Deadlines:Telephone Status Conference set for 11/28/2005 04:30 PM before Judge Mark R. Kravitz. (Ghilardi, K.) (Entered: 09/28/2005)
28 MOTION for Christine A. Palmieri to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Filing Fee $25.00. Receipt Number N016641. by Rose Carroll, Shawna Mead, Susan Sheehan. (Brown, S.) Modified on 10/3/2005 to correct attorney (Brown, S.). (Entered: 10/03/2005)
31 EXHIBIT by Equal Employment Opportunity Comm, Shawna Mead, Susan Sheehan re 28 MOTION for Christina A. Palmieri to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Attorney Sarah Poston. Filing Fee $25.00. Receipt Number N016641.. Related document: 28 MOTION for Christina A. Palmieri to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Attorney Sarah Poston. Filing Fee $25.00. Receipt Number N016641. filed by Susan Sheehan,, Shawna Mead,, Rose Carroll,.(Brown, S.) (Entered: 10/04/2005)
29 ORDER; Ordered Accordingly 28 Motion for Sarah Poston to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Signed by Clerk on 10/3/05. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 10/03/2005)
30 Docket Entry Correction re 28 MOTION for Christine Palmieri to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Filing Fee $25.00. Receipt Number N016641; corrected name of attorney to appear pro hac vice (Brown, S.) (Entered: 10/03/2005)
32 RESPONSE re 18 Report of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting Request For Clarification filed by David Lerner Assoc, Inc. (Wice, Alison) (Entered: 10/11/2005)
33 NOTICE OF E−FILED CALENDAR: THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE COUNSEL/THE PARTIES WILL RECEIVE. Telephonic Status Conference set for 10/19/2005 at 04:30 PM before Judge Mark R. Kravitz. Plaintiff's attorney will initiate the telephone conference call. After all of the parties are on the conference call, they should then call chambers at (203) 773−2022 on the above date and time. Counsel are ordered by the court to be prepared to discuss all pending motions. (Carotenuto, R.) (Entered: 10/13/2005)
34 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Mark R. Kravitz : Telephone Status Conference held on 10/20/2005. (Ghilardi, K.) (Entered: 10/21/2005)
35 MODIFIED SCHEDULING ORDER:Telephone Status Conference set for 5/12/2006 08:30 AM before Judge Mark R. Kravitz. Discovery due by 4/1/2006. Dispositive Motions due by 5/1/2006. Joint Status Report due by 5/5/2006. Trial Ready Date

Case: 3:05-cv-292 As of: 06/09/2017 02:52 PM EDT 5 of 7

10/24/2005 10/27/2005 11/04/2005 11/09/2005 11/14/2005 11/14/2005 11/15/2005
11/17/2005 11/28/2005 02/13/2006
03/21/2006 03/23/2006 03/24/2006
03/24/2006 03/27/2006 03/27/2006

6/1/2006. Joint Trial Memorandum due by 6/1/2006. Signed by Judge Mark R. Kravitz on 10/21/2005. (Ghilardi, K.) (Entered: 10/25/2005)
36 ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge William I. Garfinkel for settlement conference. Signed by Judge Mark R. Kravitz on 10/21/2005. (Ghilardi, K.) (Entered: 10/25/2005)
37 Ruling denying 12 Motion to Dismiss, denying 12 Motion to Strike . Signed by Judge Mark R. Kravitz on 10/27/05. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 10/27/2005)
38 MOTION to Intervene by Barbara Mrozik.Responses due by 11/25/2005 (Attachments: # 1 complaint of intervenor)(Bagnell, Jeffrey) (Entered: 11/04/2005)
39 NOTICE OF E−FILED ORDER: THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE THE COURT WILL ISSUE. ORDER granting 38 Motion to Intervene. Intervenor is directed to e−file the Complaint attached to 38 Motion to Intervene by November 16, 2005. Signed by Judge Mark R. Kravitz on 11/9/2005. (Carotenuto, R.) (Entered: 11/09/2005)
40 ANSWER to Complaint with Affirmative Defenses, ANSWER to Complaint with Affirmative Defenses by David Lerner Assoc, Inc.(Wice, Alison) (Entered: 11/14/2005)
41 Defendant's ANSWER to Complaint with Affirmative Defenses Answer to Intervenor's Complaint by David Lerner Assoc, Inc.(Wice, Alison) (Entered: 11/14/2005)
42 NOTICE OF E−FILED CALENDAR: THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE COUNSEL/THE PARTIES WILL RECEIVE.ALL PERSONS ENTERING THE COURTHOUSE MUST PRESENT PHOTO IDENTIFICATION. A Settlement Conference is scheduled for the above case on 2/3/2006 @ 10:00 AM before The Honorable William I. Garfinkel, U.S. District Court, 915 Lafayette Blvd., Room 429, Bridgeport, CT 06604. PLEASE NOTE THE SETTLEMENT ORDER ATTACHMENT TO THIS CALENDAR. THANK YOU.(Urbano, G.) (Entered: 11/15/2005)
43 Intervenor COMPLAINT, filed by Barbara Mrozik.(Bagnell, Jeffrey) (Entered: 11/17/2005)
44 Defendant's ANSWER to Intervenor Complaint by David Lerner Assoc, Inc.(Wice, Alison) (Entered: 11/28/2005)
45 NOTICE OF (AMENDED) E−FILED CALENDAR: THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE COUNSEL/THE PARTIES WILL RECEIVE.ALL PERSONS ENTERING THE COURTHOUSE MUST PRESENT PHOTO IDENTIFICATION. The Settlement Conference for the above case is rescheduled to 3/23/2006 @ 10:00 AM before The Honorable William I. Garfinkel, U.S. District Court, 915 Lafayette Blvd., Room 429, Bridgeport, CT 06604. PLEASE NOTE THE PREVIOUS ISSUED SETTLEMENT ORDER REMAINS IN EFFECT. THANK YOU. (Urbano, G.) (Entered: 02/13/2006)
46 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time until June 1, 2006 (60 Days) to Complete Discovery by David Lerner Assoc, Inc. (Wice, Alison) (Entered: 03/21/2006)
48 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge William I. Garfinkel : Settlement Conference held on 3/23/2006. Total Time: 10:00 hours. Case not settled, Follow−up Conference will be held (Beverley, T.) (Entered: 03/27/2006)
47 SCHEDULING ORDER: Discovery is extended to a date sixty (60) days after the next mediation session, which the court intends to hold in May or June, 2006. Other scheduling concerns will be addressed at or about the time of the next mediation session.Signed by Judge William I. Garfinkel on 3/24/06. (Garfinkel, William) (Entered: 03/24/2006)
Set Deadlines: Discovery due by 8/11/2006. (Ghilardi, K.) (Entered: 05/17/2006)
49 ORDER granting 46 Motion for Extension of Time. See 47 Scheduling Order. Signed by Judge Mark R. Kravitz on 3/27/2006. (Carotenuto, R.) (Entered: 03/27/2006)
Set Deadlines: Discovery due by 6/1/2006. (Ghilardi, K.) (Entered: 03/28/2006)

Case: 3:05-cv-292 As of: 06/09/2017 02:52 PM EDT 6 of 7

03/31/2006
04/06/2006 06/12/2006 06/15/2006
08/02/2006
08/30/2006
09/05/2006 10/06/2006
10/06/2006 06/29/2007 07/05/2007 07/05/2007 07/25/2007 07/25/2007

NOTICE OF E−FILED CALENDAR: THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE COUNSEL/THE PARTIES WILL RECEIVE.ALL PERSONS ENTERING THE COURTHOUSE MUST PRESENT PHOTO IDENTIFICATION. A Follow−up Settlement Conference is scheduled for the above case on 6/12/2006 @ 11:00 AM before The Honorable William I. Garfinkel, U.S. District Court, 915 Lafayette Blvd., Room 429, Bridgeport, CT 06604. PLEASE NOTE THE PREVIOUS ISSUED SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE ORDER REMAINS IN EFFECT. THANK YOU. (Urbano, G.) (Entered: 03/31/2006)
50 NOTICE TO COUNSEL: The telephonic status conference previously set for 5/12/2006 is canceled. Signed by Judge Mark R. Kravitz on 4/6/2006. (Carotenuto, R.) (Entered: 04/06/2006)
51 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge William I. Garfinkel : Follow−up Settlement Conference held on 6/12/2006. Follow−up cnf. will be held. Total Time: 6 hours (Simpson, T.) (Entered: 06/14/2006)
52 NOTICE OF E−FILED CALENDAR: THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE COUNSEL/THE PARTIES WILL RECEIVE.ALL PERSONS ENTERING THE COURTHOUSE MUST PRESENT PHOTO IDENTIFICATION. A Follow−up Settlement Conference is scheduled for the above case on 8/1/2006 @ 02:00 PM before The Honorable William I. Garfinkel, U.S. District Court, 915 Lafayette Blvd., Room 429, Bridgeport, CT 06604.(Urbano, G.) (Entered: 06/15/2006)
53 NOTICE OF (AMENDED)E−FILED CALENDAR: THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE COUNSEL/THE PARTIES WILL RECEIVE.ALL PERSONS ENTERING THE COURTHOUSE MUST PRESENT PHOTO IDENTIFICATION. The Follow−up Settlement Conference for the above case is rescheduled to 8/30/2006 @ 02:00 PM before The Honorable William I. Garfinkel, U.S. District Court, 915 Lafayette Blvd., Room 429, Bridgeport, CT 06604. THANK YOU.(Urbano, G.) (Entered: 08/02/2006)
54 NOTICE OF (AMENDED FROM 8/30/06) E−FILED CALENDAR: THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE COUNSEL/THE PARTIES WILL RECEIVE.ALL PERSONS ENTERING THE COURTHOUSE MUST PRESENT PHOTO IDENTIFICATION. The Follow−up Settlement Conference for the above case is rescheduled to 9/5/2006 @ 11:00 AM before The Honorable William I. Garfinkel, U.S. District Court, 915 Lafayette Blvd., Room 429, Bridgeport CT 06604. THANK YOU. (Urbano, G.) (Entered: 08/30/2006)
55 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge William I. Garfinkel : Follow−up Settlement Conference held on 9/5/2006. Case has not settled and a follow−up cnf. will be held. 30 minutes (Simpson, T.) (Entered: 09/07/2006)
56 CONSENT DECREE. Signed by Judge Mark R. Kravitz on 10/6/06. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix A# 2 Appendix B# 3 Appendix C# 4 Appendix D# 5 Appendix E# 6 Appendix F# 7 Appendix G (sealed)# 8 Appendix H (sealed)# 9 Appendix I (sealed)# 10 Appendix J (sealed)# 11 Appendix K (sealed)# 12 Appendix L (sealed)# 13 Appendix M# 14 Appendix N)(Inferrera, L.) (Entered: 10/10/2006)
57 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Mark R. Kravitz : Telephone Status Conference held on 10/6/2006. 21 minutes(Court Reporter Finkelstein.) (Ghilardi, K.) (Entered: 10/23/2006)
58 MOTION for Release of Funds by Susan Sheehan. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 07/03/2007)
59 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Counsel for the parties are directed to address this Motion For Release of Funds 58 no later than July 19, 2007. Signed by Judge Mark R. Kravitz on 7/5/2007. (Carotenuto, R.) (Entered: 07/05/2007)
Set Deadlines: Show Cause Response due by 7/19/2007. (Ghilardi, K.) (Entered: 07/06/2007)
60 Letter RESPONSE re 58 MOTION for Release of Funds and 59 Order to Show Cause. (Brown, S.) Modified on 7/25/2007 (Brown, S.). (Entered: 07/25/2007)
Docket Entry Correction re 60 Response; modified by adding "Letter" to text (Brown, S.) (Entered: 07/25/2007)

Case: 3:05-cv-292 As of: 06/09/2017 02:52 PM EDT 7 of 7

07/25/2007
07/25/2007 07/31/2007 09/25/2007

61 Copy of Letter RESPONSE re 58 MOTION for Release of Funds, 59 Order to Show Cause. (Brown, S.) Additional attachment(s) added on 7/25/2007 (Brown, S.). (Entered: 07/25/2007)
62 Copy of Letter RESPONSE re 58 MOTION for Release of Funds, 59 Order to Show Cause. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 07/25/2007)
63 RESPONSE re 59 Order to Show Cause filed by Susan Sheehan. (Brown, S.) (Entered: 07/31/2007)
64 ORDER denying without prejudice 58 Motion for Release of Funds in light of the parties' resolution of the dispute. Signed by Judge Mark R. Kravitz on 9/25/2007. (Carotenuto, R.) (Entered: 09/25/2007)