IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION

UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
v.
C-SONYA, INC. d/b/a THE CLUB and CONCEPT 2000 PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYERS, INC.,
Defendants.
-------------------------------/

CIVIL ACTION NO.

,

-, ~ "~

- , :,...P r_ .;

, -"~-
~:~

COMPLAINT JURY TRIAL DEMAND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF REQUESTED

NATURE OF THE ACTION This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and Title I ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1991, to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of race, and to provide appropriate reliefto Lyscott Durant, Frank Mason, and other similarly situated individuals, who were adversely affected by such practices. As alleged with greater particularity in paragraph 9, Defendants violated Title VII by terminating Lyscott Durant, Frank Mason, and other similarly situated individuals from their position as bartenders because of their race, Black.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Jurisdiction ofthis 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 VIIof the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.s.c. Section 2000e-5(f)(I) and (3) ("Title VII") and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991,42 U.S.c. § 1981 A.

\

2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed within the jurisdiction ofthe United States District Court for the Middle District ofFlorida, Orlando 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 Section 706 (f)(l) and (3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e-5(f)(I) and (3). 4. At all relevant times, Defendant Employer I, C-Sonya d/b/a The Club ("The Club"), has continuously been a Florida Corporation doing business in the state of Florida and the City of Orlando and has continuously had at least fifteen employees. 5. At all relevant times, Defendant Employer II, Concept 2000 Professional Employers, Inc. ("Concept"), has continuously been a Florida Corporation doing business in the state ofFlorida and the City of Orlando and has continuously had at least fifteen employees. 6. At all relevant times, Defendants The Club and Concept operated as joint employers and have continuously been doing business in the State ofFlorida and the City ofOrlando, and have continuously had at least 15 employees. 7. At all relevant times, Defendants The Club and Concept have continuously been employers 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 8. More than thirty days prior to the institution ofthis lawsuit, Lyscott Durant and Frank Mason filed a charge with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by Defendants. All
2

conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled. 9. Since at least July 200 I, Defendants have engaged in unlawful employment practices
at their place of business in Orlando, Florida in violation of Section 703(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a). The practice includes the discriminatory discharge of Lyscott Durant, Frank Mason and other similarly situated individuals because of their race, Black.
(A) On or about October 2000, The Club hired Lyscott Durant as a bartender. On or about December 2000, The Club also hired Frank Mason as a bartender. (B) On or about July 2001, The Club promoted Joseph Yaus to the position of Bar Manager. (C) On or about September 2001, The Club implemented a plan for a "new image". As part ofthe plan for the "new image", Bar Manager Yaus tenninated all of its Black bartenders, including Lyscott Durant and Frank Mason, because oftheir race, Black. 10. The effect of the practices complained of in paragraph 9 above has been to deprive Lyscott Durant, Frank Mason and other similarly situated individuals of equal employment opportunities because of their race, Black. 11. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 9 above were intentional. 12. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 9 above were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Lyscott Durant, Frank Mason and other similarly situated individuals.
3

PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendants, their officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with them, from engaging in race discrimination and any other employment practice which discriminates on the basis of race. B. Order Defendants to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for Blacks, and which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices. C. Order Defendants to make whole Lyscott Durant, Frank Mason and other similarly situated individuals by providing appropriate back pay with prejudgment interest, in amounts to be determined at trial, and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of their unlawful employment practices, including but not limited to reinstatement, rightful-place hiring, and front pay. D. Order Defendants to make whole Lyscott Durant, Frank Mason and other similarly situated individuals by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described in paragraph 9 above, including out ofpocket losses, job search expenses, and medical expenses in amounts to be determined at trial. E. Order Defendants to make whole Lyscott Durant, Frank Mason and other similarly situated individuals by providing compensation for past and future non-pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices complained of in paragraph 9 above, including but not limited to, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, humiliation, and loss of enjoyment oflife, in amounts to be determined at trial. F. Order Defendants to pay Lyscott Durant, Frank Mason and other similarly situated
4

individuals punitive damages for its malicious and reckless conduct described in paragraph 9 above, 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.
JURY TRIAL DEMAND The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its complaint.
Respectfully submitted, NICHOLAS M. INZEO Acting Deputy General Counsel GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel DELNER FRANKLIN-THOMAS Regional Attorney
~O~~O~~I
Trial Attorney Florida Bar Number 00179582 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Two South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 2700 Miami, Florida 33131 (305) 530-6009 (305) 536-4494 facsimile
5

 
 -r-1l r:-n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTo '"

r ,.,-

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ,~. ,,..; 28 PH ~: D7

ORLANDO DIVISION
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

.,"-~L~l~D~~~..t,uP.~sS.tRCI1CST mOiFcTFLCOORUIDRTA
.-' 'Lfir/UO. FlaRID~'\

Plaintiff,

-vs-

Case No. 6:03-cv-383-0rl-28DAB

C-SONYA, INC., CONCEPT 2000 PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYERS, INC.,

Defendants.

ORDER This cause came on for consideration without oral argument on the following motion filed herein:

MOTION: PLAINTIFF EEOC'S EMERGENCY MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER FOR THE 30(B)(6) DEPOSITION OF AN EEOC OFFICIAL (Doc. No. 24)

FILED:

April 26, 2004

THEREON it is ORDERED that the motion is DENIED. PlaintiffEqual Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") filed suit against Defendants C-Sonya, Inc. and Concept 2000 Professional Employers, Inc. ("Concept 2000"), an employee leasing service, alleging employment discrimination based on race. EEOC alleges that the Defendants terminated at least two bartenders because they were African American.

On April 2, 2004, Concept 2000 noticed a deposition ofan EEOC representative under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) for May 3,2004. On April 26, 2004, EEOC filed its Emergency! Motion for a Protective Order (Doc. No. 24) and Concept 2000 filed its Response on April 28, 2004 (Doc. No. 25). The EEOC objects to Concept 2000's deposition because it contends that the official who is in the best position to provide the information sought in the deposition is the EEOC's attorney, litigating the case on behalf of the EEOC, and the attorney-client, work-product, and governmental deliberative process privileges would "prevent him from providing any evidence reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant evidence." The EEOC also contends that all relevant documents pertaining to the noticed categories have been provided during discovery and through the initial disclosures.2
A central issue in this discovery dispute is whether the Defendants C-Sonya, Inc. and Concept 2000 are "joint employers," as applicable under the discrimination statutes to make them jointly liable for the discrimination alleged in this case. Doc. No. 1~ 6 (allegation that Defendants operated as joint employers). The EEOC's Complaint alleges facts that C-Sonya, Inc. took certain discriminatory actions by terminating its African American bartenders (Doc. No. 1 ~9), but does not specifically allege discriminatory conduct by Concept 2000. Concept 2000 contends that its only relationship with C-Sonya is that of an employee leasing company performing administrative services such as payroll and providing workers' compensation benefits, and the only way it would be liable on a "joint
ITbe EEOC contends that an emergency was created when the issues underlying the Motion were not resolved at a previously scheduled medication conference on April 14, 2004. The EEOC fails to explain why its Motion was not filed on once the conference was cancelled on April 13, 2004, and why it waited until April 26, 2004 to file the Motion in this Court.
2Though both parties make reference to "other discovery" that has been conducted, it is not clear from their briefings why contention interrogatories have not identified the underlying facts apparently being sought in this 30(b)(6) deposition. The EEOC did not provide copies or specify its responses that would be redundant of the facts sought in the Notice of Deposition.
-2-

employer" theory is ifit exercised day-to-day control over the workplace ofC-Sonya or participated in the unlawful employment practices alleged.
Concept 2000's deposition notice pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6) listed topics seeking the factual bases for: the allegation of "joint employers," naming Concept 2000 as a Defendant, all damages claimed, violations of Title VII, witnesses interviewed prior to filing the lawsuit3, and the extent of the investigation into the relationship between Concept 2000 and C-Sonya conducted by the EEOC prior to filing the lawsuit ("Categories 1 - 6"), and refusing to dismiss Concept 2000 from the suit. ("Category 7") Doc. No. 24, Ex. A.
Concept 2000 contends that despite extensive discovery pursued thus far in the case, EEOC has refused to turn over any documents that support its assertion that Concept 2000 acted as a joint employer with C-Sonya and has not provided any documents responsive to the subjects ofthe 30(b)(6) deposition. Concept 2000 contends that it is left with no alternative but to seek the deposition of the EEOC representative because there is no other way for Concept 2000 to obtain information on the subjects described in the Notice of Deposition.
The EEOC contends that this Court "should protect EEOC's trial counsel from having to appear at deposition, where the attorney-client, work-product, and governmental deliberative process privileges prevent him from providing any evidence reasonable calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant evidence." Doc. No. 24 at 4. Concept 2000 argues that it has never sought to depose EEOC's attorney; Concept 2000 believes the EEOC investigator George Ruggiano would be more appropriate for most of the subjects sought in the Deposition Notice. The fact that there are
3Concept 2000 states in its Response (Doc. No. 25) that it is willing to restrict this topic to witnesses interviewed who provided facts supporting the existence of a joint employment relationship.
-3-

individuals other then the EEOC's attorney competent to testify distinguishes this case from cases cited by the EEOC. See E.E.o.C. v. HBE Corp., 157 F.R.D. 465, 466 (E.D. Mo. 1994) (protective order granted where defendant did not assert that there was another individual at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission competent to testify about matters at issue); see also E.E. O. C. v. TruGreen Ltd. Partnership, 185 F.R.D. 552, 557 (W.D. Wis. 1998) ("TruGreen gains absolutely nothing useful to this lawsuit from the EEOC's answers to TruGreen's requests for admission, regardless what those answers might be.").
As Concept 2000 points out, the burden is on the EEOC to show why each privilege exists and that it is entitled to the protective order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) ("The burden of establishing that the attorney-client privilege applies rests upon the party asserting the privilege."). No matter how the questions are phrased, queries concerning the EEOC's refusal to dismiss Concept 2000 as a Defendant from this lawsuit delve into material clearly protected by the EEOC's attorney-client privilege and work-product doctrine. For the remaining Categories 1-6 of the Deposition Notice, on the basis of its Motion for Protective Order standing alone, EEOC has not met its burden to establish it is entitled to a protective order limiting discovery into the underlying facts, in its role as Plaintiff in the case. See Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Airborne Express, Civ. 98-1471, 1999 WL 124380 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 23, 1999) (where EEOC is party plaintiffin case, it cannot evade discovery of materials that a private plaintiff would have to turn over).
However, this Order is not intended in any way to preclude the EEOC from asserting any applicable, viable privileges during the deposition in response to specific questions asked by Concept 2000, in accordance with the Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure. Indeed, the Court surmises that much of what is likely to be asked will be covered by the work product doctrine.
-4-

dlg'< DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida this

day of April, 2004.

C)J~

('

DAVID A. BAKER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

(cOPies furnished to:

Counsel of Record

-5-

Date Printed: 04/28/2004

F I L E COP Y

:-Jotice s~nt to:
Nicholas M. Inzeo, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131
6:03-cv-00383 jrm
Delner Franklin-Thomas, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131
6:03-cv-00383 jrm
Heui Young Choi, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office 'One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131
6:03-cv-00383 jrm
Gwendolyn Y. Reams, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131
6:03-cv-00383 jrm
Richard A. Giardino, Esq. Davis & Giardino, P.A. 201 Arkona Ct. West Palm Beach, FL 33401
6:03-cv-00383 jrm
Daniel H. Kunkel, Esq. Kunkel Miller & Hament Orange Professional Centre 235 N. Orange Ave., Suite 200 Sarasota, FL 34236
6:03-cv-00383 jrm

Lorraine M. Hultman, Esq. Kunkel Miller & Hament Orange Professional Centre 235 N. Orange Ave., Suite 200 Sarasota, FL 34236
6:03-cv-00383 jrm

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DNISION

UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
v.
C-SONYA, INC. d/bla THE CLUB and CONCEPT 2000 PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYERS, INC.,

Case No, 6:03-CV-383-0RL-28DAB

Defendants. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _1
CONSENT DECREE 1. This Consent Decree ("Decree") is made and entered into by and between Plaintiff, the U.s, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (hereinafter referred to as the "'Commission" or "EEOC'), and Defendant, C-Sonya, Inc., d/b/a The Club (hereinafter referred to as "Defendant,"or" The Club"). The Commission and Defendant The Club are collectively referred to herein as "the Parties." 2. On March 28, 2003, EEOC initiated this action against Defendant 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 race, and to provide appropriate relief to Lyscott Durant and Frank: Mason, who were adversely affected by such practices. EEOC alleges that Defendants violated Title VIIbytenninatingLyscott Durant and Frank Mason from their positions as bartenders because of their race, Black,

3. Defendant denies the allegations brought by the EEOC and the allegations in the Complaint filed in this civil action and make no admission ofJiability by entering into this Consent
Decree.
4. In the interest of resolving this matter to avoid the cost of Jitigation, and as a result ofhaving engaged in comprehensive settlement negotiations, the parties have agreed that this action should be finally resolved by the entry of this Decree. This Decree is final and binding on the Parties, their successors and assigns.
5. The Parties agree that this Decree resolves all claims against Defendants alleged in EEOC Charge Number 150 A2 00963, EEOC Charge Number 150 A2 02234 and the Complaint filed in this action. The Parties further agree that this Decree does not resolve any Charges of Discrimination that may be pending with the EEOC other than the Charge referred to in this paragraph.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Court having carefullyexarnined the terms and provisions ofthis Decree, and based on the pleadings filed by the Parties, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED THAT:
JURISDICTION 6. This Court has jurisdiction ofthe subject matter ofthis action and over the Parties for the purposes of entering and enforcing this Decree. 7. No party shall contest jurisdiction of this federal court to enforce this Decree its tenns or the right ofthe EEOC to seek enforcement ofthe decree in the event Defendant breaches any of the tenns of this Decree.
2

GENERAL INJUNCTIVE PROVISIONS
8. Defendant, its officers, managers, employees, agents and partners, are hereby enjoined from discriminating against employees in the terms and conditions of their employment because of their race in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.
9. Defendant, its officers, managers, agents and partners, agree that they will not discriminate against any employee in this matter who opposed any of Defendant's practices which the employee reasonably believed to be aviolation ofTitle VII; who filed a charge ofdiscrimination with the EEOC alleging violation(s) of such statute; or who cooperated with the EEOC in the investigation or prosecution of this case.
TRAINING
10. Defendant has established a written pnlicy of compliance with Title vn which is
attached hereto as Exhibit A. Defendant will distribute a complete copy of its policy to all current employees on or before July 30, 2004. Defendant further agrees that all new employees will be provided a copy ofthe policy within one week ofemployment.
II. In order to further ensure the effective implementation of Defendanfs anti-discrimination policies, Defendant will conduct a four (4) hour annual training session throughout the duration ofthis Decree for all ofits managers and supervisory personnel with specific emphasis on recognizing racial discrimination and the proper procedure to be followed if they become aware of racial discrimination in the workplace andlor if they receive a complaint of such discrimination. Defendant agrees to provide the EEOC with at least two (2) weeks notice before it conducts the ttaining session(s), with the daters) and location(s) of the training. The ttaining shall be conducted by the Law Firm ofDavis & Giardino, P.A., and the Defendant shall provide the names of the employees who attended the ttaining to the EEOC within ten (10) business days after the training has been conducted.
3

12. Defendant agrees that the training described in paragraph II shall be conducted within ninety (90) days of the entry of this Decree, and, should thereafter take place by July 30th annually for the duration of this Decree. Defendant further agrees that the training described in paragraph 11 shall be given to all new managers and supervisors, who did not attend the annual training, within thirty (30) days ofbeing placed in amanagement or supervisoryposition.
POSTING 13. The Defendant will post within thirty (30) days from the Court's execution ofthis Decree a laminated 811 Y2 x lIt! sized copy of the Notice attached hereto as Exhibit B. Said notice shall be posted for the duration ofthis Decree in conspicuous locations accessible to all employees (Le, employee bulletin board or lunch room).
MONITORING 14. The Defendant will retain all employment recorda relating in any way to any complaint, allegation and investigation ofrace discrimination for the duration ofthis Decree and as required by federal law. 15. The Defendant will provide the EEOC with the name, address and phone number of any person who alleges that helshe has been subjected to racial discrimination during the preceding year. Defendant will also state its actions taken in response to each such allegation. The reports should be submitted every twelve (12) months with the first report to be submitted by July 30, 2005. The Defendant will provide upon request by the Commission any and all documentation associated with each such complaint, unless otherwise prohibited by law. 16. Defendant will certify to the EEOC every twelve (12) months throughout the duration of this Decree that it is in compliance with all aspects of this Decree. The first such certification will be due no later than May 30, 2005, and thereafter annually for the duration of this Decree. The Third and Final Report shall be due two (2) months prior to the expiration of this Consent Decree.
4
--------------"-------"-"-""---~-

MONETARY BELIEF
17. Defendants shall pay a lump sum in the amount of $80.000.00 to resolve this litigation. The monies shall be distributed as set forth below: a. $ 3,500.00 shall be representative of lost wages for Mr. Durant, less amounts required to be withheld for federal, state, and local income taxes. Defendant will also issue an IRS W-2, and shall be responsible for the payment ofthe employer's share ofany federal, state and local, income taxes, and social security withholdings. b. $ 36500,00 shall be representative of compensatory and punitive damages for Mr. Durant. Defendant will also issue an I.R.S. form 1099 to Mr. Durant substantiating same. c. $ 3.500,00 shall be representative of lost wages for Mr. Manson, less amounts required to be withheld for federal, state, and local income taxes, Defendant will also issue an IRS W-2, and shall be responsible for the payment ofthe employer's share ofany federal, state and local, income taxes, and social security withholdings. d, $ 36500.00 shall be representative of compensatory and punitive damages for Mr, Manson, Defendant will also issue an I.R.s. form 1099 to Mr, Manson substantiating same. e, All payments shall issue within thirty (30) calendar days from the Court's execution of this Decree, by certified mail to Mr. Durant and Mr. Manson at the addresses set forth in Exhibit C. Copies of payments shall be forwarded to the attention ofJohn C. Weaver, Trial Attorney, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, One Biscayne Tower, 2 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 2700, Miami, Florida 33131. 5

18. If Defendant fail to tender the above-mentioned payments as set forth in paragraph 16 abovej then Defendant shall pay interest on the defaulted payment at the rate calculated pursuant to 26 U.S.C Section 6621 (b) until the same is paid, and bear any additional costs incurred by the EEOC caused by the non-compliance or delay of the Defendant.
ENFORCEMENT OF DECREE 19. The Commission shall have independent authority to seek the judicial enforcement of any aspectj term or provision of this Decree. 20. The Court will take whatever measures necessary to effectuate the terms of this Decree.
COSTS 21. Each Party shall bear its own costs and attorney fees associated with this litigation.
DURATION OF CONSENT DECREE 22. The duration of this Decree shall be three (3) years from the date of entry of the Decree. SO ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED, this _ _ day of June, 2004.
JOlIN ANTOON II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6

AGREED TO: FOR THE PLAINTIFF, UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
by:
Delner Franklin-Thomas Regional Attorney U.S. Equal Employment Oppnrtunity Commission Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower, Suite 2700 2 South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131 Telephone: (305) 530-6001 Facsimile: (305) 536-4494
AGREED TO: FOR THE DEFENDANT C-SONYA, INC., d/b/a! THE CLUB
by: /-"~~ RlCHARD A. GIARDINO, ESQ. DAVIS & GIARDINO, P.A. 20 I Arkona Court West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Telephone: (561) 514-0305 Facsimile: (561) 514-0309
7

EXIflBIT A POLICY OF EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY In order to provide equal employment and advancement opportunities to all individuals, employment decisions will be based on merit, qualifications, and abilities. The Club does not discriminate in employment opportunities or practices on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability, or any other characteristics protected by law. Additionally, The Club is committed to providing a work environment that is free to all fonus of discrimination and conduct that can he considered harassing, coercive, or disruptive, including sexual harassment. Actions, words, jokes, or comments based on an individuals sex, race, color, national origin, age, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or any other legally protected characteristics will not be tolerated. Sexual harassment is defined as unwanted sexual advances, or visual, verbal, or physical conduct of a sexual nature. This definition includes many fonns of offensive behavior and includes gender based harassment for a person of the same sex as the harasser. If you experience or witness any fonn ofdiscrimination or harassment in the work place, report it to management immediately. Anyone engaging in sexual or other unlawful harassment will be subject to disciplinary action, up to and including tennination of employment.
8

EXHIBIT B
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES POSTED PURSUANT TO A CONSENT DECREE BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION AND
THE CLUB AT FIRESTONE
This notice is being posted pursuant to a Consent Decree entered by the Court in EEOC ys, C-Sonya, Inc.. dib/aIhe Club, CASE NO.6:03-CV-383-0RL-28DAB. The Club at Firestone (''The Club") has agreed that they will not discriminate against employees on the basis ofrace in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"). Title VII protects individuals from
employment discrimination because of their race, religion, color, national origin, or sex. The Club
and Concept 2000 will not condone employment discrimination of any kind as set forth in federal
anti-discrimination laws.
Furthermore, The Club assures its employees that it supports Title VII and will not take any action against an individual because he/she has exercised hislher rights under the law to oppose discriminatory acts or to file charges with the EEOC.
Appropriate corrective action, up to and including termination, shall be taken against any employee (including management personnel) found to violate the policies regarding discrimination, based upon the circumstances involved.
Employees or applicants for employment who have questions about their rights under Title VII or any other federal anti-discrimination law may telephone the Miami District Office of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission at 1-800-669-4000.
Signed this __ day of _ _ _ _ _, 2004.

President, CEO DO NOT REMOVE BEFORE

2007.

EXHIBITC
Lyscott Durant 5050 South Duneville #263, Building 14 Las Vegas, Nevada 89118
Frank Manson, JR. 595 West Church Street, Apt. #807 Orlando, FL 32805

 
 Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida -... https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?990765753561039-L_3...

U.S. District Court Middle District of Florida (Orlando) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 6:03-cv-00383-JA

CLOSED, DAB

EEOC v. C-Sonya, Inc., et al Assigned to: Judge John Antoon II Demand: $0 Cause: 42:2000 Job Discrimination (Race) Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
1 of 5

Date Filed: 03/28/2003 Date Terminated: 05/28/2004 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff
represented by Delner Franklin-Thomas Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Suite 2700 2 S Biscayne Blvd Miami, FL 33131 305/530-6001 Email: delner.franklin-thomas@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gwendolyn Y. Reams Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131 305/530-6010 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Heui Young Choi Law Office of Il Young Choi, P.A. 200 Cypress Creek Rd., Suite 230 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33309 954/782-0106 Ext. 217 Email: hchoi@cswm.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nicholas M. Inzeo Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Miami District Office One Biscayne Tower
6/4/2007 10:17 AM

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida -... https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?990765753561039-L_3...

V. Defendant C-Sonya, Inc. doing business as The Club
Defendant Concept 2000 Professional Employers, Inc.

2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131 305/530-6010 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Richard A. Giardino Davis & Giardino, P.A. 201 Arkona Ct. West Palm Beach, FL 33401 561/514-0305 Fax: 561/561-514-0309 Email: richard_giardino@davis-giardino.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel H. Kunkel Kunkel Miller & Hament Orange Professional Centre 235 N. Orange Ave., Suite 200 Sarasota, FL 34236 941/365-6006 Fax: 941-365-6209 Email: dan@laborattys.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lorraine M. Hultman Kunkel Miller & Hament Orange Professional Centre 235 N. Orange Ave., Suite 200 Sarasota, FL 34236 941/365-6006 Fax: 941-365-6209 Email: lori@laborattys.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard A. Giardino (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/11/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

2 of 5

6/4/2007 10:17 AM

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida -... https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?990765753561039-L_3...

Date Filed 03/28/2003 03/28/2003 04/02/2003 04/03/2003 04/03/2003
04/17/2003 04/17/2003 05/12/2003 07/07/2003
07/10/2003
07/14/2003
07/21/2003 07/23/2003
08/01/2003 08/08/2003
08/11/2003

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT filed for racial discrimination in employment; jury demand (jrm) (Entered: 03/31/2003)
MAGISTRATE JUDGE CASE ASSIGNMENT Magistrate assigned: David A. Baker (jrm) (Entered: 03/31/2003)
SUMMONS issued for C-Sonya, Inc., Concept 2000 (jrm) (Entered: 04/02/2003)
2 RELATED CASE ORDER (response due within 11 days) and NOTICE of designation under Local Rule 3.05 - TRACK 2. (ctc) (jrm) (Entered: 04/03/2003)
3 ORDER ON INTERESTED PERSONS and corporate disclosure. Response due within 11 days. (Signed by Judge John Antoon II) ctc (jrm) (Entered: 04/03/2003)
4 CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS by plaintiff EEOC and corporate disclosure statement Re: [3-1] order (jrm) (Entered: 04/17/2003)
5 NOTICE (no related cases) by plaintiff EEOC of pendency of other actions re: order of compliance with Local Rule 1.04(c) (jrm) (Entered: 04/17/2003)
6 ANSWER and affirmative defenses to [1-1] complaint by defendants C-Sonya, Inc., Concept 2000 (jrm) (Entered: 05/12/2003)
7 CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS by defendants C-Sonya, Inc., Concept 2000 and corporate disclosure statement Re: [3-1] order (jrm) (Entered: 07/08/2003)
8 CASE MANAGEMENT REPORT (Document stricken and returned to plaintiff's counsel pursuant to Court Order - Doc. No. 11) (jrm) Modified on 07/24/2003 (Entered: 07/10/2003)
9 ORDER ON INTERESTED PERSONS and corporate disclosure. Defendant C-Sonya, Inc., shall respond within 11 days. (Signed by Judge John Antoon II) ctc (jrm) (Entered: 07/14/2003)
10 CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS by defendant C-Sonya, Inc. and corporate disclosure statement Re: [9-1] order (jrm) (Entered: 07/21/2003)
11 ORDER striking [8-1] case management report for failure to comply with the Local Rules and said document shall be returned to plaintiff's counsel. The parties shall file a fully executed case management report by 08-15-03. (Signed by Judge John Antoon II) ctc (jrm) (Entered: 07/24/2003)
12 CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS by defendant Concept 2000 and corporate disclosure statement Re: [3-1] order (jrm) (Entered: 08/01/2003)
13 MOTION (stipulation) by defendant Concept 2000 to substitute attorney; Daniel H. Kunkel and Lorraine Maass Hultman in place of Richard Giardino ; referred to Magistrate Judge David A. Baker (jrm) (Entered: 08/08/2003)
14 ORDER granting [13-1] motion to substitute attorney; Daniel H. Kunkel and Lorraine Maass Hultman in place of Richard Giardino for defendant Concept

3 of 5

6/4/2007 10:17 AM

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida -... https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?990765753561039-L_3...

08/12/2003 08/14/2003 08/15/2003 08/15/2003 08/15/2003 08/27/2003
08/27/2003 12/12/2003 03/19/2004 04/15/2004 04/26/2004 04/28/2004 04/28/2004 05/04/2004

2000; terminated attorney Richard A. Giardino for Concept 2000. Added Daniel H. Kunkel and Lorraine Maass Hultman. (Signed by Magistrate Judge David A. Baker) ctc (jrm) (Entered: 08/12/2003)
15 JOINT MOTION by plaintiff EEOC, defendants C-Sonya, Inc., Concept 2000 for telephonic amended case management meeting ; referred to Magistrate Judge David A. Baker (jrm) (Entered: 08/12/2003)
16 JOINT MOTION by plaintiff EEOC, defendants C-Sonya, Inc., Concept 2000 for telephonic amended case management meeting ; referred to Magistrate Judge David A. Baker (jrm) (Entered: 08/14/2003)
17 AMENDED CASE MANAGEMENT REPORT (jrm) (Entered: 08/15/2003)
18 ORDER granting [16-1] joint motion for telephonic amended case management meeting (Signed by Magistrate Judge David A. Baker) ctc (jrm) (Entered: 08/15/2003)
19 ORDER denying as moot [15-1] joint motion for telephonic amended case management meeting (Signed by Magistrate Judge David A. Baker) ctc (jrm) (Entered: 08/15/2003)
20 CASE MANAGEMENT AND SCHEDULING ORDER setting Joining of parties, amending of pleadings on 10/8/03 ; Discovery cutoff 5/7/04 ; dispositive motion filing deadline for 6/1/04. Pretrial statement due on or before 8/4/04 ; Jury trial set for term beginning 8:30 on 10/1/04 ; Scheduled for Judge John Antoon II (signed by Judge John Antoon II) ctc (lak) (Entered: 08/28/2003)
20 ORDER referring case to mediation. Appointing J. Joaquin Fraxedas as mediator. Conduct hearing by 5/26/04. Lead counsel, John C. Weaver, to coordinate dates. (Signed by Judge John Antoon II) ctc (lak) (Entered: 08/28/2003)
21 NOTICE by Concept 2000 of unavailability of counsel from 12/19/03 to 1/5/04 (lak) (Entered: 12/12/2003)
22 NOTICE by Concept 2000 of change of address for counsel (lak) (Entered: 03/22/2004)
23 NOTICE by defendant Concept 2000 of unavailability of counsel (jrm) (Entered: 04/15/2004)
24 EMERGENCY MOTION with attachment by plaintiff EEOC with memorandum in support for protective order for the 30(b)(6) deposition of an EEOC official ; referred to Magistrate Judge David A. Baker (jrm) (Entered: 04/26/2004)
25 OPPOSITION by defendant Concept 2000 to [24-1] plaintiff's emergency motion for protective order for the 30(b)(6) deposition of an EEOC official (jrm) (Entered: 04/28/2004)
26 ORDER denying [24-1] plaintiff's motion for protective order for the 30(b)(6) deposition of an EEOC official (Signed by Magistrate Judge David A. Baker) ctc (jrm) (Entered: 04/28/2004)
27 JOINT MOTION with supporting memorandum by plaintiff EEOC, defendants C-Sonya, Inc., Concept 2000 for sixty-day extension of the remaining litigation deadlines in this case (jrm) (Entered: 05/04/2004)

4 of 5

6/4/2007 10:17 AM

Electronic Case Filing | U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida -... https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?990765753561039-L_3...

05/06/2004 05/17/2004 05/20/2004
05/27/2004 05/28/2004 05/28/2004 07/15/2004 07/15/2004 08/25/2004 08/25/2004

28 MOTION by plaintiff EEOC for leave to amend [1-1] complaint to add successor employer as a party defendant ; referred to Magistrate Judge David A. Baker (jrm) (Entered: 05/06/2004)
29 MEMORANDUM with attached exhibit by defendant C-Sonya, Inc. in opposition to [28-1] plaintiff's motion for leave to amend [1-1] complaint to add successor employer as a party defendant (jrm) (Entered: 05/17/2004)
30 AMENDED CASE MANAGEMENT AND SCHEDULING ORDER amending [20-1] Scheduling Order; reset scheduling order deadlines: Discovery cutoff 7/6/04; Deadline for filing motions 8/2/04; Pretrial statement due on 10/4/04; Jury Trial set for 8:30 12/1/04; scheduled for Judge John Antoon II (Signed by Judge John Antoon II 05-19-04) ctc (jrm) Modified on 05/25/2004 (Entered: 05/20/2004)
31 NOTICE OF PENDING SETTLEMENT filed by plaintiff EEOC, defendant C-Sonya, Inc. (jrm) (Entered: 05/27/2004)
32 ORDER of dismissal without prejudice subject to the right of any party to reopen the action within 60 days upon good cause shown. (Signed by Judge John Antoon II) ctc (lak) (Entered: 06/02/2004)
CASE CLOSED. (lak) (Entered: 06/02/2004)
33 CONSENT DECREE by C-Sonya, Inc., Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Cooper, Cheryl) (Entered: 07/15/2004)
34 STIPULATION of Dismissal With Prejudice by Concept 2000 Professional Employers, Inc., Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Cooper, Cheryl) (Entered: 07/15/2004)
35 ORDER dismissing case as to Defendant Concept 2000 Professional Employers, Inc. Signed by Judge John Antoon II on 8/24/2004. (EMW) (Entered: 08/25/2004)
36 Consent decree signed by Judge John Antoon II on 8/24/2004. This document closes the case.(EMW) (Entered: 08/25/2004)

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

06/04/2007 11:17:49

PACER Login:

hs0328

Client Code:

Description:

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

Billable Pages: 3

Cost:

eeoc 6:03-cv-00383-JA 0.24

5 of 5

6/4/2007 10:17 AM

 
 EEOC LITIGATION SETTLEMENT REPORT - August 2004

http://www.eeoc.gov/litigation/settlements/settlement08-04.html

EEOC v. C-Sonya, Inc. d/b/a The Club and Concept 2000 Professional Employers, Inc. No. 6:03-CV-383-ORL-28DAB (M.D. Fla. Aug. 24, 2004)
In this Title VII race discrimination suit, the Miami District Office alleged that defendant, a nightclub, fired two charging parties, African American bartenders, because the owner wanted to change the image of the club and they did not fit the new image. Defendant contended that it laid off bartenders due to lack of work; however, six white bartenders remained employed after CPs were laid off, and no black bartenders were employed. Further, defendant hired five additional white bartenders during the next five months. By a three-year consent decree, defendant agrees to pay $36,500 in compensatory and punitive damages and $3,500 in lost wages to each of the charging parties for a sum total of $80,000. Defendant is also enjoined from discriminating against employees in the terms and conditions of their employment because of their race. Defendant will report annually to EEOC on race discrimination complaints it receives and the actions it takes in response.

1 of 1

6/4/2007 10:20 AM