IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MARYLAND NORTHERN DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Baltimore District Office 10 S. Howard Street, 3d Floor Baltimore, Maryland 21201
Plaintiff,
v.
RMAX, Inc. 7201 Allen Drive Salisbury, MD 21802
Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil Action No.

)

)

)

C O M P L A I N T

)

)

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

)

)

)

NATURE OF THE ACTION This is an action under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of disability and to provide appropriate relief to Pamela Johnson. On September 13, 2002, Defendant, RMAX, wrongfully terminated its employee, Pamela Johnson, in retaliation for requesting an accommodation for her disability, reactive airways disease and bronchial asthma.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 451, 1331, 1337, 1343 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Section 107(a) of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. Section 12117(a), which incorporates by reference Section 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. Sections 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3), and pursuant to Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. Section 1981a.
2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland.
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "Commission"), is an agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation, and enforcement of Title I of the ADA and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Section 107(a) of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §12117(a), which incorporates by reference Section 706(f)(1) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e-5(f)(1). 4. At all relevant times, Defendant, RMAX, Inc., ("Defendant" or “RMAX”), has continuously been a Maryland corporation, doing business in the State of Maryland and the City of Salisbury and has continuously had at least 15 employees. 5. At all relevant times, Defendant has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 101(5) of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12111(5), and Section 101(7) of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §12111(7), which incorporates by reference Section 701(g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e(g) and (h). 6. At all relevant times, Defendant has been a covered entity within the meaning of Section 101(2) of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §12111(2).
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 7. More than thirty (30) days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Pamela Johnson filed a charge with the Commission alleging violations of Title I of the ADA by Defendant. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled.
2

8. Beginning on or about August 8, 2002 and continuing to the present, Defendant engaged in unlawful employment practices at its Salisbury, Maryland facility, in violation of Section 503 of Title V of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. Section 12203. The practices include unlawfully discharging Pamela Johnson, a qualified individual with a disability as defined by Section 101(8) of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §12111(8), in retaliation for requesting an accommodation for her disability, reactive airways disease and bronchial asthma, a disability as defined under Section 3(2)(A)-(C) of the ADA, 42 U.S.C.§12102(2)(A)-(C).
9. The effect of the practices complained of above has been to deprive Pamela Johnson, a qualified individual with a disability, of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect her status as an employee, because of her disability.
10. As a direct and proximate result of these violations of her rights under the ADA, Pamela Johnson has suffered economic damages, including but not limited to lost wages, and expenses for job searches. In addition, she has suffered emotional pain, inconvenience, mental anguish, frustration, increased illness and physical pain, humiliation, and loss of enjoyment of life.
11. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 8 above were intentional.
12. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 8 above were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Pamela Johnson.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant, its officers, successors, assigns
3

and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in any employment practice which discriminates on the basis of a disability;
B. Order Defendant to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for qualified individuals with disabilities, and which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices;
C. Order Defendant to make whole Pamela Johnson by providing appropriate backpay with prejudgment interest, in amounts to be proven at trial, and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices;
D. Order Defendant to reinstate Pamela Johnson or make her whole by providing her with front pay, in amounts to be determined at trial, to eradicate the effects of Defendant’s unlawful employment practices;
E. Order Defendant to implement non-discriminatory, objective, written policies and practices regarding the terms and conditions of employment and sign and conspicuously post, for a designated period of time, a notice to all employees that sets forth the remedial action required by the Court and inform all employees that it will not discriminate against any employee because of a disability, including that it will comply with all aspects of the ADA and that it will not take any action against employees because they have exercised their rights under that statute;
F. Order Defendant to make whole Pamela Johnson by providing compensation for past pecuniary losses including job search expenses;
G. Order Defendant to make whole Pamela Johnson by providing compensation for non-pecuniary losses including emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, increased illness and physical pain, embarrassment, frustration, and humiliation, in an amount to be proven at trial;
4

H. Order Defendant to pay to Pamela Johnson punitive damages for its callous

indifference to her federally protected right to be free from disability based retaliation in the

workplace;

I.

Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper; and

J. Award the Commission its costs in this action.

The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its Complaint.

Respectfully submitted,

ERIC S. DREIBAND General Counsel

JAMES L. LEE Deputy General Counsel

GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel

GERALD S. KIEL Regional Attorney

DEBRA M. LAWRENCE Supervisory Trial Attorney

REGINA M. ANDREW, Bar No. 7756 Trial Attorney
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Baltimore District Office 10 S. Howard Street, 3rd Floor Baltimore, Maryland 21201 (410) 962-4220

5

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY :

COMMISSION

:

:

v.

: CIVIL NO. CCB-03-2649

:

RMAX, INC.

:

...o0o...

ORDER

As a result of the Court having granted Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended

Complaint (docket no. 6) this date, the defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (docket no. 4) becomes moot.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. the Motion to Dismiss (docket no. 4) is Denied as Moot; and

2. copies of this Order shall be sent electronically to counsel of record.

December 2, 2003 Date

/s/ Catherine C. Blake United States District Judge

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND NORTHERN DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff,
v.
RMAX, INC.,
Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil Action No. CCB 03 CV2649

)

)

)

)

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC" or “the Commission”),

hereby moves this Court for leave to file an Amended Complaint, copies of which are attached hereto

as Attachments “A” and “B”. The EEO C requests leave to amend the Complaint to correct Defendant’s

name from “RMAX, Inc.” to “RMAX Services, LLC” for the reasons set forth in the accompanying

Memorandum of Law.

Respectfully submitted,

GERALD S. KIEL Regional Attorney

DEBRA M. LAWRENCE Supervisory Trial Attorney

/s/ REGINA M. ANDREW Trial Attorney EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Baltimore District Office 10 S. Howard Street, 3rd Flr. Baltimore, Maryland 21201

1

ATTACHM ENT “A”

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MARYLAND NORTHERN DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

)

COMMISSION,

)

Baltimore District Office

)

10 S. Howard Street, 3d Floor

)

Baltimore, Maryland 21201

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

Civil Action No. CCB 03 CV2649

)

)

AMENDED

RMAX Services, LLC

)

C O M P L A I N T

7201 Allen Drive

)

Salisbury, MD 21802

)

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

)

Defendant.

)

)

NATURE OF THE ACTION

This is an action under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and Title I of the

Civil Rights Act of 1991 to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of disability and to

provide appropriate relief to Pamela Johnson. On September 13, 2002, Defendant, RMAX, wrongfully

terminated its employee, Pamela Johnson, in retaliation for requesting an accommodation for her

disability, reactive airways disease and bronchial asthma.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 451, 1331, 1337,

1343 and 1345. T his action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Section 107(a) of the Americans

with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. Section 12117(a), which incorporates by reference

Section 706(f)(1) and (3 ) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. Sections

2000e-5(f)(1) and (3), and pu rsuant to Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. Section

1981a. 2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed within the jurisdiction
of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. PARTIES
3. Plaintiff, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "Commission"),isan agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation, and enforcement of Title I of the ADA and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Section 107(a) of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §12117(a), which incorporates by reference Section 706(f)(1) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e5(f)(1).
4. At all relevant times, Defendant, RMAX Services, LLC ("Defendant" or “RMAX”), has continuously been a Maryland corporation, doing business in the State of Maryland and the City of Salisbury and has continuously had at least 15 employees.
5. At all relevant times, Defendant has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 101(5) of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12 111(5), and Section 101(7) of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §12111(7), which incorporates by reference Section 701(g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e(g) and (h).
6. At all relevant times, Defendant has been a covered entity within the meaning of Section 101(2) of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §12111(2).
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 7. More than thirty (30) days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Pamela Johnson filed a charge with the Commission alleging violations of Title I of the ADA by Defendant. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled.
2

8. Beginning on or about August 8, 2002 and continuing to the present, Defendant engaged in unlawful employment practices at its Salisbury, Maryland facility, in violation of Section 503 of Title V of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. Section 1220 3. T he practices include unlawfully discharging Pamela Johnson, a qualified individual with a disability as defined by Section 101(8) of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §12111(8), in retaliation for requesting an accommodation for her disability, reactive airways disease and bronchial asthma, a disability as defined under Section 3(2)(A)- (C) of the ADA, 42 U.S.C .§1 21 02 (2 )(A) -(C).
9. The effect of the practices complained of above has been to deprive Pamela Johnson, a qualified individual with a disability, of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect her status as an employee, because of her disability.
10. As a direct and proximate result of these violations of her rights under the ADA, Pamela Johnson has suffered economic damages, including but not limited to lost wages, and expenses for job searches. In addition, she has suffered emotional pain, inconvenience, mental anguish, frustration, increased illness and physical pain, humiliation, and loss of enjoyment of life.
11. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 8 above were intentional.
12. The unlawful employment practices complained ofin paragraph 8 above were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Pamela Johnson.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant, its officers, successors, assigns and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in any employment practice which discriminates on the basis of a disability;
3

B. Order Defendant to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which

provide equal employment opportunities for qualified individuals with disabilities, and which eradicate

the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices;

C. Order Defendant to make whole Pamela Johnson by providing appropriate back pay

with prejudgment interest, in amounts to be proven at trial, and other affirmative relief necessary to

eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices;

D. Order Defendant to reinstate Pamela Johnson or make her whole by providing her with

front pay, in amounts to be determined at trial, to eradicate the effects of Defendant’s unlawful

employment practices;

E. Order Defendant to implement non-discriminatory, objective, written policies and

practices regarding the terms and conditions of employment and sign and conspicuously post, for a

designated period of time, a notice to all employees that sets forth the remedial action required by the

Court and inform all employees that it will not discriminate against any employee because of a

disability, including that it will comply with all aspects of the ADA and that it will not take any action

against employees because they have exercised their rights under that statute;

F. Order Defendant to make whole Pamela Johnson by providing compensation for past

pecuniary losses including job search expenses;

G. Order Defendant to make whole Pamela Johnson by providing compensation for non-

pecuniary losses including emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment

of life, increased illness and physical pain, embarrassment, frustration, and humiliation, in an amount

to be proven at trial;

H. Order Defendant to pay to Pamela Johnson punitive damages for its callous indifference

to her federally protected right to be free from disability based retaliation in the workplace;

I.

Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper; and

J. Award the Commission its costs in this action. The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its Complaint.
Respectfully submitted, ERIC S. DREIBAND General Counsel JAMES L. LEE Deputy General Counsel GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel
/s/ GERALD S. KIEL Regional Attorney
/s/ DEBRA M. LAWRENCE Supervisory Trial Attorney
/s/ REGINA M. ANDREW, Bar No. 7756 Trial Attorney EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Baltimore District Office 10 S. Howard Street, 3rd Floor Baltimore, Maryland 21201 (410) 962-4220
5

1

ATTACHM ENT “B”

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MARYLAND NORTHERN DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

)

COMMISSION,

)

Baltimore District Office

)

10 S. Howard Street, 3d Floor

)

Baltimore, Maryland 21201

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

)

)

RMAX, Inc. Services, LLC

)

7201 Allen Drive

)

Salisbury, MD 21802

)

)

Defendant.

)

)

Civil Action No. CCB 03 CV2649
AMENDED C O M P L A I N T
JURY TRIAL DEMAND

NATURE OF THE ACTION

This is an action under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and Title I of the

Civil Rights Act of 1991 to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of disability and to

provide appropriate relief to Pamela Johnson. On September 13, 2002, Defendant, RMAX, wrongfully

terminated its employee, Pamela Johnson, in retaliation for requesting an accommodation for her

disability, reactive airways disease and bronchial asthma.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 451, 1331, 1337,

1343 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Section 107(a) of the Americans

with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. Section 12117(a), which incorporates by reference

Section 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. Sections

1

2000e-5(f)(1) and (3), and pursuant to Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. Section 1981a.
2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland.
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff, Equal Employment O pportunity Commission (the "Commission"), is an agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation, and enforcement of Title I of the ADA and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Section 107(a) of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §12117(a), which incorporates by reference Section 706(f)(1) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e5(f)(1). 4. At all relevant times, Defendant, RMAX, Inc., Services, LLC ("Defendant" or “RM AX”), has continuou sly been a Ma ryland corpora tion, doing business in the State of Maryland and the City of Salisbury and has continuously had at least 15 employees. 5. At all relevant times, Defendant has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 101(5) of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12111(5), and Section 101(7) of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §12 111(7), which incorporates by reference Section 701(g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e(g) and (h). 6. At all relevant times, Defendant has been a covered entity within the meaning of Section 101(2) of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §12111(2).
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 7. More than thirty (30) days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Pamela Johnson filed a charge with the Commission alleging violations of Title I of the ADA by Defendant. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled.
2

8. Beginning on or about August 8, 2002 and continuing to the present, Defendant engaged in unlawful employment practices at its Salisbury, Maryland facility, in violation of Section 503 of Title V of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. Section 12203. The practices include unlawfully discharging Pamela Johnson, a qualified individual with a disability as defined by Section 101(8) of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §12111(8), in retaliation for requesting an accommodation for her disability, reactive airways disease and bronchial asthma, a disability as defined under Section 3(2)(A)-(C) of the ADA, 42 U.S.C .§1 21 02 (2 )(A) -(C).
9. The effect of the practices complained of above has been to deprive Pamela Johnson, a qualified individual with a disability, of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect her status as an employee, because of her disability.
10. As a direct and proximate result of these violations of her rights under the ADA, Pamela Johnson has suffered economic damages, including but not limited to lost wages, and expenses for job searches. In addition, she has suffered emotional pain, inconvenience, mental anguish, frustration, increased illness and physical pain, humiliation, and loss of enjoyment of life.
11. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 8 above were intentional.
12. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 8 above were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Pamela Johnson.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant, its officers, successors, assigns and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in any employment practice which discriminates on the basis of a disability;
3

B. Order Defendant to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for qualified individuals with disabilities, and which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices;
C. Order Defendant to make whole Pamela Johnson by providing appropriate back pay with prejudgment interest, in amounts to be proven at trial, and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices;
D. Order Defendant to reinstate Pamela Johnson or make her whole by providing her with front pay, in amounts to be determined at trial, to eradicate the effects of Defendant’s unlawful employment practices;
E. Order Defendant to implement non-discriminatory, objective, written policies and practices regarding the terms and conditions of employment and sign and conspicuously post, for a designated period of time, a notice to all employees that sets forth the remedial action required by the Court and inform all employees that it will not discriminate against any employee because of a disability, including that it will comply with all aspects of the ADA and that it will not take any action against employees because they have exercised their rights under that statute;
F. Order Defendant to make whole Pamela Johnson by providing compensation for past pecuniary losses including job search expenses;
G. Order Defendant to make whole Pamela Johnson by providing compensation for nonpecuniary losses including emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, increased illness and physical pain, embarrassment, frustration, and humiliation, in an amount to be proven at trial;
4

H. Order Defendant to pay to Pamela Johnson punitive damages for its callous indifference

to her federally protected right to be free from disability based retaliation in the workplace;

I.

Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper; and

J. Award the Commission its costs in this action.

The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its Complaint.

Respectfully submitted,

ERIC S. DREIBAND General Counsel

JAMES L. LEE Deputy General Counsel

GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel

/s/ GERALD S. KIEL Regional Attorney

/s/ DEBRA M. LAWRENCE Supervisory Trial Attorney

/s/ REGINA M. ANDREW, Bar No. 7756 Trial Attorney

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Baltimore District Office 10 S. Howard Street, 3rd Floor Baltimore, Maryland 21201 (410) 962-4220

5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND NORTHERN DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff,

v.

RMAX, INC.

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

Civil Action No. CCB 03 CV2649

)

)

)

)

)

)

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT

Introduction

Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC” or “the Commission”),

requests leave to file an Amended Complaint to correct Defendant’s name to read “RMAX Services,

LLC.”

The EEOC's Complaint in this action was filed on September 15, 2003. The Complaint

specifically alleges that Defendant terminated Pamela Johnson in retaliation for requesting an

accommodation for her disability, reactive airways disease and bronchial asthma. The Complaint seeks

make whole relief for Pamela Johnson who was adversely affected by Defendant’s unlawful

employment practices.

In compliance with Local Rule 103.6.d., and before filing this motion to amend its Complaint,

Plaintiff EEOC sought the consent of Defendant’s counsel. Counsel failed to respond and instead filed

a Motion to Dismiss on the grounds that the Commission had brought action against RMAX, Inc.,

instead of RMAX Services, LLC.

1

Argument Rule 15(a), Fed. R. Civ. P., provides that leave of court to amend a pleading "shall be freely given when justice so requires." "The Supreme Court has emphasized that “this mandate is to be heeded.’” Johnson v. Oroweat Foods Co., 785 F.2d 503, 50 9 (4th Cir. 198 6)(quoting Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182, 83 S. Ct. 227, 230 (1962). See also Davis v. Piper Aircraft Corp., 615 F.2d 606, 613 (4th Cir.), cert. dismissed, 448 U.S. 911 (1980). With regard to the correction of names, leave to amend is routinely granted. See, e.g., Hilgrave Corp. v. Symantec Corp., 212 F.R.D. 34 (E.D. Mich. 2003)(in patent infringement case, leave to amend complaint is granted where patent holder was incorrectly identified as corporation when its correct name ended with “Inc.”); Daniels v. Anderson, 2003 WL 21715350*1 (D.N.D. July 22, 2003 (leave to amend complaint granted to allow plaintiff to include correct name of defendant); Trevathan v. Baruch College of the City of New York, 1994 WL 573299*8 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 18, 19 94)(leave to amend complaint granted to allow plaintiff to insert defendant’s middle initial). For the sake of accuracy and in the interests of justice, the Court should allow the EEOC's Complaint to be amended. Nor will any prejudice arise as a result of the amendment. In her initial charge of discrimination filed with the EEOC, the Charging Party specifically named “R-MAX” as her employer and referred to RM AX Services, LLC’s corporate address and telephone number in Maryland. Further, following completion of the investigation, RMAX Services had notice of the EEOC's Determination and the EEOC's invitation to conciliate. Accordingly, all jurisdictional and procedural requirements have been satisfied. The proceedings in this case have just commenced. Defendant has filed a Motion to Dismiss. At this stage in the proceedings, it is clear that amendment of the EEOC's Complaint would not cause Defendant to suffer any undue prejudice or hardship whatsoever.
2

Conclusion For the reasons set forth above, the interests of justice require that Plaintiff EEOC be granted leave to amend its Complaint in this action to correct Defendant’s name.
Respectfully submitted, GERALD S. KIEL Regional Attorney DEBRA M. LAWRENCE Supervisory Trial Attorney
/s/ REGINA M. ANDREW Trial Attorney EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Baltimore District Office 10 S. Howard Street, 3rd Flr. Baltimore, Maryland 21201 (410) 962-4220
3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY certify that a copy of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s Motion For Leave To File An Amended Complaint, Attachments “A” and “B”, and Memorandum of Law in support thereof were served this 28th day of November, 2003 by mailing a copy thereof, first class, postage prepaid, on the following counsel of record:
Robert P. Scanlon, Esq. Anderson & Quinn, LLC
Adams Law Center 25 Wood Lane
Rockville, Maryland 20850
/s/ Regina M. Andrew

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND NORTHERN DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff, v. RMAX SERVICES, LLC,
Defendant.

)

)

)

)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 03CV02649

)

)

JUDGE CATHERINE C. BLAKE

)

)

)

)

)

CONSENT DECREE This action was instituted under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the “Commission” or “EEOC”) alleged in its Complaint that Defendant, RMAX Services, LLC (“RMAX”) discharged Pamela Johnson in retaliation for requesting an accommodation for her disability, reactive airways disease and bronchial asthma. Both the Commission and RMAX desire to resolve the Commission's action and issues raised by the Commission's Complaint without the time and expense of contested litigation, through a formulated plan to be embodied in a Decree which will promote and effectuate the purposes of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. This Consent Decree is not and shall not be construed as or deemed to be an admission or concession by RMAX with respect to the merits of the Commission’s claims in the lawsuit, liability for which is expressly denied. Further, this Consent Decree shall not constitute or be construed as an admission by the Commission of the absence of any discriminatory or unlawful practices by RMAX
1

as to liability for the Commission’s determination that RMAX discriminatorily and unlawfully retaliated against its employee because she sought an accommodation for a disability protected under T itle I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
The Court has examined this Decree and finds that it is reasonable and just and in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the ADA and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991. Therefore, upon due consideration of the record herein and being fully advised in the premises, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED:
1. This Decree resolves all claims, demands, and lawsuits that were brought, or could have been brought against RMAX by the EEOC with respect to its Determination and the allegations of discrimination contained in Charge of Discrimination No 120-2002-10628C against RMAX by Pamela Johnson dated December 11, 2002.
2. RMAX, its subsidiaries, officers, agents, servants, employees and all persons acting or claiming to act on its behalf and in its interest (collectively referred to as “ RMAX Group”) shall be enjoined and restrained from retaliating in any way against employees for seeking an accommodation for a disability protected under T itle I of Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”). Nothing in this paragraph 2 or this Consent Decree shall be construed to obligate The RMAX Group to adhere to requirements and/or standards of conduct that are not required by the ADA.
3. RMAX made an unconditional offer to reinstate Pamela Johnson to her former position as a driver/courier in which she would be accommodated with an air-conditioned delivery vehicle. Ms. Johnson rejected said offer by letter dated September 10, 2004. RMAX shall expunge from its records any and all performance reviews and any and all references to Ms. Johnson’s filing of charge number 120-2002-10628C or the EEOC's investigations and determinations thereof.
2

Upon request from either Pamela Johnson or a third party, RMAX shall give a neutral recommendation to or with respect to Ms. Johnson, which recommendation shall identify only her dates of employment and her job description and duties.
4. RMAX will pay damages to Pamela Johnson in the total amount of Ten Thousand Dollars and Zero Cents ($10,00 0.00 ) in full settlement of this case in accordance with the provisions set forth below:
A. Within ten (10) days of RMAX’s receipt of the Court’s approval of this Agreement, Defendant will pay to Pamela Johnson damages in the amount of Four Thousand Dollars and Zero Cents ($4,000.00). Thereafter, for the subsequent three (3) consecutive months, on the first and fourteenth of each month, RMAX shall pay Pamela Johnson a sum of One Thousand Dollars and Zero Cents ($1,000.00). Defendant will issue a Form 1099 to Pamela Johnson reflecting these payments totaling Ten Thousand Dollars and Zero Cents ($10,000.00 ).
B. Defendant agrees that these amounts shall be paid by check to the order of Pamela Johnson and shall be forwarded to Pamela Johnson at her address (to be supplied by the Commission) by first class mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested.
C. If requested, within five (5) days of such the receipt of such request RMAX shall send to the Commission’s attorney of record a copy of the check along with a copy of the return receipt. The Commission shall send a copy of any such request to the attorney for RMAX.
D. Failure to make any payment on the dates set for payment in subparagraph 2A above, shall constitute a material breach of the parties’ agreement and noncompliance with this Decree for which RMAX shall pay liquidated damages and sanctions to Pamela Johnson in the amount of one hundred dollars ($100) per day for each day RMAX is late in making payments as set forth in
3

subparagraph 4A. For the purposes of this subparagraph 4D, payment shall be deemed to have been made on the earlier of the date that the payment was mailed in accordance with the terms of subparagraph 4B or the date received by Pamela Johnson.
5. Upon approval of this Decree, RMAX will post immediately in conspicuous places in and about its facilities where its employees work, including but not limited to all places where notices to employees are customarily posted, the Notice attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and made a part hereof. Said Notice attached hereto as Exhibit "A" shall be posted and maintained for a period of at least one year from the date of posting and shall be signed by RMAX's Member/Manager with the date of actual posting shown thereon. Should the Notice become defaced, marred, or otherwise made unreadable, RMAX will ensure that new readable copies of the Notice are posted in the same manner as heretofore specified. Within thirty (30) days of approval of this Decree, RMAX shall forward to the attorney of record at the Baltimore District Office a copy of the signed Notice attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and written certification that the Notice referenced herein has been posted and a statement of the location(s) and date of posting.
6. RMAX agrees to provide EEO training to its Managers and all persons who have authority to hire and fire employees. T he training will focus on a definition of what constitutes a disability, a reasonable accommodation for a disability, and the interactive process in making a reasonable accommodation. The training will also focus on a definition of what constitutes retaliation. RMAX agrees to provide a clear statement of what actions and behavior are prohibited by law and by RMAX, and a description of the avenues available to employees to raise EEO complaints, concerns, or questions to the federal government. This training will take place within sixty days of approval of this Consent Decree. All current RMAX Managers and other employees
4

with authority to hire and fire RMAX employees shall be required to attend this training, which may

be conducted by RMAX’s Human Resources representative and/or its attorneys and/or outside

consultants. RMAX shall provide the names of the individuals conducting the training.

7. The Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce the provisions of this Decree.

8. The Commission and RMAX shall bear their own costs and attorneys' fees.

FOR DEFENDANT:

FOR PLAINTIFF:

/s/ ROBERT P. SCANLON, ESQ. ANDERSON & QUINN, LLC The Adams Law Center 25 Wood Lane Rockville, MD 20850 (301) 762-3303

ERIC S. DRIEBAND General Counsel
JAMES L. LEE Deputy General Counsel
GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel

/s/ GERALD S. KIEL Regional Attorney

/s/ DEBRA M. LAWRENCE Supervisory Trial Attorney

/s/ REGINA M. ANDREW Trial Attorney

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Baltimore District Office 10 S. Howard Street, 3rd Flr. Baltimore, MD 21201 (410) 962-4220

SO ORDERED.

Signed and entered this

day of

2004.

Judge Catherine C. Blake United States District Court Judge

ATTACHM ENT “A”
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
1. This Notice to employees of RMAX, LLC. is being posted pursuant to agreement with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
2. This purpose of this notice is to inform you of your rights guaranteed by federal law under the Americans With Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq., which prohibits discrimination against any qualified employee on the basis of a disability with regard to any term or condition of employment including hiring, layoff, recall, promotion, discharge, pay and fringe benefits or in retaliation for the opposition to unlawful employment practices.
3. All employers must make reasonable accommodations (modifications to a job or the work environment which will enable an employee to perform essential job functions) in order to ensure that all qualified employees have the same rights regardless of disabilities. Failure to make provide a reasonable accommodation violates the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990.
4. WE W ILL NOT engage in any of the above unlawful practices.
5. WE WILL NOT discriminate or retaliate in any manner against any person because of his or her opposition to any practice declared unlawful under The Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 or because of the filing of a charge, the giving of testimony or assistance, or the participation in any investigation, proceeding, or hearing under T he Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990.
6. WE WILL maintain a work environment free of disability discrimination.

Date Signed

RMAX, LLC

Date Posting Expires

 
 District of Maryland (CM/ECF Live 3.0) - Docket Report

https://ecf.mdd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?372166726663915-L_3...

U.S. District Court District of Maryland (Baltimore) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:03-cv-02649-CCB

CLOSED

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. RMAX, Inc. Assigned to: Judge Catherine C. Blake Cause: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

Date Filed: 09/15/2003 Date Terminated: 10/06/2004 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by Regina Maria Andrew Equal Employment Opportunity Commission City Crescent Bldg 10 S Howard St Third Fl Baltimore, MD 21201 14109624220 Fax: 14109624270 Email: regina.andrew@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Debra Michele Lawrence U S Equal Employment Opportunity Commission City Crescent Bldg 10 S Howard St Third Fl Baltimore, MD 21201 14102092734 Fax: 14109624270 Email: debra.lawrence@eeoc.gov

Gerald S Kiel US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission City Crescent Bldg 10 S Howard St Third Fl Baltimore, MD 21201 14109624207 Fax: 14109624270 Email: gerald.kiel@eeoc.gov

Gwendolyn Young Reams U S Equal Employment Opportunity Commission City Crescent Bldg

1 of 4

6/1/2007 11:27 AM

District of Maryland (CM/ECF Live 3.0) - Docket Report

https://ecf.mdd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?372166726663915-L_3...

V. Defendant RMAX, Inc.

10 S Howard St Third Fl Baltimore, MD 21201 14109624260 Fax: 14109622817
represented by Robert P Scanlon Anderson and Quinn LLC 25 Wood Ln Rockville, MD 20850 13017623303 Fax: 13017623776 Email: rscanlon@andersonquinn.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 09/15/2003 09/15/2003 09/15/2003 10/16/2003 11/13/2003 11/28/2003 11/28/2003 12/02/2003

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT against RMAX, Inc. , filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.(nrm, Deputy Clerk) Additional attachment(s) added on 11/19/2003 (eg, Deputy Clerk). (Entered: 09/16/2003)
JURY TRIAL DEMAND by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (nrm, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/16/2003)
2 REQUEST FOR WAIVER of Service sent to RMAX, Inc. on 09/17/03 by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (nrm, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/16/2003)
3 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. RMAX, Inc. waiver sent on 10/10/2003, answer due 12/9/2003. (Andrew, Regina) (Entered: 10/16/2003)
4 MOTION to Dismiss by RMAX, Inc.. Responses due by 12/1/2003 (Attachments: # 1 # 2)(Scanlon, Robert) (Entered: 11/13/2003)
5 RESPONSE in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Replies due by 12/12/2003. (Andrew, Regina) (Entered: 11/28/2003)
6 MOTION to Amend/Correct Complaint by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Responses due by 12/16/2003 (Andrew, Regina) (Entered: 11/28/2003)
7 PAPERLESS ORDER granting 6 Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Catherine C. Blake on December 2, 2003. (Blake, Catherine) (Entered: 12/02/2003)

2 of 4

6/1/2007 11:27 AM

District of Maryland (CM/ECF Live 3.0) - Docket Report

https://ecf.mdd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?372166726663915-L_3...

12/02/2003 12/03/2003 01/05/2004 01/06/2004 01/12/2004 01/14/2004 01/28/2004 05/26/2004
05/26/2004
06/21/2004
06/22/2004
09/01/2004 09/02/2004 10/05/2004 10/06/2004

9 ORDER denying as moot 4 Motion of defendant to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Catherine C. Blake on 12/2/03. (eg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/03/2003)
8 AMENDED COMPLAINT against RMAX, Inc. , filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.(eg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/03/2003)
10 Paperless Request for Status Report by 1/12/2004. (blc, Chambers) (Entered: 01/05/2004)
11 ANSWER to Complaint by RMAX, Inc..(Scanlon, Robert) (Entered: 01/06/2004)
12 Status Report Submitted by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Andrew, Regina) (Entered: 01/12/2004)
13 Miscellaneous Correspondence setting conference call to discuss appropriate schedule. (blc, Chambers) (Entered: 01/14/2004)
14 SCHEDULING ORDER:. Signed by Judge Catherine C. Blake on 1/28/04. (eg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/28/2004)
15 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery and Dispositive Pretrial Motion Deadline by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Responses due by 6/14/2004 (Andrew, Regina) (Entered: 05/26/2004)
16 PAPERLESS ORDER Granting 15 Joint Motion to Extend Discovery, and Dispositive Pretrial Motions Deadline Dates. Status report due June 28, 2004. Signed by Judge Catherine C. Blake on May 26, 2004. (Blake, Catherine) (Entered: 05/26/2004)
17 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery by RMAX, Inc.. Responses due by 7/8/2004 (Attachments: # 1 Order to Extend Discovery)(Scanlon, Robert) (Entered: 06/21/2004)
18 PAPERLESS ORDER Granting 17 Joint Motion to Extend Discovery, and Dispositive Pretrial Motions Deadline Dates, as proposed. Status report due July 28, 2004. Signed by Judge Catherine C. Blake on June 22, 2004. (Blake, Catherine) (Entered: 06/22/2004)
19 Status Report Submitted Joint by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Andrew, Regina) (Entered: 09/01/2004)
20 PAPERLESS Correspondence requesting further status report by September 24, 2004. (Blake, Catherine) (Entered: 09/02/2004)
21 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT Consent Decree by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Andrew, Regina) (Entered: 10/05/2004)
22 PAPERLESS ORDER APPROVING 21 CONSENT DECREE filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Per Judge Catherine C. Blake on 10/06/04. (eg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/06/2004)

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt

3 of 4

6/1/2007 11:27 AM

District of Maryland (CM/ECF Live 3.0) - Docket Report

https://ecf.mdd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?372166726663915-L_3...

06/01/2007 12:29:38

PACER Login:

hs0328

Client Code:

Description:

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

Billable Pages: 2

Cost:

eeoc 1:03-cv-02649-CCB 0.16

4 of 4

6/1/2007 11:27 AM